Showing posts with label crucifixion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crucifixion. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2016

The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Easter. This follows this previous post about it. This follows this post about the Pope and immigration. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

In the northern hemisphere, the spring of each year brings several of Christianity’s most important religious observances. The Lenten period from Ash Wednesday to Easter is observed by some with fasting and penance. Good Friday, or Holy Friday, as it is sometimes called, is celebrated two days before Easter as a commemoration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Easter Sunday is revered as the day of Jesus’ resurrection, sometimes by sunrise services.
Once we realize that two Sabbaths were involved—first an annual Holy Day, which was observed from Wednesday evening until Thursday evening, and the normal weekly Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, the fulfillment of Christ’s words becomes clear.
These practices are so much an ingrained tradition in the church calendar that many would consider it heretical to question them. But most of the world is scarcely aware that the original apostles did not institute or keep these customs, nor were they observed by the early Christian Church. Try as you might to find them, Lent, Good Friday and Easter are not so much as mentioned in the original Greek wording of the New Testament. The word Easter appears only once in the King James Version of the Bible (Acts 12:4) in a flagrant mistranslation of the Greek word pascha , which should be translated “Passover,” as most versions render it.
The justification for the Lenten 40-day preparation for Easter is traditionally based on Jesus’ 40-day wilderness fast before his temptation by Satan ( Harper’s Bible Dictionary , “Lent”; Matthew 4:1-2; Mark 1:13). The problem with this explanation is that this incident is not connected in any way with Jesus’ supposed observance of Easter. The 40-day pre-Easter practice of fasting and penance did not originate in the Bible.

Pre-Christian practices adopted

Many people still follow such practices, assuming that such activities honor God and are approved by Him. But, we should ask, how does God regard such extrabiblical customs? Consider God’s instructions to those who would worship Him:
“Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, emphasis added throughout).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes: “The term Easter was derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘Eostre,’ the name of the goddess of spring. In her honor sacrifices were offered at the time of the vernal [spring] equinox” (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1982, Vol. 2, “Easter”).
Many battles were fought over its observance date, but the Council of Nicea finally fixed the date of Easter in A.D. 325 to fall on the first Sunday after the full moon on or after the vernal equinox (March 21).
Not generally known is that:
“the preparation for Easter season, beginning on Ash Wednesday and continuing for a week after Easter Day, was filled with pagan customs that had been revised in the light of Christianity. Germanic nations, for example, set bonfires in spring. This custom was frowned on by the Church, which tried to suppress it . . . In the sixth and seventh centuries [monks] came to Germany, [bringing] their earlier pagan rites[,] and would bless bonfires outside the church building on Holy Saturday. The custom spread to France, and eventually it was incorporated into the Easter liturgy of Rome in the ninth century. Even today the blessing of the new fire is part of the Vigil of Easter.
“Medieval celebrations of Easter began at dawn. According to one old legend, the sun dances on Easter morning, or makes three jumps at the moment of its rising, in honor of Christ’s resurrection. The rays of light penetrating the clouds were believed to be angels dancing for joy.
“Some Easter folk traditions that have survived today are the Easter egg, rabbit and lamb. During medieval times it was a tradition to give eggs at Easter to servants. King Edward I of England had 450 eggs boiled before Easter and dyed or covered with gold leaf. He then gave them to members of the royal household on Easter day. The egg was an earlier pagan symbol of rebirth and was presented at the spring equinox, the beginning of the pagan new year.
“The Easter rabbit is mentioned in a German book of 1572 and also was a pagan fertility symbol. The Easter lamb goes back to the Middle Ages; the lamb, holding a flag with a red cross on a white field, represented the resurrected Christ [rather than the sacrifice of His life, as a fulfillment of the Passover lamb, that paid for the sins of the world (John 1:29)]” (Anthony S. Mercatante, Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend , New York and Oxford, 1988, “Easter”).

Passover out, Easter in

Easter traditions are embraced by many who profess Christianity. However, none of these practices are to be found in the Bible or the customs of the early Church. Jesus and His apostles did not establish or perpetuate such practices, which obscure the true biblical meanings and observances of this time of year. In fact, a 4th-century church historian, Socrates Scholasticus, wrote in his Ecclesiastical History that neither the apostles nor the Gospels taught the observance of Easter, nor did they or Jesus give a law requiring the keeping of this feast. Instead, “the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom” (chapter 22, emphasis added).
Even as early as the close of the 2nd century, the theologian Irenaeus bore witness in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, that some early Roman bishops forbade the observance of Passover on the 14th of Nisan. This was the date of the biblical observance practiced each spring by Jesus and the apostles. At the time that the Nisan 14 Passover observance was banned, ecclesiastical authorities introduced Lent and Easter into Christian practice.

Distorting Jesus’ words

A century later the Syriac Didascalia recorded the attempts of teachers in Rome to reconcile Jesus’ words that He would be entombed “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40) with a Friday-afternoon crucifixion and a Sunday-morning resurrection. According to their reasoning, Jesus’ sufferings were part of the three days and three nights of Scripture. Friday morning from 9 to noon was counted as the first day, and noon to 3 p.m. (which was darkened) was considered the first night. Three in the afternoon to sunset was reckoned as the second day, whereas Friday night to Saturday morning constituted the second night. The daylight part of Saturday was the third day, and the night portion to Sunday morning was the third night.
In other words, the three days and three nights in the grave that Jesus said would be the sign that He was indeed sent from God were transformed into a period of two days and two nights, or a total of no more than 48 hours. This has subsequently been reduced even further in modern times by figuring from late-afternoon Friday to early Sunday morning, which takes away another 12 hours or more. Such reasoning has to discount or somehow explain away Jesus’ clear promise that He would be entombed three days and three nights.
Easter and Lent are nonbiblical and were not observed by the apostles or the 1st-century Church. The biblical record shows, however, that the early Church diligently kept other observances, the New Testament Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, just as Jesus and the apostles had done (Matthew 26:17-19; Acts 20:6; 1 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). These were supplanted in later years by the customs and practices of Easter and Lent.
Passover is an annual reminder of Jesus’ sacrificial death to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:26-28). The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a celebration that focuses on a Christian’s need to live in sincerity, truth and purity (1 Corinthians 5:8). The nonbiblical festivals of Lent and Easter, added decades after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, only cloud the true significance of Christ’s life, death and resurrection and the purpose of His coming.
The Passover was instituted in Exodus 12 and continues, by Jesus Christ’s example and command, but with a change of symbols. Jesus’ death fulfilled the symbolism of the sacrificial Passover lamb (Matthew 26:17-28; John 1:29), but the New Testament Passover has been improperly replaced as an annual memorial of the resurrection of Christ by Easter. We are commanded to commemorate Christ’s death, not His resurrection (1 Corinthians 11:23-28).

Facts about Jesus’ last days

Jesus Christ’s promise was fulfilled exactly as He said, a fact that is made clear when we study and compare the Gospel accounts. These records give a clear, logical explanation that is perfectly consistent with Christ’s words. Let’s focus on Jesus’ last days on earth to gain the proper perspective and understanding of how and when these events occurred.
Jesus said that, like the prophet Jonah, He would be entombed three days and three nights and that He would be raised up the third day after His crucifixion and death (Matthew 12:39-40; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19). Putting these scriptures together, we see that He was resurrected at the end of the third day after His death. Luke 23:44 shows that He died around the ninth hour (Jewish reckoning), or 3 p.m. He would have been buried within the next few hours so that His body could be entombed before the approaching Sabbath (John 19:31).
Jesus’ resurrection could not have been on a Sunday morning because John 20:1-2 shows that He had already risen before Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early in the morning, arriving “while it was still dark.” Therefore, neither could His death have occurred Friday afternoon, since that would not allow for His body to be in the grave three days and three nights. Clearly, the Good Friday-Easter Sunday explanation and tradition is without scriptural foundation.
Notice also that John 19:31 mentions that the Sabbath immediately after Jesus’ death was “a high day”—not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (from Friday evening to Saturday evening), but one of the annual Sabbaths, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Leviticus 23:6-7), which can fall on any day of the week.
In fact, two Sabbaths—first an annual Holy Day and then the regular weekly Sabbath—are mentioned in the Gospel accounts, a detail overlooked by most people. This can be proven by comparing Mark 16:1 with Luke 23:56.
Mark’s account tells us, “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him” (Mark 16:1). However, Luke’s account describes how the women who followed Jesus saw how His body was laid in the tomb. “Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils” for the final preparation of the body. “And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
Mark tells us that the women bought the spices after the Sabbath, “when the Sabbath was past.” Luke, however, tells us that they prepared the spices and oils, after which “they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.” How could the women have bought spices after the Sabbath, yet then prepared them and rested on the same Sabbath?
That is obviously impossible—unless two Sabbaths are involved, with a day between them. Once we realize this, the two accounts become clear (see “ The Chronology of Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection “). Christ died near 3 p.m. and was placed in the tomb near sunset that day—a Wednesday in 31. That evening began the “high day” Sabbath, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on Thursday that year.
The women rested on that day, then on Friday purchased and prepared the spices and oils for Jesus’ body, which could not be done on either the Holy Day or the weekly Sabbath. They then rested again on the weekly Sabbath before going to the tomb before daybreak on Sunday morning, at which time they discovered that Christ had already been resurrected.

Two Sabbaths confirmed in text

The fact that two Sabbaths are involved is confirmed by Matthew 28:1, where the women went to the tomb “after the Sabbath.” The Sabbath mentioned here is actually plural in the original Greek and should be translated “Sabbaths.” Some Bible versions, including Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament , Ferrar Fenton’s translation, Green’s Literal Translation and Young’s Literal Translation , make this clear.
Once we realize that two Sabbaths were involved—first an annual Holy Day, which was observed from Wednesday evening until Thursday evening, and the normal weekly Sabbath from Friday evening to Saturday evening, the fulfillment of Christ’s words becomes clear.
The Savior of all humanity died near 3 p.m. on Wednesday and was buried shortly before sunset that day. From Wednesday sunset to Thursday sunset is one day and one night; from then until Friday sunset is two days and two nights; and from then until Saturday sunset is three days and three nights. Jesus Christ was resurrected at the end of this three-day and three-night period, near sunset on Saturday. Thus He was already risen long before the women came to the tomb before daylight on Sunday morning.
Jesus Christ’s words were thus perfectly fulfilled, as verified by the Gospel accounts. He was not crucified on Friday afternoon, nor was He resurrected on a Sunday morning. The biblical evidence shows the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition to be a fabrication.
A correct harmonization of all the facts demonstrates that Jesus died near 3 p.m. that Wednesday afternoon, was entombed near sunset and was resurrected near sunset on Saturday, exactly three days and three nights later—just as He had stated. These are the facts, the correct biblical chronology that verifies the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The biblical festivals

Actually, the principal festivals and holidays observed by mainstream Christendom are a poor and pale reflection of true biblical teachings. Easter and Lent are a poor substitute for the wondrous truths revealed by keeping God’s feasts.
The New Testament Church continued to observe the annual Passover to commemorate the death of Jesus Christ, but used the new symbols of bread and wine that He instituted (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Today some continue to commemorate this eminently important event in the same manner, in accordance with Christ’s instructions.
Again, the Bible contains no record of the Church observing Easter or Lent during the time of the apostles, nor any biblical command to observe Good Friday or Easter Sunday, especially since Christ did not die on Good Friday and was not resurrected on Easter Sunday. Instead, the apostles faithfully followed Christ’s instructions to observe the biblical Passover “in remembrance” of Him (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
The marvelous plan of God has been obscured by theologians and religious leaders trying to merge nonbiblical practices with biblical events. To better understand why Jesus instructed His followers to observe Passover along with the other biblically defined festivals, read the Bible study aid  God’s Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind  .

You might also be interested in...

Friday, April 18, 2014

Something Better Than Easter

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Easter observance. This follows this post about the likelihood of a war in Asia. This follows this post about Jesus statement about "three days and three nights" as his proof of being the Messiah. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!




Something Better Than Easter







Exactly how did Easter - a holiday not found in the Bible and never celebrated in the early Church - come to replace the Passover, an observance that is plainly found in the Bible?

Bust of Constantine in the Vatican Museum.
Bust of Roman emperor Constantine in the Vatican Museum.

Source: Wikimedia
How did Easter become the popular holiday it is today? Have you ever looked into it?
Isn't it important to know the truth of the matter? Jesus Christ Himself said that the truth would make us free (John:8:32). He was speaking of being free of wrong ideas that mislead, entrap and enslave us.
If we look back in history, one key date regarding Easter is the year A.D. 325. At that time, the Roman emperor Constantine held an assembly with some 250 bishops at Nicaea, a town in what is now northwestern Turkey, close to present-day Istanbul. This meeting is known in history as the Council of Nicaea.
What does this Council have to do with Easter? It actually set the stage for the removal of God's biblical feasts and the establishing of alternative feasts not found in the Bible, including Easter. Yet the Bible reveals what our practice ought to be.

Constantine and the Nicene Council reject biblical practices

At the Council of Nicaea, under the dominating eye of Constantine, the majority of the bishops backed replacing the biblical and Christian observance of Passover with the celebration of Easter, among other issues.
Actually, it should be understood that while they called the new celebration of Jesus' resurrection Pascha or Passover, it was certainly not the Passover of Scripture, but a religious celebration derived from pagan origins. Later it would become known as "Easter," the Germanic name for this festival and what it is commonly called today. (Other languages still call it Passover of the Resurrection, which can cause some confusion. Some English sources refer to the true Christian Passover, a memorial of Christ's death, as Easter, but this is clearly a misnomer, as we'll see.).
The dispute over this matter in the early Christian centuries is known in history as the Paschal Controversy. Regrettably, we virtually have only one side of the story.
James Carroll, writing about the Nicene Council in his book Constantine's Sword, explains the Roman emperor's motives: "Immediately upon coming to power as the sole ruler of the empire [A.D. 324], but only then, Constantine asserted the right to exercise absolute authority over the entire Church. He did this despite the fact that he was not baptized, and, as was not unusual, would not be until shortly before he died" (2001, p. 188, emphasis added throughout).
After this Council, Constantine wrote a blatantly anti-Semitic letter to the churches in the Roman Empire letting them know his thoughts about the Easter-Passover controversy.
Here is part of what he wrote as to the rationale for Christians to abandon the biblical feast of Passover, which the Jewish people had long observed in fulfillment of God's commands: "And truly, in the first place, it seemed to everyone a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches!, having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds.
"It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite in a more legitimate order ... Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.
" We have received another method from the Savior. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion ... Let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship" (quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History , "Council of Nice," 1974, p. 52).
At first glance, it appears Constantine was attacking only Jews of the Jewish faith, but notice what Mal and Donna Broadhurst insightfully point out: "The fact that Christianity never had religious fellowship with non-Christian Jews means the Jews referred to were the Christian Jews . The reference to Jews instructing Christians how to observe the Christian Passover feast could only be applicable to Christian Jews, as non-Christian Jews did not tell Christians how to observe the Passover. The fellowship from which Constantine wanted the Church to withdraw was fellowship with Christian Jews" ( Passover Before Messiah and After ,1987, p. 147).
In fact, the leaders of Jewish Christianity, the successors of the group who had held the prevailing beliefs for the first century after the Church was founded, were either not invited to this Council or knew better and did not appear.
As the Broadhursts point out: "Constantine apparently began his plan to unify the church by simply not inviting any [Christian] Jewish representatives to the Council. (It is possible Jewish church leaders were invited and refused to come, but other facts about the Council lead to the former conclusion.) The lists of those present at the Council shows them all to have had Greek names. None of those present had characteristic Jewish names. The Palestinian delegates were from the coastal cities where mainly Gentiles lived. It is known that there were Jewish bishops in Palestine at the time" (p. 146).

The sword drawn against "Fourteeners"

As emperor, Constantine tolerated no dissent. So he soon drew his sword against those not following his wishes in not conforming to the teachings of the Catholic, or universal, church. The historian Robin Lane Fox notes: "At Nicaea, the Emperor himself imposed criminal sentences of exile on the bishops who refused to sign . He also investigated other reports of heresy" ( Pagans and Christians, 1986, p. 656).
Eventually, those bishops who did not agree with the decisions made in Nicaea were exiled and their works banned. A vicious persecution against Christian Jews and others branded as heretics began. So the Catholic Church, which previously had been persecuted, became the chief persecutor of those who chose to obey the commands of the Bible rather than the commands of a deeply compromised church.
"The Paschal Controversy was 'settled' at the Council of Nicaea—not theologically, but politically," the Broadhursts further explain. "It was settled by eliminating one of the viewpoints. Church law had been laid down. No longer could any Christians celebrate [the] Christian Passover the way [the apostle] John, Philip and other [Christian] Jews had celebrated it. All were required to celebrate on the Sunday following the 14th [of the Hebrew first month of Nisan]. Once respected 'Quartodecimans' ["Fourteeners"] who persisted in the belief handed down to them from the Apostles, would henceforth be called heretics" (p. 148).
What was the result of this Council? Historian Jesse Hurlbut candidly describes the consequences: "But while the triumph of Christianity resulted in much that was good, inevitably the alliance of the church and state also brought in its train many evils. The ceasing of persecution was a blessing, but the establishment of Christianity as the state religion became a curse.
"Everyone sought membership in the church, and nearly everybody was accepted ... The forms and ceremonies of paganism gradually crept into the worship. Some of the old heathen feasts became church festival s with change of name and of worship ... As a result of the church sitting in power, we do not see Christianity transforming the world to its ideal, but the world dominating the church" ( A History of the Christian Church, 1918, pp. 78-79).

A.D. 325 as the beginning of the Dark Ages

So the year 325 is crucial in the outcome of what traditional Christianity has become.
"As far as [the] Christian Passover is concerned , "the Broadhursts conclude, "the beginning of the Dark Ages can be set at 325 A.D. with the Council of Nicaea. Along with turning their backs on [Christian] Jews, the Gentiles turned their backs on the Jewish Scriptures [the Old Testament].
"They disallowed Jewish input to their faith, lifestyle, and worship ... It took a major reformation centuries later [in the 1500s] to begin to undo the horror and destruction the church brought on the world when the Gentiles at Nicaea formally adopted the policy of 'having nothing in common with the Jews'" (p. 149).
A few years later, in 332, Constantine again sternly rebuked those who opposed Catholic teachings with this warning and threat: "Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together.
"We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and [ we ] forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever.
"Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth" (quoted by Eusebius, Life of Constantine, sect. 3, chap. 65).
A bloodbath eventually occurred. Those who did not conform to the Church of Rome, now united with the powerful Roman Empire, suffered implacable persecution. Regarding the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, famed historian Will Durant stated, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8).

The Roman calendar adopted by the Roman Church

Due to the decisions of the Nicene Council, the pagan Roman calendar was adopted instead of the Jewish calendar to determine the dates of what were now deemed to be Christian festivals. Those who continued keeping the true Christian Passover as handed down from the apostles had to go into hiding, for they were targeted along with other "heretics" by the church under Constantine and his successors.
Church historian Henry Chadwick points out about the Easter controversy: "Victor of Rome's intervention [referring to the earlier Roman bishop Victor's ruling to observe Easter instead of the Christian Passover or be excommunicated] turned out to be successful in the sense that his view was eventually to prevail. But it was a long time before those who kept Easter [i.e., the true Passover, it being misnamed here] on the fourteenth day (nicknamed Quartodecimans) died out.
"The group still existed in the ninth century despite the vigor with which church councils deplored them. It was impossible in so weighty a practical question for diversity to be allowed, but there can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being behind the times" ( The Early Church, 1967, p. 85).
So from approximately 325 to 1585, a period of 1,260 years, Christians who continued to follow the Bible's instruction about Passover had to flee and hide from the vicious church and state persecutions during those ensuing centuries.

The curtain finally rises on the period of religious persecution

It was only during the time of Elizabethan England that a measure of religious tolerance was granted and the inheritors of the legacy of those early Jewish and gentile Christians, who followed the original practices of Jesus and the apostles, could finally emerge.
In 1585, England and Spain went to war, mainly over the attempt of Spain to militarily impose the Catholic faith on England. Spain lost the war, and also its famed Spanish Armada, so England was free to continue its religious tolerance—which eventually spread to its colonies abroad, including what became the United States and Canada.
Interestingly, there is a prophecy in the Bible which describes how the Church, symbolized by a woman, would have to flee and hide in safety for 1,260 days (Revelation:12:1-6). According to Scripture, a "day" in a prophetic context can represent a year (see Numbers:14:34; Ezekiel:4:6). So this period mentioned in Revelation 12 could well refer to the Church having to flee from the vicious persecutions during those terrible 1,260 years—until those dark ages ended and a new era of religious tolerance began.
In large part thanks to what happened then, we enjoy those same freedoms of worship in advanced nations of the world today.

The returning Christ will lead the world to keep God's festivals

Let's move forward to the 21st century. From what we have read, dare we ask if there is something better and more biblical to observe than Easter?
To answer this, just imagine in your mind the following scene: Jesus Christ has finally returned to rule on the earth, just as He had promised (Matthew:24:30).
And note what will happen, as foretold in Zechariah:14:3-19: "Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east ... And the Lord shall be King over all the earth ...
"And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles [one of God's annual festivals, listed in Leviticus 23]. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain.
"If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles."
Yet that is not the only festival all will be required to observe. Jesus will command all to celebrate God's weekly Sabbath and all His appointed annual feasts, and those who don't will be sternly disciplined. At last, all the nations will accept His rule and will observe His teachings. Then there will finally be joy, peace and harmony on the earth.
Included then among the required festival observances will be not Easter, but the true Christian Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately following.

What Easter replaced—the Christian Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread

Shortly before His death, Jesus prophesied to His disciples what feast He would keep when He returned. Again, it was not the manmade counterfeit Easter. Rather, He said, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke:22:15-16). Clearly, one of the festivals Christ will again celebrate when He establishes His Kingdom is the Christian Passover!
Similarly, the apostle Paul reminded Church members in Corinth to keep the Christian Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed it. He wrote: "Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Corinthians:5:7-8).
These true feasts of God were banished from the mainstream Christian calendar when the Council of Nicaea ruled that people were not to follow biblical instruction with regard to the feasts, but rather to eventually set up a different reckoning of time. As we have seen, the Nicene Council targeted the first of the annual biblical feasts—the Christian Passover—and there they chose instead Easter Sunday. Logically, since the seven annual feasts of God are grouped together as a unit in Leviticus 23, this decree would also affect the keeping of the other listed feasts as well.
This substitution of manmade feasts for the feasts of the Bible should not be taken lightly. It was prophesied centuries earlier in the book Daniel that such change would eventually be attempted, when a future haughty ruler would try to change the biblical dates and laws. (And considering that much of Bible prophecy is dual, these changes may be a forerunner of similar changes to occur during the end times.)
Speaking of this development, God had foretold in Daniel:7:25: "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law"— dates on the calendar and biblical festivals, among other vile revisions. Remember, only the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, should determine which days are God's Holy Days and when they are to be kept—instead of looking to manmade traditions.
So yes, there is something available that is far better and more satisfying than Easter, and that is the Christian Passover, which was celebrated by the apostles of Jesus and the early Church. And although it was largely stamped out after the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, God's faithful people continued to celebrate this deeply meaningful biblical festival in spite of the threat of persecution and even death.
We can look forward to the day when Jesus Christ returns and restores all the genuine Christian feasts that were changed by deceived and deluded men in the distant past. The good news is that we can now celebrate all His feasts and rejoice in them every year—having wonderful fellowship and, as Jesus foretold in John:4:23-24, truly worshipping God in spirit and truth.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Constantine's Impact on Christianity

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about how Christianity was modified during the Roman Empire. This follows this post about the "Psalms of Degrees" which can help you in your preparation for the upcoming holiday season.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Constantine's Impact on Christianity



article by Good News Editor





Constantine's reign as Roman emperor (A.D. 306-337) dramatically changed the direction of Christianity, though in ways far different from those portrayed in The Da Vinci Code.



Constantine's reign as Roman emperor (A.D. 306-337) dramatically changed the direction of Christianity, though in ways far different from those portrayed in The Da Vinci Code. This grew out of his strategy for unifying his empire by creating a "catholic"—meaning universal —church that would blend elements from many religions into one.



While Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity in 312, he wasn't baptized until on his deathbed 25 years later. In the intervening years he had his wife and eldest son murdered, and from all appearances he continued as a worshipper of the sun god. Long after his supposed conversion he had coins minted with a portrait of himself on one side and a depiction of his "companion, the unconquered Sol [sun]" on the other.



The "Christianity" Constantine endorsed was already considerably different from that practiced by Jesus Christ and the apostles. The emperor accelerated the change by his own hatred of Jews and religious practices he considered Jewish.



For example, at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), church authorities essentially replaced the biblical Passover with Easter, a popular holiday rooted in ancient springtime fertility celebrations. Endorsing this change, Constantine announced: "It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast [Easter] we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul . . . Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525).



Constantine's affection for sun worship had earlier led him to endorse Sunday, the first day of the week and a day dedicated to honoring the sun, as a weekly day of rest in the Roman empire . This created considerable hardship on those Jews and true Christians who continued to keep the biblical Sabbath on the seventh day of the week. (A century later the Council of Laodicea would essentially outlaw Sabbath-keeping and Christian observance of the biblical Holy Days.)



British historian Paul Johnson summarizes how Constantine's approach of merging religious practices produced a corrupted Christianity that meshed paganism with biblical elements: "Thus the followers of Isis adored a madonna nursing her holy child; the cult of Attis and Cybele celebrated a day of blood and fasting, followed by the Hilaria resurrection-feast . . . the elitist Mithraics, many of whom were senior army officers, ate a sacred meal ...



"Many Christians did not make a clear distinction between this sun-cult [Mithraism] and their own. They . . . held their services on Sunday, knelt towards the East and had their nativity-feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice ...



"How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac [Constantine] in its theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly marriage between Church and State? ... Did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?" ( A History of Christianity, 1976, pp. 67-69).



When we consider the vast differences between the mainstream Christianity of today and the original Christianity of Jesus Christ and the apostles, we can trace much of that change to Constantine and the religious system he put in power. GN

.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Why shouldn't we wear a cross as a sign of being a Christian?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Christian adornment. This follows this post about overcoming addictions.   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.



Is there a Biblically sound reason not to?



Answer:



Having a desire to let our light shine and to share our faith are positive goals! In order to answer this specific question, though, we must also consider the background of the cross, the New Testament record and Jesus' teaching about how to display our Christianity.



One of the first questions we might ask is, Who decided that the cross was to be the sign of Christianity? This tradition of wearing a cross does not come from the Bible or the practices of the New Testament Church. Though there are at least seven different types of crosses, we are not even certain that Jesus was crucified on a cross-like apparatus. Though crucifixion on a cross was common at the time, the Bible allows that Jesus may have been put to death on an upright pole (rendered "tree" in 1 Peter 2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.



See All... from the Greek word stauros, which primarily means an upright stake).



A study of history shows that the cross symbol predates Christianity. According to author Ralph Woodrow, "Centuries before the Christian era, the cross was honored as a religious symbol by the people of Babylon. It is seen on their oldest monuments. Historians say that it was a symbol associated with Tammuz" ( Babylonian Mystery Religion , p. 51). From Babylon, the cross spread to other nations and was associated with paganism long before Jesus' crucifixion in A.D. 31.



Woodrow further explains, "It was not until Christianity began to be paganized that the cross came to be thought of as a Christian symbol. It was in 431 A.D. that crosses in churches and chambers were introduced, while the use of crosses on steeples did not come until about 586 A.D." (p. 50).



While most people today connect the cross with Christianity rather than paganism, we must also ask if the cross is something to be worshipped or honored. While the apostles preached "the cross [stauros]" as part of the history of Christ's ministry for our sakes (1 Corinthians 1:17-18 [17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.





See All...), it was not something they idolized. It was a shameful instrument of death (Hebrews 12:2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



See All...). In His crucifixion, Jesus took on Himself our shameful sins. Having our sins forgiven is a wonderful blessing, but there is no need to glorify the instrument used.



Finally, consider what the Bible teaches about wearing any religious symbol. Under the Old Covenant that God made with ancient Israel, God instructed them to wear reminders of their faith upon their hands (Deuteronomy 6:8And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.



See All...; 11:18). In fulfillment of this command, phylacteries, small leather boxes containing scriptural passages, were traditionally worn by Jewish men during their morning weekday prayers. Many did this to appear righteous to others (Matthew 23:5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,



See All...).



During His New Testament ministry, Jesus taught His followers to display their spirituality through their actions and deeds (Matthew 5:16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.



See All...). Under the New Covenant, ushered in by Christ, God's laws are to be written on our hearts—that is, in our minds (Hebrews 8:10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:



See All...; 10:16). People who truly practice the Christianity of the Bible stand out as beacons of light in a spiritually darkened society because of the way they live. They have no need to wear external signs like a cross to identify themselves as Christian.



If you would like to learn more about the history of the cross and how this pagan symbol entered Christianity, read chapters 6 and 7 of Ralph Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion . These two chapters are respectively titled "Is the Cross a Christian Symbol?" and "Constantine and the Cross."

.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Roman Forms of Crucifixion

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Roman crucifixion. This follows this post about the death and rising of Jesus Christ.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.


Roman Forms of Crucifixion


Crucifixion wasn't always carried out the way we've seen it typically depicted in paintings and pictures.



Crucifixion wasn't always carried out the way we've seen it typically depicted in paintings and pictures. In fact, as noted in this chapter, a crucifixion victim likely wasn't nailed through the hands, since their structure cannot support the weight of a human body. Most likely victims were nailed through the wrist or, in some instances, had their arms tied rather than being nailed.



Nor were victims always crucified on the kind of cross typically shown in depictions of Christ's crucifixion. Note what The Anchor Bible Dictionary says in its article on crucifixion:



"At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a 'T' ( crux commissa ) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism ( crux immissa ). The victims carried the cross or at least a transverse beam ( patibulum ) to the place of execution, where they were stripped and bound or nailed to the beam, raised up, and seated on a sedile or small wooden peg in the upright beam...



"Executioners could vary the form of punishment, as [Roman historian] Seneca the Younger indicates: 'I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the [cross-piece]'...



"In his account of what happened to Jewish refugees from Jerusalem [in the Jewish war of A.D. 67-70], [first-century historian] Josephus also lets us see that there was no fixed pattern for crucifying people. Much depended on the sadistic ingenuity of the moment" (David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief, 1992, Vol. 1, pp. 1208-1209).



"The accursed tree"



The Roman historian Seneca, describing the horror of crucifixion, argued that it would be better to commit suicide than endure such a tortured death. "Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross" (ibid., p. 1209).



Seneca's reference to "the accursed tree" is strongly reminiscent of Peter's words when he speaks of Jesus, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.



See All...; compare Acts 5:30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.



See All...). In some cases crucifixions seem to have been carried out on a literal tree, albeit one that was basically only a trunk from which the branches had been cut away.



In these crucifixions the condemned victim would be nailed to the upright trunk or would carry his own crossbeam, which would then be fastened to the trunk and him nailed to both. It's possible that the "cross" Jesus carried to His execution, carried part of the time by Simon of Cyrene, was simply a large beam of wood.



Shape of the cross not spelled out



The word translated "cross" in the New Testament is the Greek word stauros, which "denotes, primarily, 'an upright pale or stake'" ( Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, "Cross, Crucify").



"Both the noun and the verb stauroo, 'to fasten to a stake or pale,' are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed 'cross'" (ibid.).



The Bible contains no specific description of the stauros on which Jesus died. The word stauros was used in nonbiblical writings of the time to refer to pieces of wood of various shapes, with and without crosspieces. If it were important that we know its exact shape, the Gospel writers could have easily provided us that information—yet none of them do. What is important for us to know is the willing sacrifice Jesus made of His own life for our sakes.



If we don't know whether Jesus was executed on a stake or a cross, or what shape of cross, how did the t-shaped cross come to be the most popular symbol of Christianity?



Vine's explains: "The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.



"In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches...and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau, or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the 'cross' of Christ'" (ibid.).



Thus we see that the most common symbol of Christ and Christianity was a symbol that long predated Jesus and biblical Christianity.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the death and rising of Jesus Christ. This follows this post about a death that was NOT counted as a hate crime. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Did Jesus Really Die and Live Again?

One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered-is His resurrection from the dead.

"This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses" (Acts 2:32).
One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was—the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered—is His resurrection from the dead.
His followers were convinced that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. His miracles, His sinless life and His teachings all proved to them who He was. But His resurrection confirms every claim Jesus made to all people for all time.
What is astounding is that Jesus put everything on the line with His own statements that He would die and be raised to life again. He foretold His own resurrection on several occasions. "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31).
When the scribes and Pharisees wanted a sign from Him, He said only one sign would be given: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).
It is quite risky to foretell your own resurrection. Yet Jesus not only foretold His resurrection, but announced precisely when He would be resurrected.
So it comes down to this one event. How do we know that Jesus' resurrection from the dead happened? If it didn't happen just as He said, then we have no reason to believe that the way of life that Christ brought was any better or more right than any other religion. There would be nothing earthshaking about Jesus of Nazareth; He would be simply another religious fraud.
But if it did happen, there is one great difference between Jesus and all other religious leaders: Jesus' teachings are true, and everything He said is true, and He is exactly who He claimed to be.
In his book Reasonable Faith, Dr. William Craig gives three great, independently established facts on which the evidence for Jesus' resurrection rests: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances and the origin of the Christian faith (p. 272). Let's examine the details and implications of each of these.
Did Jesus really die?
That Jesus died and was buried is one of the best-established facts about Jesus. The Bible says again and again that Jesus died. Some critics have argued that Jesus wasn't completely dead when He was entombed. The Koran, considered holy by Muslims, claims that Jesus only seemed to be dead. Some skeptics have claimed that He merely appeared to be dead, possibly drugged, but revived while in the tomb and escaped to convince His disciples that He had risen from the dead.
But when we examine the facts, what such theories suggest is physically impossible. The extent of Jesus' tortures and wounds was such that no man could have survived the crucifixion and three days and nights isolated in a dark, cold tomb.
To say that He was drugged ignores the record. He turned down the painkiller that was usually given to crucifixion victims (Mark 15:23). Later He was offered a sip of sour wine from a sponge, but there is no indication of a drugging effect on Jesus from this because of His obvious agony and final death cry (verses 36-37).
Death at the hands of Roman torturers and executioners was certain and could come from several causes. Journalist Lee Strobel, in an interview with Dr. Alexander Metherell, describes the death of Jesus from a medical point of view ( The Case for Christ, 1998, pp. 193-200).
Jesus had been beaten repeatedly and lashed with a Roman scourge before His crucifixion (Matthew 27:26). The leather scourge, a type of whip, was designed to inflict maximum pain and damage on the victim. It was braided with pieces of bone and metal woven into the ends that tore into the flesh with each stroke. The scourge would rip into the underlying muscles and produce strips of quivering, bleeding flesh.
Eusebius, a third-century historian, reports that "the sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure" (quoted by Strobel, p. 193). Many victims would die from the scourging before they could be crucified.
The extreme pain, coupled with loss of blood, would often cause the victim to go into shock—his blood pressure would drop and cause fainting, collapse and intense thirst. The Gospels record that Jesus experienced these symptoms on His way to Golgotha. Weakened to the point of collapse, He couldn't bear the weight of the beam He was carrying and a bystander, Simon of Cyrene, was forced to carry it part of the way for Him (Mark 15:21). When He was crucified, He said, "I thirst" (John 19:28).
He had already suffered savage beatings before the scourging. At His trial before the Sanhedrin, "they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, 'Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?'" (Matthew 26:67-68). When they turned Him over to the Roman soldiers, they further brutalized Him, beating Him with their fists, slapping Him and shoving a crown of thorns on His head (Matthew 27:29-30; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:3).
The extent of this beating is indicated in the prophecy of Isaiah 50:6: "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting" (NIV).
Another prophecy in Isaiah 52:14 is even more graphic: "His form, disfigured, lost all human likeness; his appearance so changed he no longer looked like a man" (REB). What this tells us is that He was so badly beaten, so bloodied and maimed, that He was scarcely recognizable as a human being.
Pilate appears to have thought that when he had Jesus brought out to the crowd after the beatings and scourging, He would present such a pitiable spectacle that it would satiate His accusers' thirst for blood (John 19:1, 4-6). But their hatred of the bloodied man from Nazareth would not be satisfied. They insisted He be crucified.
The agony of crucifixion
Because of the terrible effects of these beatings and the scourging, from a medical standpoint Jesus would have already been in serious to critical condition even before He was taken away to be crucified (Alexander Metherell, M.D., quoted by Strobel, p. 196).
In a crucifixion, the Romans typically used iron nails, five to seven inches long and about three eighths of an inch square, driven into the victim's wrists and feet to fasten him to the wooden members. The Bible says nails were driven through Jesus' hands, but in the language of the day the wrist was considered part of the hand. Nails were driven into the wrists, between the arm bones, because the hands themselves could not support the weight of the body.
This placement of nails is supported by the 1968 discovery in Jerusalem of the bones of a man who had been crucified and buried in a first-century tomb. His right heel bone still had a large iron nail embedded in it, and one of his right forearm bones had a groove and wear marks consistent with a nail being driven between the two arm bones near his wrist.
The nails pounded through the wrists would have crushed the median nerve, the largest nerve going to the hand, causing indescribable pain. "The pain was absolutely unbearable," says Dr. Metherell. "In fact, it was literally beyond words to describe; they had to invent a new word: excruciating . Literally, excruciating means 'out of the cross.'
"Think of that: they needed to create a new word, because there was nothing in the language that could describe the intense anguish caused during the crucifixion" (quoted by Strobel, pp. 197-198). Nails driven through the feet would have brought similar pain.
We can't know for sure whether Jesus was crucified on a simple stake or a cross with a crossbeam. Either way, being hung by His arms would have caused great stresses on His body. His arms would have been stretched several inches and both shoulders likely were dislocated.
The prophecy of Christ's suffering in Psalm 22:14 refers to His tortured condition: "I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it has melted within me."
Dr. Metherell continues with a description of the agonies Jesus endured: "Once a person is hanging in the vertical position...crucifixion is essentially an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation. The reason is that the stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones.
"After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again he'd have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn't be able to push up and breathe anymore" (Strobel, pp. 265-266).
What was the cause of Jesus' death?
Many people assume that Jesus simply expired from the trauma or suffocated, which were the common causes of death in crucifixion. Various medical doctors have studied execution by crucifixion and come to similar conclusions. Some theologians and churches have taught that Jesus died of a broken heart. Can we know what actually killed Him?
Zechariah 12:10 contains a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion. Referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it says: "They will look on me, the one they have pierced" (NIV). Time and time again the Scriptures speak of the importance of Christ's shed blood (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 9:11-14; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Jesus Himself said that the wine of the New Testament Passover represented "my blood...which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28, NIV).
Clearly a central focus of Christ's sacrifice was His blood, which He shed as a sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. Regrettably, this is obscured somewhat in John 19:30-34, which makes it appear that Jesus died and then later was stabbed by one of the Roman soldiers, "bringing a sudden flow of blood and water" (verse 34, NIV). However, there is a problem if this were the specific order of events, because dead bodies, once the heart has stopped its pumping action, no longer bleed like that.
This problem is resolved when we consider many older manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel, which contain words that appear in a few Bible translations but were left out of most modern versions. These missing words tell us the proper sequence of events.
The Twentieth Century New Testament, which includes these words, reads: "And about three [o'clock in the afternoon] Jesus called out loudly: 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani'—that is to say, 'O my God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?' Some of those standing by heard this, and said [mistakenly]: 'The man is calling for Elijah!'
"One of them immediately ran and took a sponge, and, filling it with common wine, put it on the end of a rod, and offered it to him to drink. But the rest said: 'Wait and let us see if Elijah is coming to save him.' However another man took a spear, and pierced his side; and water and blood flowed from it. But Jesus, uttering another loud cry, gave up his spirit" (Matthew 27:46-50).
The missing words, noted here in italics, show that Jesus was stabbed in the side with a spear, uttered a loud cry and then died. Other versions that contain the missing words include the Moffatt Translation and the Rotherham Emphasized Bible, and various other Bible versions include a footnote or marginal reference noting the omitted words.
So does Matthew's account conflict with John's? No. Both describe the same events, but from different perspectives.
Matthew jumps immediately from Jesus' death to a description of the temple veil being torn in half, while John focuses on the fact that, in contrast to the two criminals crucified with Jesus, not one of His bones was broken. John then explains parenthetically how Jesus had already died so that His bones did not need to be broken—His side had been pierced with a spear (John 19:31-34).
John then tells us in verse 36 that this took place in fulfillment of Psalm 34:20 and the symbolism of the Passover lambs, which were to be slain and not have a single bone broken (Exodus 12:6, 46; Numbers 9:12). The Passover lambs that had their blood shed to save the Israelites (Exodus 12:6-7, 13) pictured Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
The final fatal blow
Continuing in John 19:37, John explains that the prophecy of Zechariah 12:10 that Jesus' body would be pierced was fulfilled. What was this final, fatal thrust like that ended Jesus' life?
John Lyle Cameron, M.D., explains: "The soldier was a Roman: he would be well trained, proficient, and would know his duty. He would know which part of the body to pierce in order that he might obtain a speedily fatal result or ensure that the victim was undeniably dead...
"The soldier, standing below our crucified Lord as He hung on the cross, would thrust upwards under the left ribs. The broad, clean cutting, two-edged spearhead would enter the left side of the upper abdomen, would open the...stomach, would pierce the diaphragm, would cut, wide open, the heart and great blood vessels, arteries and veins..., and would lacerate the lung.
"The wound would be large enough to permit the open hand to be thrust into it [compare John 20:24-27]. Blood..., together with water from the...stomach, would flow forth in abundance. The whole event as described by St. John must, indeed, have happened, for no writer could have presented in such coherent detail so recognizable an event, unless he or someone had actually witnessed its occurrence" (quoted by R.V.G. Tasker, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: John, 2000, pp. 212-213).
The idea that Jesus didn't really die, that He fainted or was drugged and was later resuscitated, has no basis in fact when you consider the clear statements that He died. The apostle John had been an eyewitness to that death, having been right there with others as these events unfolded (John 19:25-27, 35).
The Roman soldiers, too, knew He was dead. They may not have been medical experts, but they were used to seeing executions and knew when someone was dead. Before releasing the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate confirmed with the centurion overseeing the execution detail that Jesus was indeed dead (Mark 15:43-45).
Even if we assume Jesus could have physically survived the crucifixion, how could He then have lived for three days and nights in a tomb, sealed away from any kind of medical care or treatment?
There is one other point we should make here. Assuming the seemingly impossible notion that a man could somehow have lived through all this, the accounts of Jesus appearing to His disciples after the ordeal would have been just that much more impossible. And even if He had somehow managed it, He certainly couldn't have appeared as One who would inspire His disciples to proclaim that He had been resurrected to a glorious and powerful state. He would've been a severely broken, wounded man—psychologically traumatized, physically crippled and maimed for life.
Any theory to explain that Jesus really didn't die cannot be taken seriously in light of the clear evidence we have.
Jesus' burial
Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a new tomb that Joseph had reserved for himself.
Because Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the same Jewish high court that condemned Jesus, he is unlikely to be a Christian invention. Mark's Gospel tells us that "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member,… taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus" (Mark 15:43).
Given permission to take the body, Joseph "bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb" (verse 46).
No one trying to contrive and pawn off a fabrication would have invented a person who did not exist and say he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jewish nation. Members of the Sanhedrin were widely known. Because Joseph was a respected public figure, many people would have known the location of his tomb. If Jesus had not been buried in his tomb, the ruse would have been all too easy to expose.
Notice also the precautions taken to make sure nothing could happen to the body of Jesus once it had been placed in the tomb: "The next day...the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 'Sir,' they said, 'we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, "After three days I will rise again."
"'So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.' 'Take a guard,' Pilate answered. 'Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard" (Matthew 27:62-66, NIV).
Roman guards were placed around the tomb the day after Jesus' burial. Surely they would have noticed had Jesus awakened from a near-death state or His body been stolen by His followers. Their orders were clear: They were to make sure nothing happened to the body of Jesus. If they failed at this duty, they could be put to death just as Jesus had been.
Both the Jews and the disciples of Christ would have known the location of this tomb. The women who would figure prominently in the discovery of the empty tomb observed where the tomb was and that Jesus was in fact laid inside it (Luke 23:55). They also knew a massive stone had been rolled over the entrance of the tomb (Mark 15:46-47) and knew it had to be rolled back when they returned to the same location to apply the burial spices they had prepared (Mark 16:3).
There was no question in the mind of the women and His other disciples that Jesus was in that tomb.
Women discover the empty tomb
Mark also records for us the detail that three women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome—approached the tomb before sunrise to anoint the body of Jesus with spices. Finding the heavy stone rolled away, they entered the tomb and were shocked and afraid when they saw "a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side." The man told the women, "He is risen!" and instructed them to go and tell Jesus' other disciples (Mark 16:1-8).
In the society of the day, the testimony of women was held in such low regard that they were not even permitted to serve as witnesses in a court of law. How remarkable it is, then, that women were the acknowledged discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb!
Had someone fabricated the story at a later date, as many critics assume to have been the case, the plot surely would have made male disciples such as Peter and John the discoverers of the empty tomb. That it was women who were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb is best explained by the straightforward truth that the women named were indeed the actual discoverers.
The Gospel writers faithfully recorded what for them was an awkward and potentially embarrassing detail.
Jesus' enemies acknowledged that the tomb was empty
What was the reaction of Jesus' enemies to the disciples' stunning declaration that Jesus was alive again after having been publicly executed?
Their reaction is very revealing. Did they respond that the disciples were lying, that Jesus' body still lay in the rock-hewn tomb? No. Did they claim that the disciples were hallucinating? No. Instead, they bribed the Roman soldiers responsible for guarding the sealed tomb to spread what they knew was a lie . They told them to spread a cover story, to claim that Jesus' disciples had come and stolen His body while they slept, and that they would cover for the soldiers if they got in trouble with the Roman governor.
Read the account in Matthew 28:11-15. This was the best excuse the authorities could come up with to explain why Jesus' body was missing and could not be found!
Here we have evidence from the very enemies of Christ that His tomb was empty. The best rationale they could come up with they knew to be a lie. There is no other explanation for how the tomb became empty except that Jesus was resurrected bodily and left the tomb.
Eyewitness accounts of His appearances
On multiple occasions and under various circumstances individuals and groups of people saw Jesus alive after knowing He had died.
Notice what the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: "He was seen by Cephas [Peter], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).
How did Paul receive this information? He was acquainted and had spoken with the people involved. He had heard the account in their own words. Most who could verify it were still alive. He is making this assertion knowing he could be proven wrong if it were not true!
Such eyewitness accounts cannot be dismissed as fantasy. They must refer to actual events that were witnessed by many people alive at the time of Paul's writing. Paul even lists the names of the best known of the witnesses so others could verify the facts of Jesus' resurrection for themselves!
Appearances in bodily form
All of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in the Gospels are in bodily form. "Why do doubts arise in your hearts?" He asked His apostles when He appeared to them, as recorded in Luke 24:36-43.
He invited them, "Behold [look at] My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." When they still did not believe, perhaps because it was too good to be true, He asked them for food, which He took and ate in front of them.
Then there is the occasion when Jesus appeared to all His apostles, including Thomas, who apparently was missing on the previous occasion. Thomas was adamant that he would not believe unless he saw Jesus' wounds with his own eyes and felt the wounds with his own hands (John 20:24-29). Yet he was absolutely convinced when Jesus appeared to them all and specifically invited Thomas to verify that He was indeed the same Jesus whom Thomas and the rest had known for so long.
On yet another occasion Jesus appeared to the disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. On this occasion He performed a miracle, fixed and ate a breakfast of bread and fish with them and gently rebuked Peter for returning to his life as a fisherman rather than taking care of the far more important business of tending to His Church (John 21:1-23).
It's been suggested that these appearances were merely hallucinations on the part of the disciples. But this theory cannot account for the fact that the appearances were in different places, at different times and in front of different groups of people. Jesus appeared in ways that were convincing to all the apostles. These appearances left no doubt in their minds—including that of Thomas, who staked out his position that he wouldn't believe unless he literally saw and felt the Jesus whom he knew.
The disciples' astounding transformation
One of the major proofs of the resurrection of Jesus is the dramatic change in the lives of His disciples.
The Gospel accounts are not flattering to the apostles (which is further evidence that they didn't fabricate the story). At the time of Christ's arrest and trial, all His apostles forsook Him and fled (Matthew 26:56). Peter, who vowed that he would always stand by Jesus, even cursed and swore in denying that he knew Him (verses 69-75).
Jesus, we remember, foretold Peter's weakness and even forewarned His apostles that they would also stumble because of their association with Him (verses 31-35).
Within a short time, however, we see a dramatic change. We find the apostles speaking to large crowds and openly declaring that Jesus had risen from the dead. Far from running away and hiding, now they boldly confronted the civil and religious authorities with the fact that Jesus had been killed and raised to life again.
They defied orders threatening them with imprisonment if they continued to speak about this man Jesus (Acts 4:1-23). They courageously faced beatings and endured death threats because they preached that Jesus was alive and was the Messiah (Acts 5:17-42).
Whereas only weeks before they had denied they even knew Him, now nothing could stop them from openly publicizing what they obviously knew to be true. Only one explanation for their new unshakable belief even in the face of imprisonment and execution is plausible: They saw Jesus Christ alive after they knew He was dead. They spoke with Him, ate with Him, received extensive instructions from Him, spent time with Him and touched Him.
These men gave the remaining years of their lives, and ultimately life itself, for the One they knew had conquered death. Had they all been only participants in a giant hoax, could we believe these men would give their lives for something they knew to be a lie?
Peter's remarkable change
The apostle Peter is the best known of the disciples whose lives were so remarkably changed. His boldness on the Feast of Pentecost was amazing. At the temple he addressed a huge crowd of people, from which 3,000 became disciples of Jesus the Messiah.
Peter spoke to people who lived in Jerusalem and all of Judea as well as many other parts of the Roman world. They were in Jerusalem to observe the Feast of Pentecost, also called the Feast of Weeks, as God had commanded in Deuteronomy 16:16. Peter reminded them that they all knew who Jesus was and what had happened to Him seven weeks earlier at the Passover feast (Acts 2:22-24).
Peter, who had denied his acquaintance with Jesus before He died, now fearlessly proclaimed to the people that they were the ones who had crucified the promised Messiah— but that God had raised Him up.
The reaction of the people is quite telling. There is no denial, no outcry, no attempt to stone Peter for this apparently outrageous charge. Many of them knew of the events surrounding the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. They knew that many—perhaps even some of those standing there listening to Peter—had shouted for Christ's blood. They knew of the strange disappearance of the body from the tomb, a mystery no one had been able to solve.
They knew or had heard of other strange events that took place at the time: the mysterious darkness that descended on the land as Jesus was being crucified, people being resurrected from the grave and walking the streets of Jerusalem, and the massive veil in the magnificent temple tearing from top to bottom with no apparent cause.
How were these events to be explained? What did they mean? Peter was giving them the amazing explanation—an explanation that would require them to make a decision that would affect the rest of their lives.
Peter contrasted the empty tomb of Jesus with the nearby tomb of Israel's greatest king, David. "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29). His point was unmistakable: Everybody knew where David's tomb was and that this was where the king's body was buried. But Jesus, unlike David, was no longer bound by the grave!
Jesus of Nazareth, Peter declared, had been raised up by God, and many witnesses could testify to that fact. Once again there was no argument from the crowd. On the contrary, the people asked what they should do now that they, too, were convinced that Peter was right. Peter replied that they should repent and be baptized and that they also would receive the Holy Spirit, as the disciples had on that very day (Acts 2:37-38).
The only way to explain the dramatic transformation of the disciples from a frightened band ready to throw everything away and flee back to Galilee is that Jesus left behind dramatic and powerful evidence: an empty tomb and then multiple bodily appearances. Ordinary men from ordinary walks of life, who had denied their Master and failed Him miserably, suddenly changed almost overnight into dynamic leaders of a Church that was to defy and challenge the ancient pagan world.
James, half brother of Jesus, becomes a believer
Perhaps an even more remarkable transformation took place in the life of James, the half brother of Jesus (James was the natural son of Mary and Joseph while Jesus was the son of Mary and God the Father). Notice how J.P. Moreland describes events in James' life as recorded in the Bible and contemporary history:
"Why did these men change? Why did they undergo hardship, persecution, pressure, and martyrdom? Consider James the brother of Jesus. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, tells us that he died a martyr's death for his faith in his brother. Yet the Gospels tell us that during Jesus' life, he was an unbeliever and opposed Jesus.
"Why did he change? What could cause a Jew to believe that his own brother was the very Son of God and to be willing to die for such a belief? It certainly was not a set of lovely teachings from a carpenter from Nazareth. Only the appearance of Jesus to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) can explain his transformation.
"As with James, so it is with the other disciples. One who denies the resurrection owes us an explanation of this transformation which does justice to the historical facts" ( Scaling the Secular City, 1987, pp. 178-179).
Paul the persecutor is transformed
The apostle Paul is another remarkable example. As a devout Jewish rabbi and strict Pharisee, he was resolutely convinced that Jesus' resurrection had not taken place. Paul persecuted members of the early Church for believing in such nonsense. He staked his whole mission in life on his conviction that the resurrection was a fabrication and the movement was a threat to every tradition he held sacred.
This new movement, he was convinced, deserved to be stamped out by any means, including imprisonment and execution (Acts 22:4)—and this would be his personal crusade. Then something happened. Jesus Christ appeared to Paul and spoke to him.
Paul was not a man given to the vivid imaginations of superstitious people. He was a levelheaded intellectual. Yet he later was prepared to defend his zeal for Christ before hostile mobs as well as governors, kings and other rulers. In the end Paul was prepared to die for what he knew was true: Jesus was indeed the Messiah and was alive and well at the right hand of God.
The existence of the Christian Church
Dr. Moreland puts it this way: "What cause can be postulated to explain the fact that the Christian church transformed the world of the first century? The odds for its success were antecedently poor. Several religions existed in the first century and some of the elements of Christianity can be found in them. Why did Christianity succeed, especially when it was such an exclusivist faith which frowned on syncretism? What caused the church to get started? There never was a form of Christianity which did not emphasize the centrality of the death and resurrection of a divine Jesus.
"The resurrection of Jesus is the explanation the church herself gave, and it is the only adequate one. Cambridge New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule argues this way: 'If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?'" (ibid., pp. 180-181).
That Jesus Christ really was resurrected from the dead is the only truly reasonable conclusion.