Armstrongism
Articles Index Page
3 Days +
3 Nights = 1 False Doctrine
Peter
Ditzel
Is knowing
the precise number of hours Jesus Christ's dead body lay in the tomb of any
great significance? Worldwide Church of
God (WCG) founder Herbert W. Armstrong would have had you believe it is. The
WCG published The Resurrection Was Not on
Sunday1 and The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday.2 Both of these booklets—the first
written by Armstrong and the second by Armstrong’s disciple, Herman L.
Hoeh—cover this subject.
Armstrong
asserted, "Jesus staked his claim to being your Saviour and mine upon
remaining three days and three nights in the tomb."3
By "three days and three nights" Armstrong meant
precisely 72 hours.4 This
amazing claim is the reason I decided to cover this topic on this website.
There can hardly be anything more vital than whether Jesus Christ is our
Savior. Before examining any relationship between the amount of time Jesus was
in the tomb and His being our Savior, I will first ask, How long was Jesus in
the tomb?
Three Days and Three Nights
The key
scripture upon which the Worldwide Church of God bases its teaching on this
subject is Matthew 12:39-40: "But he answered and said unto them, An evil
and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be
given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth."
Herbert W.
Armstrong and his current-day followers say that for Jesus to have been in the
"heart of the earth"—the tomb—for three days and three nights, He
could not possibly have been crucified and buried on Friday and then rise on
Sunday morning. This, they say, would be only two nights—Friday night and
Saturday night—and one day—Saturday.5 Instead, Armstrongism teaches a Wednesday crucifixion: that Jesus died late Wednesday and
rose from death late Saturday afternoon.6 Notice that according to Armstrong, Jesus rose on the seventh-day
Sabbath as opposed to the teaching of orthodox Christianity that Jesus rose on
the first day of the week.
What
Armstrong says on this matter has the sound
of being reasonable. After all, 72 hours prior to a Sunday morning resurrection
would mean Jesus had to have died Thursday morning. But Jesus could not have
died in the morning because the three synoptic Gospels say that Jesus died
about the "ninth hour" (Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:33-37, and Luke
23:44-46), meaning about three o'clock in the afternoon. This does not,
however, mean that the Armstrong is correct. In fact, he makes a major error in
taking "three days and three nights" to mean 72 hours.
"Three
days and three nights" is a Hebrew idiom that the Greek of Matthew 12:40
follows. Concerning this idiom, a near contemporary of Jesus, Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azariah (circa A.D. 100), said, "A day and a night make an 'onah [a twenty-four hour period], and the
portion of an 'onah is reckoned
as a complete 'onah."7 In Hebrew, then, a portion of a
day could be counted as a complete day. As R. T. France writes, "Three days and three nights was a Jewish
idiom appropriate to a period covering only two nights."8 Numerous commentators support
this position. Although written in Greek, Matthew 12:40 expresses the Hebrew
idiom—"three days and three nights"—that was understood by the Jews
listening to Jesus to mean one full day and portions of two others with the intervening
nights.
Flying in
the face of this evidence, Armstrong appeals to some anonymous "higher
critics" who supposedly "admit that in the Hebrew language, in which
the book of Jonah was written, the expression 'three days and three nights'
means a period of 72 hours—three 12-hour days and three 12-hour nights."9 The scripture in question in
Jonah is, "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And
Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
Now notice
what C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch write concerning Jonah 1:17 in their Commentary on the Old Testament: "The
three days and three nights are not to be regarded as fully three times
twenty-four hours, but are to be interpreted according to Hebrew usage, as
signifying that Jonah was vomited up again on the third day after he had been
swallowed."10 George
L. Robinson writes, "The statement that Jonah was in the belly of the fish
'three days and three nights,' is an oriental way of expressing the fact that
he was in the fish so long that apart from God's sustaining power, he was dead
and beyond the possibility of human resuscitation."11
Besides
agreeing that "three days and three nights" was a Hebrew idiom, H. L.
Ellison adds this practical note:
Once
Jonah was on dry land again, he could make some kind of estimate of how long he
had been in the fish. Yet, to make any exact measure of the number of hours
would have been impossible for him. Roused suddenly from a deep slumber,
stupefied by the violence of the storm, and in all probability seasick, Jonah
would have been in no position to know at what hour he was thrown overboard.
Furthermore, on reaching the shore he would have needed time to collect his
wits. Clearly, then, the term "three days and three nights" is
intended as an approximation, not a precise period of seventy-two hours.12
Further
evidence that Jesus was using a Hebrew idiom may be found in Luke 11:29-32:
“And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an
evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the
sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas
was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this
generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men
of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the
earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is
here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation,
and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold,
a greater than Jonas is here.”
Notice that
Luke completely leaves out any reference to "three days and three
nights." Why? It is probable that, unlike Matthew who was
targeting Jewish readers, Luke, writing primarily to Gentiles, left out the Hebrew
idiom he knew they would not understand. Instead, Luke in Luke 9:22; 18:33;
24:7, 21, 46; and Acts 10:40 uses the much clearer and more direct "the
third day." Luke's omission of
"three days and three nights" will prove significant later when we
examine the nature of the sign of Jonah.
Is there
anyplace else in the Bible that contains further evidence that "three days
and three nights" is not to be understood literally? Yes. Esther 4:15-16
reads, "Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer, Go, gather together all the Jews that are
present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days,
night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in
unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I
perish."
Esther says
she and her maids are not going to eat or drink for "three days, night or
day." Only when she is finished fasting will she go in unto the king. This
is made a little clearer in the Revised Standard Version, which says, “I and my
maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king….” If "three
days, night or day" is to be taken literally, it would mean 72 hours.
Esther would not be able to go to the king until after 72 hours. This would be
the fourth day at the earliest. Is this what the Bible says? No.
Esther 5:1
states: "Now it came to pass on
the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner
court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon
his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the
house." Esther did not wait until
the fourth day to go to the king. She went on the third day. The fast that was
to last for "three days, night or day" was, by the third day, already
completed.
Completely
ignoring that Esther said she would wait until the fasting was done before
going to the king, the Worldwide Church of God’s Herman Hoeh, in an attempt to
say that Esther fasted for a full 72 hours, writes, "Which day was
this? The third day of the fast.
Suppose Queen Esther had requested the Jews late Friday evening, shortly before
sunset, to fast. The first day of their fast would have been Saturday, the
second day would have been Sunday, and the third day, Monday, the queen would
have entered the king's palace. Isn't that plain? The Jews did not fast parts
of three days, but three days, night and day."13
This makes
no sense unless Esther was still fasting when she went to see the king. But she
said she would wait until the fasting was done before going to see the king.
Need further proof that Esther's fast of "three days, night or day"
was completed by the third day? Read Esther 5:4: "And Esther answered, If
it seem good unto the king, let the king and Haman come this day unto the
banquet that I have prepared for him." The day called "this day"
in this verse is the very same day that is called "the third day" in
verse 1. In verse 6 we read, "And the king said unto Esther at the banquet
of wine, What is thy petition? and it shall be granted thee: and what is thy
request? even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed." The
Revised Standard and other modern versions render the first part of this verse
as, “And as they were drinking wine.” So on the third day Esther was drinking
wine at a banquet, even though she said she would not eat or drink for
"three days, night or day."
"Three days, night or day" must mean a period of less than 72
hours. The Bible itself proves that Herbert Armstrong's explanation is flawed.
After Three Days
What about
other scriptures that mention the time Jesus would be in the grave? By far, the majority of references to Jesus'
resurrection refer to it as occurring on "the third day." Besides Luke's use of "the third
day," Matthew (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64) and Paul (I Corinthians
15:4) also use it. The King James Version also uses "the third day"
in Mark 9:31 and 10:34. Other versions do not contain "the third day"
in these verses of Mark. Instead, they use "after three days,"
"three days later," "three days after," etc., depending on
the version.
"After
three days" is also found in Mark 8:31. But how can "after three
days" mean the same time period as "the third day"? "After three days" in English
means after 72 hours—that is, at least the fourth day. But now read what the
Pharisees tell Pilot in Matthew 27:63-64: "Saying, Sir, we remember that
that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his
disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen
from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."
Notice that
although the Pharisees told Pilot that Jesus said he would rise again
"after three days," they asked Pilot to secure the tomb only until
"the third day." If
"after three days" was to be understood literally, the securing of
the tomb would have ended too soon. But, as with "three days and three
nights," "after three days" is not to be taken literally. The
Pharisees considered "after three days" as ending on "the third
day."
Nevertheless,
the Armstrong position appeals to verses 5 and 12 of 2 Chronicles 10 as
supposed evidence that "after three days" means after 72 hours.
Verses 5 and 12 read: "And he
[king Rehoboam] said unto them [Jeroboam and the people], Come again unto me
after three days. And the people departed.... So Jeroboam and all the people
came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me
on the third day." It should be
evident that since the king told the people to come "after three days"
and the people came "on the third day" according to the king's
command ("Come again to me on the third day") that "after three
days" and "on the third day" amount to the same thing. But this
is not evident to the followers of Herbert Armstrong.
Herman Hoeh,
in The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday,
gives this explanation:
Let
us suppose they had first met the king sometime on Friday. As they were ordered
to return at the end of three days, they would not have returned before the
same time of day the following Monday. Now was Monday 'the third day' from the
day they had originally met with the king?
The first day from Friday was Saturday, the second day from the Friday
was Sunday and the third day was Monday—exactly the time the king expected them
to return. Monday, not Sunday, was the third day from Friday.14
The above
explanation has somehow made Monday seem to be both 72 hours after Friday—thus,
"after three days"—and "the third day." But how? By
switching methods used for counting! A careful analysis will reveal the
conjuring.
This booklet
assumes the people "would not have returned before the same time of day
the following Monday." If so, they
would have to wait until after 72 hours had passed. For example, suppose they
met with Rehoboam at noon on Friday. Noon Friday to noon Saturday is one day.
Noon Saturday to noon Sunday is two days and noon Sunday to noon Monday is
three days. The 72 hours are completed at noon on Monday. Continuing to assume
that the people had to wait until after 72 hours, they could have met with
Rehoboam at 1 pm on Monday. This would literally be after three days from the
time they first met with Rehoboam. After three days (literally) is the fourth
day. So 1 pm on Monday would be the fourth day. But Dr. Hoeh says it is
the third day. He does this by ignoring all of Friday from the time the people
met with Rehoboam until the end of the day. In our example, this would be from
noon until evening. Notice this booklet says, "the first day from that Friday." It counts Saturday as the first day, Sunday
as the second day and Monday as the third day. By counting the days two
different ways—one that includes Friday and one that counts from Friday—Dr. Hoeh has made Monday at 1
pm (in our example) both "after three days" and "the third
day." Such equivocal methods for
counting are completely unacceptable.
The only
reason the people were able to meet with the king "after three days"
but "on the third day" is because "after three days" is an
idiom that points to "the third day." By the way, most modern-language versions of the Bible have
replaced "after three days" in this Scripture with "in three
days." In English, "in three
days" is more easily understood as terminating on "the third
day."
"In
three days" is found in a scripture that refers to Jesus' resurrection. In
John 2:19, Jesus answers the Jews' request for a miraculous sign by saying,
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "In three days" does not mean a
full 72 hours must be completed, especially in light of so many other
scriptures that point to Jesus' resurrection on "the third day."
The argument
of those who follow Herbert Armstrong is fatally flawed because they insist on
counting the time between Jesus' death and His resurrection with a stopwatch.
None of the evidence Armstrong presents to prove the length of a day (for
example, his appeals to John 11:9-10 and Genesis 1:4-1315) is relevant because the words the Gospel writers and Jesus himself
used to refer to the time between Jesus' death and his resurrection were casual
and idiomatic. But what about the scriptures that describe the sequence of
events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection? Do they require Jesus to have been in the tomb for 72 hours?
Thursday
In refuting
the sequence of events taught by Armstrong, I will present an alternative
sequence of events. I realize that this is not the only possible alternative,
but I believe it to be a very credible one.
Herbert
Armstrong taught, and his followers still teach, that Jesus ate the Passover
with His disciples on the evening that began the 14th of Abib (also
called Nisan), that this was a Tuesday evening, and that this was 24 hours
earlier than the Jews normally ate the Passover. As I proceed, it will help you
to know that the terms "Passover" and "Feast of Unleavened
Bread" were, by New Testament times, often used interchangeably for
certain aspects of these feasts.16 Armstrong appears to agree with this.17
There are
scriptures, however, that show Armstrong’s position on when Jesus ate His last
Passover to be in error. Mark 14:12 reads: "And the first day of
unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him,
Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"
On the day that the Passover lambs were killed, Jesus had not yet eaten the
Passover with his disciples. Exodus 12:6 clearly says this day is the 14th of
Abib and that day is called "the passover" in Numbers 28:16. It is
also called the “first day of unleavened bread" in Mark 14:12 because
Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread had come to be somewhat synonymous.
K. J.
Stavrinides, in two articles he wrote for the Worldwide Church of God, asserts
that Jesus' disciples asked Him about preparations for the Passover on the
night that began the 14th and that they later ate the Passover that same night.18 This is completely
unacceptable because this does not give the disciples enough time to prepare
the Passover before they were to eat it (on the night beginning the 14th
according Armstrong tradition). One does not ask about preparations at the same
time the event is to take place.
Stavrinides'
explanation is forced and unnatural. The natural explanation of Mark 14:12 is
that, on the day the Passover lambs were killed—the 14th—the
disciples understandably asked about preparing for the Passover which would
occur that coming night—the beginning of the 15th, the night when they as Jews
would naturally have expected to eat the Passover meal. Jesus did not tell His
disciples to prepare for a Passover that they were to celebrate one day
early—something that would have been so extraordinary we would expect the
disciples to have questioned it. Jesus' disciples were to prepare for a
Passover meal that was to be eaten on the night that began the 15th.
Luke 22:7-8
contains an even clearer account:
"Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be
killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover,
that we may eat." On the day the
Passover lambs were being killed, Jesus' disciples were preparing for the
Passover meal. That meal was eaten on the night of the 15th of Abib. As I will
show from additional evidence, this was a Thursday night.
Friday and Saturday
John 18:28
is an important scripture in regard to this topic. The events in this verse
take place after Jesus had eaten the Passover with His disciples and had been
arrested: "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment:
and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest
they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." Does this scripture mean, as Armstrong
taught, that Jesus ate the Passover one day earlier than the Jews?
A Gentile
was considered unclean. For the strict Jew, coming in contact with a Gentile or
anything in a Gentile's house was like coming in contact with an unclean
animal, and the Jew who came into contact with an unclean animal was unclean
until evening (Leviticus 11:25). A. T. Robertson points out, "Since this
remark was made early in the morning, how could that affect the eating of the
[Passover] supper in the evening? For
whatever impurities one had during the day passed away at evening. Hence this
uncleanness must belong to the same day on which it was incurred."19 If, as according to
Armstrong teaching, these Jews were concerned with eating the Passover meal
that coming night, entering the Roman governor's palace in the morning would
not be a problem to them because their uncleanness would pass away with the
coming of evening (see Leviticus 11:24–25; 27; 31; etc.). What then is the
answer?
As I have
already mentioned, "Passover" had come to be used to refer to the
Feast of Unleavened Bread and vice versa. The apostle John uses the word
"Passover" in nine other places in the Bible besides John 18:28. In
none of these places does he use it to specifically refer to the Passover meal
or the Passover lamb. And there is no reason to assume he is using it to refer
to the Passover meal or the Passover lamb in John 18:28. These Jews wanted to
participate in the offerings and special meals that would take place that day,
the 15th of Abib, the first Holy Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. They had
already eaten the Passover lamb the evening before (the evening that began the
15th, the same evening that Jesus and His disciples ate the Passover
lamb). When John said that the Jews wanted to eat the Passover, he meant
special festival meals taking place during the daylight portion of the 15th.
This brings us to the morning of the 15th of Abib, Friday morning.
Pilate, the
governor, sent Jesus to Herod who then sent Him back to Pilate (see Luke
23:6-15). In John 19:14, John writes,
" And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth
hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" Churches in the
Armstrong tradition would like you to believe this was the preparation day for
the Passover; that is, the 14th of Abib. But there is no reason to believe
this.
"The
afternoon before the Passover was used as a preparation," writes A. T.
Robertson, "but it was not technically so called. This phrase 'Preparation'
was really the name of a day in the week, the day before the Sabbath, our
Friday."20 Of this
same day, Mark and Luke write,
"And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation,
that is, the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42), and "And that day
was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on" (Luke 23:54). Notice that
they do not say that the Sabbath to follow was the first annual Sabbath of the
festival or the day on which the Passover lamb was to be eaten. As I have
explained, that day had already come. The Gospel writers intended their readers
to understand that this Preparation Day was Friday. It was the Friday of the
Passover feast.
John also
writes, of the time later that same day after Jesus' death on the cross,
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies
should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was
an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they
might be taken away" (John 19:31).
In John
19:31, this Sabbath is described as "an high day." "Just what is a 'high day'?" asks
Herbert W. Armstrong. "Ask any Jew! He will tell you it is one of the
annual holy days, or feast days. The Israelites were commanded to observe seven
of these every year—every one called a Sabbath! Annual Sabbaths fall on certain
annual calendar dates, and on different days of the week in different years,
just like the Roman holidays now observed."21
Armstrong's
definition of a "high day" is not acceptable. To the modern Jew, the
"high days"—more correctly the High Holy Days or High Holidays—are
Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement)
with a season of about two months surrounding these days.22 The High Holy Days have
nothing to do with the Passover festival. Therefore, John's use of "high
day" has no relationship to modern Jewish usage.
Armstrong
presents no convincing evidence to support his belief that the Sabbath of John
19:31 was an annual Sabbath. The other Gospel writers refer to it only as the
Sabbath. Why, then, did John write that this particular "sabbath day was
an high day"? The most natural
explanation, in light of other evidence supporting the view that this was the
seventh-day of the week, is that this seventh-day Sabbath was the weekly
Sabbath that occurred during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Every day of the
Feast of Unleavened Bread—also called the Passover in the New Testament—is a feast
day. Two of the feast days are annual Sabbaths.
But there is
also a third Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is the weekly
seventh-day Sabbath that happens to fall within the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Because this seventh-day Sabbath falls during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it
is a feast day and therefore is special. It would be natural for John to call
this Sabbath a "high day." It is this day, the seventh-day Sabbath
that falls during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, that John and the other Gospel
writers are referring to.
John
19:41-42 reads: "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a
garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the
sepulchre was nigh at hand." It is now near Friday evening, which for the
Jews ended the sixth day of the week and began the seventh-day Sabbath. About
this time, "the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed
after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned,
and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the
commandment" (Luke 23:55-56).
"Now
the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and
Pharisees came together unto Pilate" (Matthew 27:62). It is now the
Sabbath, our Saturday. Besides the women resting and the Jews going to Pilate
to ask that the tomb be made secure, the Bible is silent about what occurred on
this day. Yet, this is the day that Armstrong tradition would have you believe
that Jesus rose from the dead!
"And
when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him"
(Mark 16:1). According to Armstrongism, this verse, coupled with Luke 23:55-56,
says that there had to have been two Sabbaths (an annual Sabbath and a weekly
Sabbath) separated by a non-Sabbath day between Jesus' death and His
resurrection. It says this non-Sabbath day (which it says was Friday) is the
day the women bought and prepared the spices. Admittedly, the time sequence in
Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:55-56 is not completely clear. There is no reason,
however, to resort to this explanation of two Sabbaths separated by another day
as the weight of evidence is against it.
Luke may not
have meant that the women went home and prepared the spices immediately. It is
completely possible that he meant that the women went home and prepared spices,
but they (first) rested on the Sabbath. They would have procured and prepared
the spices on Saturday night, after the Sabbath. Alternatively, the women may
have prepared some spices as soon as they returned home, rested on the Sabbath,
then procured more spices and prepared them on Saturday night. These
explanations are not, of course, completely conclusive. Nevertheless, they are
stronger arguments than Armstrong's explanation that requires the insertion of
an entire day between the words, "And they returned" and "and
prepared spices and ointments" (Luke 23:56)—a day that is never mentioned.
Sunday
"In the
end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre" (Matthew 28:1).23 "And very early in the morning the first
day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"
(Mark 16:2). "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had
prepared, and certain others with them" (Luke 24:1). "The first day
of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the
sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre" (John 20:1).
Notice that
although Matthew's and Mark's accounts indicate the time as dawn, Luke only
says "very early in the morning."
John, however, says, "when it was yet dark." There are several possible reasons for this
seeming discrepancy. Perhaps John meant it was still dark when they left their
houses, but the sun rose as they were on their way. Or Mary Magdalene may have
left before the others and arrived first. "Dawn" and
"sunrise" in Matthew and Mark may refer to the time of morning when
the eastern sky is beginning to get light, but before any of the disk of the
sun is above the horizon. This can still be called "dark." What is
important is that all four Gospel writers agree that this was the first day of
the week.
Nevertheless,
Armstrong makes the following statement: "Jesus was already resurrected from the dead and had already risen from the grave by sunrise
Sunday morning! Of course he was. The
resurrected Jesus rose from the grave the previous evening!"24 True, Matthew 28:5-6,
Mark 16:6, and Luke 24:6 tell us that Jesus was already risen when the women
arrived. But must this mean that He rose on Saturday evening? Absolutely not!
Armstrong read more into these scriptures than is there.
Jesus need
only have risen moments before the women arrived, which would still be the morning
of the first day of the week. Jesus died on the cross and was buried on Friday
and rose from the dead on Sunday, the third day. This is supported by the
weight of biblical evidence.
Some Additional Scriptures
Herbert
Armstrong also mentions Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen early the
first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had
cast seven devils." While Armstrong tries to make this verse sound like
support for his argument, it is not.25 It is either support for a Sunday resurrection or it is
neutral. Does "early the first day of the week" refer to Jesus'
resurrection or to when he appeared to Mary Magdalene? This uncertainty makes
this verse of little use in this discussion.
The next
scripture Armstrong examines is Luke 24:21.26
This occurred on the road to Emmaus on the "same
day" (verse 13), Sunday. Two disciples were walking along the road when
Jesus came up to them. Because of divine intervention, they were unable to
recognize Him (verses 13-16). Jesus asked them what they were discussing (verse
17). One asked Him whether He was a stranger to Jerusalem who did not know
about the things that had happened (verse 18). Jesus asked, "What things?"
(verse 19).
"And
they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in
deed and word before God and all the people: and how the chief priests and our
rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we
trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all
this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain
women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the
sepulchre."
—verses
19-22—
In the Armstrong’s
scenario, Sunday would be the fourth day since Jesus' crucifixion and burial.
But these disciples call Sunday " third day since these things were
done." To get around this, Armstrong reasons that the "third day
since these things were done" the disciples referred to included "the
setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb the following day."27 This is a forced
explanation. These disciples never mentioned "the setting of the seal and
the watch over the tomb the following day." They ended their relating of the events with their account of
Jesus' crucifixion.
Why would
they even have said, "and beside all this, to day is the third day since
these things were done."?
"The third day" held some significance for them. Why? As The
NIV Study Bible explains, this was, "A reference either to the
Jewish belief that after the third day the soul left the body or to Jesus'
remark that he would be resurrected on the third day (9:22)."28 I think the latter is the more likely,
but either of these would mean that the disciples meant that Sunday was the
third day since Jesus' death on the cross.
Further Appeals
On page 6 of
The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday
we read, "It is the so-called apostolic fathers, steeped in traditions,
who first began to teach that the crucifixion occurred on Friday. Yet they
admitted that the ancient custom of fasting on Wednesday—the actual day of the
crucifixion, as we have seen [i.e. as Hoeh and Armstrong have unsuccessfully
tried to demonstrate]—was derived from 'the day on which Jesus was betrayed'
and 'on which the Sanhedrin decided to kill him' (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
‘Fasting’)!" But is the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
referring to the day (evening to evening) on which Jesus was arrested and
crucified? Absolutely not.
This is what
the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge states in the article cited by Hoeh: "Fasting was
based in principle upon the suffering of Christ. The commemoration of the death
of Jesus on Friday seems to be very old, and it is possible that from the
beginning (cf. Mark ii. 20), as the resurrection of Jesus was commemorated
every Sunday, so was his death every Friday."29
So the crucifixion of Jesus was observed by a fast on Friday, not Wednesday.
Continuing
where we left off with Schaff-Herzog:
"For the observance of Wednesday it was not so easy to find such a motive;
and the various artificial derivations of the usage from the history of the
Passion, designating it as the day on which Jesus was betrayed, or on which the
Sanhedrin decided to kill him, are obviously later justifications of the choice
of a day."30
The reference
in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge to "the day on which Jesus was betrayed, or
on which the Sanhedrin decided to kill him" cannot mean the day (24 hours
from evening to evening) during which Jesus was arrested and crucified. That 24-hour
period was commemorated with a fast on Friday. What, then, is meant by
"the day on which Jesus was betrayed, or on which the Sanhedrin decided to
kill him"?
Paul called
the night on which Jesus was arrested "the night he was betrayed" (1
Corinthians 11:23). If we ignore the other evidence I have, "the day on
which Jesus was betrayed, or on which the Sanhedrin decided to kill him"
would seem to be the same day Paul referred to. But there is another
explanation, one that perfectly fits with a Friday crucifixion.
All four
Gospel writers make it clear that the Sanhedrin did not truly decide to kill
Jesus after he was arrested. The decision in Matthew 27:1 was only a
formalization of a decision they had already made. One decision was made over a
week before Jesus was crucified. It is found in John 11:45-53. But another
decision—a decision that involved Judas—was reached some days later. This
decision was two days before Jesus' arrest. Matthew 26:1-5, 14-16 reads:
And
it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his
disciples, Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the
Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. Then assembled together the chief
priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the
high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and
consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said,
Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.... Then one of
the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said unto
them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they
covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought
opportunity to betray him.
So on this
day—two days before Jesus' was arrested—we find a decision to kill Jesus and
the beginnings of Judas' betrayal. Notice that although John says Satan entered
Judas on the night Jesus was arrested (“And after the sop Satan entered into
him”—John 13:27), Luke says Satan first entered Judas on the day Judas first
went to the Jewish leaders (“Then entered Satan into Judas”—Luke 22:3, see
context). Matthew tells us this was two days before Jesus was arrested (see
also Mark 14:1-2, 10-11).
Jesus was
arrested late Thursday night or very early Friday morning, long before dawn.
Two days before this was Tuesday night or very early Wednesday morning. There
is no need to be extremely precise about this because, for Jews, the days were
from evening to evening. The period between Tuesday evening and Wednesday
morning would be considered part of the same day. Sometime during the Tuesday
evening to Wednesday morning portion of this day, the Jewish leaders met to
discuss ways to arrest and kill Jesus and Judas began his betrayal of Jesus by
giving the Jews the means they needed to carry out their decision. Because the
daylight portion of this day occurred on Wednesday, it would be natural for the
church, decades and even centuries later, to observe this day by fasting on
Wednesday. It was not the night of Jesus' arrest that the church observed with
its Wednesday fast, but the day of His original betrayal that occurred two days
earlier.
In his
attempt to convince his readers of his position, the Worldwide Church of God’s
Herman Hoeh appeals to the bogus Gospel of Peter. He quotes this work as saying
that after Jesus' crucifixion "we [supposedly Peter and the other
apostles] fasted and sat mourning night and day until the Sabbath."31 Of this, Hoeh comments,
"Between the crucifixion and the Sabbath, the disciples and Peter are said
to have fasted 'night and day until the Sabbath.' This alone is a candid admission that the crucifixion was not on
Good Friday! You can't fit 'night and day' between Friday afternoon and Friday
sunset!"32 But the Gospel of Peter cannot be taken as
authoritative! Such a contradiction as this is typical of spurious works.
The Gospel
of Peter was written in Syria in the middle to late second century and falsely
attributed to Peter.33 As early as 190,34
Serapion of Antioch wrote a pamphlet called The So-called Gospel of Peter. "This
he wrote," records Eusebius, "to refute the lies in that document,
which had induced some members of the Christian community at Rhossus to go
astray into heterodox teachings."35 In the introduction to his 1924 translation of the Gospel
of Peter, M. R. James writes, “It is not wholly orthodox: for it throws doubt
on the reality of the Lord's sufferings, and by consequence upon the reality of
his human body. In other words it is, as Serapion of Antioch indicated, of a
Docetic character.” The mention of "night and day until the Sabbath"
in the Gospel of Peter can be dismissed as being part of a carelessly written
fabrication.
The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday also refers to a scholar who says that references in
the Didascalia Apostolorum (a
work written in northern Syria in the third century that falsely attributes its
authorship to the 12 apostles36) and in the writings of Epiphanius of Constantia and
Victorinus of Pettau support a Tuesday night Passover and the arrest of Jesus
on Wednesday morning.37 But, since Hoeh does not say what in these documents
supports this position, there is no reason to give this serious consideration,
especially in light of the biblical evidence I have presented that supports a
Thursday night arrest and Friday crucifixion. Interestingly, a page on a Roman
Catholic website (Eternal Word Television Network, Global Catholic Network)
titled “The Obligation to Attend Mass on Sundays,” after saying that the
celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday stems from the celebration of Jesus’
resurrection on that day, quotes the
Didascalia Apostolorum as saying, “teach the faithful and exhort
them to be present at Sunday Mass.” This hardly supports Hoeh’s or Armstrong’s
position!
Hoeh also
appeals to the Hebrew calendar to find the dates of the Passover during the
years of Jesus' ministry.38 In doing so, it gives a list of the Passover dates for the
years A.D. 27-33 "verified by works on the 'Jewish calendar'—actually
God's sacred calendar—correct according to computation preserved since the days
of Moses!"39 This
claim is highly questionable. Scholars often debate over the dates for the
Passover during those years showing that the only thing certain about them is
that they are uncertain.
John L.
McKenzie, writing on this topic, says it is an assumption "that the Jewish
calendar was regulated with astronomical precision. It appears certain that it
was not."40 This
being so, Hoeh's argument on this point falls apart.
Hoeh also
claims that John 9:14 falls on a weekly Sabbath that also happened to be the
eighth day (Last Great Day) of Jesus' last Feast of Tabernacles before His
crucifixion. This, says Hoeh, pinpoints the year of Jesus' crucifixion. But
again, this conclusion depends on knowing for certain the Hebrew calendar for
those years. Since we do not have that knowledge, this claim also holds no
weight.41
The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday also attempts to prove that Jesus was crucified on
Wednesday, April 25, A.D. 31, by constructing an extremely shaky house of cards
consisting of his personal understandings of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-26,
the use of "about thirty" in Luke 3:23, the year of Herod's death,
when the wise men arrived, the reign of Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was
governor, and the length of Jesus' ministry as determined by Daniel 9:27 and
the number of Passovers in Jesus' ministry.42
Hoeh presents his conclusions concerning these points as
absolute, indisputable fact. But this is far from the truth. Bible scholars
have debated these points for centuries and the conclusions of most scholars
differ from Hoeh’s. These scholars also use additional points in trying to determine
the dates of Jesus' birth and death, points that The Crucifixion Was Not on Friday does not even mention.43
Most
importantly, it is extremely reckless and unwise for Hoeh and other followers
of Armstrong to stake the legitimacy of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah on
debatable historical dates and dubious interpretations of prophecy. God never
intended that we must correctly interpret such evidence before we can believe
for sure that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and our Savior!
The Sign of the Prophet Jonah
As I have
shown, writers for the Armstrong-era Worldwide Church of God believed that the
"sign of the prophet Jonah" was the precise amount of time Jesus was
in the tomb—72 hours. But these writers apparently never stopped to think of
one crucial fact. No one ever witnessed the precise time of Jesus'
resurrection. How could the precise time of Jesus' resurrection be a sign to
that generation of Jews if no one was there to record that time? The Jews of
that generation would abide by Deuteronomy 19:15 which says, "A matter
must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Without those witnesses, the precise time of
Jesus' resurrection could not be a sign to that generation of Jews.
Something
else to consider is found in Luke 11:29-30:
"And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say,
This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given
it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites,
so shall also the Son of man be to this generation." Although Luke quotes
Jesus as referring to the “sign of Jonas," or sign of Jonah, and as saying
"for as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites," He never mentions the
"three days and three nights." This omission is excellent evidence
that the precise amount of time Jonah was in the fish is not essential to the
sign of Jonah. As I will shortly explain, the precise time Jonah was in the
fish could not possibly have been a sign to the Ninevites.
A sign requires
witnesses. Although no one witnessed the moment of Jesus' resurrection, there
were witnesses to something else. After His resurrection, Jesus explained what
these people were witnesses to:
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the
scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning
at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things" (Luke 24:45-48).
Numerous scriptures confirm that the apostles were witnesses that Jesus died
and was resurrected. This is what is important, not some precise moment of
time.
Notice also
that part of what the apostles were witnesses to was that repentance and
forgiveness of sins was to be preached in Jesus' name to all nations—the
Gentiles. They did not comprehend this when Jesus spoke to them in Luke 24.
Jesus got them to understand it later. Read Acts 10 and see how central is the
preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles by those whom God chose to be witnesses
of Jesus' resurrection.
What does
this have to do with the sign of the prophet Jonah? Let's turn back to Matthew 12. The sign of the prophet Jonah
needs to be seen in its full context. Verses 38-41 state:
Then
certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would
see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three
nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment
with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the
preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Jesus goes
on to make a similar comparison with the Queen of the South, but it is the men
of Nineveh that I would like to focus on. Nineveh is the Gentile city to which
God sent Jonah. He wanted Jonah to preach repentance to the Ninevites so they
could be physically saved from destruction. This can be seen as typical of the
spiritual salvation that would one day be offered to the Gentiles.
Jonah did
not want to preach repentance to the Gentiles. He tried to flee from the
responsibility God gave him. This brought God's wrath, in the form of a storm,
upon the ship in which he was traveling. Jonah offered himself to be sacrificed.
As soon as he was thrown into his watery "grave," the storm ended.
Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and was inside his "tomb" for a
period of time idiomatically expressed as "three days and three
nights." Under normal circumstances, Jonah would have died. But God
delivered him alive from his "tomb."
Jonah then preached a message of repentance to the Ninevites, the
Ninevites repented and they were saved alive.
What was the
sign of the prophet Jonah? Being delivered from the grave after about three
days was part of it. But there was more. The "sign of the prophet
Jonah" included the preaching of salvation to the Gentiles. That is why
Jesus said the men of Nineveh would judge His generation. The Gentiles of
Nineveh repented, but on the whole the Jews of Jesus' generation did not.
This is what
the Encyclopaedia Judaica says:
"Jonah is regarded in Christianity as the proof of the capacity of the
gentiles for salvation and the design of God to make them partake of it. This
is the 'sign of Jonas'."44 While no one witnessed the precise time of
Jesus' resurrection, many witnessed the fact of Jesus' resurrection. And—as the
Book of Acts testifies—the preaching of salvation to the Gentiles was known to
the Jewish leaders and was therefore a witness to them.
It is this
point concerning the nature of the sign of the prophet Jonah that makes this
subject so important. Of its belief that "the sign of the prophet
Jonah" was Christ's being in the tomb for a literal three days and three
nights, Herman Hoeh writes, "If Jesus did not fulfill that sign [being in
the tomb for 72 hours], then he was an impostor and you are without a
Savior!"45
To this, I
reply, Speak for yourself. Hoeh and other followers of Armstrong ought to be
ashamed of themselves for such blasphemy, which has now been used by scoffers
to try to debunk Christianity! Notice the following from an Islamic website:
The Armstrong family has debunked the whole Christian
world. They seem to know their
arithmetic! Mr. Robert Fahey of the
"Plain Truth" magazine, delivered a lecture recently at the
"Holiday Inn", Durban, where I was present. Mr. Fahey attempted to prove to his Christian audience that Jesus
Christ was crucified on a Wednesday and not on Friday, as is supposed by
Orthodox Christianity for the past two thousand years. According to him if one counts backwards
from Sunday morning deducting 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS, one ought to get WEDNESDAY as
the answer….
The question arises, who deceived the millions of Christians
for the past TWO THOUSAND years. GOD or the DEVIL? Mr. Fahey categorically answered: "THE DEVIL!"
"If the devil", I said, "can succeed in
confusing the Christians in the most elementary things of their Faith, whether
to celebrate a Good Friday or a Good Wednesday, then how much easier for him to
mislead Christians in other things concerning God?" Mr. Fahey blushed and walked away.
If this is the belief of the trend-setters of the Christian
Faith in the world today, may we not then ask: is this not the mightiest hoax
in history?46
But as we
have now seen, it is the followers of Herbert Armstrong who are promoting a
hoax. Instead of a miserly counting of days and hours to a specific time that
no one even witnessed, the sign of the prophet Jonah was the truth of Jesus'
resurrection from the dead that has resulted in the repentance and salvation of
millions of people—Jews and Gentiles alike. Now that is a miraculous sign!
Jesus fulfilled it, He is our Savior, and, from their own words, you and I
should know who the impostors are.
Armstrongism
Articles Index Page
Notes
1. Herbert W. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not on Sunday (Pasadena, CA: Worldwide Church of
God, 1988), no version number given, December 1989 printing. Return
2. Herman L. Hoeh, The
Crucifixion Was Not on Friday (Pasadena, CA: Worldwide Church of
God, 1979), version 1.1, May 1991 printing. Return
3. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not on Sunday, p. 2. Return
4. Ibid., p. 3. Return
5. Ibid., pp. 2-3. Return
6. Ibid., p. 8. Return
7. As quoted by H. L. Ellison in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), p. 375.
Ellison credits the quote to j Shabbath
9.12a. Return
8. R. T. France, Matthew,
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1985), p. 213. Return
9. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not on Sunday, p. 3. Return
10. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. X (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 398. Return
11. George L. Robinson, The
Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p.
79. Return
12. Ellison, The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 375. Return
13. Hoeh, The Crucifixion
Was Not on Friday, p. 4. Return
14. Ibid. Return
15. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not on Sunday, pp. 3-4. Return
16. "The Passover was expanded to mean the entire feast
that followed, and vice versa." A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1950), p. 280. Return
17. Herbert W. Armstrong, Pagan
Holidays or God's Holy Days--Which? (Pasadena, CA: Worldwide Church of God, Chapters 1-4 1986; Chapter 5
1982; Chapter 6 1974), version 1.0, August 1989 printing. [Herbert W. Armstrong wrote chapters 1-4 and
6, L. Leroy Neff wrote chapter 5.] p. 9. Return
18. Stavrinides, "The Passover of the Exodus," p
2. Stavrinides, "Christ and the Passover," p. 5. Reviews You Can Use, May-June 1990. Return
19. Robertson, A Harmony
of the Gospels, p. 282. Return
20. Ibid., p. 283. Return
21. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not on Sunday, p. 7. Return
22. Abraham E. Millgram, Jewish
Worship (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1971), p. 224. Return
23. Although it is not certain, it appears likely that, as
is found in some King James Version margins and explained in a note on Matthew
28:2 in The NIV Study Bible (p.
1489), the events in Matthew 28:2-4 occurred before the women arrived at the
tomb. "There was" might better be rendered "Now there had
been." Return
24. Armstrong, The
Resurrection Was Not On Sunday, p. 8. Return
25. Ibid. Return
26. Ibid. Return
27. Ibid. Return
28. The NIV Study Bible
in a note on Luke 24:21, p. 1589. Return
29. Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
Vol. IV (Grand Rapis, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), s.v. "fasting." Return
30. Ibid. Return
31. Hoeh, The Crucifixion
Was Not on Friday, p. 6. Return
32. Ibid., p. 7. Return
33. New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. II (San Francisco: The Catholic University of
America, 1967), s.v. "gospels of the apostles." Return
34. Ibid. Return
35. Eusebius, The History
of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson
(London: Penguin Books, 1988), pp. 251-252. Return
36. New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, s.v. "Didascalia Apostolorum." Return
37. Hoeh, The Crucifixion
Was Not on Friday, p. 6. Return
38. Ibid., pp. 8-9. Return
39. Ibid., p. 9. Return
40. John L. McKenzie, Dictionary
of the Bible (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965),
s.v. "passion." Return
41. Hoeh, The Crucifixion
Was Not on Friday, p. 23. Return
42. Ibid., pp. 10-17. Return
43. Such as the building of the temple of Herod and the
census of Augustus Caesar. Return
44. Encyclopaedia
Judaica, Vol. 10, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd.,
1972), s.v. "Book of Jonah," column 174. Return
45. Hoeh, The Crucifixion
Was Not on Friday, p. 1. Return
46. Ahmed Deedat, “What Was the Sign of Jonah?”, http://www.islamworld.net/jonah.html.
Deedat also makes the claim that because Jonah was alive in the belly of the
great fish but Jesus was dead in the grave, Jesus failed to fulfill the sign of
Jonah. But, of course, Jonah was merely a type of Jesus as Savior, and as a
type, there was no need for Jonah to die. His being in the belly of the fish
merely pictured Jesus’ death and burial. Jesus, on the other hand, had to die
for the sins of His people. Return
Armstrongism
Articles Index Page
Copyright © 1993,
2001 Peter Ditzel