Chapter 3 – Part 6

Secondly, it should be noted that Jesus doesn’t form the correlative conjunction of the Jonah simile (the “just as”…“also in this manner”) as strongly as it is sometimes expressed in the New Testament. For although he does begin the simile with the intensified “just as” rather than “as” [Gr. hosper instead of hos, the per intensifying the word], he does not complete it in the common “outws kai” (Gr. in this manner also) or “kai outws” (Gr. also in this manner), thus suggesting, it seems, a lessened strength of the simile than it might have been, since the “also,” which is left out, would presumably have strengthened the simile.

Third and finally, there actually is one possible explanation to Matthew 12:40 that doesn’t rely at all on anything but a literal reading, though it does hearken to the principle that Christ could and sometimes did speak cryptically of his death and resurrection in a way not immediately grasped by his hearers. He did this, for example, when he said, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days,” by which, John tells us, he meant the temple that was his body, although his hearers took him to mean Herod’s temple. Now, looking closely at the Greek words in Matthew 12:40, Jesus uses the word “kai” between the terms “three days” and “three nights.” But the word “kai” can sometimes behave like “yet,” depending on the context. For example, the KJV renders John 1:11— “He came unto his own, and (Gr. kai) his own received him not.” But surely the intended meaning of John 1:11 would seem to be “yet.” That is, “He came unto his own, yet his own received him not.” This is hardly an isolated example of how “kai” sometimes behaves in the New Testament. For example, in Matthew 10:29-30 the “kai” seems as though it should behave like the weaker adversative “yet,” compared to the Greek “de” at the beginning of verse 30, which acts as the stronger adversative; thus: 

(29)Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? yet (Gr. kai) one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (30)Yet (Gr. de) the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

In other words, that God numbers the very hairs on our heads is an even more striking example of his watchfulness over creation than the value he puts on birds, which itself is not inconsiderable. However, in my opinion the above translation of kai to “yet” is technically incorrect, for otherwise the Greek word “de” (yet/but) or “alla” (but) would have been the logical choice. Yet clearly an adversative is present. So why is kai used? I think it is because kai can behave as an adversative yet at the same time express irony. We see this in English, too, with the word “and.” For example, suppose I had a son and said to his little league coach, “I insist you place my son in the clean-up position,” and the coach replied, “I did that all last week in practice, yet he struck out every time.” Here the word “yet,” though an adversative, expresses no irony. But if the coach replied (probably in a sardonic or deadpan tone), “I did that all last week in practice, and he struck out every time,” then the word “and” behaves as an adversative but also expresses irony (or paradox). The trick of interpretation, then, when approaching a verse like John 1:11, is to realize that when John says “He came unto his own…” but then resolves it not by saying that his own received him (which is what one would expect to read), but rather “and his own received him not,” then irony is intended by the author, who uses kai (translated and) as an adversative. Similarly, when Christ says “Are not two sparrows

sold for a farthing,” we expect him to say that therefore they fall to the ground unnoticed by the Father. But, instead, Christ uses kai to express an adversative as a paradox, and thus says “and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” Unfortunately, this kind of grammatical nuance capable of kai is not found among the definitions for kai in the standard lexicons, which is an example of why the biblical student must always be aware of the limitations of lexicons.

Now, in Matthew 12:40 most hearers would naturally assume kai to mean and (also, additionally) in the phrase “three days and three nights.” But suppose Jesus was speaking not merely by way of simile (and, as already noted, a simile of a lesser degree), but, at another level of meaning, also by way of an ironic “yet.” In other words, perhaps Jesus was saying, “Even as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days…” (speaker’s pause) “…and [here kai behaves as yet, though with paradox, i.e., (cryptically) on the other hand] three nights(!)….” Thus Jesus might actually have been stating with irony that he would be in the grave three days…yet… three nights! i.e., a duration of three daytimes, yet three nighttimes, were the hearer to assume the general way a 24-hour day is perceived and abstractly defined, i.e., into equal daylight and darkness. And in fact 36 hours appears to be the approximate, if not exact time Christ was in the grave. For note that when Mary Magdalene came to the empty tomb it was prior to dawn on the first day of the week, for the Bible states that she came “when it was yet dark….” So for argument’s sake let us say that Jesus died at 3:30 PM (at the end of the ninth hour according to Jewish reckoning) on Friday, was buried 1½ hours later, and rose at 5:00 AM Sunday morning while it was yet dark. That would total 36 hours in the heart of the earth—the length of three daytimes or three nighttimes—from the time of his burial to the moment of his resurrection. Note also the irony of Jesus’ three days of burial being attended all by darkness, even as Jonah’s 3 days could have been all in the night-like darkness of the belly of the whale, thus constituting a perfect simile.

It is the interpreter’s choice whether he will accept this explanation or one stressing the idiom of speech in which “three days and three nights” is simply meant to imply a short duration. But it may be that both of these explanations are possible, and that kai works polyalently, so that “and” is intended at one level of meaning to indicate a short duration, while “and” behaves as “yet” at another and ironic level of meaning.

 

 9. ORDER OR DISORDER IN THE PASSION WEEK EVENTS?

 

(a) NOTE RE: THE SETTING APART OF THE LAMB ON THE 10TH OF NISAN

According to the Old Testament, on the 10th of Nisan every family of Israel was to set apart a male lamb that would be sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan. (In the case of the poor, they could join another family to share a lamb.) Thus the lamb was publicly set apart for its special purpose. Even so, we should expect that Christ, were he the Lamb of God, would have been publicly set apart on the 10th of Nisan in the year of his crucifixion for the purpose of fulfilling this Old Testament type.

 

(b) ARE THERE IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES IN WHERE THE GOSPELS

PLACE THE 10TH OF NISAN IN THE PASSION WEEK?

 

Some considerable controversy has surrounded the exact timeline of the Passion Week in which the 10th of Nisan occurs. The charge by some is that the gospels are contradictory in their placement of certain events during Passion Week, proving the unreliability of the Bible. In my opinion the two most formidable of these charges are: (1) the gospels of Matthew and Mark record Mary’s anointing of Jesus two days before Passover, while John states that it was six days before Passover; and (2) John records the Last Supper on an earlier day than the other gospels.

However, it is possible to harmonize these disputed gospel passages of the Passion Week. And since the passages show fulfillments of symbolism to exact days in Nisan, namely, the 10th (setting apart of the lamb), 14th (slaying of the lamb), and 16th (first-fruits wave offering of a barley sheaf, i.e. spring/resurrection), it is important to show the gospels’ reliability and harmony.

Only Mark of all the gospels gives an accounting of all the days from the time of Christ’s Triumphal Entry until the afternoon of his crucifixion. Combining this timeline with John’s statement (chap. 12) that Mary anointed Jesus in the town of Bethany six days before Passover [meal], and that “the next day” was the Triumphal Entry, leaves us with the conclusion that the Triumphal Entry was, if the year was 33 AD Monday, the 10th of Nisan, five days before the official Passover Seder meal beginning on Saturday (by western reckoning, Friday evening). This particular Saturday was called by the Apostle John “a high day,” apparently because the Passover meal, which the Old Testament designated a “sabbath” rest regardless of what day of the week the 15th of Nisan occurred (cp. Lev. 23:6-7 with Lev. 23:15), happened to occur on a Saturday in the year 33 AD. Therefore it fell on a normal sabbath (the seventh day, day of rest) for the Jews, and therefore in 33 AD had double significance. All four gospels define the Passover according to the instructions set forth in the Old Testament, (1) with the killing of the Passover Lamb in mid-afternoon of the 14th, (2) followed by the spreading of blood on the lintel and doorposts of the house, (3) followed by the eating of the Passover meal after sunset, i.e. the evening of the 15th of Nisan.

As for why Jesus in Matthew 26:19 referred to the Last Supper meal as the “Passover,” when in fact it occurred at the beginning of the 14th, not 15th of Nisan, will be explained a little later by Daniel Gregg.

(c) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATIVE CASE IN MATTHEW AND MARK

Let us now examine the criticism that Matthew and Mark conflict with John’s timeline about exactly when the crucifixion occurred in relation to the Passover Meal, which fell within the first day of unleavened bread.42 Indeed, Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 do seem to indicate that Jesus’ disciples began preparing for the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, not before it. But based on the discussion that follows, it appears the disciples began preparing for the Last Supper either on the 12th of Nisan (Wednesday) or else the 13th of Nisan (Thursday) morning and/or afternoon before the evening meal at the beginning of Friday, the 14th of Nisan. (Again, Jews reckoned the beginning of a calendar day after sunset.) Therefore, according to one line of critical argument, the disciples could not have asked Jesus on the first day of unleavened bread where to prepare for the Passover, since Jesus would have been dead several hours before the first day of unleavened bread which began at sunset, i.e., the 15th of Nisan. And so, according to this argument, Jesus could not have died on the 14th of Nisan, but on a later date. And so, in terms of the Daniel 9 prophecy, this would mean that the crucifixion in 33 AD fails to fulfill the Old Testament type in which the Lamb of God (as John the Baptist called Jesus) was to die on the 14th of Nisan.

 

But there are counter-arguments to this criticism which must be considered. First, there is the significance of the dative case in both Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12. For at first glance these verses seem to state that the preparation day of the Last Supper happened on the first day of unleavened bread (running from sunset to sunset of the 14th to the 15th of Nisan). Now, the dative may serve different functions in Greek, and examples of these are shown under the Greek subsection of “dative case” on Wikipedia. The relevant function of the dative in the case of Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 is the first listed on Wikipedia, that of “dative of purpose” (Lat. dativus finalis). This means that a proper understanding and translation of e.g., Mark 14:12, would begin with “For the purpose of the first day of unleavened bread …” instead of how the KJV actually renders it, which is: “And the first day of unleavened bread …” which makes it sound like the question put to the Lord by the disciples happens on the first day of unleavened bread. Here is the entire verse of Mark 14:12 in the KJV:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Here is how it should have been rendered:

And for the sake (purpose) of the first day of unleavened bread, when they are killing the Passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

(Note that the words “are killing” are a closer approximation to the Greek verb’s imperfect tense, since the killing of lambs by the priests for the multitudes of people presumably took some hours.)

Now, there seems some confusion among Christian commentators and even translators as to when the Feast of Unleavened Bread began. Nearly all seem to teach that it comes at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. Thus, for example, whereas the KJV translates the LORD’s instructions in Exodus 12:6, “And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening,” the NASB translates it, “You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight.”

However, Exodus 12:6 actually says that the Passover lamb is to be sacrificed “between the evenings,” as Daniel Gregg points out above (repeated in Numbers 28:4). And so this begs the question of the KJV and NASB how the second of two daily lambs, if sacrificed at the end of daylight, could serve as a pre- figurement of the death of Christ who died at the end of the 9th hour, i.e., midway between the instant after the sun’s apex, and sunset. 

But the dative case answers these objections. In Mark 14:12 the dative case puts the verse’s temporal location on an entirely different footing, namely, that the discussion takes place not necessarily on the first day of unleavened bread, but merely in regard to the first day of unleavened bread. And so the disciples’ conversation with Jesus could have taken place at any point prior to the first day of unleavened bread. The dative case in Matthew 26:17 acts the same as in Mark 14:12. The KJV renders it:

 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Here, too, the “first day…” may be understood as indicating dative of purpose:

Yet for the sake of the first day of the feast of unleavened bread….43

Incidentally, the word “Yet,” which begins the verse (mistakenly translated by the KJV to “Now”), is the Greek word “de,”44 and gives Matthew’s verse an added feature when compared to Mark’s. For the Greek “de” is an adversative (but, yet, despite, nevertheless, etc.) and therefore points to something previously mentioned which serves as a contrast to something about to be stated. And yet the dative of purpose—“for the sake of the first day of unleavened bread”—is the same in both gospels.

The point in all this is that Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 show that Matthew and Mark do not teach a different timeline for the Passion Week than Luke and John. For Luke 22:7 says, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed,” which is a reference to the 14th of Nisan. John only states that the Passover was nigh (Jn. 11:55) and a few verses later (Jn. 12:1) says that six days before Passover, Jesus went to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom he had raised from the dead. John then moves into the Last Supper.

But the date of the Last Supper raises a question. If Jesus died on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, then the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples must have been held on the night prior to the night of the Passover eaten by the Jews (the Official Seder), which implies that the disciples had anticipated that the last supper and the official Passover meal would be eaten in the same place. As to why the disciples would begin observing Passover in this preliminary way—a day earlier than when the nation would observe the official Passover Seder—Daniel Gregg explains (we quote mid-stream, thus the “3” which follows after the next two paragraphs):

 

It is interesting to note that in Matthew 26:2 and Mark 14:1 there is a verse that states that “after two days is Passover.” Why stress “two days”? Because those Jews that came from the Galilee had a somewhat different tradition than those in Judea. This fact is recorded in the Mishnah, Tractate Pesachim chapter 4 Mishnah 5,

 

“The sages say in Judah they use to do work on the eve of Passover until noon (work would be permitted until noon on the fourteenth of Nisan), but in Galilee (among Galileans) they would not work at all (on the fourteenth of Nisan). On the evening (after sundown on the thirteenth), the school of Shammai forbade (work), but the school of Hillel permitted it until sunrise.”

 

3

 

This fact has some significant implications. Yeshua and His disciples were from Galilee. Therefore they would have followed the tradition of the Sages that no work should be done on the fourteenth of Nisan. The Galilean preparation day would be the thirteenth of Nisan; that is, all work had to be completed before sundown. This is the reason why Yeshua’s disciples asked Him about the arrangements for Passover not on the fourteenth day of Nisan as many incorrectly assert, but on the thirteenth. This fact is supported by other pieces of information from the Gospels. For example, it is recorded in Matthew 26:5 and Mark 14:2 that the leaders who conspired to have Yeshua put to death did not want his death to occur on the Feast day, i.e. the fifteenth of Nisan. 

“But they (chief priests, scribes, and the elders) said, not on the Feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”

 

When one considers all the facts the following conclusions can be reached. First, the traditional term “The Last Supper” was not an “official Passover Seder” i.e., on the even of the fifteenth of Nisan. Rather, this meal took place on the evening prior. As has been stated in the Mishnah, Galilean Jews observed the fourteenth of Nisan as a special day on which no work could be done, other than fulfilling one’s obligation to offer of the Passover sacrifice. Galilean Jews had all preparations completed on the thirteenth of Nisan and ate a meal that night. This meal has special significance for the firstborn males in order to remember the tenth plague that came upon Egypt. The fast begins at sunrise on the fourteenth and ends with the Seder meal. Yeshua was the firstborn of Miryam and Yoseph and He would have fasted on the fourteenth, therefore this meal would have been what is known as a seudah maphsehket or “last supper.”

In Luke 22:15 a very important verse appears,

 

“And He said to them, I have desired greatly this Passover to eat with you before I supper.”

 

For a Galilean Jew Passover observance begins with the meal on the thirteenth of Nisan and continues in to the holiday itself. Notice that Yeshua says in the next verse (Lk. 22:16) that He is not going to continue the observance of the festival, until the purpose of Passover, Redemption is fulfilled.

“For I say to you, that I will not eat it (Passover [official Seder]), until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of G-d.”

 

4

 

It is clear that Yeshua began the Galilean observance with them (the disciples) because He must suffer and die, in order to fulfill the purpose of Passover, i.e. bring redemption to mankind….

 

the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, behold your King!” John 19:14

 

(Continued in Part 7)