1:2¹ ^A minister of the word teaches the disciples to observe all the signs of being a true child of the Most High, who is the Făther, and the Sŏn, and the Holy Spĭrit, to keep his commandments, including the Sabbaths and feasts, to respect His priests, the Levites, and to respect his sanctuary, the Temple, on earth, and in heaven. A true minister teaches all the facts necessary to the encouragement of doing these things, and of proper worship of the Almĭghty.
1:3¹ ^No doubt this person was a real Roman official. His name means one who loves Gŏd. Luke did not mean to write just to this one person, as he has composed a literary work. Luke writes to him in the way a modern author might dedicate his book to an individual. But he means it for a wide and general audience, so that all the nations might know how Yĕshūa̒ lived, taught, and fulfilled the unchanging truth about Gŏd revealed in the Law. Above all Mĕssiah died and was raised so that the Law would maintain its continuity, and so that the repentant could be sanctified by obeying its teaching. So a way was made by which the penalty of the Law could be satisfied so that it could be preserved. If the Law had been abolished, then Mĕssiah need not have fulfilled any of it, including the requirement to die for our sins. Luke’s careful writing demonstrates how the Almĭghty achieved both the preservation of the Law and the forgiveness of sins through Messiah, and set the stage for the perfection of his people by his commandments.
1:5² ^Herod was an Edomite, or in more updated language an Idumean. He was not a descendant of Daυi̱d. The Idumeans were nominally converted to Judaism by the Hasmonean priest kings.
1:5³ ^Zeḳaryah was a descendant of A̕harōn, but it is almost certain that he was not a descendant of A̕v̱i̱yah. A̕v̱i̱yah was the patronomic name of the 8th priestly division. After the Babylonian exile, only four priestly houses returned to the land in numbers sufficient to resume their divisions. A̕v̱i̱yah was not among them. However, the names of the twenty-four divisions were preserved from before the exile, and priests from the four returning divisions split up six ways each, and by lots occupied the positions of the divisions that did not return. Zeḳaryah was with the highest probability descended from one of the four returning divisions, and then his fathers were reassigned to take up the rotation of A̕v̱i̱yah.
1:5† ^Number eight in the priestly rotations (1Chron. 24:10). Each division served one week coming to the Temple at noon on the Sabbath and going out at noon on the next Sabbath (2Chron. 23:4, 8). Since there were 24 divisions, each would serve at least twice each year. The divisions rotated continuously from the second week of Tishri after the dedication of the First Temple until its destruction in 587 BC. The continuous rotation was picked up again after the dedication of the Second Temple in 515 BC and continued until its destruction in AD 70. See The Inception of the Priestly Divisions.
It was during Zeḳaryah’s second service of the year that the announcement was made he would have a son. The position of the rotations of the divisions was known at the time the Second Temple was destroyed. The Second Temple was destroyed in the week of 9 AV, AD 70 (Aug 5), when the first division was scheduled to be on duty. Figuring back from this date, the service of the Abijah division in 3 BC was from Sabbath, July 6 to Sabbath, July 13.
1:6¹ ^The priest was not allowed to make a tonsure on their head as some Catholic Monks do nor shave off their beards as Catholic priests do (Lev. 21:5). The legitimate priests of the Almĭghty were encouraged to marry, and had to marry a virgin. They could not marry a prostitute, or a divorced woman. The marriage of priests was necessary to the continuance of the priestly line, (and to the fulfillment of the creation mandate to multiply and fill the earth), which was confined to Levites descended from A̕harōn. Strangers could not be priests. The worshippers of Ba‘al made priests from anyone and anywhere, and therefore, there was no need for them to get married. Many Churches, in disregard of the divine Law promote their non-Levitical clergymen to act like priests and perform duties that are only allowed to Levitical priests according to the commandments of the Law.
1:6² ^The example here shows very plainly that it was possible to keep the Law blamelessly with a whole heart. And the context defines the keeping of the Torah as being righteous before the Almĭghty! (cf. Deut. 6:25). Luke does not deny that observing the commandments of the Law is righteousness in the eyes of Gŏd! Yet there are many whose theology of justification offends this truth.
1:9† ^The lot for an individual priest to burn incense might happen very infrequently. If at first, after the return, there were 170 priests in a division, then there were 14 times to burn incense per week. A priest had about a 8% chance of getting the lot. Since a priest served about twice a year, then the chance of getting the lot went up to 16%. It would take about six years to have an almost certain chance of drawing the lot once. By the time of Zeḳaryah there were likely more than a thousand men serving in every division, and so one might be blessed to draw the lot once in a lifetime.
1:10† ^This indicates that the day was Sabbath. The date was July 13, 3 BC, the last day of his service, and the last service for his division, which was the morning service. At noon, the 8th division would hand off their duties to the 9th after sharing the bread of the Sanctuary.
1:11¹ ^The location seems to indicate that it is the Messenger of Yăhwēh who spoke to Mōshēh and Shemū’ēl from the right side of the altar of incense. גַּבְרִיאֵל Gav̱ri̱’ēl first appears in Daniel 8:16. Daniel falls on his face into a deep sleep (Dan. 8:17-18), and the messenger had to touch him. This is parallel to Rev. 1:17. See Daniel 9:21 and notes.
The words “messenger of Yăhwēh” (ἄγγελος κυρίου, מלאך יהוה) usually applied to the Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh who is Yăhwēh, do have some exceptional uses. Out of about 77x for the phrase, the use in Hag. 1:13, and Mal. 2:7 appear not to refer to the Messenger of Yăhwēh. Also the uses in Mat. 1:20, 24; 2:19. However, these uses were only in a dream, so the Făther may have been speaking in those cases using the image of the Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh. The Malachi passage is unusual in that it has “the messenger of Yăhwēh of Hosts;” “Of Hosts” does not appear anywhere else in the usage. So this might disqualify it as a counter example to the simple meaning of “Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh.” This leaves one use in Hag. 1:13, which also appears unusual, “Then said Haggai̱, a messenger of Yăhwēh with the commission of Yăhwēh to the people.” The qualifying phrase, “with the commission of Yăhwēh” appears to explain that the use of “messenger of Yăhwēh” is not absolute in this place. Also anomalous is Luke 2:9. It may be that this and the Matthew passages are still referring to the divine Messenger, but that it is not the person of Yĕshūa̒. The text does not appear to disclose the matter, so there will be opinions, and also opinion on how to explain the other unusual uses.
1:19† ^The meaning of Gav̱ri̱’ēl is
1:23† ^His first day home would be Av 1, 3 BC (July 14, the first day). We may be certain that the conception of Yōḥanan was on this day because the announcement to Miryam was exactly 6 new moons from this new moon day, and it was told her that E̕li̱shav̱a̒ was then in her sixth month. If E̕li̱shav̱a̒ had conceived on the 2nd day of the month, then her 6th month with Yōḥanan would have begun after the announcement to Miryam.
1:24‡ ^“These days” can only refer to the days of the service of his division, mentioned in the previous verse. E̕li̱shav̱a̒ became pregnant the very day after his service ended on the new moon day of the fifth month.
1:24¹ ^These five months were five new moons, V.1-30, VI.1-30, VII.1-30, VIII.1-30, IX.1-29. The conception was on V.1. The sixth month was reached on X.1. Note that four of these five months are 30 days long, which is the maximum number of 30 day months possible. On X.1, when the announcement was made to Miryam, she was 150 days pregnant.
1:26† ^The first day of the tenth month (X.1, December 10, 3 BC.), shortly after the new moon was sighted. Miryam conceived immediately after the Messenger departed. We know this because the birth was exactly 38 weeks later on VII.1 of the next year during the new moon day, on the same day of the week.
1:36† ^With the new moon of X.1, E̕li̱shav̱a̒ began her sixth month of pregnancy.
1:39† ^The sentence structure shows that she departed immediately, and I have provided a most literal translation here to show it. “Those days” refers to the time of her being departed, and not to some days of delay before she departed.
1:42† ^The utterance shows that Miryam is already with child, as expected, since the conception was early on X.1, and the time difference is only the hasty travel time.
1:56† ^The estimated accuracy of this statement underscores the exactness of the other statements. Upon the arrival of Miryam, E̕li̱shav̱a̒ was not far off of five months and a quarter pregnant. She must have had 3 months and 3/4 months to go. So around 3/4 of a month before the birth Miryam had departed.
1:57† ^This was on the first day of the second month (II.1, April 6, 2 BC, the first day of the week), exactly 38 weeks from the conception (266 days) and on the exact same day of the week.
1:78‡ ^The title “Branch” is a Messianic title. Here, as in the Greek version of Zechariah 6:12, the term is ἀνατολὴ. See TWOT remarks. The etymology with Branch is made through the sense “riser,” a shoot that rises up. In this context, it does not mean sunrise or dawn. In Matthew, the term is polysemous meaning, 1. branch, 2. east, dawn, 3. helical rising.
1:80† ^Yōḥanan was the son of a priest. At the age of 30, he would be ordained to serve in the priestly division of A̕v̱i̱yah. His 30th birthday fell on the same week as the service of his division in AD 29, which was in the 15th year of Tiberius.
2:1¹ ^The same word in Greek means an
2:2† ^The second inventory was when Caesar converted the kingdom of Archelaus into a Roman province. Caesar sent Quirinius to Judea between AD 6 and AD 12 to inventory the estate of Archelaus, whom he had deposed in AD 6. The first time Quirinius was governor of Syria lasted from March 2 BC (at the earliest) to late September 2 BC. Josephus notes that Sentius Saturninus was still governor of Syria when Antipater was sent to Rome (Ant. 17:54-17:57) in March of 2 BC. Antipater was away for seven months after this (Ant. 17:82) until the middle of September, and when he returned to Judea, the new governor of Syria Varus was waiting to preside over Antipater’s prosecution for conspiring to murder his father (Ant. 17:89). Quirinius fits into the gap between Saturninus and Varus, between March of 2 BC and the middle of September 2 BC. During his tenure the inventory (census) was conducted that brought Yōsēph and Miryam Bethlehem. This was part of a larger Empire wide inventory that probably began before Quirinius took over the governorship from Saturninus. The short governorship of Quirinius in 2 BC is not mentioned by Josephus because it was so short, and because it was a temporary position. Saturninus was permitted to go to the games in Rome, departing his post early, and Varus was permitted to stay in Rome for the games, departing late, and so Quirinius was left in charge of Syria in the intervening months.
2:3‡ ^Since everyone had to go to their city, the registration would not be scheduled during one of the three great feasts, since in that case everyone would go to Jerusalem, and not to his own city. The ideal time to schedule a census of this sort was at the end of summer after the wheat harvest and before the peak of the grape harvest. Temperatures would be warm enough for outdoor sleeping, and the threat of heavy rains would be at a minimum. Most people would be near enough to their city that no more than one night over would be required. Probably the Romans wanted the census done as promptly as possible, and so scheduled a week at the end of August to come before the registrars. Probably most people did not have to travel as far as Miryam and Yōsēf, but because they were descendants of Daυi̱d they were sent to a special registration in Bethlehem.
2:5‡ ^It seems to me that they both showed up in Nazareth to register at first, expecting the enrollment to be routine, but when it was discovered that they were descended from the royal line of Daυi̱d they were additionally ordered to Bethlehem to complete their registration. This extra step may have been put into the procedure by Herod as he was especially concerned about rivals to his kingdom. Herod was paranoid about it, and not without reason, because his own sons were plotting against him. Because Miryam also was of the royal line, a last minute requirement for those with royal blood to go to Bethlehem explains why she ended up having to travel so close to term.
2:6† ^This verse communicates two very important facts. The first is that the days for her term were fulfilled, which is 266 (38 weeks), and which as noted before comes on the day part of Tishri 1, 2 BC (Sept 1, 2 BC proleptic Julian), and (Sept. 2, 2 BC in the then current Roman Calendar since they where still trying to standardize their leap years). The reference to days, refers to both the days from the LMP (last menstrual period), and days from the conception. It is 266 days from the X.1 announcement, and 280 days from the LMP. The birth happened exactly at term. The language disallows any premature birth, even by one day.
The second fact that should be noted is that she reached term when they were in Bethlehem. This detail works against any speculation that the child was overdue. For they would not stay in Bethlehem more than one day as the object was simply to register as required by the authorities. They may have been there a few days before the appointed day, and it is implied that they registered before the birth, and then were compelled to stay one more day on account of the annual Sabbath of Yom Teruah (Tishri 1). Before moon set on that day (Aug 31), Miryam was in labor, and then she gave birth the next afternoon 9/1 (still Tishri 1).
They must have known the risk of having the child far from home, and without the best of preparations, and the last minute special trip to Bethlehem was a burden placed on them by unyielding government officials. The ideal plan was to register and get back home before the child was born, if at all possible. This bit of common sense also argues against the notion of an overdue birth, because for every day overdue that anyone should speculate, they are also adding to an extended stay in Bethlehem before the birth, for no apparent reason.
2:7‡ ^ Also we should note that detail about there being no room in the inn. They were set to the part of the building, the lower part, used by animals. It seems that there were many descendants of Daυi̱d, and that the government wanted to track them all. However, most of them did not reside in Bethlehem. Therefore, the bureaucrats had sent a number of people to the town in excess of its normal population, which has been estimated as low as 300. Since registration was normally a swift procedure, this excess of population could not have lasted for long. This observation also greatly disfavors an overdue birth since the overpopulation would be short, and new vacancies would be occurring every day as the already registered left town. This means that a waiting list would be no more than one night no matter what the excess population was, as all the registrants of the previous day would leave town on the next.
Finally, Yōsēf had every reason to find better accommodations. They would not have stayed in substandard accommodations for more than a few nights. The registration would be done, and they would have gone out of town, even the five miles back to Jerusalem to find a proper place. This observation discourages the speculation of an overdue birth.
2:8‡ ^According to the Talmud, the season for shepherds to be in the fields was from March to November, or from spring until the early rains of the late fall. The flocks would be bedded down at night in a central location, and the shepherds would live in temporary shelters, taking watches to make sure there were no disturbances from predatory animals. It was long and lonely work with only a few fellows in each location to share the watches of the night (listening for trouble or their dogs to bark) so that they could take a rotation of sleep.
Only one shepherd was necessary to keep the watch at a time. Leaving one behind, when they went to seek the child, they would not have to abandon their flocks during the night. For many hundreds of sheep and goats could be corralled in a temporary picket or fold. During the day, all the shepherds would be scattered in the hills guiding their flocks to grazing.
The economy of the watches, and the many shepherds together dispels the notion of a few shepherds out in the middle of winter. Every shepherd would want to avoid the wet and cold season and be near town after spending so much time as from March to November in the fields.
2:11† ^The timing appears to be the setting of the first watch of the night when all of the shepherds are still awake. The first watch at this time of year would be about 7-11. So it was about 7 p.m., with the very last of the twilight on 9/1/2 BC. The day is being counted on a sunrise basis, and the night in question is the night following the birth.
2:14† ^I view this as a fitting closing ceremony with the last twilight of the Yom Teruah feast (Tishri 1) showing in the west on a late summer night, as the sun is still setting about 10 degrees north of west. I should point out that we often think of this late date as in the autumn, but technically it is not. The last day of summer that year was 9/25/2 BC, and the birth was 9/1/2 BC. The first day of the seventh month is often thought of as the beginning of fall, but usually it falls before the fall equinox.
2:21† ^The 8th day was the 8th of Tishri that year, the second day of the week (Sept 8, 2 BC), two days before Yom Kippurim.
2:22† ^These would be 40 days (cf. Lev. 12:1-4). The offering may be made on the 41st day or after. The 41st day was the seventh day of the week and the 11th day of the 8th month (11 October, 2 BC). The first day that they could make the offering was VIII.11 (11 Oct, 2 BC), on the Sabbath.
2:42† ^AD 12.
Month: I AVIV, AD 12 4151 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 7. Jub. Cyc: 35 Cycle No: 84
Q1: 0.233 A Q2: -1.082 G LG: 57m W: 0.374' AL: 13.1 AV: 11.9
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │
NM │ MAR 13 │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀██╫██
│ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │Passover │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 15 │16-0-1 │17-0-2 │18-0-3 │19-0-4 │20-0-5 │21-1-6 │
│Passover │ Sheaf │ │ │ │ │7thULB │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-1-9 │25-1-10 │26-1-11 │27-1-12 │28-2-13 │
│ after │ after │ after │ after │ │ │ │
│ 0 days │ 1 day │ 2 days │ 3 days │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│29-2-14 │30-2-15 │
│ │ APR 11 │
2:46‡ ^This would be on the 4th day after the close of the feast. It was 25 Nisan. They did not find him in the company on the 22nd of Nisan, and so returned on the 23rd of Nisan. They spent the 24th searching around the city, and found him on the 25th of Nisan.
3:1† ^Now in the fifteenth year† of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Yehūdah, and Herod was tetrarch of Gali̱l, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Ḥanan and Qai̱yapha̕, the word of the Almĭghty came to Yōḥanan, the son of Zeḳaryah, in the wilderness.† Sept 17th, AD 28 to Sept 16th , AD 29 according to Rome. On the biblical calendar, Tishri 1 to the next Tishri 1. (Sept. 9, AD 28 to Sept. 28, AD 29.)
This date is the only secular date given in Scripture from which to compute the beginning of Yĕshūa̒’s ministry, from which we can reckon backward to his birth, and forward to his crucifixion. Despite the lies and fabrications of the Church of Rome and Protestants, Roman History knows only one way of accounting the 15th year of Tiberius, and that agrees perfectly with the dates stated above. No contemporary Roman Historian, or any up to 200 years afterward computes to any other date than AD 14 for the accession of Tiberius, and AD 29 for his 15th year. The Luke synchronism was only later denied when it did not agree with the anti-Torah chronological theories of the Church.
In particular the coregency theory to put the 15th year of Tiberius back from Tishri AD 28/29 has no foundation in facts, contradicts the only sure known Roman way of counting the 15th year. The theory rests on assumed interpretations of Tiberius’ honors and administrative duties introduced by Church scholars with a dogma to defend, for which there is no evidence that any regal years were counted. The coinage of Tiberius flatly contradicts said assumptions. And there are no intellectually honest scholars, having examined the primary evidence, with the question of the dating of his reign in mind, who will agree with the coregency theory.
3:2† ^The 30th birthday of Yōḥanan occured on II.1 (Wed, May 4, AD 29), during the same week as the service of his division in the Temple.
3:23† ^Late summer AD 29.
3:23‡ ^The custom for the beginning of a ministry, and the calling of disciples, even for non-Levites was age 30. It was a legal tradition for scribes to teach at this age (Pulpit Commentary). The verb νομίζω means “to be the custom” (see Thayer). The text of D (Codex Bezae) reads, “ην δε ιης ως [ὡσεὶ] ετων · λ [τριάκοντα] · αρχομενος ως ενομειζετο ειναι [ων]
υιος ιωσηφ”; I suspect that ων stood before
Firstly, it is assumed in the modern age that a genealogy should always specify biological descent, and specify explicitly if descent is not biological. It is also assumed that no generations can be skipped. It is also assumed that a person can have only one patriarchal line. It is also assumed that son of, or father of, mean the immediate son or father of someone. It is also assumed that a listing of children must be in birth order. It is also assumed that a husband or son cannot be named at the end of a matrilineal genealogy. When it comes to ancient genealogies and biblical ones in particular, none of these assumptions can be applied so as to say a table that does not comply with them is in error or has a mistake. Biblical genealogies often go against these assumptions. For example a kinsman marriage results in two patriarchal lines. Not realizing that many modern assumptions contradict the actual case, many have been confused by expecting such assumptions to be gratified.
A genealogy that lists a legal father, or adoptive father, or a kinsman father does not need an explicit justification of a non-biological connection. There are three kinsman redeemer links in this table that are not specified as such (Shea̕lti̱ē̕l, the son of Nēri̱, Nēri̱ was kinsman for Yehoyaḳi̱n; Zerūbbav̱el, the son of Pedayah, Pedayah was kinsman for Shea̕lti̱ē̕l; Ō̒v̱ēd, the son of Bōa̒z, who was kinsman for E̕li̱meleḳ). Luke already spelled out the case with the virgin birth, so it is all the more incredible that he would refer to it by confusing language, which has the taint of a suggestion of infidelity. In those days, no one supposed that a genealogy needed a remark on a non-biological connection, when it could be determined from elsewhere what the case really was.
The deposed king Yehoyaḳi̱n died without heir, leaving a wife young enough to marry his kinsman Nēri̱. Nēri̱ produced two sons: Shea̕lti̱ē̕l and Pedayah. Shea̕lti̱ē̕l became the legal son of Yehoyaḳi̱n. Shea̕lti̱ē̕l died without heir leaving a widow to marry his kinsman brother Pedayah. Pedayah and the widow had a son Zerūbbav̱el, whose legal descent was from Shea̕lti̱ē̕l. Zerūbbav̱el had an additional son Rēi̱sha̕, who is not named in 1Chronicles 3:19.
Yōsēph was the son-in-law of Ē̒li̱, who was the father of Miryam. But he is called the son of Ē̒li̱. Yĕshūa̒’s descent was put this way because Miryam was probably an only child, or her father only had daughters, in which case his inheritance would pass to her, and then to her son. For this to happen Yōsēph was only required to marry within the tribe of Yehūdah. A genealogy always specifies a legal relationship, and is not required to specify biological details or exceptions, though it may be assumed that a connection is biological if it is not specified or proved otherwise from another source. The table as constructed is meant to remove two points from the realm of speculation, and state them as facts: 1. the biological descent of Mĕssiah from Daυi̱d, and 2. that the descent does not pass through Yehoyaḳi̱n, because his seed was cut off. To acheive this goal, it has to be the table of Miryam, and her husband is named at the head of it according to patriarchal custom, and the need to specify a legal inheritance to Yōsēph.
Matthew lists the grandfather of Yĕshūa̒ as Ya‘aqōv̱, but Luke lists the grandfather as Ē̒li̱. One line belongs to Yōsēph and the other to Miryam. Matthew 1:16 states, “Ya‘aqōv̱ begat Yōsēph, the husband of Miryam; from her was begotten Yĕshūa̒ who is called Mĕssiah.” From this we know that Luke’s genealogy was that if Miryam.
The biological connection, however, is preserved when it is taken into consideration that the kinsman line goes back to Daυi̱d, branching off with Nēri̱ who must have married the widow of the deposed king Yehoyaḳi̱n and begotten Shea̕lti̱ē̕l.
3:23¹ ^The only place the word “son” actually appears in the genealogy. The meaning of the text is Yĕshūa̒ was “the
3:27¹ ^Apparently not listed when the Chronicler wrote. Some speculate that that the same person used two names. I think it more likely that Zerūbbav̱el had another son later.
3:27² ^Zerūbbav̱el was the legal son of Shea̕lti̱ē̕l. His actual father was the kinsman brother of Shea̕lti̱ē̕l, Pedayah.
3:27³ ^Nēri̱ was the kinsman (biological) father of Shea̕lti̱ē̕l. His legal father was Yehoyaḳi̱n. It was prophesied that Yehoyaḳi̱n would die childless, and that none of his seed would rule over Yehēdah again. All of his sons died before him in exile. And even the first son produced by his widow and the kinsman Nēri̱ died childless.
3:36‡ ^A̕rphaḳshad is preceded in the extent MSS of Luke by τοῦ Καϊνὰμ Cainam or Καϊνὰν Cainan. It is only properly omitted by P75 and D (Codex Bezae). The second Cainan never existed in any Hebrew text. It is derived from the Septuagint, which inflates the time line by nearly 1500 years. This case clearly shows corruption by assimilation of the text to the LXX, and also shows the comparative ignorance of the scribes in doing so, since the chronology of the LXX is not merely longer. It is self contradictory. A summation of its numbers will show that Methuselah dies after the flood.
4:20‡ ^The words in Isaiah 61:2 contain a probable reference to the eschatological Jubilee, and someday the text will be fulfilled by an actual Jubilee. But not on this occasion. The Jubilee had fallen in AD 26/27, in the 13th year of Tiberius. A Scripture may be said to be fulfilled if a substantial part of it comes to pass, even before its final fulfillment. The time of this passage was between the Passover of AD 30 and that of AD 31.
4:22‡ ^They were speaking well of him because they had heard the rumors of miracles he had done. But they were still skeptics. He was their home boy, and ordinary person, and so in the skepticism they desired proof of what they had heard.
4:24† ^He does not cater to their desire for a sign, because he knew a few signs would not cure the unbelief in their hearts. And no sign, except the sign of Yōnah, is given to the skeptic demanding proof. Yĕshūa̒’s approach then is to rebuke their unbelieving and skeptical spirit by showing that Yisra’ēl had committed the same error many times before. They had the wrong world view, the wrong paradigm. No amount of signs would cure it, because anyone with the wrong paradigm reinterprets the evidence to fit into it. The cure lay in rebuking their world view assumptions about who the Mĕssiah would be. And for that they would have to humble their hearts and listen to what Scripture says about Mĕssiah.
4:30‡ ^Yĕshūa̒ had just claimed to be a prophet, but he was not the Prophet who would be controlled by them. He would not be their home boy. And he would not cater to the desires the the professional skeptics in their midst. For it would serve no purpose but to allow them to reinterpret him to fit their own human paradigm. So it is with all those who derive their authority from men, and from credentials, and among these you find the spirit of control and domination. It will never be rebuked, and it is filled with rage when it does not get control.
4:40¹ ^Read as aorist participle with Codex Bezae.
5:5¹ ^ἐπιστάτα. Commander, boss, overseer. From “stand over.”
5:10¹ ^They caught more men than fish.
5:14‡ ^The law of cleansing a leper was very involved. See Lev. 14:1-32. Besides cleansing, the ceremonies of the Law of the leper are also to teach Yisra’ēl, and to bear witness to Mĕssiah. They are for benefit of all the people. Yĕshūa̒ sent many lepers to the priests by healing them, which bore witness that he was the Almĭghty Sŏn.
5:26‡ ^He could forgive sins because he was indeed the Almĭghty Sŏn. He does not deny their logic, but only their starting assumption that he was not the Mĕssenger of Yăhwēh, and their conclusion that he was committing blasphemy. He heals the paralytic to show his power. If they studied Scripture honestly, they could have come to the right conclusion. They were correct that only the Almĭghty can forgive sins. But they did not recognize or acknowledge who he was.
5:35† ^Yĕshūa̒ is telling them another parable here, though it is not labeled as such. Anyone who understands Scripture, will know that his saying only makes sense because he is the Mĕssiah, and his presence is cause for nothing but celebration.
5:39† ^Those who thought they already had the complete truth were the Pharisees. And so they think the old wine is good enough, and are not willing to listen to the new revelation. The new revelation does not contradict the old, but only mistaken opinions about what the old means, and so they disallowed the new. Generally, one who has learned erring theology will break when corrected, or rebel against it. It is better to start with fresh minds, or minds humble enough to be renewed. Then the new wine can do its work. The Pharisees were ossified in their error, and so also the theologians of the present day.
6:1‡ ^Passover week begins with an annual Sabbath (Nisan 15) and ends with an annual Sabbath (Nisan 21). The first Sabbath is the same as the first day of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:11; cf. LXX), and the second Sabbath of Passover is the seventh day of unleavened bread. However, owing to Lev. 23:15, and the instructions there for counting seven Sabbaths after the first day of the feast, the weekly Sabbath following the first annual Sabbath was also called the first Sabbath. The three Sabbaths in Passover week came to be known as the
The year for Luke 6:1 was AD 31, in which we can exactly date the second first Sabbath:
Month: I AVIV, AD 31 4170 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 5. Jub. Cyc: 5 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.299 A Q2: -0.340 F LG: 94m W: 0.931' AL: 20.3 AV: 19.5
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │
AVIV/NISAN NM │New Moon │ │ │ │
sighted │ Day │ │ │ │
MAR 13 │ MAR 14 │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │ 11 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 12 │ 13 │ 14 │ 15 │16-0-1 │17-0-2 │18-1-3 │
│ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │ │Second │
│ │ │ │First │ │ │First │
│ │ │ │Sabbath │ │ │Sabbath │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ MAR 31 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-1-9 │25-2-10 │
│ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │Second │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │Sabbath │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ NM │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ APR 11 │
Notes:
1. ~~~~~ or ▀▀▀▀▀ = daytime.
2. ▒▒▒▒▒ or █████ = nighttime.
3. █████▀▀▀▀▀ = the Weekly Sabbath
4. ██╫██▀▀▀▀▀ = the Annual Sabbaths
5. Days use a sunrise epoch: │ │.
6. Sabbaths begin with the preceding sunset.
7. The triple number sets, 16-0-1, 17-0-2
a. the first number is the day of the month
b. the second number is the number of Sabbaths
which were counted after Passover
c. the third number is the fifty day count
starting Nisan 16 and ending with Pentecost.
8. The Roman/Julian dates are included.
Other details in the text indicate the general time of year. The time is after the first day of Passover as the new grain was not allowed to be eaten until after the sheaf had been waved in the Temple on Nisan 16 (cf. Lev. 23:14). The time is also before Pentecost as the grain is still standing in the fields.
The meaning of the phrase
Therefore, it is denied that the first day of unleavened bread is called
The admittance of the first day of unleavened bread being designated as an annual Sabbath leads naturally to its also being called the
It was a commandment to count the first Sabbath after Passover as the first Sabbath (cf. Lev. 23:15). It would therefore be spoken of and remembered as the first Sabbath. But if someone was speaking historically, or relating something that happened on that day, then simply calling it the first Sabbath in a Passover context would lead naturally to confusion with the first day of unleavened bread. Thus each writer in his own way included language to make a distinction between the two days. Matthew calls it the
“The second first Sabbath” is without a doubt the original reading. It was altered to simply “Sabbath” by scribes who did not understand it, or by Scribes who wanted to suppress the idea of counting Sabbaths, as is suggested by the phrase. Codex Bezae reads “εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω.” Modern scholars are supposed to follow the rule of the more difficult reading. That is surely the case here. And invariably their rejection of the phrase is based on the assumption (which they carefully teach) that there is no possible way to understand the phrase or make logical sense of it, that is because they are not familiar with it, or because they have kept it back or that it has been kept from them.
Bruce Metzger states, “In the opinion of a majority of the Committee, although σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ is certainly the more difficult reading, it must not for that reason be adopted. The word δευτεροπρ̑ωτος occurs nowhere else.” Metzger and his committe speculated that the phrase was a “
The speculation about the second copyist is pure nonsense in view of the fact that Luke 4:31 was clearly quite some time before Luke 6:1! Luke 4:31 mentions “Sabbaths” plural, so clearly a second Sabbath would be before Luke 6:1. Luke 4:37 implies the passage of time. Luke 4:43-44 imply the passage of weeks. Luke 5:1 implies the passage of time, as also Luke 5:12, 5:15, 5:16, 5:17. No one reading this text would speculate that Luke 6:1 was the second sabbath after the one mentioned in 4:31.
As for the first copyist, it is easier to say that a copyist deleted
The problem with Metzger’s view is that the phrase makes perfect sense in the context apart from the speculative just so story of scribal errors urged by Metzger. Scribes would have tended to delete the phrase because 1. The parallel passage in Matthew 12:1 simply calls it the Sabbath, and they assimilated the text to Matthew, 2. they did not understand it, and guessed that it meant the Sabbath, and that the words “second-first” were not important, or did not add anything to the text, and so like many modern dynamic equivalence translators, they smoothed the text out and omitted the detail. The theory of dynamic equivalence is that the translator is first to understand the meaning of the text, and then the translator is allowed to put that thought or meaning into other words. The problem is that if the translator does not understand the meaning of the text, then his translation will not preserve the words he does not understand. It is better to go word for word as strictly as possible, and therefore, if something is not understood, then it is preserved, and may be understood later. The point is that the modern dynamic equivalent translators practice the same arrogance that certain scribes copying NT manuscripts did in the second century. They presume to know the whole meaning of the text, and therefore feel free to discard a literal correspondence in favor of their rewording schemes. No one knows the whole meaning of the text, not even yours truly, and therefore I strive to preserve both form and meaning.
Above all, Metzger’s decision violates his own rules: “1. In general, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be erroneous but on more mature consideration proves itself to be correct. (Here more difficult means more difficult to the scribe, who would be tempted to make an emendation. The characteristic of most scribal emendations is their superficiality often combining the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality. Obviously, the category, more difficult reading is relative, and sometimes a point is reached when a reading must be judged to be so difficult that it can have arisen only by accident in transcription.)” (pg. xxvi-xxvii,
Here is a listing of manuscripts containing the reading and those that do not with the century of their dates listed in Roman numeral:
ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ (on the second-first Sabbath)
V A (prob. late IV cent).
V C
V/VI D
VIII E
VI R
IX K
X X
IX Δ
IX Θ
IX Π
VII/IX Ψ
VIII 0233
IX 565
XI 700
IX 892
XIII 1009
XII 1010
XII 1071
X 1079
XII 1195
XI 1216
XII 1230
XIII 1242
XV 1253 (δευτέρῳ πρ̑ωτον second first)
XII 1344c
XIII 1546
XII 1646
XIV 2148
XIV 2174
Byz The reading of the majority
of the Byzantine Manuscripts.
M
IV ita Old Latin Itala Vercellensis
VII itaur Old Latin Itala Aureus
V itd Old Latin Itala Bezae Cantabrigiensis
VI itf Old Latin Itala Brixianus
V itff2 Old Latin Itala Corbeiensis II
IV/V vg
VII syrh
IV goth
V arm
V geo (σαββάτῳ δευτέρῳ second Sabbath)
369 Caesarius-Nazianzus IV
390 Gregory-Nazianzus IV
397 Ambrose IV
403 Epiphanius V
407 Chrysostom V
420 Jerome V
435 Isidore V
630 Paschal Chronicle VII
1077 Theophylact XI
TR (Textus Receptus)
RP
δευτέρῳ πρώτῳ (second first)
XI-XIII f13
XI 28
XII 1344*
ἐν σαββάτῳ (on a Sabbath)
III P4
III P75 (only likely)
IV א
IV B
VIII L
V W
XII-XIV f1
IX 33
XII 1241
1242
XII 1365
XIII l547
V itb Old Latin Itala Veronensis
XII/XIII itc Old Latin Itala Colbertinus
VII/VIII itl Old Latin Rehdigeranus
VII itq Old Latin Itala Monacensis
VII itr1 Old Latin Usserianus I
V syrp Peshitta
VII syrh-mg Harclean Margin
V syrpal Palestinian
III copsa
IV copbo
VI eth
? Diatessarona,i,n (unreliable source)
ἐν το̑ις σάββασι (on the Sabbath)
XII l76
IV copbo mss
Except for two Papyri from Egypt, the argument for deleting the words stands on a very thin basis, and cannot truly claim to be the older reading despite the repeated claim that it is. Errors do not respect later centuries more than earlier ones, especially when one has to consider that the heresy that encouraged the error was introduced in the earlier century! The widespread occurrence of the reading in old Latin dating from the IV century (but which goes back to a III century source) is an important foil against Egyptian papyri from the III century. As is often the case, the claim of the older reading is merely the the difference of an inch in a race that is a mile long, and still a quarter mile from the finish line. It is a meaningless observation.
It is just as likely that a scribe who does not understand the text, or who disagrees with it, should delete the words in any century, so P4 and possibly P75 do not have any greater weight than any of the later texts. It is likely that the deletion is not descended from one source, but that it was introduced more than once by various scribes who felt that a “nonsense” word should be deleted. This of course, is the reasoning behind the more difficult reading.
The Latin side of Codex Bezae agrees with including the words “second first.” “Since the Latin, however, occasionally agrees with Codices Codex Bobiensis and Codex Veronensis, it is a witness to a text current no later than 250 CE and “preserves an ancient form of the Old Latin text” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 4th edition, pg. 103).
Also, the deletion has no support from the quotations of the Church Fathers. Not a single Father is named in the apparatus as quoting the text without “second first.” Ambrose and the Nazianzus’ are both century IV, and their testimony surely rules against Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א).
“Jerome was puzzled
as he tried to translate it, and he asked Gregory of Nazianzus who obviously did not know the meaning of the word, either, for he replied jokingly ‘
“‘I once asked my teacher Gregory of Nazianzus’ (the words are Jerome’s in a letter to Nepotianus) ‘to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s expression σάββατον δευτεροπρώτον, —literally the “
Heinrich Meyer writes, “ἐν σαββ . δευτεροπρώτῳ - all explanations are destitute of proof, because δευτερόπρωτος never occurs elsewhere. According to the analogy of δευτερογάμος , δευτεροβόλος , δευτεροτόκος , etc., it might be: a Sabbath which for the second time is the first. Comp. δευτεροδεκάτη , the second tenth, in Jerome, ad Ezekiel 45. According to the analogy of δευτερέσχατος , penultimus, Heliodorus in Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might—since from ἔσχατος the reckoning must be backwards, while from πρῶτος it must be forwards, in order to get a δεύτερος —be the second first, i.e. the second of two firsts.” This is of course the case, and Heinrich appears to have contradicted himself in claiming there is no proof of its meaning. For he has provided it. But of course he lacks the confirmation that there were in fact two first Sabbaths in Passover week to go with his proof.
Burgon states the obvious, “The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 δευτεροπρώτῷ is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:—᾿Εγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων. Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,—should have found its way into every known Evangelium except אΒL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough (a) One has but to glance at the Cod. א,
deutroprwtw
in order to see that the like ending (tw) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the
second line. (b) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon.
133
(c) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and
there is no harder word in the Gospels than δευτερόπρωτος. But I repeat,—will you tell us how it
is conceivable that a word nowhere else found, and known to be a
For example, a scribe looking at a text that said:
HAPPENINGYETONSHABBAT
and then he looked away after copying Shabbat, and his eyes when returning landed on the t at the end of second first, and his mind assumed that t ended Shabbat. But I don’t agree with Burton on this. I think the omission was deliberate. More certain is the impossibility of accidentally adding the phrase without being called out on it, especially since in such a case it would make no sense, and every reader coming to it would question the text, as well as every listener. The only acceptable answer they could be given for a meaningless phrase was that it was found in the exemplar, and of course soon after the production of the copy, someone would be asking for the exemplar to be checked, and finding that it was there, would be satisfied of the faithfulness of the copy, even if they did not understand it. More believable is that scribes omitted the word on multiple occasions, and that the text making sense to the reader and listeners afterward was not questioned, and therefore, the deletion was propagated.
One of the most popular explanations of commentators is that the second first Sabbath was the first Sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread:
“Most prevalent has become the view of Scaliger (
This explanation is closest to the truth, but still shy of it. The words “second” and “first” are both adjectives and should modify “Sabbath.” Making it modify the unstated second day of the feast is unnatural, and seems to have been a guess made in ignorance that the first day of the feast was also the first Sabbath. The explanation should be that “second first” refers the second of two first Sabbaths, as explained by Heinrich Meyer above.
How scribes deal with difficult phrases:
![[egene]to[de]ensabbatw](http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA_03_0040b.JPG){kind=link}
Matthew 28:1 Later of the Sabbaths retranslated to
Evening of the Sabbath
After the Sabbath
John 20:1 first of the Sabbaths re-explained to
first day of the week
Mark 8:31 after three days re-explained to
on the third day
Mark 9:31 after three days deleted for
on the third day
Luke 24:21 three days just passed today deleted for
this third day passes
Luke 6:1 second first Sabbath deleted for
Sabbath
6:2† ^The charge was that they were doing work of
6:3† ^As far as is stated in 1 Sam. 21:1, there was no one with Daυi̱d when he fled. Daυi̱d implies he sent them off secretly to a rendezvous, and that the bread was for them also. What is more likely is that Daυi̱d had collected some trusted friends and men more loyal to him than the king, which of course could not be seen with Daυi̱d, as then it would endanger them and the Priest. So strictly speaking, Daυi̱d’s words were true, as to the point of having men. But they were not the men he was expected to have.
6:4† ^This was after the ark had been removed from the Tabernacle. 1Sam. 21:9 implies that the Ē’phōd was kept in the Tabernacle when the priest was not wearing it, and that the sword of Gōlyat was stored behind it. This implies that Daυi̱d was at least at the door of the tent, and well within the precincts of the house of Gŏd when he took the sword.
6:5‡ ^Adŏnai means Lord or Master. The sense could be that of mastery. He knew the art of Sabbath observance perfectly.
7:28† ^See Matthew 11:11.
8:48¹ ^or “courage,” or “steadfast determination.” The idea is that she really trusted what would happen, and had the courage to act accordingly to obtain what she needed.
9:22† ^Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and the entire Old Latin Itala corpus read the text, “after three days,” (et post tres dies resurgere). I examined photo’s of the Cambridge Digital Library. The Greek side reads, kaimeqhmerastreis. I also examined this part of the manuscript. There are both statements of
It noted with great probability that Codex Bezae may derive from the personal copy of Irenaeus Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul or one very much like it (ca. 130 AD to ca. 202). Other scholars say it may come from southern Italy.
9:23† ^Traditionally
9:28† ^And almost eight days† after these sayings. almost: = nearly (cf. Friberg, ὡσεὶ, Luke 3:23). The sayings of Luke 9:18-27 were on the weekly Sabbath, probably in the early morning, and the events on the mountain on the next Sabbath in the late afternoon. Strictly speaking, the transfiguration was seven days
Matthew 17:1 reports this “after six days,” and alludes to Exodus 24:16. After six days means the Sabbath. The terminus a quo is the first day of the week, and the terminus ad quem is the weekly Sabbath. Luke’s terminus a quo is the previous Sabbath, on which the things in the preceding verses took place, and then he counted inclusively from the terminus a quo to the terminus ad quem. It this way seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled. But it can only be done if it is recognized that the “six days” noted in Matthew are the six working days of the week.
Late Winter AD 33
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ │ │ │ │ │ │1 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │9:18-|<---
│ │ │ │ │ │ │9:27 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 2 │ 3 │ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │
<------six working days ------------six working days------->|after six │
│ │ │ │ │ │ working days │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │L 9:28 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │M 17:1 │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
9:28‡ ^The object of going up the mountain was to pray, something he normally did alone. Taking his disciples with him indicates a more formal occasion and also hints that the day was a Sabbath.
9:37† ^The first day of the week.
11:9¹ ^Ask according to the Law of Yăhwēh and the blessings thereof. Ask according to the salvation of souls needing the forgiveness of sins and the commandments of Mĕssiah to sanctify them and make them whole again.
11:9² ^Seek according the truth. Seek for the truth. Seek the reason why Yĕshūa̒ died, to preserve his Law, to make the way of forgiveness and repentance to that Law, to sanctify his people and make them whole again.
11:9³ ^Knock. Knock on the door of a worthy person, knock to deliver the truth, that Messiah did not die to abolish the Law, but died because it was a perfect Law, wherein the demand of justice, according to the plan of redemption had to be satisfied, so that we could be sanctified by his commandments. Knock according to the will of Gŏd and it will be opened.
11:10¹ ^Ask the Father for wisdom. Ask him for knowledge in every matter. Ask him why a curse lies on the land, and a dearth of knowledge, and a lack of insight, and a lack of prudence. It is because his people do not know the good news, that good news of forgiveness only removes a guilty conscience of those willing to repent. You have no spiritual riches, because you ask in opposition to the will of the Almĭghty. Therefore, first seek it, and then ask according to it.
11:10² ^If anyone opens a door and invites you in saying that Mĕssiah paid the penalty for breaking the Law so that we could be freed to break it, then do not go through that door. For the devil has opened it. Go through the door where it is known and taught that Yĕshūa̒ paid the penalty so that we might be made complete in him through his commandments, and be sanctified by his word until the last day. Knock until the right door opens, and it will be opened.
11:15¹ ^=
11:16‡ ^And the only sign given will be the Sign of Yōnah the prophet. That is, this is the only sign that is given to all upon demand for a sign as proof that Yĕshūa̒ is Mĕssiah. The Perūshi̱m demanded a sign to confirm his teaching. The sign of Yōnah is merely the tip of a massive mountain concerning the three days in Scripture, that in all its connections complies with the Law and spells out the plan of redemption. See below Luke 11:29.
11:17‡ ^Is the Church a kingdom divided against itself? Indeed it is. The enemy within has transformed its ritual and its vocabulary, changing the definitions at the foundations. So it is no wonder that it has become so many competing sects.
There are fake exorcisms, but these are not Satan fighting Satan. Fake exorcisms are not done by Ba‘al Zev̱ūl casting out other demons. A fake exorcism happens when a Catholic priest, or a charismatic faker tries to cast out a demon in the name of Mĕssiah, and they are not authorized to do so (cf. Acts 19:13-17), because they do not belong to the true faith. Sometimes Satan or his demons think it is better to promote the false sect by making it appear as if the demons have gone. Yes, they have gone, but only until the coast is clear, and only to mislead people that the exorcist is for real. By these methods Satan seeks to divide Gŏd’s people, but he himself is not divided.
A true exorcism can only be measured by the fruit of a wholesome life being returned to the person who has been delivered. And these results followed Mĕssiah wherever he went. People repented and stopped being
There are many fakers of true religion that put on the outward signs of a conversion, but when it comes to the evidence of sanctification through obeying Yăhwēh’s Law they are far from showing any fruit. There are clearly many trying to do signs and wonders, but what they really love is money, and life of the rich and famous.
11:23† ^The strongest man is Mĕssiah, and what he guards, no one can disturb. The one faithful to him is guarded by him, and is his possession. But if someone sets up a kingdom other than that of Mĕssiah, then it is attacked by someone stronger, and overcome, and plundered. The one who does not gather into Mĕssiah’s kingdom, scatters from it.
11:26‡ ^Now if someone is not working with Mĕssiah, then he works against him. The false exorcists “cast” out a demon, and the demon leaves because it is afraid the false exorcist might really be one of the faithful followers of Mĕssiah, but then it figures out that the false exorcist is not really one of the faithful. It then takes seven other spirits and reoccupies the house it left since it knows the false exorcist really does not have the power to stop him, and has neither delivered nor discipled the delivered person according to the teaching of Mĕssiah. Therefore, their converts end up in a worse state than when they found them. By their fruits, you shall know them.
If the either the devil or a faker casts out demons, then the evil effects of this activity will soon show up on the lives of those upon whom it is practiced. The fakers will judge the fakers. (cf. vs. 19).
11:32† ^Matthew 12:40 explains that the sign is in particular the “three days and three nights.” Yōnah’s skin would have been ghastly white from the stomach of the great fish, almost as if he had grave clothes on. The men of Ni̱nυēh would have noticed this, and would surely have asked the prophet how it came to be. The sign of Yōnah is the heart of messianic prophecy. The sign of Yōnah is also the sign of Daυi̱d in 1 Sam. 30:12. For here a man had been abandoned to die at dawn, and three days and three nights later he was found, and given food, and his spirit revived. This also is a type of Yĕshūa̒’s death and resurrection. The sign of Yōnah identifies the true Mĕssiah, that he suffered, died, and was buried for three days and three nights, and then he rose again.
The sign of Yōnah requires three days and three nights to be accounted for. The claim that the Jews would count the nights as two nights is false, and even if they did, the Scripture does not, and it is the Scripture we must go by. Many persuaded by Friday-Sunday falsehood argue that some Scriptures can be used to prove that three days and three nights are covered in a period containing only three days and two nights. Such proofs are based on the method of assuming things that are not true. For instance, one author assumes that the Egyptian in 1Sam. 30 fell sick in the daytime, and that he was discovered by Daυi̱d’s men in the daytime, and thus the third night is eliminated. But the assumption that the Egyptian was discovered in the daytime can by no means be proved from the Scripture. But they assume the assumption is reasonable, because after all they believe Friday to Sunday must be correct, and therefore, they propose a chronology where two equals three. Such circular reasoning, however, proves nothing at all.
The sign of Yōnah takes a solid understanding of the Law and Prophets to explain correctly. Its days, for example, are counted from a daybreak epoch, as the daily ascending offerings in the Temple began at daybreak when the priest on watch noted the sunrise about to begin. The first daily offering was not so late as 9 am, but within an hour of the first dawn. Then the offering burned on the altar all day and all night (Lev. 6:9-10). In like manner Yĕshūa̒’s offering of himself is counted. The Friday to Sunday theory is not just an argument over two nights vs. three. It is a theory that destroys the the harmonies of the death and resurrection of Messiah with the Torah and Prophets! It is a theory embraced because it does not inconvenience their converts with constant reminders of the the Sabbath, the annual Sabbaths, and the necessity to understand the Law well enough to understand the relationships.
The Church of Rome has created a fantastic opportunity to explain the Passion. By telling a lie about it they have done more than sweep the truth away. They have discredited themselves, and have created a situation where myriads of Christians are in need of a epiphany of true understanding.
11:33† ^The lamp is the sign of Yōnah, which Paul states is among the things of first importance (1Cor. 15:1-4). For linked to it is the proof of the truth, and the truth is what lights the soul.
11:34‡ ^A bad eye sees only two nights where there are three nights. A number of Scriptures state that the resurrection was to be “after three days,” (Mark 8:31) and this necessarily means the third night after the third day, which is on the third calendar day using a daybreak epoch. Using a daybreak epoch for the third day means that first comes the third day, and then the third night, and these both are counted as the third calendar day. As noted before the scribes tried to eliminate the “after three day” passages. For this reason, Matthew 12:40 is not a hapax argument. It is supported by 1Sam. 30:12, Jonah 1:17, and by the “after three day” passages (cf. Luke 9:22; Mark 8:31, 9:31, etc.
The death and resurrection of Mĕssiah, are by divine design and intention the door way to the path back to objective truth. Without it the soul is full of darkness. It is too bad that most of the Church has to fall into an evil corrupt view of the passion. But ironically, the glory of the truth is made by it to shine even more greatly where it does shine.
11:37¹ ^The first meal of the day.
11:42† ^He says they should have done the more important things yet not neglected the little things. Luke demonstrates Yĕshūa̒’s complete support of the Law by recording this.
13:1† ^Meyer states, “The incident itself, which the τινές who had arrived mention as a novelty, is not otherwise known to us. Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, is speaking of the Samaritans, and what he says belongs to a later date (in opposition to Beza). To think of followers of Judas the Gaulonite (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, and others) is arbitrary; but the conjecture that they were enthusiastic devotees of Jesus (Lange) is preposterous, because it does not agree with the subsequent explanation of the Lord. Probably they had made themselves suspected or guilty of (secret) sedition, to which the Galileans were extremely prone (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 3; Wetstein on the passage; see especially Rettig in the Stud. und Kritik. 1838, p. 980 f.). It is possible also that in the tumult that arose on account of the aqueduct built by Pilate (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 2) they also had been drawn in (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 40), with which building, moreover, might be connected the falling of the tower, Luke 13:4.” The incident appears to fall in the second half of AD 33.
13:4† ^Meyer states, “ὁ πύργος] the well-known tower. What sort of a one it was is altogether uncertain; perhaps a tower of the town-walls (Joseph. Bell. v. 4. 2), so that the spring of Siloah is here meant (Joseph. l.c. says of the walls of the ancient city, πρὸς νότον ὑπὲρ τὴν Σιλωὰμ ἐπιστρέφον τηγήν). As to the spring (on the south-east side of the ancient city) and the pool of Siloah, see on John 9:7.”
13:7† ^Many are they who deny that these years correspond to the years of Mĕssiah’s ministry, but they do deny it because the chronological theories they have built around the Friday-Sunday doctrine will not permit a four year ministry, since the available Friday dates fall in fixed years. But then, what is the point of the parable if it does not detail the response of the people to Yĕshūa̒’s ministry?
The three years are dated between the Passovers, the first being AD 30-31, the second AD 31-32, and the third AD 32 to 33. A fourth year is implied by the words “let it alone for this year too.” The passage in Luke belongs to the spring or summer of AD 33, which is the fourth year. The whole of the fourth year is Passover AD 33 to Passover AD 34. The four year ministry agrees with Daniel 9, whereas a three year ministry, ending in AD 33 does not. The internal evidence of Luke 6:1 in the Passover season, and the Temple tax recorded in Matthew just before Passover also point to four years. Able and famous scholars advocated for a four year ministry spanning five Passovers, including Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Scaliger, Solomon Zeitlin, Thomas Lewin, and Johnston Cheney. But these efforts were largely abandoned when astronomy would not confirm a Friday date to go with it at the start of the 20th century. The problem, of course, is the Friday date, and not the four year chronology. Thomas Lewin had the relative chronology correct (AD 29 to 33). AD 29 was too early for the first Passover of John, as is now agreed by most scholars. It was in AD 30. The four year ministry then puts the crucifixion at the Passover of AD 34, on March 24, which was a Wednesday, and Nisan 14.
13:8† ^A fourth year for Mĕssiah’s ministry.
13:11† ^AD 16 to 33.
13:32† ^The usage here shows that the thrid day is counted inclusively: today, tomorrow, the third day. The numbering is 1. today, 2. tomorrow, 3. the third day. The point of inception is counted as the first day. The Scriptures also show inclusive counting backwards, today, yesterday, the third day. When Yĕshūa̒ says he will be raised “the third day”, the counting numbers the day of the crucifixion, the next day, and then the third day.
13:32¹ ^It is likely that Yĕshūa̒ words prophetically foreshadow his death and resurrection. The word “perfected” can refer to both his crucifixion and his resurrection. The resurrection, of course, comes on the third day (using a sunrise epoch calendar day). Harder to understand is how the crucifixion comes on the third day. But in the third day types this is so. Pharaoh’s baker was hanged on the third day. The binding of Yitsḥaq was on the third day. Also, it is mentioned in Matthew and Mark (cf. Mark 14:1 and Matthew 26:2) that the Passover is “after two days.” This is merely another way of saying the third day (cf. Hos. 6:1). And, of course, Mĕssiah was crucified on the preparation of the Passover (Nisan 14). That is the day Matthew and Mark were referring to.
Because the Scriptures teach an inclusive counting, the first day is Wed. sunrise to Thur. sunrise. The second day is Thur. sunrise to Fri. sunrise, and the third day if Fri. sunrise to Sabbath sunrise. These are three days as counted for the daily offering in the temple. For these are always last a day and a night. The third day ends at sunrise on the Sabbath. There are many who hold to a Wednesday crucifixion, yet they somehow imagine that the resurrection can occur at sundown at the end of the Sabbath, so as to technically keep it on the first day of the week using a sunset reckoning. This is impossible, since according to the standards shown by this passage, it would be the fourth day after sunrise on the Sabbath. The third day passes by at sunrise on the Sabbath. Waiting to sundown (or even 3 pm.) on the Sabbath is too late.
14:26† ^A Hebrew idiom meaning to
14:27¹ ^Traditionally
15:32‡ ^The older son is like the house of Yehūdah which remained with the Făther while the house of Yisra’ēl played the harlot among the nations with idols. So if the house of Yisra’ēl (a.k.a. Gentiles) returns to the Făther, and repents, willing to obey him according to the Tōrah and Prophets, then he will shower blessings on Yisra’ēl returned from the dead (cf. Deut. 30:1-6, 11-14; Rom. 10:5-8). Be not jealous Yehūdah, because he who has the Sŏn has the Făther and forgiveness, and there is great rejoicing. But the one who has not the Sŏn, the same does not have the Făther, who forgives the nations and welcomes them into his house.
16:16† ^Supplied by Codex Bezae on the basis of the parallel passage Mat. 11:13, or more ancient correct manuscript. The exemplar of Bezae goes back to at least 250 BC. The statement does not concern all prophecy, but prophecy concerning Mĕssiah’s first coming. Yōḥanan was the last prophet to prophesy Yĕshūa̒’s first coming, although John mentioned it in retrospect in Revelation. The corrupt texts read, “The Law and prophets
16:17¹ ^Some maintain that parts or all of the Law have become invalid. Like Matthew 5:17-19, this saying is aimed at proclaiming that this is not so. Some think that the words “one stroke of a letter” means only that the text of it will be perfectly preserved, but that it may become legally invalid. What Yĕshūa̒ means is that no part of it will become invalid whether or not the scribes are completely faithful in copying it. There are a few places where scribes have made a mistake in the stroke and letter. Therefore, he must mean, not that the text is perfectly copied every time, but that the every stroke and letter of the original is still legally valid.
Between Psalm 145:13 and vs. 14, the scribes deleted a whole verse. The Psalm is an acrostic where each verse begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, but only 21 verses in the Psalm in the Hebrew text. The verse that should start with the letter nūn נ is missing. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is: ל מ (נ) ס (read right to left). The ESV restores the verse using the LXX, “ESV Psalm 145:13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations.
Psalm 22:16 in the LXX reads, “They dug through (ὤρυξαν) my hands and my feet.” But the MT says, “like a lion,” which lacks a verb or replaces the original verb. The correct word, “dug through” (which may be justly taken as
So Yĕshūa̒’s words do not mean the text is incorrubtible in human hands. They mean that the Law remains legally valid.
16:17† ^the Law: Marcion replaced this with “my words”, but this effort to do away with the Torah was successfully resisted so Marcion’s edit was corrected from older texts extant in the late second century and third centuries. The emerging Catholic Church (incorrectly) maintained that the ceremonial aspects of the Torah were abolished, and not the moral aspects of it. The Gnostics said all of it. The Gnostics interpreted “my words” to be only those of Mĕssiah excluding the Law and the prophets. And this interpretation is still with us today, because when John speaks of “my commandments,” a vast number of Christians believe “my commandments” to exclude the Law.
16:18† ^Many Jewish men send their wives away without granting a divorce. They send them away without a writing of divorcement, and when they cannot bear this situation they marry, and end up committing adultery. See Mat. 5:32; Mark 10:11-12. It was a common practice to send away a spouse without granting a proper ‘certificate of divorce’. According to the Law, without it, the marriage covenant is still legally binding.
16:19¹ ^see Luke 10:30; 12:16; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 18:12 19:12; 20:9; this is one of many parables introduced with the words, ‘a certain man,’ Ανθρωπός τις, or similar words to indicate a story is coming. Quite frequently Yĕshūa̒ tells the story but never says it is a ‘parable.’ The stories are often, but not always introduced with the words ‘And he was speaking a parable to them...’ by the good news writers. In a good number of cases, it is left to the original audience or to the nature of the story itself for hearers to figure out that it is a parable. What we call fiction literature today, or even historical fiction is a version of the same sort of story telling. Other literary forms are satire and fables.
16:19† ^The story is a parable. If it were not, it would contradict many scriptures which describe the first death as sleep, and which describe death as being a state of unconsciousness, where there is no knowledge, love, or hate, and also prophecy which says the lake of fire is introduced at the last judgment and not before that time. In the second death, both the body and the soul are destroyed in the lake of fire, so that nothing is left.
It should be noted that the parable includes no mention of the resurrection body, either for the righteous or the wicked. It also includes no statement that torment is everlasting. Since it is a parable, fantastical arrangements are allowed, such as the ability of the rich man to be tormented in fire, and not die from it, and his ability to communicate with A̕v̱raham. Also the temporal dislocation of the five brothers, who are still living, while the rich man has come into judgment does not correspond to reality. For all the wicked at raised and judged at the same time according to Revelation. The point of the story is to show that certain Perūshi̱m would not believe even if someone came back from the dead.
For the sake of argument, if someone were to presume that the lake of fire existed at present, then the story still does not teach eternal torment. For we could speculate that the rich man is only in Hades on the shore of the lake of fire suffering by his proximity to it, and that only at the last judgment is he pushed in and finally destroyed. So, the story is far short of the details to prove eternal torment, even if it is taken literally.
16:23† ^Luke wrote for non-Jews. In this story Yĕshūa̒ is taking poetic license to use the more Greek notion of “Hades” rather than the usual biblical sense of “grave” for this word.
17:20† ^Yĕshūa̒ was speaking according to the moment and the circumstance of being asked to speculate on eschatology. He himself was in their midst, and he was what was important. So many Christians want to speculate on the second coming that they have lost sight of the rule and authority of Mĕssiah in the here and now.
17:22† ^Rather than looking forward to the day of Yăhwēh, which will be a day of distress, and disaster, and great suffering, he tells them that they will look back and long for the days that the Sŏn of Man was on earth, when they experienced his presence and his teaching.
17:23† ^Too many Christians run after eschatological speculation with great joy. It is better that we take joy in obeying the commandments of the one who is coming with his reward.
17:37‡ ^Pre-tribulation rapture teachers taught that the one taken was the believer being caught away in the rapture. The doctrine is false. The one who is taken is taken in death, or taken by the disaster that slays them, leaving the survivor behind.
18:8¹ ^LSJ ἂρα “1. then, straightaway, at once.” The inferential particle stands in the second position in the sentence in Codex Bezae, vz: πλην
18:8² ^Codex Bezae likewise omits the definite article here before faithfulness. This could also be translated loyalty or steadfastness. Because he does not delay justice too long, his people will remain loyal to him.
18:8† ^Yĕshūa̒ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail over the Assembly (Mat. 16:18), so there is no doubt that faithfulness will be found on the earth, and therefore, Yĕshūa̒ would not have doubted it. The point of his remark is that he will not delay justice so long that no faithful will be discovered on the earth. The reading is according to Codex Bezae, and there are several other Latin texts that give similar readings according to Tischendorf’s Critical Apparatus.
18:12¹ ^σαββάτου. John Gill states:
“ fast twice in the week,.... Not "on the sabbath", as the words may be literally rendered, and as they are in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions; for the sabbath was not a fasting, but a feasting day with the Jews; for they were obliged to eat three meals, or feasts, on a sabbath day, one in the morning [daytime], another at evening [Friday night], and another at the time of the meat offering [3 pm]: even the poorest man in Israel, who was maintained by alms, was obliged to keep these three feasts (f). It was forbidden a man to fast, until the sixth hour, on a sabbath day; that is, till noon (g): wherefore, it is a great mistake in Justin (h) and Suetonius (i), that the sabbath was kept by the Jews as a fast. But the word is rightly rendered, "in the week"; the whole seven days, or week, were by the Jews commonly called the sabbath; hence, , "the first of the sabbath", and the second of the sabbath, and the third of the sabbath (k); that is, the first, second, and third days of the week. Now the two days in the week on which they fasted were Monday and Thursday, the second and fifth days; on which days the law of Moses, and the book of Esther were read, by the order of Ezra (l); and fasts for the congregation were appointed on those days (m); and so a private person, or a single man, as in this instance, took upon him, or chose to fast on the same (n): the reason of this is, by some, said to be, because Moses went up to Mount Sinai on a Thursday, and came down on a Monday (o). But though these men fasted so often, they took care not to hurt themselves; for they allowed themselves to eat in the night till break of day. It is asked (p),” ((f) Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 30. sect. 9. (g) T. Hieros. Nedarim, fol. 40. 4. (h) L. 36. c. 2.((i) Octav. Aug. c. 76. (k) Maimon. Hilch. Mechosre Caphara, c. 2. sect, 8. (l) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 82. 1. Megilla, 31. 1, 2.((m) Maimon. Hilchot Taaniot, c. 1. sect. 5. (n) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 12. 1.((o) Godwin Moses & Aaron, l. 1. c. 10. Vid. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 88. 1.((p) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 12. 1.((q) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 61. 1.).
First Gill notes that the translation “on the Sabbath” is literal. Secondly, we should note that his entire explanation is based on the Mishnah or later Talmudic explanations, which only describes Judaism about AD 250 and later, after it had been taken over by the Rabbis, and after many earlier sects had gone extinct. Using this relatively late source overlooks the fact that Roman historians treated the Sabbath as a fast day. And this too is mentioned by Gill. It begs the question as to why these earlier sources are wrong, and the later ones are right. One has to assume that the earlier writers did not know what fasting was. It is better to suppose that a significant number of Jews, and parties of Pharisees skipped two meals during the daytime part of the Sabbath, and that it was enough to be noticed by the Greeks and Romans around them. And even though this practice was not according to Torah, it may not be proved it was not done, as whole segments of Judaism in the first century followed completely different calendars. If many erred on so major a matter, then it may not be proved that error on a small matter such as skipping the two daytime meals on the Sabbath is impossible.
Eliezer Segal, a professor at University of Calgary writes, Sabbath:
Our familiar Shabbat has so much to do with eating and drinking that we might well feel bewildered to hear that many ancient writers believed that Jews celebrated their holy day by abstaining from food. According to the first-century Roman historian Pompeius Trogus, Moses instituted the Sabbath as a fast day in order to commemorate the Israelites’ seven days of deprivation when they trekked through the Arabian desert on their way to Mount Sinai. Augustus Caesar once wrote to Tiberius “Not even a Jew fasts so scrupulously on his Sabbaths as I have today.”
The satirist Petronius speculated about the dire fates in store for uncircumcised Jews who, as he wryly put it, would be exiled by their intolerant coreligionists to Greek cities where they would be unable to observe their Sabbath fasts. And Martial tried to insult a correspondent by accusing him of having a breath that smelled "worse than one of those Sabbath-fasting Jewish women."
Our first reaction is to marvel at how so many writers, including some of the most respected names in Greek and Latin letters, could have gotten their facts so absurdly wrong. If anything, Shabbat is a day of overeating, during which it is mandatory to partake of at least three meals. Except in very rare cases, fasting is strictly prohibited.
Many scholars dismissed this stubborn inaccuracy as yet another ignorant stereotype about Jews that was copied indiscriminately from author to author in spite of the fact that it had no basis in reality.
However, if we examine the talmudic sources more carefully, we discover that the attitudes of the ancient Jewish sages towards eating on the Sabbath were more ambivalent than might be suggested by our current practice.
Take for example the case of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who insisted on drawing out his classes for the entire day, and expressed disdain at the faint-hearted students who snuck away to join their family repasts.
Rabbi Yosé ben Zimra went so far as to declare that Jews who fasted on Shabbat were assured of the cancellation of any negative decrees that had been issued against them by the heavenly court.
It would appear therefore that, alongside the mainstream view that regarded Shabbat as a day of physical as well as spiritual delight, there existed a significant minority of sages who wanted it to be a day of exclusively spiritual contemplation, on which physical desires should be minimized or suppressed.
It is likely that at the root of this ancient dispute lay divergent interpretations of the story of the giving of the manna in Exodus 16. According to the biblical narrative, the Israelites were informed that they would be issued a double ration on Friday because no manna would descend on the Sabbath.
The usual way or understanding this episode is that the double ration would suffice for meals on both Friday and Saturday.
It is conceivable, however, that some interpreters read the story as a mandate for eating double quantities on Friday in order to allow the people to refrain from nourishment on the following day, in a manner analogous to the "concluding meal" that precedes Yom Kippur.
In fact, the Torah's designation of the Day of Atonement as a "Sabbath of Sabbaths" could be read as implying that the weekly day of rest should be equated in all respects to Yom Kippur, and therefore should be observed also as a fast
Talmudic tradition insisted that the requirement to eat three meals is rooted in the words of the Torah. However, the proof text that is adduced for the practice is rather contrived, to say the least. It is based on the fact that the word "day" appears three times in the verse (Exodus 16:25): "And Moses said, Eat that [i.e., the manna] today; for the day is a sabbath unto the Lord; this day ye shall not find it in the field."
Even if we are not convinced by the midrashic attempt to squeeze three meals out of the verse, it might nonetheless be conceded that the scriptural text contains an explicit association between eating and the Sabbath.
We must imagine that the advocates of Shabbat fasting read the words as if they said "eat the manna today [i.e., Friday] because tomorrow will be the Sabbath day, when you will be unable to do so."
There are several passages in the Talmud that extol the virtues of eating three meals on Shabbat, and consider it an expression of extraordinary piety. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi stated in the name of Bar Kappara that those who partook of all the required meals would be spared the torments of the "birth-pangs of the Messiah," the judgment of Gehenna and the apocalyptic war of Gog and Magog. Other teachers promised unlimited boundaries, or immunity from subjection to foreign nations.
If eating three meals on Shabbat were a clear-cut precept from the Torah, it is difficult to imagine why so many of the sages described it as an act of unusual devotion that warranted special pride, or even supernatural rewards. For this reason, Rabbi Jacob Tam deduced in the Tosafot that the practice of eating three meals must not have been well entrenched during the talmudic era.
The prophet Isaiah's injunction to "call the sabbath a delight" does not strike us initially as congruent with total abstention from eating. However, we must acknowledge that different people find delight in different activities. Though conventional Jewish tradition equated delight with eating and drinking, there have always been individuals whose preference is for more spiritual or intellectual gratification.
Indeed, to judge from the accounts by the first-century Jewish writers Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius, the Jewish populace spent the seventh day assembled in the synagogues for meditation and philosophical instruction.
From all of this evidence emerges an ambiguous picture of the ideal Shabbat. The opposing positions were epitomized in the Jerusalem Talmud in the contrasting views of two third-century rabbis. One declared: "The festivals and Sabbaths were given to Israel purely for the sake of eating and drinking"; while the other insisted "The festivals and Sabbaths were given to Israel purely for the sake of Torah study."
For the most part, Jewish tradition strove to arrive at a middle ground between those extremes. Some sources made a distinction between the practices of scholars, who spent the week in study and therefore needed physical relaxation on the Sabbath, and normal working folk for whom the Sabbath provided the only opportunity to indulge their spiritual needs.
The most widespread compromise solution was to divide the day equally between physical and sacred pursuits, spending half a day in prayer and study, and the other half in eating and repose.
The advocates of the foodless day of rest have long since been swept to the margins of our tradition. Nevertheless, in our weight-conscious society there might yet be a market that will be attracted by the prospect of a non-fattening Sabbath.
Source: The Jewish Free Press, Calgary, October 31, 2002, pp 10-11.
Bibliography:
Gilat, Yitzhak D. "On Fasting on the Sabbath," Tarbiz 52, no. 1 (1982): 1-15.
Goldenberg, Robert. "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up to the Time of Constantine the Great." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, ed. Wolfgang Haase, 2.19.1, 414-47. Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1979.
Mann, Jacob. "The Observance of the Sabbath and the Festivals in the First Two Centuries of the Current Era, according to Philo, Josephus, the New Testament and the Rabbinic Tradition," Jewish Review 4, no. 22-3 (1914): 433-56, 498-532
Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences: Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980.
Urbach, Ephraim E. "Ascesis and Suffering in Talmudic and Midrashic Sources." In Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. S. W. Baron, B.Dinur, S. Ettinger and I. Halpern, 48-68. Jerusalem: Ha-Hevrah ha-Historit ha-Israelit, 1960.
Second, we may note that Gill’s re-explanation of sabbath to mean week is entirely based on the anachronism of projecting the language of the Mishnah, and particularly
Among the Jews are legends of Rabbinic Jews who agreed to convert to Christianity, while remaining secretly unbelievers, for the purpose of using their scholarship and knowledge to redirect Christians away from the Torah and the Prophets. The Rabbinic Jews went to great lengths to disrupt the Messianic faith, both within, and without. It cannot be an accident that the
In the final analysis we must go with the fact that there is no biblical text where Sabbath is required to mean week, and further that there is no contemporary or earlier Greek text in the whole of the Greek world that uses Sabbath to mean week. The meaningfulness of the ordinary sense suggests that the new sense
The Rabbis that do not accept Mĕssiah, and the Catholics/Protestants that reject the Law are on the same side to conspire against the sign of Yōnah.
See Colossians 2:16. The Gnostics advocated contemplation on the Sabbath and were certainly at the front of the fasting party. It is within reason that one of the Perūshi̱ sects was influenced by Jewish Gnosticim, and so advocated fasting on the Sabbath, even to the point of considering it of great merit as Segal points out. We need not deny that fasting occurred on other days of the week. Certain Perūshi̱m may have argued that fasting two other days a week was good. Skipping one meal on Sabbath was better, and skipping two meals on Sabbath even more meritorious. This argument would be supported by the fact that Sabbath is supposed to be a day for Torah study, and the lack of proof that eating is
The oldest manuscript of Luke to contain Luke 18:12 is P75, a IIIrd century text (AD 200-299), reading: 12 νηστευω δις του [σαβ]
The oldest manuscript of Luke to contain Luke 18:12 is P75, a IIIrd century text (AD 200-299). For all we know ἑβδομάδος could have stood in the original text, and was later changed to σαββάτου. Even if it be conceded, purely for the sake of argument refuting the Sunday apologists, that σαββάτου here means “week,” it does not follow that the normal sense of the word σαββάτων does not apply in the resurrection passages. The resurrection passages are not just the bare word “sabbath,” but they expand grammatically to μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων due to a well known grammar rule that the adjective must agree with the implied noun “day.” Once the phrase is expanded, it is evident that it is nothing more than the ordinary idiom for the Sabbath day ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων, with the word “first” prefixed to the idiom, i.e. “first day of the Sabbaths.”
If the Sunday apologist argues that the meaning “week” should be transferred from Luke 18:12 to the resurrection passages, then we should ask him why the meaning “Sabbath” should not be transferred from Matthew 28:1a of his translation to Mat. 28:1b, or from Mark 16:1 to Mark 16;2, or from Luke 23:56 to Luke 24:1, or from John 19:31 to 20:1 and 20:19. It is hypocritical to demand that an abnormal sense be forced on a remote text, without conceding that the normal sense should be concordantly applied to the same verses, or the same contexts.
18:14† ^or “justified,” i.e. in his opinion of himself, and therefore, having the more righteous estimate.
18:18† ^Evidently, the rich ruler knew Yĕshūa̒ only as a man who had achieved perfect righteousness, and did not realize that he was perfect because he was the Almĭghty Sŏn. The ruler therefore supposed that it was possible to inherit eternal life by being perfect.
18:23† ^Yĕshūa̒ finally comes to the one thing that the ruler lacked. He lacked a wholehearted service of the Almĭghty, and direct loyalty to him. He therefore supposed that his obligation was limited, and that he could live his life richly when it was fulfilled. We suspect from other texts that this was “John Mark” and that his wealth was inherited from his mother.
18:33‡ ^It should be noted that the point from which the third day is counted is the same day that he is delivered, mocked, spit on, scourged, and killed. The Hebrew idiom for the third day goes: today, tomorrow, the third day. And counting backwards, it goes today, yesterday, the third day. The types also count this way.
18:34‡ ^Many think to themselves that the disciples were stupid or heard hearted to miss what he was saying. But the truth is that Christians are still stupid and heard hearted when it comes to properly understanding the third day paradigm in the Scripture.
19:12† ^It was quite common in those days for a noble person to go to Rome to receive a kingdom from Caesar. That is how Herod the Great received his kingdom.
19:34† ^The day was the Sabbath, Nisan 10. The date was March 20, AD 34. The explanation worked because it was an extra-ordinary need. 2Kings 4:22-23 speaks of the use of a donkey on the Sabbath to see the Prophet. Riding, in fact, is not prohibited by the Torah.
19:45† ^Mark supplies what Luke has omitted here in Mark 11:11-14. Luke skips over the end of the Sabbath straight to the first day of the week without any notice. Mark states that that day (the Sabbath) ended, and a new one began. The reason that he did not run into the market in the Temple on the day of the Triumphal Entry is that it was the Sabbath, and the market was not set up, as buying and selling was forbidden on the Sabbath (cf. Neh. 10:31). The authorities would surely have told the people to purchase their offerings on the regular days. Those who argue that the entry was on a Sunday have a problem, because he surely would have cast them out of the Temple at the end of Sunday, rather than the next day, as we learn from Mark. The date of the removal of the market was Nisan 11, Sunday, March 21, AD 34.
Yĕshūa̒’s action was wildly popular with the people, because the market was rigged with specially approved animals at especially high prices. The Torah was being used as a cloak for thieving by the authorities. If a free market had operated, the prices would have been reasonable. It was the duty of the priests to approve or disapprove of animals when they were presented, and not to charge a fee for it, because they already received a portion of the offerings. It would be difficult for the authorities to arrest him publically.
19:48‡ ^The rulers did fear him, because he had power, and the people knew it, and the people would have revolted had he given the word. But they did not understand that he had to die first, and rise from the dead on the third day.
20:38† ^Their viewpoint on the first death was that it was like the second death, which is the complete destruction of soul and body, and hence there can be no resurrection from it. But in the divine point of view the first death is sleep, and the second death, which destroys both body and soul for ever is the only one from which there is no resurrection. In respect to the first death, the soul is not yet destroyed, but only sleeping. By announcing he is the Almĭghty of the (sleeping) dead, he is saying that they will be resurrected. For why would the Almĭghty define his divinity in terms of persons that were never to be saved through the resurrection?
21:8† ^The time is at hand. Many teachers are claiming this, but they do not know the answer, and they set dates, and turn out to be wrong. Claiming to be the Mĕssiah, and setting dates are two different things. Most set dates. I say nothing but more possible or less possible, or impossible. I can say impossible to most of the date setters since they do not know biblical chronology. I want no one to come after me because I speculate some hopeful date, and you should follow no one for that reason.
21:19† ^or “acquire.” See Matthew 24:13.
21:25† ^σημεῖα. The
21:28‡ ^These things—when the powers of the heaven are shaken. This is the indication that the Day of Yăhwēh is near. Do not be deceived by natural events like eclipses, solar or lunar, or so called “blood moons” (really barely brown to reddish). Do not be deceived by those who prognosticate by the ordinary movements of the stars and planets. That is just celestial divination! Rather than watching those deceits, the day of Yăhwēh will be indicated by a real objective breakdown of physics in the heavens, enough to put the fear of Gŏd into every astrophysicist and earth scientist, who at the current time justly ridicule those who practice celestial divination that is forbidden. The Magi may have practiced it (with Gŏd once playing along with them, as appears to be the case in 20/20 hindsight), but Christian dabbling in the prognosticating pseudo-science is superstition, and the word of Gŏd forbids it. I say this because many are tracking the movements of the planets through the Zodiac, and trying to get prophetic messages from it, and then are deceiving others into the legitimacy of their superstitious art. Such practice has nothing to do with the word of Gŏd.
21:31† ^The signs are when the heavens really start exhibiting weird and unexpected or unprecedented behavior, and not the ordinary things known to science.
21:34† ^The trap consists in not understanding the times according to the Scripture, and therefore falling into sin or into unbelief, or turning away from the faith, and so the Day of Yăhwēh will catch many who call themselves Gŏd’s people off guard, or many who were once His people, but are now atheists, because they did not seek the truth. It has nothing to do with guessing the date of the second coming, or figuring out if the great tribulation is really about to begin. But watching and avoiding the trap consists in living a Scriptural response, and staying steadfast in faithfulness, to whatever happens when it happens.
21:36† ^A way of escape will be provided for the remnant of Yisra’ēl. By keeping his commandments and appointed times, and praying, we will be ready to receive such deliverance as is provided by Yăhwēh. And if the time delays, then we will be able to point others in the right direction for salvation.
21:38† ^On the Sabbath before his crucifixion was the triumphal entry (Nisan 10). On Sunday he cast out the money changers and their market, and was teaching in the Temple. He taught that day, Monday, and Tuesday.
22:2‡ ^The reading of nearly every Greek text makes no sense here, except for Codex Bezae and a few Latin manuscripts. Most of the texts read the conjunction as γὰρ, “For they feared the people,” or “because they feared the people.” This of course does not make any sense. Matthew 21:46 gives the correct idea. They wanted to kill him,
22:3¹ ^Man of Qeri̱yōt.
22:7‡ ^The text here reads according to Codex Bezae, “Passover” (του πασχα). Other texts: D05 a b e ff2. i l syrcu etsch. The critical reading (τῶν ἀζύμων) does not make sense since the day on which the Passover is offered is not the first day of unleavened bread. Matthew and Mark say the
22:7† ^The word
22:8† ^prepare the Passover: The living walking lamb itself was called ‘the Passover’ even before it was sacrificed (John 1:29). Yeshua prepared himself to die for two nights before the Passover (Mat 26:2, 12; John 13:1), as during this time lambs were prepared to die also. After the lamb was prepared for sacrifice, it would be taken to the Temple the next afternoon.
The commandment for Israel in Egypt was to take the Passover on the 10th day of that month and keep it in the house (Ex. 12:3-4). After the Exodus it was permitted to take the Passover as late as the 13th or 14th. Keeping the lamb in the house was to ‘prepare the Passover,’ washing it, feeding it, grooming it, inspecting it, and becoming familiar with it. The innocent lamb was thus prepared for its death. The whole day was called ‘the preparation of the Passover’ (John 19:14), and late on this day, Yĕshūa̒ and the lambs Israel prepared were slain at the same time. ● that we may eat: It does not say ‘will eat’ but ‘may eat.’ Since Yĕshūa̒ was the lamb, he did not get to eat of it. See vs. 16.
22:11† ^may eat: Yĕshūa̒ is not saying “will eat” then. Certainly some of his disciples became unclean when Yĕshūa̒ died. It is possible that they ate passover in the second month in that very room, though the Scripture does not record it.
22:13† ^prepared the Passover: The large upper room would have been an expensive rental at Passover, costing perhaps the equivalent of several thousand dollars for that week, because Jerusalem was packed with people and space was at a premium. Lamb’s would be kept wherever their buyers were quartered from the time of purchase till the time they took them to the Temple.
The lamb would be inspected for flaws, fed, washed, and groomed. The lamb, so prepared, then waited for its sacrifice the next day. Yĕshūa̒, the Lamb, was also prepared for his death in in that place. It is possible in those circumstances that only Yĕshūa̒ was offered and that the lamb was not actually offered, as Isaac was not offered, but a ram was. Thus Yĕshūa̒ was offered in our place instead of us. The one Lamb of God represents all Israel.
John assures as that what preparation took place was at the start of Nisan 14 (sunset reckoning). See John 13:1; 19:14, 31. Many higher critical interpreters suppose
22:15† ^And he said to them, “Desiring I have desired this: to eat the Passover with you before I suffer.†The traditionalists have mistranslated this text, and then used it as a proof that Yĕshūa̒ ate the Passover lamb that year on Nisan 15. The mistranslation goes, “I have desired to eat this Passover.” By making the demonstrative “this” refer directly to the Passover, they make it seem as if he is referring to a Passover supper immediately at hand.
This view is not likely in view of the Hebraism in the text and the word order, which literally goes, “Desiring I have desired this, the passover to eat” (ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν). The demonstrative τοῦτο is an abstract use refering to the idea of eating the Passover, and not a direct demonstrative pointing to a lamb immediately at hand. The construction is a double accusative. Expand the double accusative thus: ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο, ἐπεθύμησα τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν, “I desire this; I desire to eat the Passover.” The parallelism of the double accusative predicates the two accusative ideas: “this” = “to eat the Passover.” If the passage were not a double accusative, but a regular demonstrative adjective, then we would expect the constructions: (1) τὸ τοῦτο πάσχα “attributive” or (2) τὸ πάσχα τὸ τοῦτο “predicative.”
The context weighs heavily against the rendition “this passover.” For in the next clause he denies that he was going to eat it at all. Even the textual variation “no longer” is against this. For if “this passover” refers to the lamb, then why would he quit eating the meal half way through, and leave his lamb half finished? “This passover” would have to refer to the whole feast of unleavened bread for “no longer” to make sense, and in that sense Josephus eight day duration could be cited, and still preserve a Nisan 14 date.
22:16† ^However, I say to you, I will by no means eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of the Almĭghty.”† : οὐ μὴ. This says emphatically that he will not eat it. Later scribes changed the words to ‘no longer’ οὐκέτι because they wanted the crucifixion date to be Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14, or because they wanted to imply that the legal time of Passover was a day earlier. John, writing later, realizes this heresy was spreading in Asia Minor, and carefully says that Yĕshūa̒ kept the “Jewish Passover” (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55;) and that this supper was ‘before the feast of the Passover’ (John 13:1).
Many people believe that making a chronological point is picking over details
By corrupting the chronology of Scripture through traditional interpretations, translations, and scribal alterations with no foundation in reality, the Adversary manages to turn the careful chronology of Scripture, the foundation of objective historical truth, into a maze of contradictions and inconsistencies. He then employs it as a tool to drive people into disobedience to Gŏd’s Law, and unbelief concerning his promises. Any Christian who belittles the solution to these problems, because it requires them to change, is cutting their own spiritual throat.
22:17¹ ^Or:
22:17† ^Luke reports the cup and bread in a different order than Matthew and Mark. (The Greek conjunctions do not have to imply strict chronological order.) The evidence is that this cup in Luke is the very cup of blessing because it is joined with vs. 18 (cf. Mark 14:25), which occurs in Mark joined with the cup. This means that Luke reported the cup first and then the unleavened bread. Because vs. 18 is parallel to Mark 14:25, it cannot truly be argued that Luke is reporting an earlier cup in the meal.
22:19¹ ^See note 22:17¹.
22:20† ^Codex Bezae (D05) and itala a d ff2 i l: omit: 19b which is given for you; do this for my memorial. 20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the renewed covenant in my blood. Itala b, c, reorder the verse order to 19,17,18. The Syriac also shows evidence of a shorter text. Luke reports the cup and bread in reverse order than that of Matthew and Mark. See above notes. The Greek scribes conflated the text with the words from 1Cor. 11:24-25, and thus created the sequence cup-bread-cup, treating the first cup as an earlier cup in the meal. But this is evidently a mistake because the first cup in Luke is identified by vs. 18 as the second cup in Mark (cf. Mark 14:25). The contradiction can be seen by creating a synopsis of the conflated version of
Now compare vs. 18 from Luke with vs. 25 from Mark. The association shows that Luke’s first cup is really the cup of blessing. It is extremely unlikely that Yĕshūa̒ would have duplicated the same statement after two different cups. It is also unlikely that Luke would have reported two cups, even though a Seder contained four.
The longer version of Luke is explained by the scribes supposing that Luke reported an earlier cup in the meal, and that their text was deficient in omitting the cup after the bread. They supposed that this deficiency could be repaired by conflating the text with 1Cor. 11:24-25, and were further motivated by the observation that the words, “Do this at my memorial” are not reported in any of the gospels. They were also motivated by the fact that the word “new” is not reported in Matthew or Mark in front of the word “covenant.” What they did not observe very carefully was that Luke 22:18 does not allow the original cup mentioned by Luke to become an earlier cup in the meal, unless it be assumed that Yĕshūa̒ made the same statement twice, and this is as unlikely as thinking that Luke meant to mention two cups, and then confuse the reader by putting vs. 18 after vs. 17 instead of after vs. 20. This contradiction was not lost on all the scribes. The editors of italab,e syrc and syrc all reordered the text to 19, 17, 18, an attempt to justify correcting Luke’s order.
Finally, the reasoning of Bruce Metzger and his committee for favoring the longer version (a minority of the committee dissented) includes this reasoning, “The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of
Notice that the shorter version is not attributed to accident. The committee did recognize that the difference is too large, and in a too important text to be attributed to an unnoticed accident of transmission. This means they have to come up with a deliberate reason to justify how the shorter text was created. But their opinion has the appearance of a
I would suggest that Luke himself left out “This is my blood of the covenant,” precisely because such words require more explanation to non-Jews than he wanted to put in, and that Luke favored an oral explanation be given to converts. In other words, Luke himself was concerned about a misunderstanding. And of course, he would be right, because John finds the need to omit any mention of the cup, and later we find the
Finally, if “Do this for my memorial,” is not contained in any of the gospels, then where did Paul obtain the words? I suggest that he learned them from Peter (cf. Gal. 1:18) at the time of Passover in AD 39. There needs be no explanation why Luke left the words out. Matthew and Mark leave them out also. That may not explain why they were left out, but it certainly justifies the shorter text.
Luke and John were meant for circulation among non-Jews. I think this explains the brief account of Luke and John’s omitting it.
22:34† ^Luke means to report the
22:44† ^ὡσεὶ = like, as. It was not literal blood as some suppose.
22:60† ^The words refer to the call of the watch of the daybreak or dawn.
22:63† ^This took place just after daybreak, the start of the three days and three nights during which Yĕshūa̒ would suffer, die, and be buried. A careful reading of Jonah in Hebrew will show that part of the
23:12† ^See Luke 13:1-2.
23:26† ^σταυρὸν. A beam, stave, or stake used for crucifixion or execution. In this case it was a large pole are beam. Traditionally:
23:31‡ ^ עֵץ־לַח, ē‘ts laḥ. Ezek. 20:47, “dry tree” עֵץ יָבֵשׁ, ē‘ts yav̱ēsh. See Ezek. 17:24. The dry tree will burn hotter. The green wood is not justly burned, but the dry wood is. It is possible that a living tree was used to support the
23:33† ^Κρανίον. Almost certainly not the traditional place, but probably a place on the mount of Olives. The traditional site is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre built by queen Helena, the mother of Constantine, but it post dates the events described here by 300 years. The book of Hebrews, though not canonical, implies the site is east of the Temple near the
23:42† ^Codex Bezae reads this phrase, “in the day of your coming.” א01 A02 C04 Q026 R027 X033 G036 D037 L039 P041 unc8 al omnvid a b q Or4,435 et455 Eusps 29 Chr2,492 read, “in your Kingdom.” Aland reads εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου “into your Kingdom.” Concerning this reading it is said it “might point to an immediate entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, the prayer meaning: may I go there to be with Thee when I die!” (Expositor’s Greek Testament). It is evident, therefore, why the change was made in the text. It was made in an attempt to rid the text of the notion that the repentant criminal expected to be raised at the resurrection of the righteous to enter the kingdom of Mĕssiah (cf. Dan. 12:1-3).
23:43† ^today: all that is necessary in Yĕshūa̒’s speech here to place ‘today’ with the preceding clause is a pause in his speech (See Deut. 30:18; 32:46. Delitzsch translates: כִּי הַיּוֹם, but I would translate הַיּוֹם כִּי just to show that Delitzsch biased his translation). The words in vs. 42 show that the expected answer was when Yĕshūa̒ came to set up his kingdom, which of course, both knew would not be for some time. See note on vs. 42.
The LXX in Deut. 30:18 reads, “ἀναγγέλλω σοι σήμερον ὅτι”, I have announced to you today that... ( הִגַּדְתִּי לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי). There is no ὅτι in the Greek text of Luke, however Delitzsch interpolated one before “today.” It is just as easy to interpolate after. The ὅτι introducing the formal statement, or direct discourse does not always appear in a text.
The repentant convict would sleep in the dust of the earth that day until the resurrection (cf. Dan. 12:2; Job 14:12; John 11:11), but if ‘today’ is not punctuated with the preceding clause, then it would be joined with the day of the resurrection from the dying person’s point of view. One’s day of death is to ‘humble’ his soul (Lev. 23:32), a personal Yom Kippur, which then joins up directly with the eschatological Yom Kippur. See Lev. 16:30. For the dead person, the time in between does not exist.
Bengel’s Gnomen states with dogmatic bluster, “The marking of the time by the expression,
23:44† ^From about noon to about 3 pm. Hours were not calculated by clock in those days, but by watching the angle of the sun. Therefore the sixth hour could be anything between 11 and 1, and the ninth hour between 2 and 4.
23:45† ^The veil torn was the outer veil that covered the doors of the Temple. The divine blow is not actually against a necessary part of the Temple. Even so the Almĭghty let the Temple be destroyed in AD 70, but this is not a divine commentary against future legal legitimacy Levitical service any more than destroying the Temple in 587 BC was. For the Scripture speaks of the restoration of the Temple in the end of days, and also in the age to come. All such opinions against this are based on rejection of the Torah and Prophets. See Mat. 5:17-19.
23:54† ^The nonsensical words, “And a Sabbath was dawning” are lacking from Codex Bezae. The words were probably added here to provide a tool to clear up the misunderstood text of Matthew 28:1. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (itd) reads “
23:56† ^The structure of the Greek syntax demand that the chapter division go here. The last clause of vs. 56 is to be joined with the first of chapter 24. The natural break in the narrative here implies that they saw how the body was laid as the sun was setting on the annual Sabbath, and leaves us to assume they prepared the spices on the day between the annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath, without confusing us with the incorrect supposition that they prepared spices before the annual Sabbath (23:56b), since that clause belongs with 24:1. Mark 16:1 assures us that they bought the spices after the annual Sabbath. So they must have prepared them after the bought them.
24:1¹ ^The Annual Sabbath, Nisan 15. This was Wednesday 24 March sunset to Thursday 25 March sunset, AD 34.
24:1ᵅ ^Most texts add, “according to the commandment,” (κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν) but Codex Bezae Greek omits the words, and also the Codex Bezae Latin. After using Codex Bezae long enough and studying its history, I am more confident in relegating the majority reading to the margin, and applying the rule of the harder reading. It appears to be an unnecessary remark by the internal evidence. And by the external evidence its insertion was probably motivated by the need to re-explain the annual Sabbath as the weekly Sabbath to justify the Friday-Sunday chronology. In reference to the annual Sabbath the words, “according to the commandment” appear even more extraneous. Even though there is a commandment to rest on the annual Sabbath in Lev. 23:7, it is wholly inexplicable why Luke would want to point this out, when the word “rested” already indicates the existence of the commandment.
According to Tischendorf (BW 8.0), Epiphanius reported that Marcion’s edition of Luke read, “according to the law” (κατα τον νομον). We may consider Marcion’s motivation for this version, which predates all other known MSS of Luke. I find it highly likely that Marcion was responsible not only for the reading κατα τον νομον, but also for the reading κατα την εντολην. There is no reason to suppose that Marcion produced only one version of the Greek text of Luke, since he was editing it with the Gnostic point of view. At first he may have put κατα τον νομον, but then later toned it down to κατα την εντολην. Then when later scribes were trying to undo Marcion’s damage they were faced with three versions. D05, Marcion-A and Marcion-B. And they went with Marcion-B.
What would be Marcion’s motivation for appending, “according to the law/commandment” to Luke 23:56? Marcion was the first, or nearly the first, dispensationalist. His point would be that before the resurrection, the disciples were still in the power of the demiurge, (what they called the Gŏd of the Jews), and that with the first of the new Sabbaths (Sunday or the eighth day) they were freed from the Law, and no commandment is appended to this. Therefore, the mention of the law or commandment right before the resurrection, and its omission right afterward forms the needed theological contrast. This is my opinion. However, we can definitely see the smoke exuding from the gun that fired the bullet in the textual variants. We just cannot know for sure where the bullet went. I do think my theory reasonable.
From a text critical point of view, Marcion would have no need of, or reason to put κατα τον νομον if faced with κατα την εντολην. He would already have the needed phrase for his interpretation and altering it to “according to the law” would serve little purpose. Marcion’s influence on the Gospel of Luke was so extensive that some believe his edition predated Luke itself! Of course this is nonsense, but for such a theory to even be suggested shows his influence.
“The late 2nd-century writer Tertullian noted that Marcion, ‘expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion’.[Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.6.2, cite Wiki]. Marcion was allergic to mentions of the Law or commandments unless he could reinterpret it. He eliminated Luke 1-2. It is obvious that Luke mentions the Law in a positive light too many times in those chapters (cf. Luke 1:6). Marcion deleted the reference to the prophets in Luke 24:25 (cf. NA27), and he added, “and destroying the law and the prophets” to Luke 23:2 (cf. NA27). Apparently this change found its way into the old Latin Itala and then the Vulgate also. In Luke 10:21, Marcion changed, “Lord of heaven and earth” to “Lord of heaven,” because his false god was not the Gŏd of the earth. For Gnostics, the earth was created by and owned by the Gŏd of the Jews, and matter was evil. This change is followed by P45 which is among the earliest known texts. Yet it did not escape influence from Marcion. P45 is an Egyptian Papyri, like the rest of them. Yet Marcion was based in Asia Minor. Why did Codex Bezae then escape his hand? Because its exemplar was exported to the West early on before the damage by both Marcion and later Church scribes could be done.
24:1² ^This was the first weekly Sabbath after Passover. This year, Nisan 17. It was 27 March, a Saturday, near dawn, called first because it was first in seven Sabbaths counted between Passover and the Feast of Weeks. Cf. Lev. 23:15. It is often alleged that the phrase employed here was a Jewish idiom for Sunday, but the Talmudic usage only goes back to about AD 150, and is not known before that date. No sources contemporary with the Apostles in Greek or Hebrew employ “first of the Sabbaths” to mean Sunday. It is well known by the Rabbis that the Jewish tradition teaches that certain Jews became “Christians” in order to introduce corruptions that would cause Christians to depart from keeping the Law. And these found fertile ground among the Gnostic Christians of the Second Century. Even if the exact specifics of the tradition may be questioned, getting rid of Christian observance of the Sabbath ranked high on their agenda.
The phrase “one of the Sabbaths” (τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων, Psa. 23:1, LXX) is employed along with similar phrases in certain Psalm titles to count days of the week (93:1, 47:1), but this too is anachronistic. No such titles existed until much later. See also the argument on Luke 18:12, where the sense of “week” cannot be sustained.
The grammar of
By Greek grammar, there is an implied word
The Greek explanation may be further illustrated by Mat. 26:17: the firstmost of unleavens, Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων, which I have translated literally. The word firstmost implies a noun day by virtue of its feminine gender: τῇ πρώτῃ
What is proved here is that no grammatical objection can be lodged against the sense first [day] of the Sabbaths. Further no lexical objections can be lodged against the translation of each word, because the norm is followed in each case, using attested contemporary meanings. Finally, the whole concept of counting Sabbaths after the Passover is certified by Lev. 23:15, and confirmed by Luke 6:1.
Update. I have stated that the sense “week” for Sabbath cannot be sustained in the NT or contemporary sources. The case is unproven before about AD 140, when
But we must keep in mind that examples for “week” in one place, time, and context do not prove that the ordinary use of Sabbaths in another place and time should be overturned. The leap of unsupported logic is in assuming that the attested equivalency to “week” in later Hebrew is how μια των σαββατων should be explained. This comes from assuming the phrase means first day of the week, and then simply assuming that the later Hebrew phrase for first day of the week is what it must mean (on the basis of tradition). The reasoning is circular. The details of the Greek phrase refute the assumption of straightforward equivalency. There is no element for the Hebrew preposition ב, and further the Greek appears in the plural. Noting these differences, the straightforward Hebrew translation is: אחת השׁבתות, i.e. “one of the Sabbaths,” or by Hebraism, “first of the Sabbaths.” The Greek would have to read: *μια εν τω σαββατω to truly match the Mishnaic Hebrew to the phrase. The genitive phrase that does occur does not lend itself very well to the preposition ב. If we expand the Greek to “first [day] of the Sabbaths,” then we can expand the Hebrew to יום השׁבת, האחד, day of the sabbath, the first one.
There is in 4Q317 the usage באחד לשׁבת, “on one to the Sabbath,” and also בארבעה לשׁבת (in other fragments), shows counting to the Sabbath, or after it as some translations go. In either case the meaning of “week” is not sustained for the word Sabbath. The point is to indicate days “to” the Sabbath לשׁבת. We see that this is quite a bit different from μια των σαββατων, as “one to the Sabbath” in Greek would appear as μια προς το σαββατον. In the first case, a normal interpreter is going to see “first of the sabbath days” or “one of the sabbath days,” and in the second “one day toward the Sabbath.” The DSS scroll usage as “on
24:1‡ ^And on the one Sabbath¹ they rested,ᵅ but on the first² of the Sabbaths, at deep dawn they came upon the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.‡ They rested on the annual Sabbath, then as recorded in Mark 16:1, they bought spices after it, then on the first of the Sabbaths they came to the tomb at dawn. The day in between the two Sabbaths was a Friday, and this is when they bought and prepared the spices. They were impelled to go to the tomb at dawn on the weekly Sabbath, because sunrise would close off the third day, and above all else, because of the circumstance that Mĕssiah was going to rise, and the Holy Spĭrit saw to it that they did go. This was the last time that any meaningful anointing could be done. The women were more emotionally loyal to Mĕssiah that any of the men, and they were much less concerned with any Rabbinic ruling, though according to the Mishnah dealings with the dead were permitted on the Sabbath with limitations on moving or propping up the body.
The structure of the Greek text requires the last part of vs. 23:56 to be joined with 24:1. In Greek it is called a μεν...δε construction, which is normally taken as, “On the one hand..., but on the other hand....” They indeed did rest on the annual Sabbath, but on the weekly Sabbath the circumstance was such that they were impelled to anoint the body one last time. And only the most demanding and heartless Pharisee would condemn them for doing this. One last view of the man that they had talked with, walked with, eaten with, and served for the last four years, who had done miracles like none other, and whose teaching and preaching of the good news of the kingdom was like none other. Despair attacked the intellect of the men, and put them into relative inaction, but despair could not stop the women who listened to their emotions more from carrying out the last respectful rites.
See this chart: The Two Sabbaths. Also see the extended discussion of the structure of the Greek text: Μεν...Δε. Several Commentaries misread the structure of the Greek, i.e. Ellicot, “This seems at first inconsistent with their “buying” spices after the Sabbath was over (Luke 24:1). Possibly, we have two groups of women—the two Maries and “Joanna and the others” (Luke 24:10)—taking part in the same work; possibly, what they did on the Friday afternoon or evening was not enough, and it was necessary to buy more spices as soon as shops were open on Saturday evening.” The supposition, is, of course entirely unnecessary, when upon taking the structure of the text correctly, we realize there was a day between the two Sabbaths. John Gill also runs afoul due to misunderstanding the text, “though they had bought and prepared the spices and ointments, they did not carry them to the sepulchre to anoint the body with them, till the sabbath was over,” which of course now contradicts Mark 16:1, which says they bought them after the Sabbath.
John Gill is brave enough to mention that anointing the body is allowed on the Sabbath, an admission he makes, only because he is tacitly suggesting their avoiding it was unnecessary: “Though elsewhere (g) this is allowed of; for so runs one of their traditions; they do all things necessary for the dead, (i.e. on a sabbath day,) "they anoint", and wash him, only they may not move a limb of him.'' But how he could be anointed, and washed, without a limb being moved, is not very easy to say, as his foot, or hand, or eye brows, which are the parts one of their commentators instances in (h). (f) T. Hieros. Sahbat. fol. 12. 2.((g) Misn. Sabbat. c. 23, sect. 5. (h) Bartenora in ib.” Now of course, Gill has not noted that the annointing the women were to do was done with “sweet spices” (ἀρώματα,) i.e. aromatic spices, and not the embalming spices that Joseph and Nicodemus dealt with earlier, and indeed these they had applied on the day between the two Sabbaths, while the women were out buying the aromatics for the next day. The application of the aromatic spices and last inspection of the dead would surely be permitted by the ruling of the Mishnah, so long as they had prepared them on Friday before the Sabbath.
The Geneva Study Bible also makes the mistake of suggesting they purchased the spices before the Sabbath against Mark 16:1. The Expositor’s Greek Testament states, “The purchase of spices and ointments is viewed by some as a proof that the day of Christ’s crucifixion was an ordinary working day.” Evidently this commentator thinks the crucifixion was on Nisan 15, and notes some that say the spices were purchased before the Sabbath, which accordingly makes it Nisan 14, because on Nisan 15 no purchases are allowed. Again the presumption is wrong because the structure of the Greek text was wrongly understood, and wrongly translated, and implies contradiction with Mark 16:1.
Adam Clarke stumbles into the same trap: “Prepared spices and ointments - This was in order to embalm him; which sufficiently proves that they had no hope of his resurrection the third day. And rested the Sabbath day - For though the Jewish canons allowed all works, necessary for the dead, to be done, even on the Sabbath, such as washing and anointing, provided they moved not a limb of the dead person, yet, as the Jews had put Christ to death under the pretense of his being a malefactor, it would not have been either prudent or safe to appear too forward in the present business; and therefore they rested on the Sabbath.” He contradicts Mark 16:1. Yet Clarke has been kind enough to cite the Mishnah here, and what is relevant is that the weekly Sabbath was the more likely day for a visit to tend the dead in compliance with the tradition.
On their remarks on Mark 16:1, The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary suggests, “
24:4† ^Possibly the two witnesses.
24:7† ^Again the point from which the third day is counted is the day he was delivered and crucified. The three days are timed from daybreak to daybreak, and were understood to last from dawn on Wednesday morning to dawn on the weekly Sabbath. These are three calendar days. According to the literal sense of a day (dawn to dusk), the resurrection was
24:13† ^A stadia is about 600 feet. 60 x 600 = 36000. Divide by 5280 feet/mile yields 6.8 miles or 11 km. The walking speed is 1 mile/20 minutes, so the distance is covered in 2¼ hours. If a longer distance is covered of 7.5 miles, then the time is 2 ½ hours. A jogging speed averages 5 or 6 miles per hour. So if they two men took a very leisurely walking going, then they might cover the distance in four hours, but if they jogged back to tell the news, it could take 1.5 hours. The total time is less than 6 hours at the most, and if they wanted to leave quickly, then 4 hours would be closer to the actual time.
24:21‡ ^But indeed, even with all this, a third day just¹ passed today, from when these things happened.‡ Codex Bezae and other texts (D05 al5 a b c d e f ff2.vid l vg Augcons etioh ) omit the word “this” inserted by ancient scribes in order to save the Friday-Sunday chronology and confound the Wednesday to Sabbath chronology. The scribes added the word “this” to the other manuscripts, to read “this third day” because they correctly perceived the contradiction in the statement that the third day passed, and their Friday to Sunday chronology. For while Sunday may be the third day by their reckoning, the third day has not passed by anyone’s reckoning. The third day would not be just past by until sunset on Sunday at the earliest point. For this reason, the scribes changed the text to “it is the third day since these things happened” (NAS). But this begs the question of why they offered it as evidence of lost hope, since the objection would be countered with why they have not waited till the end of the third day to conclude the prophecy was false.
Sigla Name Century AD
D 05 Bezae Cantabrigiensis V 450
a 3 Vercellensis IV 350
b 4 Veronensis V 450
c 6 Colbertinus XII/XIII 1200
d 5 Bezae Cantabrigiensis V 450
e 2 Palatinus V 450
f 10 Brixianus VI 550
ff2 8 Corbeiensis II V 450
l 11 Rehdigeranus VII/VIII 750
vg Vulgate
Augcons Augustine de consensu evangelistarum
libri quattuor (Bd. 3, Teil 2).
etioh
A third day passed today, from when these things happened. The inception point of counting the three days is the crucifixion day. They are counted as three calendar days with a daybreak (sunrise) epoch: 1) Wednesday-dawn unto Thurday-dawn, 2) Thursday-dawn unto Friday dawn, 3) Friday dawn unto Sabbath dawn. The two men are walking to Emmaus on the daytime part of the Sabbath, and so for them “today” is the Sabbath. They are saying that the third day expired at dawn on the Sabbath. They were correct, but they did not stay long enough to fully learn the news that the resurrection had really occurred just before dawn that Sabbath.
Some, agreeing that the crucifixion was on a Wednesday, have proposed that the resurrection was at 3 p.m. on the Sabbath or afterward. As a consequence of this, and believing the mistranslation
But this zero based counting is not Scriptural. The point of inception for counting days in Hebrew is always included as the first day of the counting. There are no examples of zero based counting from the point of inception in Scripture. In fact there are a number of idiomatic phrases which prohibit zero based counting, e.g. in Hosea 6:2,
Another idiom counts; today (1), tomorrow (2), and the third day. And another idiom backwards, today (1), yesterday (2), the third day. For a circumcision, the day of the birth is counted as the first day. This is also called
Counting with the word
All of the third day types in Scripture include the point of origin in the counting. For example, A̕v̱raham sees the place on the third day. This is counting the day he set out as the first. Yōsēf in predicting the fate of the baker and the wine master predicts their fates to be “within three days.” None of the Messianic types use zero based counting. Paul says that “he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1Cor. 15:4). If this is true, then the three days have to be inclusively counted.
The point of origin for the burial of Mĕssiah is the same day as the crucifixion. Luke 23:54 states after he was in the tomb (vs. 53) that it was the day of preparation. Accordingly, the annual Sabbath had not yet begun. Also, in all the statements about after three days, and on the third day, the point of origin includes the day of the trial and crucifixion (cf. Luke 24:7). The counting of three days and three nights, therefore, have to be congruent in the point of inception with the other statements.
24:21¹ ^The verb is present tense in Greek, but it is used as a historical present, just passed by.
24:29† ^This statement could justly be made about 3 pm onward.
24:36‡ ^This happened that very day, late on the first of the Sabbaths according to John 20:19.
24:46‡ ^Note here that the third day is reckoned from the suffering. The text does not even mention burial or death here. Again, the day he suffered on is counted as the first day. He said it was according to the Scriptures, and there in the third day is counted from the inception point: today, tomorrow, the third day, or going backwards: today, yesterday, the third day. The baker suffered was crucified on the third day from the interpretation of his dream. The Hebrew says “within three days.” Likewise, the wine master was restored within three days from the interpretation. A̕v̱raham saw the place on the third day counting the day he set out as the first day. In Hosea, two days after being smitten is the restoration and resurrection, and this is after two calendar days. It is called the third day.
There are also two witnesses that the three days covered