CHILDBIRTH WITHOUT FEAR
by Grantly Dick-Read M.D.
From the 5th edition (revised and edited)
CHAPTER 9
The Influence of Memory
Is it unreasonable that we should pause to consider the mental
picture of labor within the mind of a woman? Is it not essential
that we should create by education and instruction the true and
natural happiness of motherhood within the vision of her mind?
The mental picture of her anticipated experience should be the
image of all that is beautiful in the fulfillment of her love.
For the body is only a vehicle in which and from which a child is
miraculously made and produced. It is the mind of woman that
knows passion and desires the fulfillment of her biological
purpose. It is the mind-its receptivity and its ability to
integrate the fund of new thoughts and feeling that are the
physiological visitations of love and pregnancy-that molds and
fashions the child. It is the mind that bears the spiritual
imprint of the newborn child and around it writes indelibly the
mysterious circumscription of love.
Francis Galton wrote much on the importance of the mind that has
been overlooked in the modern teaching of medicine.' His
investigations emphasize the vividness with which images, based
upon thought and association, can be reproduced in the mind.
Sights, sounds, and associations, real and imaginary, imprint
themselves upon the human mind to mold and influence its
reactions.
As Pavlov points out in his important work on conditioned
reflexes, the things that give the greatest pleasure will become
conditioned causes of acute fear and hatred if continually
offered with a terrifying accompaniment.' Both objective and
subjective associations can condition stimuli that provoke fear
reactions to labor. I know single women who, their natural
longing for a child obliterated from their minds, shudder when
childbirth is mentioned. Associations of pain and mental pictures
of agony and death have become conditioned stimuli for such fear
and abhorrence that these women seek permanent refuge in
virginity and spinsterhood. There are some women who have had one
baby who have been known to refuse all marital relations forever
after for fear they should have to experience labor again. Even
love for the child cannot override the fear and pain that its
arrival occasioned. What devastation to homes, husbands, and
children one ill-conducted labor can bring!
Owing to the nature of Pavlov's experiments, the concept of the
conditioned reflex is often associated only with salivating dogs,
meat, and bells. But earlier writings, such as Galton's in 1883,
made it apparent that the recurrent stimulus frequently arises
within the mind. The memory, or even the visualization, of an
incident may surround a natural and physiological function with
an aura of pain or pleasure so vivid that normal reflexes are
disturbed. Just as a colored light will produce defense reactions
of pain in a dog who was hurt when the light appeared, so will
the words "baby," "childbirth," "labor," or even "motherhood"
produce emotional states and their physical manifestations in
women who suffered in parturition, and every act that leads, in a
normal sequence of events, to the association of painful
childbirth will give impetus to the primitive instinct to escape.
Fear of childbirth, then, becomes the great disturber of the
neuromuscular harmony of labor. I do not wish it to be inferred
that childbirth should be looked upon as a mental process. But
obviously the mechanical efficiency of this function not only
depends upon the structures and forces of the body but upon
emotional stimuli, and upon the integrity of the influences to
which the emotions are subjected.
NEGATIVE INFLUENCES
Many young women from the age of puberty and even before have
inquiring minds, particularly in relation to childbirth. Few hear
much that is encouraging from those of their own age, but since
the temptation to seek information is not curbed, again and
again, drawn as if by sirens, they satiate their greed for
knowledge by listening to voices that capture the imagination but
utterly distort or destroy the truth.
The facts of childbirth may be withheld by the mother, the
logical source, for the mother may have had such unpleasant
experiences herself that she has no wish to communicate them to
the daughter, who she believes will also suffer in childbirth.
If, in a moment of confidence, she gives any information to her
daughter, it is more likely to be fear producing than a stimulus
to pleasant anticipation. Thus the influence of too many mothers
upon their daughters, either through the subtlety of their
information or through the mystery of their silence, is a serious
factor in producing a feeling of fear in regard to childbirth.
We must remember, also, the influence of the friends of a woman
about to have a baby. Wherever women are gathered together and
the subject of childbirth arises, someone may remark that
childbirth is a kind of martyrdom, the suffering during which,
though probably best forgotten, is satisfactorily recalled with
obvious pride. Here it must not be overlooked that those who have
suffered are justified in believing in suffering. There is no
blame to be laid upon those who are honest in their opinions;
neither was it their fault if they suffered. This does not,
however, mitigate in any way the crime of their propaganda, for
to produce alarm can never assist in the accomplishment of a
task, however unimportant.
The influence of husbands is another potential source of anxiety
concerning childbirth, if the husband has formed his opinions
upon hearsay. His ignorance leads to an understandable anxiety
over the welfare of his wife. Unfortunately, he communicates his
anxiety to her.
Apart from the more intimate sources of information about
childbirth, women cannot escape the influence of the general
trend of public and popular opinion. Constantly in contact with
the mod ern foundations of both education and amusement, they
read books, study papers, listen to radio and television
broadcasts, and see motion pictures. In far too many of these the
same atmosphere is found: childbirth is an ordeal, essentially
painful and dangerous to the life of the mother.
If the dramatist finds it necessary to increase the interest of
the story by describing the events that occurred when one of the
chief characters gave birth to a child, the incident is often
fraught with poignancy and tension, drama, suffering, and
possibly death. As a student of human nature, the dramatist well
knows that nothing is more likely to gain the attention of the
reader. Do we often read of a normal character experiencing any
happiness in childbirth, or see such a presentation on the
screen? Similarly, the tense anxiety of the husband gives the
author or producer a wonderful opportunity for drama.
Fortunately, this is sometimes so exaggerated as to become
laughable.
The daily papers are also printed in order to attract readers.
The story of a straightforward birth is not news, unless it
occurs in a taxicab or a telephone booth, but the story of a
mother's death when a child is born is almost worthy of
headlines.
CULTURE VS. NATURAL LAW
I have chosen the term "indigenous" below in reference to woman
in her original condition, as opposed to "cultured" or
"civilized." It is obvious that such a term requires explanation.
I am using it to convey the idea of first or original, primary;
that is, women whose tribal lives and traditional limitations of
experience have not been affected by medieval and/or
twentieth-century culture, compared to the "cultured" woman of
today. There is very little evidence that modern woman is in any
way less fitted to produce children painlessly than the woman
without the influence of Western culture and civilization.
Woman, indigenous or cultured, has before her no evidence
suggesting that nature ever intended pregnancy to be an illness.
The indigenous woman continues her work-in the harvest field, on
trek, in the rubber plantation, or wherever she may be employed.
The child develops while she herself lives a full and natural
existence. Muscularly strong, physiologically efficient, her
mechanism carries out its normal functions without discomfort,
difficulty, or shame. The child then is born easily, small and
firm fleshed. Among cultured women we see this too-the athletic
young woman who continues her active life, who plays golf to the
seventh month, who walks three or four miles a day to the full
term of her pregnancy, who eats sensible food in a sensible way,
who is not diverted from her normal routine by those who try to
advertise special care, rest, diets, and enormous quantities of
milk.
Such exaggerated concern is an offense against nature; it is a
presumption that natural methods require unnatural fortification,
and to those of us who believe in nature it is little short of
inducing a pathological state into a very perfect physiological
function.
Whichever of the many definitions of culture is adopted, one
thing is certain, that culture is dependent primarily upon the
activity of the mind. The greater the education, the more
"cultured" the type. But, unquestionably, we have very largely
lost many of the higher sensibilities that in the original state
were essential to our personal survival. One has only to spend a
few weeks with those who depend upon their wits for the supply of
their food from natural surroundings to appreciate how soon we
should die out if once again we were bereft of cultural
attributes and were called upon to return to the original state!
From this the question naturally follows: To what extent can the
influences of culture have affected those functions that remain
with us as natural physical functions, childbirth in particular?
The mind has developed, and the enormous fund of stimulus that
passes from the consciousness to the autonomic nervous system has
to meet new conditions. The lives of the cultured have gradually
changed as Western civilization has developed. With repression,
emotions of varying intensity have found new means of expression.
The physician of today looks to the emotions and sentiments of
his patients when endeavoring to find the original cause for many
of their physical complaints, practicing "psychosomatic
medicine."
Herein lies the fact of pain in childbirth. Modern woman is
physically competent; modern childbirth is physically unaltered
from earlier times, but our culture has brought to bear upon this
function neuromuscular activities caused by intensifying certain
emotions that inhibit the progress of the birth and thus create
pain. Yet there is no reason why culture should be allowed to
destroy all that is beautiful in the primitive. True culture
should enhance original beauty and purify where contamination has
crept in. If childbirth among indigenous people unaffected by
Western culture still persists today as a relatively painless
procedure, it is indeed a slur upon our utilization of culture
that the most dramatic, the most beautiful, and the most
essential of natural functions should be made unpleasant for so
many.
A woman may be conscious of uterine contractions for hours, but
have no discomfort until she is told she is in labor. This verbal
stimulus to her mental expectation alerts her attention and
anxiety. Although she may appear to be quite calm, a woman in
labor has an inborn alertness to danger, and evidence of anxiety,
however courageously suppressed, will forewarn her attendants of
the special care she may need. In anxiety, the heart beats
strongly and often rapidly, breathing is quicker and sometimes
irregular, and is interspersed with a series of deep, sighing
respirations. The nostrils may be widely dilated to facilitate
the intake of air, and not infrequently the mouth is slightly
open for the same reason.
If women are to be taught to anticipate childbirth with relaxed
confidence, it is necessary to eliminate the tension that gives
rise to pain by removing the causes for fear. Those who seek to
follow as closely as possible the natural law of childbirth
should do everything possible to allay a young woman's anxieties
and give her confidence by simple and truthful reiteration of the
facts of natural childbirth.
HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES
If we survey the history of childbirth in European civilization,
we discover that suffering is often presumed, the minds of both
men and women being conditioned to the idea of suffering as
essential to childbirth. Since it is expected, it is thus caused
and aggravated. For generations the necessity of pain has been
accepted as a fact, even though the motivation for earlier
stories and dramas may have been to concentrate on the negative
in order to attract an audience, just as in our day.
ANCIENT PRACTICES AND PAGAN RELIGIONS
At the time of Hippocrates, four or five hundred years before
Christ, we read of a different outlook. Even prior to his day,
three thousand years before Christ, the priests among the
Egyptians were called to assist women in labor. In many societies
witchcraft was resorted to, often very successfully due to the
power of suggestion, and old writings suggest that herbs and
potions were used to help a woman give birth easily. In fact, it
may be said with some accuracy that among the most primitive
people of whom any record exists, help was given to women in
labor according to the customs of the time.
Hippocrates lived from 460 to 355 B.C. His aphorisms should be
read by every medical man. It was he who realized that "our
natures are the physicians of our diseases"; it was he who
recognized in the routine care of human ailments that prevention
was more important than cure. He emphasized that the daily
discipline of a healthy person was to include diet, exercise, and
fresh air. All the simple things of life to correct an illness
were to be used before medicines, and last of all came surgery.
It may seem strange to some of us that these things were written
so long ago!
Today in the United States, England, and many other countries,
everyone who qualifies to be a doctor has to take the Hippocratic
Oath, an oath of allegiance to our science. This oath is a
magnificent concept, to which one who is accorded the privilege
of attending patients should adhere, for it stands as fresh and
noble as ever. It says in part:
I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients
according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to
anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor
give advice which may cause his death.... If I keep this
oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art,
respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from
it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Unfortunately, even today in my professional career, I have often
seen only lip service paid to this oath and its tenets ignored.
Yet it is upon the Hippocratic teaching that all modern medicine
is based. If the principles of Hippocrates were reenacted today
in all their simplicity and wisdom, they would undoubtedly alter
the whole tone and tenor of our lives. Hippocrates made stern
demands upon his pupils, but he always practiced what he
preached.
There is no authority but fact, Hippocrates taught, and
deductions are to be made only from facts. Since observation,
common sense, and clear reasoning are not compatible with the
speculative practice of medicine, a physician should be persuaded
by no influence that cannot be justified by accurate observation.
True science begets knowledge, but opinion, ignorance.
Hippocrates' teaching was largely based upon the laws of nature
as they were understood in his time, that is, exploring the
secrets of life, its origin, its maintenance, and its
reproduction. He endeavored to organize and instruct midwives. He
found no place for fear in childbirth except in the presence of
abnormality, which may or may not have been caused by a faulty
regimen in the life of the individual. Such confidence was placed
in the ability of the natural law to carry out the work of
reproduction that one statement was frequently impressed upon the
students and doctors of that time: "We must refrain from
meddlesome interference!" A statement particularly applicable to
the care of women in childbirth. Indeed, it is important for us
to realize that there is nothing new in the concept of natural
childbirth. It is but a revitalizing and uncovering of that which
conforms to the laws of nature.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) went further, and in some of his
writings we find accurate and very desirable observations upon
childbirth. He was probably the first man who ever urged care of
the mind for a woman having a baby. A great naturalist, he was
the first investigator of the development of the chick within the
egg. Followed by Aristotle and other great scientists, the
Hippocratic and Grecian school of medicine held sway until after
Soranus of Ephesus, who, living at the end of the first and the
beginning of the second century after Christ, continued the
emphasis upon the high level and humane principles of Grecian
obstetrics. Writing a famous treatise on obstetrics in about A.D.
79, Soranus was quite possibly the greatest of all the ancient
obstetric clinicians, and must be regarded as their leading
authority upon childbirth and pediatrics. He denied the truth of
certain superstitions about childbirth, and he stressed
consideration of the feelings of the woman herself. He makes no
mention of fear, and did not expect it to occur unless some
abnormality disrupted the healthy function. His writings, as true
today as nineteen hundred years ago, were collected by monks and,
buried in the cellars of great monasteries, were soon forgotten,
not to be rediscovered for many centuries.
Pain in childbirth has been recognized as far back as we can go
in the history of man, but only in the presence of something
contrary to the natural or physiological law, which then gives
rise to fear. Fear is an emotion that, emerging from the
primitive instinct of survival, is the natural protective agent
prompting the individual to escape from danger.
There seems to be little doubt but that the unnatural,
pathological, and destructive condition of fear in childbirth is
found more intensely and frequently in the European civilization
than in any other. Those of us who have traveled among groups who
have not yet come into contact with European civilization have
found that the presence of fear of childbirth affects only a
small percentage of the population, confirming what we have read
in the ancient writings, and those who do suffer from fear almost
invariably have a reasonable cause.
The general tendency is to pass quickly from the discussion of
fear to that of pain. But the origins of fear are important,
because the association between fear and pain is very close. Thus
it is necessary to draw attention to the influences of
superstitions and religious customs, and all those things which
pertain to ethical conduct and beliefs among various peoples.
Fear produced by religious beliefs becomes an offense to the
mental or physical integrity of childbirth. Unnecessary fear is a
pathological condition.
Pagan religions demand an absolute belief in an outside
controlling influence over the events of one's life. That control
is exercised, directly or indirectly, by one's ancestors. All
goes well with the individual, so long as he obeys the rules and
does not offend his or her ancestors. It is the woman who
carries, hidden in her mind, the knowledge of her disobedience of
this law who becomes depressed and filled with fear during labor.
She is anxious not only for her own life but also for the life
and fitness of the child. Pain and suffering in childbirth then
becomes the corollary to "the wages of sin is death," an idea
common to all ethical teachings and religions. Thus if a dead or
abnormal child is born, it is considered the reward of sin and
disobedience of the law.
We found that some tribes in Africa go to extraordinary lengths
to appease the wrath of their forefathers or their gods. When
trouble arises in labor, as it surely does in the presence of
this sin-born fear, free confession overcomes the trouble of a
delayed or prolonged labor. This form of pain relief in difficult
labor is well recognized among many tribes. In the Congo we
obtained first-hand evidence of the curative influence of
confession as a means of palliating the angry ancestors or gods
during labor; in the absence of abnormality, the baby was usually
born soon after confession. Thus the ethical beliefs of an
individual, and the consciousness of sin or disobedience in
respect to these beliefs, do influence the course of labor,
through the emotions.
THE MIDDLE AGES
It was about three hundred years after Christ that a big change
in attitudes came about in Western civilization, due to a
distortion of earlier Judeo-Christian teachings. It is generally
accepted that the institutionalized Christian Church during this
period, more than any other influence in the last two thousand
years, retarded the progress of medicine and medical science. One
of the principles of Christ's teachings is that we should visit
the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and heal the
sick. But the priests of this middle period -interpreting any
efforts on the part of man to heal the sick as being
presumptuous, placing oneself on an equal with, or even
preeminent over, the God of Christians - went back to pagan
practices, where prayer and fastings were the total remedies. If
medicines or potions were used at all, they came from the
monasteries through the Church, and it was the special
prerogative of the priests to prescribe and distribute them. To
study and believe in the laws of nature became an offense against
the authority of the Church, and all books on medicine that had
been written, including those of Soranus, were seized and buried
beneath the monasteries. When the Roman Empire fell, all medicine
reverted to the lore of superstitions, legends, salves,
poultices, and talismen. The sick were no longer healed; they
either lived or died.
With this as background, it is no wonder that the rites of
paganism were relatively simple, pleasing, and acceptable when
compared to some of the horrors to which women in medieval times
were subjected, owing to the ignorance of those who were entitled
to look after them in childbirth. During the thousand years up to
1520, the responsibility for childbirth was entirely usurped by
the Church. No man was allowed to attend a woman in labor unless
he was a shepherd or a man who looked after animals in sickness.
Childbirth was considered the result of carnal sin, to be
expiated by suffering in giving birth. Should the woman have
trouble during labor, the Church, according to its ethics,
demanded a live baby, whatever might happen to the woman in
question. In fact, if a woman was dying it was not unusual for
the baby to be taken from her through the wall of the abdomen,
for which purpose men accustomed to castrating animals, usually
hog-gelders, were employed.
THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES
It was not until 1513 that a German, Eucharius Roesslin,
discovered the hidden writings of Soranus and others. He wrote
the first obstetric book in nearly fifteen hundred years,
gleaning his manu script from the works of those ancient, astute
physicians, profound philosophers, and most accurate clinical
observers the world has ever known.
The book of Eucharius Roesslin stood as a monument upon the high
road of the development of care in childbirth. Nine years after
its publication a doctor in Hamburg, thinking that too little was
known about childbirth except through books, decided to observe
the birth of a baby. Since no man was allowed to attend a woman
in childbirth and the law was extremely rigid, he dressed as a
midwife and joined the midwives at a birth. His observations were
invaluable.
Success in midwifery had begun to be established once more, but
then he was deceived by a personal acquaintance and reported to
the authorities. For that crime, that heresy, Dr. Weiss of
Hamburg was burned at the stake. Only four hundred years ago!
It was not until 1580 that shepherds and herdsmen were prevented
by law from attending women in labor, though physicians were
still not permitted to assist midwives. Two hundred and fifty
years ago physicians took over the work in certain cases, and
later surgeons applied their skill, but even then little
consideration was shown for the woman's feelings.
In the so-called ages of religious faith, the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries in England, if there was any difficulty in
labor it was the custom to baptize the child before it was born
so that its soul might be saved, the holy water being introduced
onto the unborn child by use of a special instrument. The fact
that the mother died still called for no remark.
The most important of all historical writings, and the most
likely to be read, is the Bible. It is still the world's
best-selling book. Many women read and study their Bibles-and
many have been influenced to believe that childbirth is a
grievous and painful experience because of passages in the King
James Version like Genesis 3:16, which quotes the Lord as having
said to Eve: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." This
passage has been known as the "curse of Eve," with its assumption
that misery, pain, and sorrow automatically accompany every
birth. Thus many still are of the opinion today that the teaching
of natural childbirth is contrary to the Bible.
Nothing could be further from the truth! For those who believe
the translators and others who compiled the various editions of
the Bible were under divine guidance no argument will be of any
avail, but if the Bible had divine inspiration, it is likely that
the writers of the original manuscripts were inspired, and not
the translators of the various editions in different languages.
Biblical scholars have carefully reexamined the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts from which much of the Bible was translated, and have
concluded that the words referring to childbirth do not signify
pain, but refer to "labor," or to "a woman in childbirth." Being
interested in this subject myself for many years, I have acquired
in my library a considerable collection of ancient Bibles, and
find that some of the translations differ from those of the great
King James Version, which was started in 1604 and completed in
1611, in the reign of James 1.
Take, for example, Isaiah 21:3. I turned this up in my copy of
the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, and find that the
words "pain" and "pangs" were not used, but "sorrow" was repeated
three times. In my copy of the Bishop's Bible, however, first
published in 1568, the words "pain" and "pangs" appear, and since
the King James Version was largely a revision of the Bishop's
Bible and not the Geneva Bible, the same terms have been repeated
by the translators.
This matter was referred to Hebrew scholars, one of whom, the
Reverend B. D. Glass, spent much time investigating this subject
and wrote to me as follows:
Quote
One thing, however, that puzzled me was why the Bible referred to
childbirth as such a painful and dangerous ordeal. That is how I
was taught, and later on taught my pupils. After studying your
book, Revelation of Childbirth,' I felt I had to search the Bible
more thoroughly to find the deeper meaning concerning expressions
about childbirth.
I was very pleased when I read the first sentence of Genesis
3:16, where the Hebrew word "etzev" which is usually translated
as sorrow and pain, has obviously been misconstrued. The words of
pain in Hebrew are "keiv" (pain) "tzaar" (sorrow) "yesurim"
(anguish).
At no time would any Hebrew scholar use the word "etzev" as an
expression of pain. The meanings of "etzev" are manyfold, i.e.,
labour (Gen. 5:29, referring to Noah: "The same shall comfort us
concerning our labour and toil of our hands").
In Proverbs 14:13, "etzev" is used as expressing labour, e.g.,
"that in all labour there is profit."
"Etzev" can also mean "concerned" or "anxious" as is mentioned in
Genesis 6:6, where the word "grieved" is not used in its proper
sense - "displeased," or "concerned" would have been more in
keeping.
In chapter 45 para. 5 although "etzev" is again translated as
"grieved," it is used in a wrong sense, "displeased" would have
suited the expression better.
Again in King 11:6, the correct translation of "etzev" is given,
namely, "displeased"--"and his father had not displeased him,"
etc.
"Etzev" has yet another meaning - that "of being perturbed," as
it is expressed in Samuel I 20:3, "Lest he be perturbed."
I find that throughout the Bible the word "etzev" is used
approximately sixteen times, and not once does it convey the
meaning of pain as we are made to believe. "Etzev" can assume
different shades of meaning, regarding the sense in which it is
used.
I think that is why the translators of the Bible in the olden
times, believing in the ordeal of pain and anguish in connection
with childbirth, translated the word "etzev" to imply such. None
of the prophets ever used this word in their expressions
regarding childbirth. They used the words "tzirim" (hinges) and
"vchavalim" (threads) which mean hinges and threads, or nerves.
Not being a medical man it is hard for me to explain these terms.
I can, however, explain "vchavalim," which means the contractions
or stretching of the muscles and fibres.
In all your quotations from the Bible, the above two words were
expressed and they do not really signify pain. It is only because
"yeloda," which means "a woman in childbirth" is always used in
conjunction with these same two words in question that the
translators added on their own behalf these words as meaning
"pain and travail."
End Quote
If we put ourselves in the place of those brilliant classical
scholars of the time of James I, from A.D. 1604 to 1611, the
years occupied by them in completing this translation, we can see
why their negative thoughts on childbirth were expressed in their
translations. They used the word "pain" because they had no
reason to believe any other term was applicable. During this era,
obstetrics was at a low ebb. Anesthetics and antiseptics were not
discovered until two hundred fifty years later. The first English
book on midwifery had been published only fifty years earlier,
and although several manuscripts appeared, mainly for private
circulation, they demonstrated little advance upon the works of
Soranus, who flourished in second century A.D. Women died in
large numbers in maternity hospitals, and the appalling
conditions of the Hotel de Dieu in Paris due to epidemics of
childbed fever were found to some extent in English institutions
as well. Surely it was reasonable that the translators used the
word "pain" in keeping with the accepted belief and experience of
their time. It was not until the nineteenth century that the
foundations of our present knowledge of antiseptics were laid,
and there were no antibiotics for infections until the
mid-twentieth century. We tend to overlook the fact that until
1847 anesthetics or pain-relievers were not even known, so that
when a labor was abnormal the suffering was appalling.
An investigation by Herr Ernst Burkhardt, who translated
Childbirth Without Fear into German, states that the German word
"Wehen" (pain) was not found in German writings before the Middle
Ages:
I enclose an article of mine, published recently by Die Neue
Zeitung. Professor Joseph De Lee (in the preface of his
Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, 1947 edition) says
that since unthinkable times all races understood
contractions in labour as a painful experience and
accordingly spoke either of pains, dolores, dolori, douleurs
or (in German) Wehen. There is no evidence for this
assertion. On the contrary, it seems to be sure that these
termini developed only with civilization. Our German word
"Wehen" cannot be traced beyond the Middle Ages. Our
frequently used painsuggesting word, "Wehmutter" ["midwife,"
literally, "mother of woe"], I found, had a definite
artificial origin. Dr. Martin Luther invented it when
translating the Bible. It does not exist before the year
1540.
Dr. Rudolf Hellman of Hamburg, in his paper "Schmerz oder
Erlebnis der Entbindung" (January 1959), gives additional
consideration from the German Bible translations:
Quote
Dick-Read maintains that the underlying Hebrew word "Etzev"
should not be translated as "pain" but as "toil, trouble,
distress and labour." It is all a question of a predominant
psychic understanding. H. Adler and other investigators I have
questioned have moreover come to the conclusion that there is
here no command of the Lord. Several years ago Dick-Read showed
that a confinement, as a natural event, need not be, and should
not be, associated with violent pains. He is convinced that it
could not have been the will and intention of the Creator.
In the Bible we also find references to easy deliveries, just as
today they are happening in "natural births." In the Second Book
of Moses (Exodus) 1:15, the King of Egypt commanded the He brew
midwives Siphra and Pua to kill the sons immediately on the
stools (here no doubt the reference is to the birth-stools which
were in use in Luther's time). The midwives referred, however, to
the easy deliveries of the Hebrew women with the words: "They
have been born before the arrival of the midwife." This
expression is recognized as sound. Luther, who liked to associate
the birth with pain, probably invented the painful-sounding
"Mother of Woe," a translation which was only discarded after
1540.
Graf Wittgenstein, in his book Man Before Delivery, translated
after Gunkel: "Much will I prepare your toils and groans; in
labor wilt thou bear children..." Archaic, inaccurate
explanations and translations were learned, in good faith, by
clerics and teachers, and by children and grown-ups true to the
words of books and letters.
End Quote
Wittgenstein also mentions in this excellent contribution that
the Greeks called pain the "barking watchdog of health," and that
pain occupies an important place in the extensive system of
warning and protection of the organs: "...it seems to us rather
senseless that it should be the alarm signal of delivery as at
the same time it hinders the mother in her activities."
It is forgivable that the translators of nearly four hundred
years ago should interpret as they did, but I find it difficult
to understand how these obviously controversial translations can
continue to be accepted by many modern scholars of the classics,
who copy and even intensify the mistakes, although they have many
more manuscripts and advantages from which to deduce the
significance of the words.
But that is not all, for a woman's fears are supported by the
Prayer Book, in which there had been no substantial alteration,
until recently, since A.D. 1662. There was a special service
known as "The Churching of Women" which was supposed to be a
thanksgiving after childbirth, which ends: "Oh, Almighty God, we
give Thee humble thanks for that Thou hast vouchsafed to deliver
this woman, Thy servant, from the great pain and peril of
childbirth."
Could we still expect women to believe childbirth was to be
painless, that it could be a moment of transcendental joy? When I
was discussing this service with a girl of twenty-three, she
said: "But you would not expect the most wonderful gift of God to
come unpleasantly." Is the pride of possession and accomplishment
that fills the heart of every young mother when she first sees
her baby unworthy to be recalled? Is a lame apology for gratitude
adequate thanks to the Almighty for the gift of a child? Yet the
Church has asked her to say: "Thank you very much for having
allowed ME to come through all that frightfulness unscathed; it
is so nice to be alive in spite of having performed the greatest
of all natural functions for which You especially built me,
although You did make it dangerous and painful for me."
What a travesty of the truth!!!
It is not for the escape from pain and danger that women thank
God. In my experience mothers are not made like that. They give
thanks for their child.
The Church must once again teach the beauty of childbirth and
encourage confidence in normal, natural function, which is in
harmony with the basic teachings of the Bible. We must not forget
the significance of Christmas or the manger in the stable of a
wayside inn. Millions of Catholics honor the Madonna and Child,
and Protestants also recognize the spiritual implications of
childbirth.
In the meantime, let us assume as historical necessity the
teachings of the past that emphasized the negative aspects of
childbearing, keeping in mind that there can be no more horrible
stigma upon civilization than the history of childbirth.
THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS
In 1847 a brighter picture began to emerge for women in
childbirth, with James Young Simpson's discovery of chloroform,
creating the beginning of the era of pain relief. Simpson was
harshly criticized by the Church for giving women anesthesia in
abnormal labor. A dignitary of the Church wrote in condemnation
of his work: "Chloroform is the decoy of Satan, apparently
offering itself to bless women but in the end it will harden
society and rob God of the deep cries which arise in time of
trouble."
That in my father's time! But anesthesia had come to stay-and to
such an extent that it was used in all labors, abnormal or not.
Why always anesthesia, when in the natural state it is
unnecessary? It has always been easier to utilize the
pain-relieving discoveries of science than to investigate the
complicated causes of pain. Since 1850 a hundred ways and means
have been discovered to rid our women of the pain that has
invariably attacked them, even when they most deserved the
natural joy of their supreme accomplishment. Nevertheless,
anesthesia has been of the greatest service to women, and an
important step forward in the development of humane care during
childbirth.
In 1854 Florence Nightingale became the first person to make it
widely known that cleanliness and fresh air were fundamental
necessities of nursing. It was largely because of her work during
the Crimean War that the standards of both the training and
practice of nursing were raised. The gin-drinking, reprobate
doctors who were found in great numbers at births both in
hospitals and at home began to disappear. With their exodus,
childbed fever occurred less frequently in maternity cases, but
even so, women were still dying in hospitals at the rate of 12 to
15 percent of all normal labors. This means that one in every
eight perfectly healthy women admitted died through childbed
fever!
About this same time, Ignaz Philip Semmelweis, a nervous young
man who was a physician at the Maternity Hospital in Vienna, came
to the conclusion that the cause might be due to something
arising within the hospital. He therefore made his students wash
their hands in a solution of chloride of lime before attending
women in childbirth. In one year, 1858, the death rate in his
wards tumbled to 3 percent and soon afterward to 1 percent. This
was the first great step toward preventing the attendant from
taking death to the patient; for Semmelweis had discovered what
the ancients had always preached, that to interfere with the law
of nature was to invite the hand of death. For his success in
saving lives Semmelweis was asked, for some made-up reason, to
leave the staff of the hospital. He was told he had no right to
require this washing, and was sent away. He returned to his home
and died, a broken man.
Until 1866 there was no knowledge of asepsis. Hospitals were
originally organized by priests whose humane intention was to
move people from the hovels in which they lived to be cared for
by doctors in hospitals. In the homes a certain number died;
those who went to the hospital for safety and good treatment died
in much greater numbers. It is difficult to visualize the state
of affairs that prevailed when limbs were amputated, abdomens
opened, and cesarean sections performed without any anesthesia
and with an almost sure supervention of sepsis, giving rise to a
high percentage of mortality in the simplest operations.
Probably all of us, if we are wise, pause to think sometimes how
much harm we do in our efforts to do good, and how much trouble
we cause when conscientiously endeavoring to prevent it!
In 1866, long after my parents were born, Joseph Lister first
practiced aseptic surgery, and he continued to use antiseptics in
spite of the opposition and ridicule of his colleagues. Then
Pasteur discov ered fermentation and inoculation and Koch
discovered bacteria, the two men becoming co-founders of the
science of bacteriology. This is all recent change and
innovation!
The care of women in childbirth benefited by the advance of these
other branches of medical science, but in obstetrics itself
little happened. At the beginning of the twentieth century the
death rate from childbirth was lower, and severe pain was
relieved, but still childbirth was an ordeal for a woman to face.
Much pain still remained, pain that was unexplained and could
only be obliterated by unconsciousness, which carried its own
dangers. Was unconsciousness safe for mother and baby? It is
incredible how pain was and still is accepted by many doctors and
scholars as an inevitable accompaniment of childbirth.
I cannot understand anyone who says women in childbirth should
not be afraid, for who among us would not have some qualms about
entering into an experience that we desired above all else, but
that we believed must occasion severe pain, danger, possible
mutilation, and even death to either ourself or our child? We
know of only a few who have no fears: there are a number of women
who faithfully believe in the rightness of their God and the
sanctity of their bodies, and in my opinion there are also women
who have an inborn belief in the laws of nature, not by
formulating them to themselves, but because they are natural in
their outlook and experience.
The extent and magnificence of the medical discoveries made
during the last hundred and fifty years is beyond both praise and
gratitude. Gradually truth has been discovered, and the safety of
women in childbirth has been made an object of investigation,
with results that would have been unbelievable when the mothers
and grandmothers of many of us were born. But now that many of
the troubles and dangers have been overcome, we must move on-not
only to save more lives, but actually to bring happiness to
replace the agony of fear. For although the consciousness or
sensations of a woman's discomfort can now be dispelled, it is
only at a price, for with it goes the awareness of birth and the
joyful sensations and emotions that should accompany it. Now we
must bring a fuller life, truer to natural law, to the women who
are called upon to reproduce our species.
It is not only that we want to bring about an easy labor, without
risk of injury to the mother or the child; we must go further. We
must understand that childbirth is fundamentally a spiritual as
well as a physical achievement and throughout this book it must
be understood that the birth of a child is the ultimate
perfection of human love, the culmination of the love between a
man and a woman. In the Christian ethic we teach that God is
love. The blessing of sexual necessity and pleasure is but an
essential part of the love God has given to man and woman. It may
be that in time scientists will be able to give such complete
proof of the rightness of materialism that religion will become a
weapon in the hands of the psychiatrists and the Church will be
replaced by the clinic. But my close association with the birth
of a child has led me to believe there is a limitation to science
and that the extending boundaries of human knowledge have only
reached the foothills of the towering mountains of Omniscience.
This philosophy of childbirth is written, therefore, in terms of
a belief in God.
For my own part, I stand in awe and utter humility before a woman
with her newborn babe. There is so much to see and learn in their
presence, so much that I am unable to understand or to explain,
so much that makes me aware of the limitations of my own ability.
It may be that among my colleagues there are those who feel the
same. Obstetrics must be approached as a science demanding the
most profound respect.
One woman who had feared, because of all the accepted causes, the
arrival of her child, gained confidence and understanding before
her baby was due; she had a natural and happy birth. Toward the
end of the labor that produced her second, and much larger,
child, she worked with tireless energy. "How many more?" she
asked me excitedly, as she rested between the contractions.
"It will soon be here," I replied. "Why do you ask so anxiously?
I hope you are not too weary."
"No, no, not that - but this brings back to me so clearly John's
arrival. I can hear his cry and see his fat pink body in my
hands. I'm longing for that heavenly feeling again - I simply
can't describe it to you. It won't be long now, will it?"
Could we wish to blot out the memory of her first experience? In
the natural state the emotional experience of childbirth raises a
woman to such delight and thankfulness that her mind turns to
spiritual and metaphysical associations to express her gratitude
and joy. Materialism and atheism are not included in the makeup
of motherhood; neither can a robot lead a blind man across the
road.
...............
AMEN to Grantly Dick-Read and to the CORRECT understanding from
the Bible on the wonderful subject of natural childbirth.
Keith Hunt
Mat.12:40
Dr. Sanuele Bacciocchi (a late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered
|
by
Keith Hunt
INTRODUCTION
|
This study has been written to answer Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi
and others who hold to a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning
Resurrection of Christ Jesus. My aim is to help those who hold
such a view to recognize the fallacies of their interpretations
and to accept the plain teaching of God's word in the matter. My
aim is to show that even a young child can understand exactly how
long Jesus was in the grave. Although this topic could be shown
to a child (who has no pre-conceived teaching about an Easter
tradition) with just a few scriptures and a basic knowledge of
arithmetic, and he could come to understand the simple truth, I
must take the time to be somewhat lengthy because the book that
Dr. Sam (as he likes to be called) has written (called "THE TIME
OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE RESURRECTION) needs to
be answered.
As a seventh day Sabbath keeper I do appreciate Dr. Sam's very
scholarly work presented to us in his book FROM SABBATH TO
SUNDAY. My wish is that he would use his scholastic mind to see
the errors of ELLEN G. WHITE upon whose teachings his
denomination is founded. As E.G.WHITE taught a Friday Crucifixion
and Sunday morning Resurrection, it would, I maintain be very
difficult for Dr. B. to disagree with her, as this would clearly
show he did not accept her as infallibly inspired. This would
consequently have grave repercussions within an organization in
which Dr. Sam is a paid teacher and minister. I will go through
Dr. Bacchiocchi's book chapter by chapter with my comments and
answers.
CHAPTER ONE
MAT 28:1. I see no reason not to take the KJV translation as correct.
You do NOT prove there were TWO Sabbaths in the Crucifixion week
by this verse. Other verses put together correctly show two Sabbaths
in the Passover/UB feast in the year Jesus was crucified.
Mr.Ralph Woodrow in his book on this subject shows that to
understand Mat.28:1 as the women coming late on the Sabbath to
the tomb, would gives us many contradictions with other verses.
CHAPTER TWO
On page 20 Dr. Sam tries to prove that the sign Jesus gave about
Jonah is connected with the fact of Christ's Resurrection and not
the length of time in the grave. "The book of Jonah suggests
that Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites through the miraculous
way in which God raised Jonah -- out of the whale's belly .......
This experience gave compulsion to Jonah to preach and conviction
to the Ninevites to repent......." He also quotes Norval
Geldenhuy "Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, because he appeared
there as one sent by God after having been miraculously saved
from the great fish (as it were raised from the dead) as a proof
that he was really sent by God...."
Let's take a look at the book of Jonah and see if it squares with
Dr. B's and Geldenhuy's theory.
Jonah (Ch. 1:3) is going to flee to TARSHISH. Some scholars
identify as TARTESSUS, an ancient city on the Atlantic coast of
Spain. He goes down to JOPPA, a town on the coast of Palestine
-- see your Bible maps. Jonah was hundreds of miles from the city
of Ninevah going in the opposite direction. No Ninevite would
have known what Jonah was doing or who he was!
Jonah was cast into the sea - the Mediterranean sea - a fish did
swallow him and he was cast up on to dry LAND (Ch. 1:15; 2:1-10).
This was a fish in the SEA, not a fish in a river flowing by
Ninevah. Jonah was not cast out by the city of Ninevah for all to
see. No one in Ninevah, hundreds of miles away, would have seen
this event - they had no idea that Jonah had been resurrected, so
to speak, from the dead. Now did this event alone give compulsion
to Jonah to preach? According to Chapter 3:1,2 God still had to
speak to Jonah AGAIN after this event, to get him to obey. Jonah
did travel the hundreds of miles to Ninevah (verse 3) and did
what? Did he tell them about this fishy experience he had had,
and how he was resurrected from the dead? Did he tell them this
experience to give conviction to the Ninevites to repent and as
proof that he was sent by God? If he had, some would have thought
it a pretty fishy story. NO! Jonah did WHAT? He PREACHED -
repent or perish! And the people of Ninevah BELIEVED God. They
didn't ask for any SIGN or proof he was from God, there's nothing
at all to indicate that Jonah had to tell them about his experience
inside the fish.
Now turn to LUKE 11:29-30. Jesus had been doing great miracles,
yet they would not believe Him to be the Son of God - they had
accused Him of working by the power of Satan (v. 14-15) and
others wanted some great heavenly sign. He tells them they are
evil, and no such special sign will be given - only that which
Jonah did will be given, as Jonah was to Ninevah, his sign
to them will be the sign Jesus will give to those around Him.
Jonah's sign to Ninevah was to PREACH REPENTANCE,
not some fish resurrection story. Notice it in verse 32. The people
of Ninevah REPENTED at the PREACHING of Jonah (see again
Jonah 3:4,5), but Jesus' generation would not repent at His preaching
and He was much greater than Jonah. If they would not repent
when God's word was being given them, they would certainly get
no special heavenly miracle.
Now THAT is what Jesus is saying in MAT. 16:4 and LK. 11:29-32.
A HARMONY of the Gospels shows MAT. 12:40 to be a separate
incident at an earlier time than Chap. 16:4 or still another
later time of LK. 11:29. While in MAT. 16 and LK. 11 Jesus
only gave the sign of PREACHING REPENTANCE and God's WORD,
He did in MAT. 12:40 give the LENGTH of time in the grave as a sign -
as Jonah was 3 days AND 3 nights in the fish so He would be in the
tomb. It is true that in John 2:19 Jesus is referring to His
body - death and Resurrection in three days. But this is just a
statement by Jesus that even if they should kill him, He will be
resurrected, and has no legitimate connection as being the same
as MAT. 12:40. Jesus clearly states in MAT. 12:40 that it is the
length of time in the grave that is the sign He gives, while MT.
16:4 and LK. 11:29 it is the sign of preaching God's word and JN.
2:19 is the fact He will rise from the dead.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS
Dr. Bacchiocchi says the frescos of the catacombs give proof that
the early Christians represented the sign of Jonah as Jesus'
Resurrection by the pictorial art of Jonah being spewed out by
the whale.
I find this very flimsy evidence for the following reasons: 1)
The writings and pictorial art of men and women OUTSIDE of the
inspired word of God - the Bible - must be taken very carefully
as they are FALLIBLE. 2) Those same early Christians were the
ones who accepted Sunday in place of the 7th day Sabbath as Dr.
B. so clearly shows in his book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY
and must therefore be viewed with caution. 3) Those same early
Christians are the ones who accepted the pagan EASTER to replace
the PASSOVER. 4) Certainly the resurrection of Jonah from death
can typify Christ's resurrection, and would be easily portrayable in
ART as Jonah coming forth from the fish. HOW would you
appealingly depict a length of TIME such as 3 days and 3 nights
in ART without becoming too diagramical and cumbersome.
Because the catacombs indicate that the early Christians (what kind
of Christians is another question) identified the sign of Jonah with
the event of the Resurrection, does not make it so. I have shown
that it is not. Paul does not show ANYWHERE that he thought the
sign of Jonah as given in MT. 16:4; LK 11:29 was the ACT of Jesus'
resurrection. He never once brought it up in any of his letters that we
have in the NT. Paul did preach the RESURRECTION of Christ -
yes indeed. But this fact of preaching cannot be directly connected
with the above scriptures. For Dr. Sam to try to do so by quoting
ROM. 1:4 is grasping at straws to prove a point of interpretation of
these verses that does not stand the test of context or the book of Jonah.
Take a look at MAT. 12:40 again. In this place Jesus clearly
stated the sign of Jonah. A child can see it! Christ said AS
JONAH WAS 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS IN THE FISH so He would
be in the grave or tomb. Now if Jesus wanted us to clearly understand
this sign to be His actual RESURRECTION, He could have said,
“As Jonah was resurrected from death out of the fish, so will I be
resurrected from the tomb." Or better still Jesus could have
quoted from the scroll of Jonah (Chap. 2:1,10), the part which
reads, "Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's
belly" then added, something like, "so will the Son of man come
forth from the tomb." But He did not quote this part of the book
of Jonah. Jesus referred to Jonah's LENGTH of TIME in the fish as
the sign He would give, clearly quoting from Chap. 1:17, "..
..And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three
nights."
INCLUSIVE RECKONING
Dr. Sam says the "forty days and forty nights" of MAT. 4:2 and
"forty days" of MRK. 1:13 and LK. 4:2 do not necessarily mean a
CALENDAR 40 day period as we would normally take it to mean and
as a CHILD would understand it to mean. If so, then HOW LONG
does such expressions mean - 20 calendar days? Maybe 18 - maybe
36 or 25 or maybe 45? If we can not reckon a day as a day in the
Bible, or a night as a night, or a day and night as a day and
night, but only a part of each - then which part of each? What if
some were whole days and others only parts - which would be the
whole and which the parts, if the writer did not state? And what
if he did mean 3 or 7 or 40 calendar days but simply wrote "seven
days", and we think this means only 5 or 6 days? Surely the Bible
is not written so we could never know for sure what LENGTH of
times the writer means. Let's look at some examples, with the
understanding that a day is NOT a day, but only a part of 24
hours, only a few hours or so.
#1. Gen. 1:5 "....And the evening (night) and the morning (day)
were the first day." But not a 24 hour day as the night could be
only PART of a night and the day only PART of a day - according
to Dr. Sam's thinking.
#2. Gen. 2:2-3 "....God. .. .rested on the seventh day.... God
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it...."As a day may not be
a day of 24 hours which part of this seventh day did God rest on
and bless and sanctify? Maybe it was the first 5 or 6 hours of
the evening part, or the hours of the morning, or perhaps the
late afternoon hours are only holy. But then we see in LEV.
23:32 that the Sabbath is to be kept from one evening to the next
evening (24 hours) and EX.20:8-11 shows the 7th day is the
Sabbath and to be kept holy as it was made holy at creation. So
we see that the "seventh day" in Gen. 2:2-3 does mean a period of
24 hours.
#3 Gen. 7:4 God did not really mean "yet seven days" but
something less than seven days. He did not really mean it would
rain for 40 days and 40 nights but some length of time less than
that. Likewise verse 12. The waters did not prevail upon the
earth 150 days as verse 24 says but sometime less than that
figure.
#4 Gen. 8:6 ". . .at the END of forty days..." does not really
mean forty days, but AFTER or at the END of 38 days, or 39 days
and 4 hours, as the first day of the forty was only 2 hours and
the fortieth day was only 2 hours. Well, something similar to
this, could be thought.
#5 EX. 15:22 "...and they went three days in the wilderness.."
Not really, for the first day they only travelled for 3 hours -
the second, all day, but the third only the last 4 hours. Maybe
the first day they travelled all day and the second and third was
only for 3 hours each.
Our common usage would convey that we are saying they travelled
the distance into the wilderness that 3 days would take. We all
understand such terminology. Were they so different in Moses'
day?
#6. EX. 24:18, 34:28; MAT. 4:2 Moses and Jesus did not really
fast for 40 days and 40 nights but a length of time shorter than
that, as the first day they started may have been in the last few
hours of the day, and the fast may have been broken in the first
hour of the 40th day. Then maybe they fasted only for 20 days and
20 nights in total, as we will just pick parts of days as we
wish. After all what human could possibly fast without food and
water for a full 40 days of 24 hours a day? Human reasoning
could go anywhere with such verses.
#7. 2 COR. 11:25 Paul was not really a night and a day (24
hours) in the sea, but maybe only 4 or 5 hours, or 6 to 7 hours
etc. Could be he was shipwrecked in the last hour of the night
and pulled out of the sea within the first 3 hours of daylight,
making only a 4 hour ordeal. If so, why didn't Paul use the
Greek words for numbers and hours and tell us he was 4 hours or
10 hours or 16 hours in the sea? The Greek language did have
words to express such lengths of time - see JN. 11:9. The truth
is, Paul is telling us that he was a whole night and a whole day,
near enough as makes little difference to 24 hours in the sea
after being shipwrecked.
Now turn back to Gen. 7. By putting together verse 11 with verse
24 and chapter 8 verse 4, we can see that the months of the
calendar in Noah's day each had 30 days. From the 17th of the
second month to the 17th of the seventh month is 5 months or 150
days - exactly and literally to the day - each day being 24
hours. Note that within this section of scripture and within
this time period of 150 days, we have the expression "forty days
and forty nights" (v. 12) just that - 40 days of 24 hours each.
This being the case, which it is, there is no reason to take
Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the fish to mean anything other
than a full 72 hour period.
As Jesus himself plainly tells us that there is 12 hours in a day
(JN 11:9), and so of course 12 hours in a night, there is no
reason to figure anything shorter than 72 hours for the 3 days
and 3 nights in Mat. 12:40. No reason to figure any less IF you
are not trying to fit it into an Easter (Friday to Sunday morning
death and resurrection of Christ) tradition.
Unless the CONTEXT clearly and plainly shows that INCLUSIVE
counting is being used there is no reason to use such reckoning
for the seven scriptures we've looked at, or dozens upon dozens
of more like them throughout the Bible.
We are of course concerning ourselves here with the word "day" or
"night and day" as used in the Bible for length of time and not
metaphorically or prophetically as "day" is sometimes used in
both OT and NT
One verse that uses INCLUSIVE counting is found in LK 13:32.
The wording is plain and clearly shows an inclusive reckoning,
"....I do cures today, and to morrow, and the third day I shall be
perfected."
But the Bible also uses EXCLUSIVE reckoning. Notice it - Nehemiah
(5:14) was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah,
from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year
of Artaxerxes the king, that is TWELVE YEARS...." From the 20th
year to the 32nd year is 12 years not thirteen years.
AN ABANDONED EGYPTIAN
Dr. B. cites SAM. 30:12, 13 as proving inclusive reckoning. Some
length of time SHORTER than 72 hours. But there is absolutely no
reason to give "three days and three nights" here any meaning
except their literal meaning. So we see in this passage "three
days" meaning "three days and three nights." Suppose the young
man got sick just before sunset Friday - he is found just
before sunset Monday and given food and water - three days and
three nights later. He looks up and says to David that he got
sick "three days ago." Three days before sunset Monday would be
sunset Friday. He would not say four days ago, because four days
before sunset Monday would have been sunset Thursday. Working
backward three days and three nights from sunset Monday would
bring us to sunset Friday - truly that would be "three days."
ESTHER'S VISIT TO THE KING (ESTHER 4:16; 5:1)
Suppose Esther told the Jews to start fasting for her at the last
hour before sunset Friday. The fast was to be for 3 days - night
and day. Then after three nights and three days she went to the
king - this would be the last hour just before sunset on Monday,
not Sunday morning. Still on the third day but near enough 72
hours later as makes no difference, to when they started to fast
three days earlier.
Other passages such as Gen. 42:~7, 18; 1 Kings 20:29; Chron.
10:5 are used to prove this inclusive reckoning theory. However,
none of these passages prove "three days and three nights"
means two nights and one day, or two nights and two days, or
three days and two nights. There is no reason to take any of
these passages in any sense except their literal sense, unless
one has a theory to prove and cling to.
RABBINICAL LITERATURE - JEWISH PRACTICE
The Bible is not to be understood and interpreted by Jewish
Rabbis or practices. The Bible interprets itself and is written
so a young child can understand the plain statements that are not
symbolic or prophetic. It is written so a child does not have to
wonder whether "three days and three nights" really means two
nights and one day - whether it means 72 hours or 36 hours or 32
or maybe 39 hours.
ON THE THIRD DAY
I reproduce for you here the scriptural diagram given in Dr.
Bacchiocchi's book.
MARK 8:31 (after three days) = MAT.16:31 (on the third day) =
LUKE 9:22 (on the third day)
MARK 9:31 (after three days) = MAT.17:23 (be raised third day)
MARK 10:34 (after three days) = MAT.20:19 (raised on third day) =
LUKE 18:33 (on the third day he will rise)
After this Dr. B. writes: "IDENTICAL MEANING. This comparison
clearly indicates that Matthew and Luke understand Mark's 'after
three days' as meaning 'on the third day'."
To be sure there was never any doubt in the minds of Matthew,
Luke, or Mark, as to how long Jesus was in the tomb before He was
raised - they knew!
I agree with Dr. Sam when he says the above verses have identical
meaning, because they all knew what they meant to say as to the
length of time Jesus was entombed, whether they said
"after three days" or "on the third day." An event that takes
place exactly 72 hours from a given starting point can be
correctly said to have taken place "on the third day" or "after
three days."
What all the above verses add up to (ON, IN or AFTER three days)
is precisely what Jesus Himself said in MAT. 12:40, namely that
He would be 3 days AND 3 nights -72 hours - in the tomb, just as
Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish.
No contradiction here - only harmony!
The expression "the third day" is very interesting. It is used
as inclusive counting by Jesus in LK 13:32, "Behold, I cast out
devils, and I do cures today and to morrow, and the third day I
shall be perfected". So the third day from Friday would be
Sunday. Yet if exclusive counting (which the Bible does use as we
have seen) is used, then the third day from Friday is Monday.
Also this expression "the third day" can, BIBLICALLY include
three days and three nights as can be seen in Genesis 1:4 -13:
"God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the
light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening
(darkness) and the morning (light) were the FIRST DAY.....and the
evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were the SECOND
DAY.....and the evening (now three periods of night) and the
morning (now three periods of light) were the THIRD DAY..."
This provides an example of how the term "the third day" can be
counted up and shown to include three days AND three nights.
With what Jesus said in John 11:9, 10 about there being twelve
hours in a day (and so twelve hours in a night) and that He would
be three days and three nights in the tomb (MAT. 12:40) together
with one writer using the expression "AFTER three days he will
rise" while two others used "ON the third day" we can now see why
the editors of the WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY wrote:
"According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two
hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view
gives more reasonable treatment to MT. 12:40. It also explains AFTER
THREE DAYS and ON THE THIRD DAY in a way that does least
violence to either " (page 984).
FIRST DAY APPEARANCE - ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS
It is pointed out by Dr. Sam that the two men, (late on Sunday)
talking about Christ and all that had taken place, said, "....and
besides all this, it is now the THIRD DAY since this happened"
(LK. 24:21). Of course Sunday from Wednesday would be more than
three days - it would be the 4th or 5th day depending on whether
inclusive or exclusive counting is used.
In answer to this I quote from the book BABYLON MYSTERY
RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow, pages 138, 139. "....Because Jesus
appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (verse 13), and
this was the third day since these things were done, would this not
indicate that Jesus died on Friday? This would DEPEND ON HOW
WE COUNT. If PARTS of a day are counted as a whole, Friday could
be meant. On the other hand, one day since Friday would have been
Saturday and the THIRD day since Friday would have been Monday!
This method of counting would not indicate Friday. On seeking to
offer an explanation, I submit the following: They had talked about
'ALL these things which had happened' (verse 14) - more than just one
event. If 'these things' included the arrest, the crucifixion, the burial
and the setting of the seal and watch over the tomb all of these things
were not done until THURSDAY.....(MAT. 27:62-66).......
'These things' were not fully completed - were not 'done' - until
the tomb was sealed and guarded. This happened, as we have
already seen, on Thursday of that week ....... Sunday, then, would
have been 'the third day since these things were done,' but not the third
day since the crucifixion" (emphasis mine).
CHRONOLOGY OF PASSION WEEKEND
Under this section Dr. Bacchiocchi tries to show that there
were NOT two Sabbaths (as we contend) during the Passion week.
He cites MAT. 28:1 as a text given to support a Passion
week containing two Sabbaths, "at the end of the Sabbaths." The
Greek for Sabbath is in the plural. "This," he writes, "is
viewed as a 'vital text'." Maybe to some it is - I do not view
it as such, but only as additional evidence to give additional
weight to the clear, easy to understand scriptures that do not
need a degree in NT Greek. By itself MAT 28:1 could not prove
that there were two Sabbaths in the Passion week, for as Harold
W. Hoehner (that Dr. B. quotes) has correctly said, "The term
Sabbath is frequently (one-third of all its NT occurrences) in
the plural form in the NT when only one day is in view.
For example, in MT. 12:1-12 both the singular and plural forms
are used (C.F. ESP. V.5)"
(Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ pp. 69-70).
The two sections of scripture that clearly and simply show there
was indeed TWO Sabbaths during Passion week are MARK 16:1
and LUKE 23:56. Mark recorded the women BUYING the spices
AFTER the Sabbath, while Luke recorded them PREPARING the
spices (must buy them first in order to prepare them) and then
RESTING on the Sabbath.
With this light, MAT. 28:1 and other verses do take on special
significance that cannot or should not be swept to one side.
Notice how FERRAR FENTON translates the following scriptures:
MAT. 28:1, "After the Sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day
following the Sabbaths."
LK 24:1, "But at daybreak upon the first day following the
Sabbaths...."
JN 19:20, "Now on the first day following the Sabbaths...."
So I end my replies to Dr.Sam's first and second chapters
To be continued
......................
Written in 1986
Three Days and Three Nights - Mat.12:40
Dr.Samuele Bacciocchi (late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered
|
PART TWO
CHAPTER THREE
PREPARATION DAY
|
Dr. Bacchiocchi with some scholastical footwork tries to prove the Greek word PARASKEUE - Preparation, is a technical designation for FRIDAY. "Five times" he writes, "is the term 'Preparation - PARASKEUE' used in the Gospels as a technical designation for 'Friday' (MAT. 27:62; MRK 15:42; LK 23:54; JN 19:31,42), besides the occurrence of JN 19:14". He claims the technical terms "PARASKEUE - Preparation", and "PROSABBATON - Sabbath-eve" are unmistakably designating what we call "Friday." Still further, Dr. B. adds to this the Hellenistic Jews, common Greek and Aramiac societies, the Didache writings and Tertullian, as proof.
In answer to this, let me say first, and once more - the Bible is not to be understood or interpreted by what Hellenistic Jews did or did not, by the world's association of certain words with days of the week, by the Didache (about 100 A. D.) which some use to uphold Sunday observance, or by a fallible man such as Tertullian. Secondly, let's look at the Greek word for PREPARATION. It simply means - a making ready, preparation, equipping, that which is prepared, equipment, readiness. See such Bible Concordances as THAYER'S; STRONG'S; VINE'S. This Greek word has NOTHING in itself to do with ANY particular day of the week, a number, or the word "FRIDAY." It just simply means, to prepare, make ready. There are some "scholars" and Bible Handbooks (quoted by the Church of God,Denver) that shows Jews used this word for any day prior to a Sabbath (weekly and annually).
Here are the six places in the NT where this word appears as given in the INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. MT. 27:62,
"Now on the morrow, which is after the preparation..." MAR. 15:42, "...since it was preparation, that is before sabbath.." LK 23:54, "And it was preparation day, and Sabbath was coming on." JN 19:14, "And it was preparation of the passover..." Verse 31, "....that might not remain on the cross the bodies on the Sabbath, because preparation it was ...." Verse 42, "... on account of the preparation of the Jews...."
None of these verses say it was the preparation before the 7th day weekly Sabbath. There were SEVEN annual Sabbaths or Feast Sabbaths also observed by the Jews - the day before them the people also prepared or made ready for its observance. Notice how LUKE not to confuse with Mark, the account of the women buying and preparing the spices, tells us that after doing so they rested on the SABBATH DAY according to the commandment (LK 23:56). Mark wrote "And being past the sabbath, Mary .... bought aromatics. . . . " (Chap. 16:1). There had to be TWO Sabbath days - one on Thursday, after which the women bought spices and prepared them (this was called by Mark "the sabbath" as it was, but an annual Sabbath, the 15th of Nisan) and then as Luke wrote, they rested on the Sabbath according to the Commandment - fourth of the ten in EX. 20. The two writers wrote in such a way that when put together, knowing the facts about the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and how the 15th of the first month is a Sabbath and can fall during the week, both wrote correctly. One concerning the annual Sabbath as a bench mark, the other the weekly Sabbath as a bench mark. How easy - a child can understand! John was inspired to further help us not to think that this preparation was for the weekly Sabbath by saying "And it was preparation of the PASSOVER...." (JN 19:14).
This is not to be understood as Geldenhuys explains, quoted by Dr. B., as the Friday that falls during Passover week. But it was the day many Jews got ready on, prepared themselves and their homes to partake of the PASSOVER meal, on the evening of the 15th of Nisan, just as they do to this very day. Jesus ate the Passover the evening of the 14th (MT. 26:2, 18-30), was arrested and beaten that night - crucified during the day of the 14th, when many Jews were preparing to YET EAT the PASSOVER meal. See JN 18:28. That meal was held by many on the 15th - an annual Sabbath, the first day of the Unleavened Bread feast, in accord with the teaching and practice of the Pharisees sect. John further shows that the 15th of Nisan, the Sabbath coming was somehow different than the regular weekly sabbath by designating it "an high day" (JN 19:31).
Concerning this idea put forth by Geldenhuys and others (of which Dr. Sam B. is part) that JN 19:14 is Friday of Passover week, the writer in the l.S.B.E. under "Preparation" says this: "This method of harmonizing seems to the present writer to be forced, and it therefore seems wiser to give to the words of JN 19:14 their natural interpretation, and to maintain that, according to the author of the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been celebrated at the time of the crucifixion...." (emphasis mine). It had not been celebrated by those who followed the Pharisees sect. Jesus and his followers done already observed "the Passover" at the beginning of the 14th day, as it was originally instituted in Exodus 12. That truth I have expounded fully in over a dozen studies.
Thirdly. Because the word PREPARATION - PARASKEUE, becomes associated with the 6th day of the week, more than say the day before the Passover (as it only happens once a year whereas the day before the weekly Sabbaths comes 52 times a year) does that mean the word has changed its meaning, that it now means Friday or 6th day and no longer to make ready, or preparation ? Does the popular association of this word with the day before the weekly Sabbath mean that it can no longer be used in any other setting or before any other day of rest or Sabbath? This is what Dr. B. would want us to believe it seems. Most people associate the word "restday" with Sunday. The words themselves do not mean "first day" or "Sunday" but through common and frequent weekly use they have come to be thought of as Sunday, for that is when most people rest. Now is it wrong or improper to use this word "restday" when meaning THANKSGIVING DAY (as it is a rest for most of us)? Of course not!
Despite what some "Greek language authorities" so called, say or claim to the contrary, the Gospel writers did use the Greek PARASKEUE - preparation, in describing the day before the 15th of Nisan Sabbath, which did not fall on the weekly Sabbath in Passion week, but on a THURSDAY, creating two Sabbaths that week. So making it possible for the women to BUY spices AFTER a Sabbath, prepare them on that Friday, and then rest according to the fourth commandment Sabbath, as Mark and Luke clearly tell us. All this making it possible for Jesus to be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights - a full 72 hours, from just after sunset Wednesday to shortly after sunset Saturday (this truth of "after sunset" is added here, as further in-depth study in 1998 on the word "evening" and the Greek tenses in certain verses in the gospels showed to be the correct understanding).
Oh, the simple truth of God's word - so simple a child can find it. I am reminded of my young childhood (about 8-10 years old) in Sunday school, when after finding and believing ACT 1:11, I said "Jesus is going to literally - bodily return to this earth" and caused shocked looks from adults. You see my Church of those days did not preach or believe in the literal second coming of Christ. But, I knew it was so from that day on - it was so plain, so simple - I had no preconceived ideas, just saw an easy to understand verse and believed it.
Matthew 12:40 with JN 1:9 is just as easy to read and believe. It may not square with the ideas, theories and teachings of the majority of a so called Christianity, but most of that popular religion practice and believe things that cannot be found in the Bible. Some are so filled with traditions of men and preconceived beliefs or the scholastic philosophies from theological schools, that it is practically impossible for them to acquire the simple belief of a child. It was no different in Jesus' day, that's why He said, "I thank you Father, that you have hid these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes."
A CEREMONIAL SABBATH
Dr. Sam states the annual feast days are never designated simply as "sabbaton" as is used in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, so the Sabbaths of Passion week cannot be any annual Sabbaths. Concerning this Greek word "sabbaton" Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words says this: "SABBATON or SABBATA: the latter, the plural form, was transliterated from the Aramaic word, which was mistaken for a plural; hence the singular, SABBATON, was formed from it. The root means to cease, desist (Heb., SHABATH; cp. ARAB., SABATA, to intercept, interrupt); the double 'b' has an intensive force...." (p. 983).
In LEV. 23:3 this plural word SABBATA is used where the singular SABBATON is meant, as the 7th day only is spoken about. Lev. 23 verses 26-32 are talking about the annual FAST-REST of the feast day of ATONEMENT, the last part of this verse is rendered into English as, "..... from evening to evening ye shall keep your sabbaths. " (THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION: GREEK AND ENGLISH - Sir Lancelot Brenton - Zondervan publishing). The Greek for "sabbaths" is SABBATA. If the plural form is here correct, then ALL the rest days upon which no servile work is to be done in this chapter are called by the one Greek word SABBATA. If it should be the singular SABBATON then we see that the 10th day of the 7th month - the ceremonial (as some call it) Sabbath of Atonement is called SABBATON! Either way, it is quite correct to use the Greek word SABBATON for both the weekly Sabbath or the annual Sabbaths - they are all days of rest upon which no servile work is to be done - to cease or desist from such work, which is termed SABBATON in NT Greek, and which word is not intrinsically connected with only the seventh day of the week. The word is translated "week" many times in the NT., i.e. MT 28:1; MRK 16:2,9; LK 18:12; 24:1; JN 20:1,19; ACTS 20:7; 1 COR. 16:2. The word SABBATON is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew SHABBATH which is the intense form of SHABATH, which in turn is a root, meaning REPOSE, desist, cease.
The OT was written in Hebrew NOT Greek. Let's take a look at the word SABBATH/S.
The most common one used is SHABBATH, number 7676 in STRONG'S CON. which is the intensive form of SHABATH (#7673 in STRONG'S) which as previously stated is a primary root, meaning CEASE, desist, rest. Also used a few times in the OT is SHABBATHON (#7677 in Strong's) which is from #7676 - a Sabbatism. All three are basically the same when applied to a day on which no servile work is to be done. The word SHABBATH is used in EX. 20:10 with reference to the 7th day of the week. This same word is used in LEV. 23:32 with reference to the annual day of ATONEMENT Sabbath, "from even, unto even shall ye celebrate your SABBATH". Here is what the THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OT says about the word SHABBATON: "In addition to designating the Sabbath (EX 16:23), this word may apply to the day of atonement (LEV. 16:31; 23:32); to the feast of trumpets (LEV. 23:24); and the first and eighth days of tabernacles (LEV. 23:39). The ending - ON is characteristic of abstract nouns in Hebrew...." (Vol.2, p.903). The Hebrew for "the sabbath of rest" in EX 35:2 and EX 31:15 is SHABBATH SHABBATHON. Here the weekly seventh day is being mentioned. In LEV. 16:3,1 the annual feast day of ATONEMENT is called in Hebrew SHABBATH SHABBATHON Again in LEV. 23:3 the weekly Sabbath is called SHABBATH SHABBATHON and so is the day of ATONEMENT (verse 32). The Hebrew in the last part of verse 32 for "shall ye celebrate your sabbath" is SHABATH SHABBATH.
We can see how the Hebrew is applied to BOTH the weekly Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths. I refer you to the ENGLISHMAN'S HEBREW AND CHALDEE CON. of the OT, pages 1234, 1235. All of God's REST days (weekly or annually) are SHABBATH - SHABATH days. All of God's days upon which no servile work is to be done are SHABBATHON (Sabbath observance) days. God's weekly Sabbath and God's seven annual Sabbaths are all SHABATA (Hebrew) Sabaton (Greek) days - days upon which we CEASE or REST from our regular secular work.
In Ezekiel 20, God is telling us how He chose Israel - brought them out of Egypt, and told them to cast away their abominations and keep His statutes. God tells us He gave them "my SABBATHS" (v. 12,13,16,20,21,24). The Hebrew is SHABBATH while the Greek is SABBATA (Sabbaton. When God brought Israel out of Egypt did He only give them the seventh day of the week Sabbath? Oh, NO! He gave them His FESTIVALS with their seven annual REST - cease to work (SHABATH, Hebrew - SABATON, Greek) days, see EX. 12:15-16; 23:14-17; 16:22-30; Deut. 16:16; LEV. 23.
When Israel rebelled in the wilderness against God's statutes and judgments - when they greatly polluted His Sabbaths (Greek - SABBATA), did they only pollute the seventh day weekly Sabbath while keeping the annual Sabbaths? I think NOT! They polluted all the rest days God gave them to cease servile work on. All the rest days God gave Israel in the wilderness are classified under "my SABBATHS" in Ezekiel 20. The one word SHABBATH (Hebrew) SABBATON or SABBATA (Greek) is used for both the weekly and annual Sabbaths. It would be difficult for someone like Dr. Bacchiocchi or the Adventist organization which he is part, who do not observe the seven annual REST days of God, to understand or appreciate the use of the Hebrew word SHABBATH or the Greek word SABBATON with a rest day other than the weekly Sabbath, as the 7th day of the week is the only day they associate the word SABBATON with. (This was written before Dr. Sam came to see the truth of observing the Festivals of God as listed in Lev.23. I am very pleased he now observed those wonderful festivals). This was not the case with the true Christians of the first century A. D. or the writers of the Gospels. Neither was it the case with most Gentiles of that time who were quite familiar with the fact that the Jews had other SABBATON days other than the seventh day of the week. It is certainly not the case with those of us today who keep all of God's holy rest days.
If the 15th of Nisan (first annual Sabbath day of the feast of Unleavened Bread) should fall on a Thursday one year, and I was to meet one of my fellow church brothers on the following Friday, I may say to him (if we were together) on the Wednesday of that week something like, "Well John, I'll meet you at city hall after the Sabbath at 11. He would completely understand that I was meaning the Sabbath of the 15th of Nisan -Thursday that year. I would not have to say to him, "Well John, I'll meet you... .after the first Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread." I may say to my wife on the Monday of that week, "Honey, I'd better get my suit in to the cleaners today so I can get it dry cleaned and back by Wednesday, before the Sabbath comes." She knows I'm speaking about the 15th of Nisan Holy day. I do not have to say to her, "Honey I'd better get my suit to the cleaners today so I can get it back before the first Holy rest day of the Unleavened Bread feast comes."
It may be the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan - the Wednesday in our explanations I've been using. I may have a plumbing problem at home that I'm busy repairing - a church brother calls on the phone and in part of the conversation I may say something like, "I'm rushing to get this plumbing back together again before the Sabbath starts." He knows I mean the 15th of Nisan Sabbath - I do not have to say "....before the first Sabbath of the Unleavened Bread feast" or "before the holy rest day of Nisan 15th."
Those of us who keep God's festivals know that the day before the 14th of Nisan (the Passover) and the day before each annual Sabbath is "PREPARATION" day. We may very well use this word when talking to each other before and coming up to any one of God's seven annual holy days.
Even close relatives who are not part of our faith but know what we practise, may say to another relative not familiar with the days we keep, "Oh, it may not be the best to visit sister today, as she will be very busy - she uses this day as a preparation day for the feast of Trumpets that she and her family observe tomorrow."
We who observe the festivals of Lev. 23 and others who do not, but are close friends or relatives familiar with our practices, know that the words SABBATH AND PREPARATION are not intrinsically tied to just the seventh day and sixth day of the week. It was no different for the Jews, early Christians and many Gentiles of the first century A. D.
HIGH DAY ? Dr. B. points out by referring to Israel Abrahams, a noted Jewish scholar that there is no instance before JN 19:31 of the use of the term 'high day' or 'Great Sabbath' in Rabbinical literature. In doing this he also destroys any argument he may have for believing this phrase means a "special weekly Sabbath," (as he claims it does because he believes the 15th annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath fell together in the year Jesus died) because what can be shown by later Rabbinic use and literature of the term "Great Sabbath" or "high day" can have no bearing on the way John used it. And further, terms such as "Good Friday" or "Holy Saturday" coined by the Roman Catholic church much later than John, can also bear no proof in supporting the belief that "an high day" in JN 19:31 means special weekly Sabbath, special because the 15th of Nisan Sabbath is believed to have fallen upon the weekly Sabbath. Exactly what John had in mind by calling the Sabbath that was coming a "GREAT DAY" or "High Day" we may have to wait until the resurrection to ask him. But here is one thought. As most of the Jews and their religious leaders did not eat the Passover meal until the evening of the 15th (as the Jews do to this day) as shown in JN 18:28, the start of the first annual Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread, it may be that John was merely saying that the coming Sabbath was great because the Jewish society had fused the Passover meal and annual Sabbath into one, whereby making that particular Sabbath "great" in their eyes. Since the first writing of this reply to Dr. Sam in 1986 (now editing in 1998), the Church of God, 7th Day, out of Denver have discovered some interesting and enlightening facts. Quoting from their booklet on the subject: ".......In JN.19:31......The NIV renders the tow Greek words 'megale hemera' as 'special.' The KJV and many other translations render 'megale hemera' as 'high day.' The Greek words 'megale hemera' literally means 'great day.' ....... there is Biblical evidence to support the argument that the reference to this sabbath as a 'great day' (megale hemera) is a reference to a festival.....sabbath..... In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (Greek translation of the OT - Keith Hunt) Isaiah 1:13 uses the phrase 'great day' to refer to the festival sabbaths. The latter part of verse 13 says, '....I cannot bear your evil assemblies.' In the Hebrew text, the word from which 'assemblies' is translated is 'atsarah' which means 'solemn assembly.' ....... In the Greek version of Isaiah 1:13, the word 'atsarah' is translated is translated as 'hemeran megalen' which means 'great day.' Thus the Greek text of Isaiah 1:13 uses the same reference for an annual Jewish festival sabbath as does John in John .....19:31. The meaning assigned to 'assembly' ('solemn assembly' in Isaiah 1:13) is recognized as a reference in general to the festival sabbaths of Israel. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible indicates Isaiah's reference to 'atsarah' is a reference to any festival or holiday, and not to the Passover Sabbath alone."
The context of Isaiah 1:13 and the very verse itself would prove Strong's Con. to be correct. This Greek phrase 'megale hemera' includes ANY special day - any Sabbath of God (weekly and annual) as well as New Month day. God is telling Judah (and He is speaking to Judah in Isaiah chapter one, see verse one) that when they call any "great day" (megale hemera) to meet upon, He cannot bear with them for they continue to do evil, there is no repentance and no real desire to do His will, notice verses 15-20. To be perfectly honest with the Scriptures, this Greek phrase we are looking at, can refer to the weekly Sabbath as well. The context of Isaiah 1:13 includes the weekly Sabbath also.
The Church of God (7th Day), Denver, do not understand the truth of John 7:37, where this Greek 'megale hemera' is again used. They think verse 37 refers to the 8th day coming after the seven day Feast of Tabernacles, and so believe once again that this Greek phrase is used only for annual Sabbaths. But the truth is that John 7:37 is concerning the last or 7th day of the Feast of tabernacles, which had become a special day with the Jews, in how they observed it with certain rituals and ceremonies concerning the use of "water." Hence Jesus taking the opportunity to talk about the true fountain of living water. All this is fully explained in another study I have called "The Truth about John 7:37." So, the Jews used this Greek phrase 'megale hemera' for ANY special day, whether a Sabbath or not (the 7th day or last day of the feast of Tabernacles is not a Sabbath day as Lev. 23 shows).
It may also be true that this phrase used by John was simply borrowed from Isaiah 1:13 and was not in common use among the Rabbis of his time. It may be peculiar to John. To John the Sabbath coming the day following the death of Jesus was a "great day." By itself it cannot prove this was used only for an annual Sabbath, or for a day when an annual and weekly Sabbath came together on the same day.
John's use of "an high - great day" cannot prove by itself that an annual Sabbath is meant, then on the other hand it cannot prove it was a special weekly Sabbath either, as this phrase is not found in Rabbinical literature before JN 19:31.
The only way to understand what Sabbath was coming as Jesus was put into the tomb, and what "preparation" day for the Passover it was, and how the women could buy spices AFTER the Sabbath, prepare them and then rest on the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment, is by believing Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant in MAT 12:40 in that He would be 3 days AND 3 nights in the tomb, and that there was then TWO Sabbaths in that Passover week, one on a Thursday (the 15th of Nisan Sabbath, the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread) and then the weekly Sabbath on the following Saturday. We shall study more later about the two Sabbaths of Passover week.
PREPARATION OF THE PASSOVER
I do not teach that the Greek "Preparation of the Passover" is used as a technical designation for the day before the Passover. As I've stated before, it is merely a Greek word that means - make ready, prepare, equip, and has no intrinsic connection with FRIDAY or any specific day. The day before any weekly or annual Sabbath or the day before the 14th of Nisan, was "preparation" as it is in Jewish homes and those who keep God's festivals today. This word PARASKEUE is used only 6 times in the NT (MT. 27:62; MRK. 15:42; LK 23:54; JN.19:14,31,42). Because people do not believe Jesus knew how many hours there was in a day (which he did - JN 11:9) and because they do not believe Jesus meant 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) but two nights one day and part of a second day, in Mat. 12:40. Because they do not believe Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the fish but some length of time less than that. Because they will not see the Sabbath following the preparation in the above cited verses, was not automatically meaning the weekly Sabbath at all. Because they will not see that there were TWO Sabbath days during Passion week. Because of all this, they assume the Sabbath after "preparation - PARASKEUE" is SATURDAY and that PARASKEUE used as the preparation day before MUST BE "Friday".
Do you see the CIRCLE of their reasoning? PARASKEUE used in these six places must mean Friday as the Saturday Sabbath was coming, and as the Sabbath following PARASKEUE was Saturday then PARASKEUE - preparation, must mean "Friday" at all times. This circle of reasoning, based on false assumptions based on a false pagan festival of EASTER (that was adopted by the Roman Catholic church in place of the PASSOVER) based on the false assumption that Jesus rose Sunday morning (there is not ONE verse that says Christ's resurrection took place on the morning of the first day) has led some to write, "The fact must be faced that no example of the use of PARASKEUE is cited for any day other than Friday," (Leon Morris, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN). Now I do not see the word "Friday" in the NT at all - so the burden of proof rests with Leon Morris and others like him to prove to me that the Sabbath following PARASKEUE was Saturday and that PARASKEUE is equivalent to the word "Friday" at all times. With my child-like belief in what Jesus said in MAT. 12:40 with JN 11:9 Leon Morris, Dr. Sam, and other so called "scholars" will never prove it, for it is not provable.
Again let me repeat, you do not need a degree in Greek or Church History to understand the plain teachings of God's word. You do need to read ALL of the scriptures on a particular topic, let the Bible interpret itself and have a little child's belief.
UNDISPUTED TRADITION
Dr. Bacchiocchi writes "....Christian tradition has unanimously held to the Friday - Crucifixion/Sunday - Resurrection chronology." I answer to this, that so called Christian tradition has, since about 150 A. D. held to an EASTER tradition in place of the PASSOVER celebration. Christian tradition has held from about the same time or earlier, to a Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath. This same traditional Christianity has held from about the 4th century, to a December 25th birthday of Christ. There are other long held customs and beliefs of traditional Christianity that are just as unfounded Biblically as those mentioned above. If traditional Christianity can be so wrong on the above, it certainly can also be on the length of time Jesus was in the tomb. Dr. B. acknowledges that some early Christian writers did place the Last Supper on TUESDAY evening and not Thursday evening, but then goes on to say regarding the Crucifixion "no early Christian writer ever disputed or doubted its occurrence on Friday." What does Dr. Sam think those early Christian writers were doing that placed the Last Supper on Tuesday evening? Does he think they were teaching Jesus partook of the Passover meal on Tuesday evening but was not put on the cross until Friday? Does he think they were teaching that the events recorded in the Gospels from the Passover meal to Jesus being put on the stake lasted from Tuesday evening to Friday morning? Surely it should be obvious to any logical thinking person that a writer claiming Jesus partook of the Last Supper on Tuesday evening is at the same time claiming Jesus was not crucified on a Friday but on a Wednesday. As to Dr. Sam's statement, "The absence of any early Christian polemic regarding the day of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, offers, in our view, an overwhelming proof of the trustworthiness of the traditional chronology of the Crucifixion and Resurrection," I will repeat that those early Christian writers who maintained Jesus ate the Last Supper on Tuesday evening, were putting forth the argument that Jesus was NOT crucified on a Friday. Even those early Christian writers who adapted Sunday as the Lord's Day in place of the seventh day Sabbath, did not emphasis Christ's resurrection on Sunday as number one proof for the change of day, (see Dr. Bacchiocchi's book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, pp. 270-273). I submit that the belief that Jesus had risen Sunday morning had not yet cemented itself in Christianity at large, and that there were many who still knew in those early days, that Jesus ate the Passover meal on Tuesday evening and was hence crucified on Wednesday and resurrected 3 days and 3 nights later.
You can find early writings in defense of Sunday observance but where do you find early writings to counter this and uphold Sabbath keeping and answer the claims (one being the Resurrection of Jesus on Sunday) being put forth by Sunday observing theologians, outside of the Bible. There is just a little here and there to show that God's people continued to keep the Passover and not Easter, and that Jesus ate the Passover on Tuesday evening. But in the main, the extra Biblical writings of God's true servants in response to "those who taught Sunday and Easter observance, and the idea that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday morning" was diabolically destroyed by a religious force that claimed to be Christian but was in reality the power and working of the Adversary - Satan the Devil, that God says has deceived the whole world (Rev. 12:9) and made the inhabitants of the world spiritually drunk on her spiritual fornications and lies (Rev. 17: 1-5).
It is the pagan Easter observers and their theory of a Sunday morning Resurrection (there's not one single verse that says Jesus rose on the MORNING of the first day of the week in the NT) that is based on human fantasy, who teach Christ died on a Friday (Dr. Sam is one exception, not being an Easter observer) and not those of us who believe what Jesus clearly said in MAT. 12:40.
CHAPTER FOUR - THE DAY OF THE RESURRECTION LATE OR AFTER?
I completely (and have always so, believed and taught) agree with Dr. Sam's study and conclusion of how MAT. 28:1 should read. I can do no more than quote him, ".......in the light of the above considerations on the language and context of Matthew 28:1, we conclude that this passage offers no support whatsoever to the view of a late Sabbath afternoon....... visit of the woman to the sepulchre. The indications submitted have amply established that the plain sense of MAT. 28:1 is: "After the Sabbath, as dawn on the first day of the week......" (NIV).
The internal evidence of the other Gospel writers, the very context of the verses that follow MAT. 28:1, and the fact that there is no hint whatsoever anywhere in the NT that the women came to the tomb TWICE (once late on the Sabbath, and again early on Sunday morning), leaves know doubt that the Greek word under dispute in MAT.28:1 should be understood and translated as "After" and not as "Late on." I refer the reader on this particular point of out topic to both Dr.Sam's book and to the book on the same subject (The 3 days and 3 nights) by Ralph Woodrow. While I disagree with their overall teaching about 3 days and 3 nights, they are quite correct on this one point. The Church of God(7th Day), Denver, are very incorrect here in their stand that MAT. 28:1 should read, "Late on the Sabbath...."
I will take the time to quote from the booklet by Woodrow:
"......MAT. 28:1: In the end of the Sabbath.......The context mentions a great earthquake, an angel descending from heaven, rolls back the stone from the tomb, and announces that Jesus has risen from the dead! The women quickly go to tell the disciples the glad news, and then actually see the risen Christ ......all of these things, took place 'in the end of the Sabbath,' we are told, so not on Sunday morning at all! ....... So, 'in the end of the sabbath.' or 'late on the sabbath' (as some translate it), was when the resurrection took place. One writer....... states: The women came to the tomb 'late on the sabbath.' The stone was rolled away 'late on the sabbath.' The tomb was empty 'late on the sabbath.' The angel said Jesus had risen, 'late on the sabbath.' Since all these things happened 'late on the sabbath,' he reasons, 'Is it not the silliest kind of nonsense to say that the resurrection took place on Sunday morning?' ....... If it was late on the sabbath when the women discovered the stone was rolled away, why would they be asking the next morning: 'Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre/' (MARK 16:2,3). If it was late on the sabbath that the women found the tomb empty, why would they be taking spices to anoint the dead body the next morning, knowing it was not there? (LK. 24:1). If it was late on the sabbath that the angel told the two Marys to 'go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen' (MAT. 28:7), why would the disciples be so unconcerned that they calmly waited until morning before going to check it out? The fact is, they 'ran' to the tomb as soon as they heard the report! (JOHN 20:4). If it was late on the sabbath that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, found it empty, and actually saw and worshipped the resurrected Christ, why would she be weeping the next morning at the tomb and asking the supposed gardener where the body had been placed? (JN. 20:1,11,15). If it was late on the sabbath that the women discovered the empty tomb, why do the other accounts link it with dawn, and why does even Matthew 28:1 say it was 'as it began to dawn'? Dawn is when the sun is coming up, not when it is going down! ........."
Very logical questions as we look at all the accounts of the four Gospels. There is no way around it, the only conclusion is that MAT. 28:1 should not be taken as "late on the sabbath" but "after the sabbath" or "ending the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards......" Matthew is telling us the same as the other three Gospel writers, that the Sabbath ENDING, after it was over, and as it was BEGINNING to DAWN TOWARDS the first of the week (there is only one dawn in any 24 hour day), as John was inspired to write "while it was yet DARK" (more darkness than light yet the sun was on its way up, maybe a red yellow skyline where the sun would come up), the ladies came FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME to the tomb to anoint the body of Christ, with the spices they had BOUGHT after the Sabbath (and prepared them after that 15th of Nisan Sabbath), then rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment (7th day Sabbath). Being excited to do this anointing work they left their homes very early the night of the first day, coming to the tomb while it was still yet dark, wondering who would roll away the stone from the entrance. It was already rolled away. An angel was already there to tell them Christ was not there for He had already risen from the dead, as He said He would.
TWO SABBATHS OR NOT?
I must comment on how Dr. Sam tries to synthesize MRK. 16:1 with LK. 23:56. He outrules the women buying the spices on Saturday night, but, he says, "....... the women could easily have gone out to purchase spices early Sunday morning....... " and he further surmises and theorizes, ".......according to Luke the women had already started to prepare 'spices and ointments' on Friday afternoon (LK. 23:56). Thus, it is possible that the women went out very early Sunday morning to buy only those missing ingredients and then they went back home to finish the mixing, before hastening to the tomb. According to Mark, 'they went to the tomb when the sun had risen' (MRK. 16:2) ......." (emphasis mine).
I must give Dr. B. credit for trying and coming up with an ingenious theory - most of his colleagues will just ignore MRK. 16:1 and LK. 23:56. But that is all I can give him credit for - an imaginative theory.
First, we are to believe the women FORGOT some ingredients on Friday when buying the spices. There were THREE women doing this buying (MRK. 16:1; LK. 23:55-56) at least, and we are to believe they all still forgot some of the things they would need.
Secondly, we are to believe the stores were open very early Sunday morning (none of these women had any of the forgotten ingredients at home with them or any friend to borrow them from it seems) so these women could buy the forgotten items, return and finish preparing the spices and get to the tomb " as it began to dawn towards the first of the week " (MT. 28:1) and "when it was yet dark " (JN 20:1).
Thirdly, we understand Mark's statement "when the sun had risen" by the question, "how much had it risen" which is answered by Matthew and John in that it was BEGINNING to dawn TOWARDS the day but was still "yet dar." There was still more darkness than light when they ARRIVED at the tomb. Have you ever arose early in the morning when the sun was still down over the horizon but light was beginning to break forth, yet it was still more dark than light? I have. This was the time of day or night (whichever way you want to look at it) that the woman arrived at the tomb - it is only by putting Matthew's and John's account with Mark's that a clear picture is formed. To quote only Mark is nice for those who would like 3 or 4 hours after sun rise, so the women could get to the store, buy the items they had all forgotten on Friday, return and finish preparing them, and still get to the tomb during the morning of the first day to see the resurrection of Christ. But the plain Biblical fact is NONE of those who went to the tomb that early morning SAW Jesus being resurrected - when they got there Jesus was already gone - the stone was already rolled away and Christ was not there. THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE IN THE NT THAT SAYS JESUS WAS RESURRECTED ON SUNDAY MORNING! You try to find it. Yet those who speak of Christ being resurrected on a Sunday teach it as if it is a Biblical FACT, although they cannot show one verse that says He was. And still they want to say that those of us who believe Jesus to have been in the grave for three days and three nights as He said He would be, base our belief "on human fantasy and not on a Biblical fact." At least I can give you the reader, the fact of MAT. 12:40 to back up by belief Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, where can they give me a verse that says Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning? The gospel writers tell of several different visits made by the disciples to the tomb on that first day of the week. In EVERY instance, they found the tomb EMPTY! An angel said, "He is not here: for he is risen, as he said" (MAT. 28:6). The angel did not say "He has just a few minutes ago risen" or "He rose an hour after sun up this morning" or "He was resurrected earlier this morning on the first day of the week." The first day of the week was WHEN the disciples DISCOVERED that he was risen, but nowhere does the Bible actually say this was the time of the resurrection.
The only verse which seems to teach a Sunday morning resurrection is MRK 16:9, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene....... " But this verse does not say that early on the first day Jesus was "rising" or that he "did rise" at that time. It says that when the first day of the week came, he "WAS RISEN" - past perfect tense in the Greek. An action having taken place in the past but continuing in the present.
Since there were no punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts from which our NT is translated, the phrase "early the first day of the week" could just as correctly be linked with the time Jesus appeared to Mary. By simply placing the comma after the word risen , this verse would read: "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." The following verses show Mark is recording some of the APPEARANCES of Jesus and not explaining on which day Jesus was resurrected.
The Greek is very revealing in LUKE 23:54,56. The definite article "the" DOES NOT appear in verse 54. It reads in the Greek, "And day it was preparation and Sabbath was coming on" (Berry Interlinear). Verse 56 reads, "And having returned they prepared aromatics, and the Sabbath remained quiet, according to the commandment" (Berry Interlinear). The definite article "the" is in the Greek in verse 56. A small but somewhat meaningful point. One Sabbath (the 15th of the first month - first day of the Unleavened Bread feast) is just "Sabbath" but when they rested according to the commandment Sabbath it is "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath according to the commandment" - the fourth commandment of the big ten - the 7th day weekly Sabbath. A little more proof the writers of the Gospels knew there were TWO Sabbaths during the Passover week when Jesus was put to death.
And in passing (will say more later on this point) the Greek word for "was coming on" in verse 54 is in the IMPERFECT tense. The Sabbath HAD come and was continuing.
It is time for all people who call themselves after Jesus Christ to, "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Those who have the greater knowledge of God's word and are in positions of leadership need to STAND STRONG and LEAD in example and teaching. I call on Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi to KEEP and observe the 14th of Nisan PASSOVER as the early first century true Christians did. I call upon him to observe the FESTIVALS of God as the early Christians did. I call upon him to strongly stand up and denounce the pagan festivals that his denomination is practicing.
I call upon him to acknowledge the errors of E.G. White and to shout out loud and clear to the leaders and members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church that it is IDOLATRY to base their religion on the so call "inspired" writings of ELLEN WHITE. Yes, it may cost Dr. Sam his job he may find himself "put out" of the Adventist organization. But then he'll be "put into" the true body of Christ.
Since all the above was written (back in 1986) it is a pleasure to state that Dr. Sam has indeed accepted the truth that the Festivals of God (as outlined in Lev.23) should be observed. He is busy promoting them, and for that courageous stand I praise the Lord. He does not hold E.G. White as infallible, and he does denounce the false pagan festivals such as Xmas and Easter.
TO BE CONTINUED .....................
Written in 1986
Mat.12:40
Dr. Samuele Bacciocchi (a late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered OTHER ARGUMENTS ANSWERED
Over the past 25 years I have encountered a number of arguments trying to uphold a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning Resurrection. Probably the Seventh Day Adventist organization has written more articles and booklets than any other Christian group to defend this popular tradition. I maintain that they have done so in order to uphold their teaching that ELLEN WHITE was an infallible Prophetess - to prove her wrong on one point (there are many other things she wrote that are contrary to Scripture besides the Friday Crucifixion/Sunday Resurrection) would smash the Adventists theological foundation.
DECOMPOSITION THEORY
Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has perhaps presented us with some of the most scholastic arguments in parts of his book, that I have seen to date. But his Adventistism did shine through loud and clear, in the last half of his thesis, and especially in concluding with a quote from Ellen White. A colleague of Dr. B. by the name of Harry Lowe wrote on the same subject back in 1970. He found another problem with believing Jesus to have been 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb - he wrote, "To keep an unembalmed body for over seventy-two hours, from Wednesday afternoon until after Saturday night, was not possible in a climate where decomposition would have set in before that."
My answer to this argument is:
1) Jesus was embalmed - see JN 19:38-40. "ALOES....... a substance which dissolved in water and added to myrrh, was used by the ancients in their highly perfected art of embalming (JN 19:38-40)." Pictorial Bible Dic. p.661.
2) The coldness of a hillside tomb (much like a cave) even in a hot climate as Palestine, has a preservation quality to it to some degree. 3) Jesus had lost all His blood through the scourging He underwent and having a spear thrust in His side (JN 19:33,34), hence He would not decompose as quickly as Lazarus was doing after being dead for four days (JN 11:17). About a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes was used on Jesus (JN 19:39).
4) Besides all these physical facts, we have the sure promise and miracle power of God the Father that, "neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption" (PS. 16:10). Jesus was foreordained to be resurrected and not to decompose at any time before that event.
RESURRECTION WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED THEORY
Some have claimed that the rolling back of the stone (more like a "boulder") over the entrance to the tomb, was so the women could witness the Resurrection and Jesus could come out.
My answer:
1) Jesus did not need the entrance opened as He could after His resurrection PASS THROUGH physical matter - see JN. 20:18-20.
2) The stone was rolled away so the women and disciples could enter the tomb and see that Jesus was NOT THERE - see MRK. 16:1-4; LK. 24:1-12; JN. 20:1-10.
3) The disciples on entering and seeing the angels were told Jesus HAD RISEN (LK. 24:6; MRK. 16:6; MT. 28:6 - AORIST tense, i.e. "has risen") already. The "aorist" is single action done in the past.
INCLUSIVE COUNTING (LK.13:32,33)
You can use PORTIONS of the day rather than 24 hrs. You can use the day you are speaking on as a full day, the morrow would be the 2nd day, part of the next day would be the 3rd day. This can prove INCLUSIVE counting and less than 72 hrs.
This may be true within a certain CONTEXT as Luke 13:32,33. I have said that the Bible does use INclusive counting AT TIMES! But, I have also proved the Bible uses EXclusive counting also at times.
The phrase "the third day" is used in Gen.1:13 to add up to 72 hours as shown by reading verses 3 - 13. John 11:9 shows us: 12 hours in a day, obviously meaning the daylight portion of a 24 hour day, hence also 12 hours in the night portion of a whole 24 hours day.
MATTHEW 12:40 is VERY SPECIFIC! Jesus was being very specific. At other times He just said He would rise the "third day" or "after three days" or "in three days" but here in Matthew 12:40 He nailed it down to specifics. He said He would be in the heart of the earth (the tomb) for three days AND three night - for 72 hours!
THE WAVE SHEAF ON THE 1st DAY - LEV. 23:9-11
As Jesus was typified by the sheaf of the firstfruits and as this sheaf was waved on the morning of the first day then it is argued, Jesus rose on the morning of the first day.
My answer:
1. The passage in Lev. says nothing about WHEN the wave sheaf was cut. The instruction there has to do with WHAT must be done with the wave sheaf, before WHOM and WHEN. Jesus fulfilled this symbolism when He presented Himself before the Lord(Father) of heaven on the first day (John 20:1-18). This wave sheaf represented the RISEN Christ and the work He had to do on the first day before the Father, NOT when He rose.
2. There is some evidence from Jewish historical writings to show that the wave sheaf was cut on the evening that we call Saturday evening. The evening after sunset on Saturday. Actually the Pharisees we know from history cut the "wave sheaf" just after the Sabbath of the 15th of the first month, just after the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread had ended, and waved it before the Lord the morning of the 16th day. The Sadducees, who were the official Temple priests during the time Christ lived, DISAGREED with the Pharisees over this matter of WHEN to cut and wave the firstfruit sheaf before the Lord. They waved it during the morning of the first day of the week that usually fell during the Unleavened Bread feast. The CUTTING of the firstfruit sheaf is probably what typified the time of Christ's RESURRECTION, and it was from what we can gather from Jewish history, cut just shortly AFTER the Sabbath. It was NEVER cut ON the Sabbath!
THE THIRD DAY SINCE ALL THESE THINGS WERE DONE LUKE 24:21
It is argued that the third day from Wednesday could not be a Sunday, but the third day from Friday would be a Sunday.
My answer:
The third day from Friday would be a Sunday IF and only if Luke was using inclusive reckoning. If Luke was using exclusive counting then MONDAY and not Sunday would be the third day from Friday.
The men talked about "all these things which had happened" (verse 14). All these things would include the making sure the disciples could not roll away the stone and steal the body of Jesus. This was made impossible by the sealing of the tomb and placing guards at the entrance for three days (see Mat.27:62-66). This being done as we believe on a THURSDAY, Jesus' death and burial was now as far as these chief priests and Pharisees were concerned - sealed tight and sure. And the disciples probably thought it was all over as well. As they would talk about all these things that were done to their Lord, to cut them off from His life and body, it would have to include the sealing and guarding the tomb on the Thursday. The third day from when all these things were done on a Thursday is a SUNDAY!!
THREE "DAYS" (FIRST) AND THREE NIGHTS THEORY
As day is given first before night it is argued Jesus did not fulfill this saying of His in a literal sense, because the night came first as He was buried just before sunset.
My answer:
To answer this please note Gen.1:3-5. God puts the name of light first and the name of night second. Darkness was already on the earth, but nevertheless as a speech pattern God says He "called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Jesus said, "are there not twelve hours in a day" but because He did not mention the night in relation to hours, did not mean it had less hours than the day time part of a full day. By His mentioning the day (or light) part before the night part did not mean that a day had less than two egual parts of 12 hours each, nor did it mean that we should start the day at sunrise - counting the first hour of the day at sunrise. FOR when God in Gen.1:5 was instructing us on when to start counting the hours of the day He said, "the evening and the morning were the first day." On keeping the Sabbath God says, "from even unto even shall you celebrate your Sabbath" (Lev.23:32).
The phrase "three days and three nights" is a figure of speech that conveys a length of time ONLY. It is not designed by Bible writers to tell you to count the hours of a day from sunrise, but ONLY to give you a length of time - length of hours. It is a FIGURE of speech as far as which comes first, the word day or the word night. It is not a figure of speech as to the specific LENGTH of time the phrase is meant to convey to the mind.
It is said that Jonah was "three days and three nights" in the belly of the great fish. But we are not told WHEN Jonah was cast into the sea. He was fast asleep when the storm came and they had to awake him. Could this have been at night when the storm hit? Maybe and maybe not - we are not told, nor does it matter. The point the writer wants you to get is not WHEN - at what time of day or night Jonah was cast into the sea and swallowed by the fish, but HOW LONG he was in the fish's belly - three days and three nights . Whether Jonah was swallowed at sunset, sunrise, 10 a.m. or 3 p.m. is immaterial to the massage that the writer wants you to understand. The length of time is what he wants you to get - 72 hours in Jonah's case. He is not concerned with his use of such a phrase for you to understand WHEN to start counting the first hour of a 24 hour day. That is not his point or teaching he is trying to convey to you. His teaching is length of time regardless as to when that time begins. In Jonah's case he was "three days and three nights" - 72 hours - in the fish's belly from the time he was swallowed. In Jesus' case He was "three days and three nights" in the grave from the time He was put into the tomb. We do not know when Jonah was swallowed by the great fish - the Bible does not tell us. But we do know from the Scriptures of the NT that Jesus died between 3 and 4 p.m. (the third hour, which last for....yes, an hour) and placed into the tomb shortly AFTER sunset (see my later comments proving Jesus was not placed in the tomb before sunset as many believe). And three days and three nights later He was resurrected from the dead to immortality and glory.
When Paul was shipwrecked at some time he said he was, "a night and a day" in the deep (2 Cor.11:25). He mentions night first and day second, for what reason? To tell us he entered the sea at the beginning of the night or sunset? Maybe, but not necessarily. If Paul had wanted us to know the very hour he was cast into the sea he could have easily used such language as, "the sixth hour" - "the tenth hour" - or " the second hour of the third watch" etc. It was not the hour that he was cast into the sea that Paul was concerned with his readers knowing, as to the length of time - the number of hours that he suffered floating about in the sea. And in this case Paul chose to use the phrase "a night and a day" as opposed to "a day and a night" to express to the readers that he was 24 hours adrift in the sea. As there are 12 hours to the daylight part of a day and 12 hours to a night part of a day, what does it matter if one says "day and night" or "night and day" - both convey the same message in length of time.
We today have phrases that are slightly different but mean the same thing! We may say "it's two forty-five" or we may say "it's fifteen till three" or even "it's quarter to three." Some people always use the first type of expression while other always the second, and still others the third way of saying the same thing. Then some use both ways to relate the time to others - interchanging the expressions. I am of the later - I may say, "it's two forty-five" to one person and say, "it's fifteen till three" to the next person who asks me the time.
The expressions "three days, night and day" (Esther 4:16) and "three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17; Mat.12:40) are different expressions that both add up to 72 hours. They are expressions to convey length of time NOT start of time. JESUS AS JONAH - MAT.12:40
Taking the expression "three days and three nights" as literal we have this argument:
Jonah was an Israelite who preached to the people of Israel. He was swallowed by the fish for three days and three nights, after which he was resurrected to life again outside the belly of the fish to go and preach to the Gentiles in the city of Nineveh. Likewise Jesus was an Israelite who preached to the Jews of Israel. He stopped His preaching to Israel on Thursday of Passion week, was put to death on Friday and resurrected Sunday morning. The reasoning continues like this. As Jonah did not preach for three days and three nights and then continued his preaching to Gentiles, so Jesus did not preach from Thursday to Sunday - three days and three nights - then continued to preach to Gentiles.
My answer:
This argument for explaining the "three days and three nights" of Mat.12:40 is made invalid for the following reasons:
1. Although Jonah was an Israelite there is absolutely NOTHING in the book of Jonah to show that he ever preached ONE WORD to the peoples of Israel. Jonah was called to go and preach to the Gentile people of the city of Nineveh - to no other people but those dwelling in the town of Nineveh!!
2. Jesus preached to Israelites and some Gentiles before His death. After His resurrection we see Him appearing to His disciples - talking to them - preaching to them - but there is not one word about Him preaching or talking to any Gentile.
3. Not only can we not find any word about Jesus preaching to Gentiles after His resurrection, but the disciples themselves did not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles until a number of years after the New Testament Church was started. This can be seen by reading Acts chapter one to chapter eleven, verse nineteen. WHEN WAS JESUS PLACED IN THE TOMB?
The Bible is the most wonderful book ever written. One of its many wonders is that you can take all your life time reading and studying its pages, and still you will not have found all its various little truths hidden here and there. It is of course THE WORD of the Eternal God of the universe. That word tells us to study, to prove all things, to love the truth, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, to grow in knowledge, to be willing to be humble and to be willing to to corrected. All this is a life long process, to the very day we fall asleep in death.
Often, we come across more truth somewhat accidentally in a sense, and the sense I mean is that we may be studying a certain subject and find a truth we were not expecting or looking for. I have experienced that a number of times over my 55 years of life to date (editing this study in 1998). The most recent time to experience this blessing was this past year of 1998. I was doing a full and indepth study on how the NT uses the word "evening." I had never undertaken such a study before, not so complete from the NT. I was looking up every place in the NT where the word "evening" was used and letting the Scriptures interpret themselves as to how it it used by that section of the Bible. It was a rewarding study indeed.
Briefly, the study shows a four way use of this word. 1) Evening = sunset. 2) Evening = period of time from after 6 p.m. or as the NT puts it, from the 12th hour on. 3) Evening = a time after sunset on into an amount of time (not specified in any specific way) covered by darkness. 4) Evening, can be part of the day that precedes it. As I was studying this topic concerning "evening" I was also studying the last 24 hours of the life and death of Jesus. I came across a verse that hit me like a ton of bricks. Actually two of the Gospel writers bring it out (Matthew and Mark). In Matthew the verse is 57 of chapter 27. In Mark we find it in chapter 15 verse 42.
These two men tell us very plainly that Joseph of Arimathaea did not come to Pilate UNTIL EVENING! Putting aside all ideas of men or traditions of men and societies and only using the NT to interpret the use of the word "evening" for us, Joseph did not come to Pilate until at least 6 p.m. As the Passover was in the Spring of the year (our late March or April), sunset in Jerusalem, Palestine, at that time would also be around 6 p.m. When we understand that the word "even" or "evening" can be connected with the previous daylight portion of the day just preceding that evening, we can understand why Mark says it was preparation before Sabbath (chapter 15 verse 42). When we understand that no Gospel writer tells us the exact time, down to the minute, when Jesus died, and that from what is given it was sometime between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. When we understand that although the Jewish leaders wanted the three men dead before the Sabbath came, they certainly had no intentions to remove and bury Jesus themselves. When we understand that those Jewish leaders would have been too busy with the utter confusion that would have erupted in the Temple when the curtain that divided off the "most holy place" was split asunder, to worry about who would take down the body and this Christ and bury it. When we understand that none of the physical brothers and sisters of Christ (half brothers and sisters that is) came to take care of the body of Jesus. When we see and understand that not even one of the twelve disciples came to take down the body of their leader. When we understand that everyone close to Christ was thinking that someone else but themselves was surely looking after the job of taking Jesus down from the cross and burying Him somewhere. When we understand all this, then we can see why it took a few hours from Christ's death for Joseph to finally realize NOBODY was going to remove Jesus and bury Him. And by the time he realized this it was "even." The sun had set. He made a fast move to Pilate and begged for the body of Christ. How long would it have taken to then go and take Christ down from the stake, use the 100 pounds or so of aloes that Nicodemus brought (as John tells us), wrap the body and take it to the tomb? We know the tomb was close at hand, as that is told us. All of this probably would have taken at least an hour and a half, if not two hours.
It is now dark, oh, yes, maybe still could be classified as "evening" by the way the NT uses the word. Maybe could use the word "even" as belonging to the previous day, as the Bible does use that concept from time to time (as I show in my study article on the word "evening"), yet, as used in the Bible, and in the NT, it is now the evening of the Sabbath, it is now the beginning of the Sabbath of the 15th day of the first month - the first day and first Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread. Jesus was put in the tomb at the beginning, during the first few hours of the Sabbath of the 15th day of Nisan.The women (a few of them) we are told watched as Joseph and Nicodemus performed all this and they saw where they laid Him. A job had to be done, this was an ox in the ditch situation, no matter the work involved, and the Sabbath having come, the task of putting Jesus to rest in the tomb in the correct Jewish manner had to be completed.
Now, there is one verse left to explain. On the surface it would be thought that this verse would clearly demolish all I have said above. But, to the contrary, when we understand the Greek tense used for the critical words in this verse, it becomes another huge proof to what I have stated. The verse is Luke 23:54. It would seem to say (according to the KJV) that the Sabbath "drew on" - was yet to arrive, and Joseph had already laid Jesus in the tomb. Someone whose native tongue was Greek, would have had little trouble understanding what Luke REALLY said. The word "drew on" as in the KJV, is in the Greek, in the IMPERFECT tense, not the FUTURE tense, but the IMPERFECT tense. What does the imperfect tense signify? The book "Essentials of New Testament Greek" by Ray Summers, lesson 13, pages 55,56 has this to say: ".......The imperfect tense indicates CONTINUOUS action in PAST time. Contrast 'I am loosing' (present) with 'I was loosing' (imperfect) and the significance is clear......Always it represents CONTINUOUS action in PAST time.......The 'repeated' or 'iterative' imperfect shows action repeated in past time. It would be represented by a broken line (- - - - - ) rather than a continous line (______) which would represent the descriptive imperfect......."
Ah, now we can understand what Luke really was saying in chapter 23:54. Talking about all the things Joseph and Nicodemus had done and finished, including the placing of Christ in the tomb, the Sabbath HAD COME in the past, at a past point of time and did continue. It was a kind of period of time that could be understood as belonging to the previous day, hence still preparation for the Sabbath (especially under the ox in the ditch situation), yet was also the time that belonged to the Sabbath, hence the Sabbath HAD come and was continuing by the time Jesus was placed in the tomb. It may sound a little odd and a little contradictory, but when we look at how the word "evening" was used in the NT and when we see the truth of the specific Greek tense that Luke chose (under inspiration) in verse 54, we are left with no other conclusion but to realize the NT Scriptures tell us that Jesus was not placed in the tomb until AFTER the "evening" had come, and AFTER the Sabbath had already arrived.
Three days and three nights later from a few hours into the evening of the annual Sabbath of the 15th of Nisan, a Wednesday evening, brings us to a few hours after the weekly Sabbath, or Saturday evening, for the RESURRECTION of Christ! Close to when the Wave Sheaf was cut as the Sadducees (priests of the Temple) taught and observed (the first of the firstfruits), ready to be presented to the Lord the next morning, a Sunday morning. So the whole typology of the Passover lamb and Wave sheaf was completely fulfilled in Christ, even to the typology of Jonah being three days and three nights in in the whales belly, was fulfilled by Jesus being three days and three nights in the tomb. END NOTES
Perhaps the number one reason that has been put forth over the centuries, for keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, has been the teaching that Jesus was resurrected the morning of the first day of the week. This teaching is not only unscriptural but contrary to a number of Historical sorces.
The Didascalia, an early Christian work which is preserved in Syriac, supports a Wednesday crucifixion day. In this work the apostles are quoted as saying that it was on Tuesday evening that they ate the Passover with Jesus, and on Wednesday that He was taken captive and held in custody in the house of Caiaphas.
Epiphanius, a post-Nicene writer, gives Tuesday evening as the Last Supper (A.Gilmore, "Date and Significance of the Last Supper," Scottish Journal of Theology, Sept. 1961, pp. 256-259, 264 - 268).
Victorinus of Pettau, worked out a chronology that arrives at the conclusion that Jesus was arrested on a Wednesday. Loc.cit.
There is a certain amount of evidence found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers for the Last Supper having taken place on the 13th of Nisan, i.e., Tuesday evening. Loc.cit. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Writing in "Eternity" magazine, its editor, Donald Grey Barnhouse cited evidence from the scrolls which would place the Last Supper on Tuesday. He also quoted from a Roman Catholic journal published in France that "an ancient Christian tradition, attested to by the Didascalia Apostolorum as well as by Epiphanius and Victorinus of Pettau (died 304 A. D.) gives Tuesday evening as the date of the Last Supper and prescribes a fast for Wednesday to commemorate the capture of Christ" (Eternity, June, 1958).
Though strongly holding to a Friday crucifixion, The Catholic Encyclopedia says that not all scholars have believed this way. Epiphanius, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours are mentioned as rejecting Friday as the day of the crucifixion (Vol.8, p. 378, art. "Jesus Christ.").
The Companion Bible, published by Oxford University Press, in its Appendix 156 explains that Christ was crucified on Wednesday.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Finis Dake has said on his note on Matthew 12:40: "Christ was dead for three full days and for three full nights. He was put in the grave Wednesday just before sunset and was resurrected at the end of Saturday at sunset.... No statement says that He was buried Friday at sunset. This would make him in the grave only one day and one night, proving his own words untrue" (p 13).
The error in believing Jesus was crucified on a Friday has largely come about by thinking that the Sabbath that followed "the preparation" of Mt.27:62 and Jn. 19:31 was the weekly 7th day Sabbath instead of the first Passover Sabbath. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says, "The day after the preparation (ASV). Usually explained as Saturday...... However, this preparation day was the day before the Passover Feast day (John 19:14,31), which feast may have occurred that year on Wednesday night. Perhaps this accounts for Matthew's not using the term 'Sabbath' here, lest it be confused with Saturday. According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view gives more reasonable treatment to Mt.12:40. It also explains 'after three days' and 'on the third day' in a way that does least violence to either" (page 984).
The answer is all resolved when it is understood that there were TWO SABBATHS in the last week of our Savior's physical life.
Ferrar Fenton (a wealthy Englishman, for about 50 years avoided reading the BibIe in any but the original languages, that his own translation of the Bible might not be influenced by other translations), renders the first part of Mt.28:1 as, "After the SabbathS.." He states in his foot note that the Greek original is in the PLURAL. Fenton translates Lk.24:1 as," But at day-break upon the first day following the Sabbaths, they proceeded to the tomb......" Again in Jn.20:1, "Now on the first day following the SABBATHS...... " And his footnote says that this is literally as the Greek reads.
The Greek is very significant in LK.23:54 - 56. In verse 54 Luke was inspired to write, "A preparation day, and A Sabbath " but in verse 56 the definite article "the" is used with "Sabbath" showing that this Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, thus making a difference between the two Sabbaths, and showing there was indeed TWO Sabbath days during that Passover week, leading up to the first day or Sunday.
Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on a Tuesday evening. He was arrested during that night and crucified during the daytime of Wednesday. At between 3 and 4 p.m. in the after- noon (the third hour) He died. His burial was shortly after sunset. At sunset the high day Sabbath for the feast of Unleavened Bread began. It lasted till sunset the next day - Thursday.
This was ONE night and ONE day in the tomb. Friday, a work day before the weekly Sabbath, followed. Now we have TWO nights and TWO days that Jesus lay in the grave. The night of the weekly Sabbath was the THIRD night, and the daylight part of that Saturday was the THIRD day. After a full 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb, the heart of the earth - Jesus rose from the dead, just after sunset - as the wave sheaf was cut (being the first of the firstfruits) exactly 72 hours after being put into the tomb. It was a first day of the week resurrection but not on a Sunday morning.
LUKE and MARK give us the final proof. Luke tells us, "And 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). They had and prepared these spices BEFORE the Sabbath. But notice what Mark tells us, "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought spices, that they might come and anoint him"(Mark 16:1). They bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath was past!
Putting the two Gospel accounts together, it would have been impossible for them to purchase the spices after the Sabbath, and then to prepare them before the Sabbath, and rest on the same Sabbath. The conclusion is inescapable. There were two Sabbaths that week, and when properly harmonized, everything fits in place.
A note on Mark 16:9. Someone is bound to say that this verse plainly says that Jesus rose on the morning (sunrise) of the first day of the week.
In the Greek the phrase"early the first day of the week" can be grammatically connected either with the words "having risen" or with the words "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." The Expositor's Greek Testament says the phrase "early the first day of the week" may be either "connected with (having risen), indicating the time of the resurrection, or with (appeared), indicating the time of the first appearance."
We have seen that it could not refer to the time of the resurrection. Mark 16:9 should have been translated, "Now having risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene."
It is rendered this way in the Montgomery translation.
................................
First written 1986 Edited and revised July 1998
All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published, e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Holy Spirit. Mr. Hunt trusts nothing will be changed without his consent. | 