There are various ways Christians have attempted to resolve this apparent contradiction. Here are some links to internet resources. I think the best is the one AT THE VERY BOTTOM of this blog where Mike Winger spends a little over an hour to explain the problems and his solutions. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Mike Winger's video.
J.P. Holding wrote an interesting article on the topic of the Anointing of Jesus and whether it was one incident with one woman, or whether it was more than one incident that involved at least one more woman.
The types of explanations Licona provides in this lecture would be considered by some Evangelicals to violate Biblical inerrancy. I myself am not sure they do violate inerrancy. Mike Licona and Norman Geisler are two prominent figures in the modern inerrancy debate. With the Geisler group considering Licona teaching heresy. Licona's explanations might be applicable to the issue of the anointing of Jesus.
Pastor Mike Winger's attempt at resolving the apparent contradiction.
A Very Challenging "Contradiction" in the Gospels: The Mark Series pt 57 (14:1-12)
My comments after having watched Mike Winger's video.
The fact that John HAD TO mention that Lazarus was reclining at the table wouldn't be necessary if it was his home. It would have been assumed if it was Lazarus' home. But, that he had to be specifically referred to as reclining at the table there suggests it WASN'T Lazarus' home .
I came to the same conclusion as Pastor Mike Winger that the anointing story in Mark and Matthew was meant to be a non-chronological excursus explanation of how the chief priests and scribes were able to solve the problem of how to get Jesus arrested. I just didn't know about the concept of a "Markan sandwich". That addition makes it all the more reasonable and plausible.
I think that Pastor Mke has solved these problems in the most satisfactory way. Having said that there are other possibilities that I'd like to offer which aren't as satisfactory, but which should be on the table too.
Maybe "on the next day" in John 12:12 is an idiom to mean "on another [unspecified] day" [cf. John 1:29, 35]. In which case, the events of Jesus anointing and Palm Sunday in John 12 need not be chronological. It's not uncommon for writers to write stories out of chronological order for emphasis' sake to show his readers what he thinks is a more important lesson. For example, Noah's sons are always listed as "Shem, Ham and Japheth" even though Gen. 9:24 says Ham was the youngest. Or how in lists Moses and Rachel are sometimes listed first even though the texts make it clear that there were siblings who were older than them [Aaron and Miriam were older than Moses; and Leah older than Rachel].
Maybe Simon the Leper was a famous person who had died and whose home was popularly known to be associated with his name. And Lazarus and his sister were living in it. Just like like some homes of famous Hollywood celebrities are still called celebrity X's home even though the celebrity has been dead for decades and other families have lived in that house. Another possibility is that they were living in the house while Simon was outside of the community because he still had leprousy. So, he was still being quarantined according to the Mosaic law for leprosy. But he wasn't healed by Jesus because Simon hadn't gone to Jesus to be healed. Since in most cases of healing, Jesus didn't unilaterally go to the sick person to heal them, but rather, in faith, the sick people came to Him to be healed, and He healed them in response to their faith. Or maybe Lazarus and his sisters were tenants in Simon's house and they paid "rent" to Simon and or his family after he died or was still away being quarantined.
Three anointings is not implausible. It's not uncommon for intimate friends to have heated arguments, or couples to have lovers' quarrels on the same topic over the same issue using virtually the exact same words, same complaints, and the same justifications repeatedly. In fact, the more intimate they are, the more heated. Maybe there was an anointing 6 days before the Passover, then another 2 days before Passover. But the one 2 days before was when Judas had had enough. This 3rd time was what "broke the camel's back". He was finally disgusted enough and/or jealous enough of Jesus because how he was being preferentially treated and what he might have considered hypocrisy on Jesus' part to finally conspire with Jesus' enemies. Judas was a thief. He helped himself to the moneybag whenever he wanted. Because of the rebuke Jesus gave that [in Judas' mind] hinted at Judas' greed and fake concern for the poor, Judas' pride may have been offended so much, as well as his greed gotten the better of him, that he wanted to teach Jesus a lesson by conspiring with Jesus' enemies. He might have justified it in his mind thinking, "If he's really the messiah, this might be what triggers the insurrection against the Romans I've [i.e. Judas] wanted for a long time [long before he met Jesus]. In defending himself, Jesus will be forced to use his miraculous powers to strike back against the Romans and compromising Jewish leaders. If he's not the messiah, then he'll just be getting what's coming to him."
Deut. 22:28-29 is really is a difficult case law to understand. From what I can gather, it seem to me that the woman actually does CLAIM being raped. And so, it seems to me that there are two possibilities. Either it was actually consensual, or actually non-consensual.
1. Assuming it was NON-CONSENSUAL (i.e. real rape)
The woman rightly claims rape. Must she then be forced to marry her rapist? Well, if we first look at and compare the situation where an unbetrothed woman engaged in consensual sex, what do we find?
In such a case, when an unbetrothed virgin woman is seduced (or allows herself to be seduced), the father has the option to utterly refuse to give his daughter in marriage to the man (Ex. 22:17). If that's the case in *consensual* sex, then it only makes sense that a father, or brother (or even the woman herself) has the option of utterly refusing to allow a rapist to marry the woman since it's a case of *NON-consensual* sex. It's not like the Jews were emotionally indifferent to the rape of their woman. Jacob's son slaughtered an entire city and plundered their goods because their sister Dinah was humiliated and defiled by rape (Gen. 34). George Athas seems to agree that the father or brother (and the woman) has the option of refusing marriage between the woman and the alleged rapist in this video HERE
The question I'm not sure of is whether a father or brother in that society can decide marriage contrary to the woman's wishes. Say for example, being motivated out of the prospect of sharing in the man's money.
The man, being actually guilty of rape but falsely claiming innocence, is fined with having to marry the woman and never having the option of divorcing her. Apparently ONLY if the father or brother (or the woman herself) is willing to allow the marriage.
Why would a woman ever be willing to marry her rapist? Maybe if she feels she may never get married because of the incident. Since, prospective men might find her unacceptable on account of her having been defiled. Other possible reasons include the woman concluding she is likely never to find a husband because 1. her family is poor or of low standing in the community, and/or 2. her not attractive enough (Hence why she may still be unbetrothed. Arranged marriages back then being a family decision on both sides).
2. Assuming it was actually CONSENSUAL
Then the woman falsely claimed rape.
What motivation might an unbetrothed woman have in falsely claiming rape? The woman might be wanting a husband but can't find a man willing to marry her because (like above) 1. her family is poor or of low standing in the community, and/or 2. not attractive (hence why she may still be unbetrothed).
The man innocent of rape, but falsely accused of it, is still fined with having to marry the woman without the possibility of divorce because, at the very least, he violated a virgin daughter of Israel.
Why would a woman in that society be motivated to claim rape when it was in fact consensual? Maybe to shame the man out of spite. Especially, if she still had the option of refusing to marry him, or convincing her father/brother not to allow the marriage. Or maybe a woman might lie about rape for pride's sake. In order to make it seem like she wasn't wantonly venereous/libidinous. In which case, she may still be willing to marry the man.
If she were to marry the man, she will have to live with the consequences of her decision of falsely claiming rape because he may never divorce her. However, does she have the future option of divorcing him (e.g. for adultery)? I'm not sure. I think so.
3. Is there ever a circumstance in which a woman who is actually raped might be motivated to claim it was consensual? Not if she were betrothed since she would be punished with death along with the man. What if she were not betrothed? If she were unbetrothed, she may do so in order to secure a marriage for similar reasons I explained in the last paragraph of part 1.
The difference being that in this instance she's claiming it's consensual even though in both cases [#1 and here] it's an actual case of non-consensual rape. She may also do so in order to make the marriage (which she wants for reasons given above in part 1) less scandalous. And if she got pregnant, in order not to have the child considered to have been conceived in more scandal than necessary. Thinking of the child's future reputation, it might be better to be perceived as having been conceived in consensual immorality than due to rape.
But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.- Joshua 17:18
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.- Judges 1:19
It's been argued by skeptics that the above verses are contradictory because God promises to empower the Israelites to successfully drive out the Canaanites. Yet, God Himself wasn't able to drive out the inhabitants of the lowlands because they had iron chariots.
1. God promised to drive out the Canaanites slowly.
29 I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. 30 By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.- Exo. 23:29-30
2. The "he" in Judges 1:19 is Judah, not God. It was Judah who wasn't able to drive out the inhabitants, not God. Modern translations make that clear. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that tribes and people groups were sometimes spoken of as if they were one person. Even being called "he," "him," or "his" (etc.). That's because the progenitor or leader of a group both represents the group, along with the group being associated with the progenitor or leader.
3. God didn't promise that the Israelites would win every single one of the battles. The winning of battles were partly conditioned on their faithfulness to God (Judges 2:1-3). Even faithfulness didn't guarantee 100% victory. Even back then they had a deep understanding of God's sovereignty and providence. They knew that whatever happened, good or bad, happened by God's permission and decree. Yet at the same time, they knew that some providences are especially indicative of God's attitude of favor and approval or disfavor and disapproval. See, for example, how David reacted to Shimei's curses upon him (2 Sam. 16:5-14). David acknowledged that Shimei cursed him in accordance with God's providence.
4. Being "with" or "on the side" of someone has degrees. For example, Jerry can tell George that he's with George in his plan to lose 30 pounds and run a scheduled marathon a year from now. Jerry's support can range from weekly or daily phone calls of encouragement to daily waking up George at the crack of dawn and helping him train. Even spending hundreds of dollars in equipment to help George be ready for the marathon. Depending on Israel's faithfulness, God could be with the Israelites.
5. God works by 1. ordinary providence, 2. special providence and 3. extraordinary providence (see my definitions and explanations HERE). God being with someone doesn't entail that they can do anything at any time. God may be with Elaine but that doesn't necessarily mean that Elaine, as a five foot three inches woman, can dunk a basketball. By God's ordinary providence Elaine probably won't be able to dunk a basketball. However, by God's special or extraordinary providence Elaine would be able to dunk a basketball.
Similarly, by God's ordinary providence Judah may not have been able to drive out the inhabitants of the lowlands at that time. But that doesn't mean that they would be not able to do so in the future by God's ordinary providence. Or even in the future by God special or extraordinary providence.
So, this alleged contradiction and theological conundrum is actually pretty vacuous.
UPDATE: In Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's book Jesus and the Last Supper, he
wrote a ~122 page chapter (4th) on the topic of the apparent discrepancy
and contradiction between the Synoptics and the GJohn regarding whether the Last Supper was or wasn't a Passover, and whether Jesus died at approximately the same time the Passover lambs were or afterwards. Pitre acknowledges
there are many views on the topic, but lists four of the most popular
views among scholars. Two of them attempt to reconcile the apparent
discrepancy and two argue for real contradiction. He describes and then
goes through each options' strengths and weaknesses, and then argues for
the fourth position.
1. The Essene Hypothesis attempts to
reconcile the discrepancy by appealing to two liturgical calendars among
Jews at the time. So, it's both true that Jesus did and didn't observe
the Passover.
2. The Johannine Hypothesis argues that John is
right and the Synoptics are wrong. This is the most popular view among
scholars. He argues that the main basis for its popularity is that it's
grounded in astronomical considerations. However, he argues that when
examined more carefully, the astronomical considerations are weak
because they ultimately depend on atmospheric observations from the
ground (not merely where the moon was in relation to the earth) during
the relevant 1st century years. If I recall correctly, a cloudy day
could delay the Passover up to 48 hours. Also, (if I recall) the
calendar was dependent on when the season started, and that depended on
the state of the crops.
3. The Synoptic Hypothesis argues that the Synoptics are right and GJohn is wrong.
4.
The Passover Hypothesis argues that the Last Supper was a Passover (as
the Synoptics clearly state) and that when properly read, GJohn actually
agrees with the Synoptics. Pitre argues that when one takes into
account the various ways the Jews at the time used the word Passover and
other phrases to refer to the Passover season, John perfectly conforms
to it such that the apparent contradiction disappears. Pitre says this
is the least popular of the four among scholars (because neglected and
dismissed), but argues that it's actually the best of the four options.
I highly recommend the chapter (and book) to everyone. It's really fascinating. I obviously cannot summarize everything in the (over) 120 pages in that chapter.
A common claimed contradiction and/or discrepancy in
the Bible that skeptics bring up is the question of when Jesus was
actually crucified.
1. Did Jesus Christ's crucifixion occur the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did it occur after it was eaten as Mark explicitly says? (paraphrase of skeptic Bart Ehrman's often asked question)
2. Was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?
For a long while in my Christian youth I rejected a Friday crucifixion. But after doing a bit more study,
I've concluded that the traditional position of a Friday crucifixion
fits all of the available Biblical data better. What really helped me come to the traditional view was James White's discussion on the topic which can be purchased at his website (the current direct link is here). When it comes to other finer details, I haven't come to any firm conclusions. However, the following quotes and articles can help people come to their own conclusions.
April 3, AD 33 by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Justin Taylor
Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ Read the warning below about this link↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
While there are many doctrinal issues that I disagree with from the
website that the above article comes from, this particular article
argues persuasively for a Friday crucifixion (even if not all its facts are accurate). The creators of the website are sub-Evangelical. I recommend one reads this article after one reads the following quotes.
MARK 14:12ff- Did Jesus institute the
Lord's Supper on the day of the Passover or the day before?
PROBLEM: If the first three
Gospels (synoptics) are correct, then Jesus instituted the Lord's
Supper "on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the
Passover lamb" (cf. Matt. 26:17; Luke 22:1). But John places it "before
the feast of the Passover" (13:1), the day before the crucifixion on
which "they might eat the Passover" (18:28). SOLUTION: There are two basic
positions embraced by evangelical scholars on this point. Those who
hold that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (and instituted the Lord's Supper
at the end of it) on the same day it was observed by the Jews, support
their view as follows: (1) It was the day required by the OT Law, and
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt.
5:17-18). (2) It seems to be the meaning of Mark 14:12 which says it
was "on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the
Passover lamb." (3) When John 19:14 speaks of it being "the Preparation
Day of the Passover" they take this to mean simply the preparation for
the Sabbath which occurred in that paschal week.
Other scholars contend that Jesus ate the Passover
lamb on the day before the Jews did because: (1) He had to eat it a day
early (Thursday) in order that He might offer Himself the next day
(Good Friday) as the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29) to the Jews, in
fulfillment of OT type on the very day they were eating the Passover
lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). (2) The plain reading of John 19:14 is that it was
"the Preparation Day of the Passover"
[not the Sabbath], or in other words, the day before the Passover was
eaten by the Jews. (3) Likewise, John 18:28 affirms that the Jews did
not want to be defiled on the day Jesus was crucified "that they might
eat the Passover."
Either view is possible without contradiction.
However, the latter view seems to explain the texts forthrightly.
- From The Big Book of
Bible
Difficulties by Norman Geisler
and Thomas Howe page 375 (previously titled When Critics Ask: A Popular
Handbook on Bible Difficulties)
Lord's
supper instituted at Passover.
Matt. xxvi. 17-30; Mark xiv.
12-26;
Luke xxii. 1, 13-20.
Upon
the preceding day.
John xiii. 1,2; xviii. 28.
Of the two leading theories the first is, that the Lord's supper was
instituted on the evening following the fourteenth day of Nisan, at the
legal time of the passover. Robinson4 maintains that the
term "passover" sometimes comprises the whole paschal festival, or the
feast of unleavened bread which began with the passover proper; that
the expression "to eat the passover" may mean "to keep the paschal
festival"; and that the "preparation of the passover," John xix. 14,
denotes simply the customary "preparation" for the Sabbath, which occurred in
that paschal week. In this view, which relieves the difficulty, a host
of critics5 substantially concur.
4 English Harmony, pp. 200-205.
5 So Andrews, Bochart, Davidson, Fairbairn, Gardiner, Hengstenberg,
Lange, Lewin, Lightfoot, Milligan, Norton, Olshausen, Robinson,
Schoettgen, Stier, Tholuck, and Wieseler.
-From Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible by
John W. Haley p. 423
Was Christ crucified on Thursday or
Friday?
The uniform impression conveyed by the synoptic
Gospels is that the Crucifixion took place on Friday of Holy Week. If
it were not for John 19:14, the point would never have come up for
debate. But John 19:14 says (according to NASB): "Now it was
the day of
preparation [paraskeuē] for
the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the
Jews, 'Behold, your King!' " The NIV suggests a somewhat less difficult
handling of the apparent discrepancy: "It was the day of Preparation of
Passover Week, about the sixth hour." This latter translation takes
note of two very important matters of usage. First, the word paraskeuē had already by the first
century A.D. become a technical term for "Friday," since every Friday
was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In
Modern Greek the word for "Friday" is paraskeuē. Second,
the Greek term tou pascha (lit., "of the
Passover") is taken to be equivalent to the Passover Week. This
refers
to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Heb. maṣṣôṯ) that immediately
followed the initial slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb on
the evening of the fourteenth day of the month Abib, which by Hebrew
reckoning would mean the commencement of the fifteenth day, right after
sunset. The week of maṣṣô-t,
coming right on the heels of Passover itself (during which maṣṣô-t were actually eaten,
along with the lamb, bitter herbs, etc.) very naturally came to be
known as Passover Week (cf. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 14th ed.,
12:1041), extending from the fifteenth to
the twenty-first of Abib, inclusively. (Arndt and Gingrich [Greek-English
Lexicon, pp. 638-39]
state: "This [i.e., Passover] was followed immediately by the Feast of
Unleavened Bread...on the 15th to the 21st. Popular usage merged the
two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for practical
purposes.") It was unnecessary to insert a specific term for "week"
(such as šā-bȗaʻ) for it to
be understood as such. Therefore, that which might be translated
literally as "the preparation of the Passover" must in this context be
rendered "Friday of Passover Week." It turns out,
therefore, that John affirms just as
clearly as the Synoptics that Christ was crucified on Friday and that
His sacrificial death represented an antitypical fulfillment of the
Passover ordinance itself, which was instituted by God in the
days of
the Exodus as a means of making Calvary available by faith to the
ancient people of God even before the coming of Christ.
Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is referred to
as the Passover Lamb for believers: "Purge out the old leaven, so that
you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ our Lamb
was sacrificed for us." The statement of E. C. Hoskyns on John 19:14 is
very appropriate here: "The hour of double sacrifice is drawing near.
It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and
the Lamb of God is likewise sentenced to death" (The Fourth Gospel[London:
Farber and Farber, 1940], ad loc.). It simply needs to be pointed out
that the lambs referred to here are not those that were slaughtered and
eaten in private homes--a rite Jesus had already observed with His
disciples the night before ("Maundy Thursday")--but the lambs to be
offered on the altar of the
Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. (For the household
observance on the evening of the fourteenth of Abib, cf. Exod. 12:6;
for the public sacrifice on the altar, cf. Exod. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:4-8;
2 Chron. 30:15-19; 35:11-16. These were all known as Passover
sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.) Thus it turns
out that there has been a simple
misunderstanding of the phrase paraskeuē
tou pascha that has
occasioned such perplexity that even Guthrie
(New
Bible Commentary, p. 964)
deduced an original error, for which he had no solution to offer.
The
various ingenious explantions offered by others, that Christ held His
personal Passover a night early, knowing that He would be crucified
before the evening of the fourteenth; that Christ and His movement held
to a different calendar, reckoning the fourteenth to be a day earlier
than the calendar of the official Jerusalem priesthood; or that He was
following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran--all
these theories are quite improbable and altogether unnecessary. There
is no contradiction whatever between John and the Synoptics as to the
day on which Christ died--it was Friday.
- From Encyclopedia of
Bible Difficulties by Gleason
L. Archer pp. 375-376.
14. The Length of Our Lord's Stay in the Tomb
Quite an effort is made in some quarters to show that Jesus remained in
the tomb seventy-two hours, three full days and nights. The effort
seems due to a desire to give full value to the expression "three days"
and to vindicate scripture. But a minutely literal interpretation of
this phrase makes "on the third day" flatly erroneous. A good deal of
labor has been expended in the impossible attempt to make three and
four equal to each other. There are three sets of expressions used
about the matter, besides the express statements of the Gospels about
the days of the crucifixion, and resurrection. Let us examine these
lines of evidence. 1. Luke settles the matter pointedly by mentioning
all the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection (Luke
23:50-24:3). The burial took place Friday afternoon just before the
Sabbath drew on (Luke 23:54). The women rested on the Sabbath
(Saturday) (Luke 23:56), and went to the sepulchre early Sunday
morning, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). There is no escaping
this piece of chronology. This is all the time there was between the
two events. Jesus then lay in the tomb from late in the afternoon of
Friday till early Sunday morning. The other Gospels agree with this
reckoning of the time, as we have already seen. 2. But how about
the
prediction of Jesus, repeatedly made, and once illustrated by the case
of Jonah, that he would rise after three days? Are two nights and a day
and two pieces of days three days? Let us see. (a) The well-known
custom of the Jews was to count a part of a day as a whole day of
twenty-four hours. Hence a part of a day or night would be counted as a
whole day, the term day obviously having two senses, as night and day,
or day contrasted with night. So then the part of Friday would count as
one day, Saturday another, and the part of Sunday the third day. This
method of reckoning gives no trouble to a Jew or to modern men, for
that matter. In free vernacular we speak the same way today. (b)
Besides, the phrase "on the third day" is obliged to mean that the
resurrection took place on that day, for, if it occurred after the
third day, it would be on the fourth day and not on the third. Now it
so happens that this term "third day" is applied seven times to the
resurrection of Christ (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:23; Matt. 20:19; Luke
27:7, 21, 46; 1 Cor. 15:4). These numerous passages of Scripture, both
prophecy and statement of history, agree with the record of the fact
that Jesus did rise on the third day. (Luke 24:7.) (c) Moreover, the
phrase "after three days" is used by the same writers (Matthew and
Luke) in connection with the former one, "the third day," as meaning
the same thing. Hence the definite and clear expressions must explain
the one that is less so. The chief priests and Pharisees
remember
(Matt. 27:63) that Jesus said, after three days I rise again. Hence
they urge Pilate to keep a guard over the tomb until the third day
(Matt. 27:64). This is their own interpretation of the Saviour's words.
Besides, in parallel passages in the different Gospels, one will have
one expression and another the other, naturally suggesting that they
regarded them as equivalent. (Cf . Mark 8:31 with Matt. 16:21, Luke
9:22 with Mark 10:34.) On the third day cannot mean on the fourth day,
while after three days can be used as meaning on the third day. (d)
Matthew 12:40 is urged as conclusive the other way. But the "three days
and three nights" may be nothing more than a longer way of saying three
days, using day in its long sense. And we have already seen that the
Jews counted any part of this full day (day and night) as a whole day
(day and night). Hence this passage may mean nothing more than the
common "after three days" above mentioned, and, like that expression,
must be interpreted in accordance with the definite term "on the third
day" and with the clear chronological data given by Luke and the rest.
They seemed to be conscious of no discrepancy in these various
expressions. Most likely they understood them as well as we do at any
rate.
...The Jews take a particular
notice of the third day as remarkable for
many things they observe {e}, as
"of the third day Abraham lift up
his eyes, Ge 22:4 of the third day of
the tribes, Ge 42:18 of the third day of the spies, Jos 2:16 of the
third day of the giving of the law, Ex 19:16 of the third day of Jonah,
Jon 1:17 of the third day of them that came out of the captivity, Ezr
8:15 of the third day of the resurrection of the dead, as it is
written, Ho 6:2 "after two days will he revive us, in the third day he
will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight".''
From which passage, it is clear,
that they under stood the prophecy in
Hosea of the resurrection of the dead; and it is observable, that among
the remarkable third days they take notice of, are the two instances of
Isaac's and Jonah's deliverances, which were Scripture types of
Christ's resurrection. From which observations they establish this as a
maxim {f}, that
"God does not leave the righteous
in distress more than three days.''...
...That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to
doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient
to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth", in distinction from
the surface of it; but some difficulty arises about the time of his
continuing there, and the prediction here made agreeable to the type:
for it was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday",
towards the close, on the day of the preparation for the sabbath, and
when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the
sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the
Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first of
the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, he rose from the
dead; so that he was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave.
To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it
be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural
days, consisting of day and night, or twenty four hours, and are what
the Greeks call nucyhmera, "night days"; but the Jews have no other way
of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule,
and used on all occasions, as in the computation of their feasts and
times of mourning, in the observance of the passover, circumcision, and
divers purifications, that wlwkk Mwyh tuqm, "a part of a day is as the
whole" {n}: and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if
but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was
reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was
in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it
mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule,
the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards
the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being
a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he
continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day;
and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting,
though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the
night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son
of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and
which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question
whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish.
{l} R. David Kimchi & Jarchi, in Jonah i. 17. & ii. 1. Zohar in
Exod. fol. 20. 3. & 78. 3. {m} Antiq. 1. 9. c. 18. {n} T. Hieros.
Pesach. fol. 31. 2. T. Bab. Moed. Katon, fol. 16. 2. 17. 2. 19. 2.
& 20. 2. Bechorot, fol. 20. 2. & 21. 1, Nidda, fol. 33. 1.
Maimon. Hilch. Ebel, c. 7. sect. 1, 2, 3. Aben Ezra in Lev. xii. 3....
Verse 40. Three days and three nights] Our Lord rose from the grave on
the day but one after his crucifixion: so that, in the computation in
this verse, the part of the day on which he was crucified, and the part
of that on which he rose again, are severally estimated as an entire
day; and this, no doubt, exactly corresponded to the time in which
Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Our Lord says, As Jonah was, so
shall the Son of man be, &c.
Evening and morning, or night and
day, is the Hebrew phrase for a
natural day, which the Greeks termed nuxqhmeron, nuchthemeron. The very
same quantity of time which is here termed three days and three nights,
and which, in reality, was only one whole day, a part of two others,
and two whole nights, is termed three days and three nights, in the
book of Esther: Go; neither eat nor drink THREE DAYS, NIGHT or DAY, and
so I will go in unto the king: Esth. iv. 16. Afterwards it follows,
Esther v. 1. On the THIRD DAY, Esther stood in the inner court of the
king's house. Many examples might be produced, from both the sacred and
profane writers, in vindication of the propriety of the expression in
the text. For farther satisfaction, the reader, if he please, may
consult Whitby and Wakefield, and take the following from Lightfoot.
"I. The Jewish writers extend that memorable station of the unmoving
sun, at Joshua's prayer, to six and thirty hours; for so Kimchi upon
that place: 'According to more exact interpretation, the sun and moon
stood still for six and thirty hours: for when the fight was on the eve
of the Sabbath, Joshua feared lest the Israelites might break the
Sabbath; therefore he spread abroad his hands, that the sun might stand
still on the sixth day, according to the measure of the day of the
Sabbath, and the moon according to the measure of the night of the
Sabbath, and of the going out of the Sabbath, which amounts to six and
thirty hours.' "II. If you number the hours that pass from our
saviour's giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you
shall find almost the same number of hours; and yet that space is
called by him three days and three nights, whereas two nights only came
between, and one complete day.
Nevertheless, while he speaks
these words, he is not without the
consent both of the Jewish schools and their computation. Weigh well
that which is disputed in the tract Scabbath, concerning the separation
of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the
Gemarists, concerning the computation of this space of three days.
Among other things these words occur: R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it
contains four hwnwa onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much
is the space of an hnwa onah? R. Jochanan saith, Either a day or a
night. And so also the Jerusalem Talmud: 'R. Akiba fixed a DAY for an
onah, and a NIGHT for an onah.' But the tradition is, that R. Eliazar
ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an onah: and a PART of an onah
is as the WHOLE. And a little after, R.
Ismael computed a part of the onah
for the whole." Thus, then, three
days and three nights, according to this Jewish method of reckoning,
included any part of the first day; the whole of the following night;
the next day and its night; and any part of the succeeding or third
day...
OPTION #4: There were two calendars for the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
We hold to this final view. It states that the Jews celebrated the Passover on two consecutive days. Hoehner writes, “The Pharisees celebrated the Passover immediately (Nisan 13/14) while the Sadducees waited until the usual time (i.e., Nisan 14/15).”[2]Jesus celebrated the Passover on Thursday night according to the Pharisaic calendar, which is in line with the Synoptics. But John was going off of the Sadducean calendar, when he wrote his gospel, because he was focusing on Jesus’ enemies.
Since there were so many people to feed, it would be virtually impossible for the priests to sacrifice enough lambs in a 24 hour period. Josephus estimates that about a quarter million lambs were slaughtered during the Passover.[3]Modern historians believe that Josephus was clearly exaggerating these numbers. It would be difficult for an army with guns and grenades to kill that many sheep, let alone a group of priests! However, modern historians estimate that anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 people were in Jerusalem during Passover.[4]This would be a massive amount of people to feed with the sacrificed sheep.
By spreading this out over two days, this would help the priests perform the sacrifices. Thus Hoehner explains, “There arose the custom where the Galileans slew their lambs on Nisan 13, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted eight days whereas the Judeans celebrated on Nisan 14.”[5]Hoehner also argues that the Galileans/Pharisees could have used a different way of reckoning the day from the Judeans/Sadducees. He writes, “It is thought that the Galileans used a different method of reckoning the Passover than the Judeans. The Galileans and Pharisees used the sunrise-to-sunrise reckoning whereas the Judeans and Sadducees used the sunset-to-sunset reckoning.”[6]We can express these two groups succinctly:
The Galilean Jews reckoned the day from sunrise-to-sunrise:This made the Last Supper a Passover meal. They had the Paschal lamb slaughtered in the afternoon on Thursday, Nisan 14. Carson writes, “The slaughter normally took place between 3.00 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on 14 Nisan, falling on a Thursday in the year in question; Passover itself began about 6.00 p.m. on the same Thursday, the beginning of 15 Nisan.”[7]
The Judean Jews reckoned the day from sunset-to-sunset:They would not have considered the Last Supper a Passover meal. They had their Paschal lamb slaughtered on Friday afternoon, Nisan 15. Under this calendar system, Jesus was eating the Passover meal, when his enemies were conspiring to arrest him. In fact, they arrested him the night before.
The corporate sacrifice of a burnt offering for the nation was done at 3 pm on Passover, according to the Judean calendar. This means that when the priest was slaying the Paschal lamb, Jesus was at that very moment yelling “tetelestai” from the Cross! John must have been calling attention to this fact by focusing on the Sadducean calendar.
[1]Hoehner, Harold W.Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977. 81.
[2]Hoehner, Harold W.Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977. 82.
[3]Josephus writes, “So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice, (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves,) and many of us are twenty in a company,found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts totwo millions seven hundred thousand and two hundred personsthat were pure and holy.” Flavius Josephus,The Jewish War6.9.3.
[4]E.P. Sanders writes, “No one believes the largest of these figures.” Sanders, E.P.Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE. p. 126. He gives the estimate listed above. Joachim Jeremias places the number around 155,000 people: 30,000 residents and 125,000 pilgrims. Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New York: Scribner, 1966. 42.
[5]Hoehner, Harold W.Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977. 82.
[6]Hoehner, Harold W.Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1977. 86.
[7]Carson, D.A.The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
END QUOTE
It has often been suggested that God was wrong in telling Adam that in
the very day in which he would eat of
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would, THAT VERY
DAY,
physically die. The following quotes demonstrate that that alleged
discrepancy is false. Portions have been highlighted in red for
emphasis.
2:17 Why Didn't Adam and Eve Die at Once?
Why did not Adam and Eve drop dead the same day that they disobeyed God
and ate of the forbidden fruit? Adam lived to be 930 years old
according to Genesis 5:5. Was Satan's word in Genesis 3:4-"You will not
surely die"-a more accurate assessment of the real state of affairs
than what God had said in Genesis 2:17-"When you eat of it you will
surely die"? Is Satan more scrupulously honest than God himself?
This hard saying calls for an examination of at
least three different concepts embraced within the quotation from
Genesis 2:17-(1) the tree of the knowedge of good and evil; (2) the
meaning of the phrase "when [more literally, in the day] you eat of
it"; and (3) the meaning of the phrase "you will surely die."
First the tree. There are no grounds whatsoever for
believing that the tree was a magical symbol for that it contained a
secret enzyme which would automatically induce a wide body of
knowledge that embraced the whole gamut of good and evil. Instead it is
safer to assume that the tree functioned much as the New Testament
ordinance or sacrament of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist does. The tree
was a symbol embodied in an actual tree, just as the bread and wine of
the Eucharist are symbols embodied in real bread and wine. In a similar
way the tree of life was also a real tree, yet symbolized the fact that
life was a special gift given to individuals from God. That is also why
participants are warned not to partake of the elements of the Lord's
Supper in an unworthy manner, for when the elements are eaten and drunk
in a flippant manner and when a person has not truly confessed Christ
as Savior, the unworthy partaking of tehse rather ordinary elements
(ordinary at least from all outward appearances) will cause illness
and, in some cases, death (1 Cor. 11:30).
In the same way, the tree was a symbol to test the
first human couple's actions. Would they obey God or would they assert
their own wills in opposition to God's clear command? To argue that the
tree had magical power to confer knowledge of good and evil would be to
miss the divine point: the tree was a test of the couple's intention to
obey God. That men and women can attain the knowledge of good and evil
is not in itself either undesireable or blameworthy; knowledge per se
was not what was being forbidden here. The tree only represents the
possibility that creatures made in God's image could refuse to obey
him. The tree served as the concrete expression of that rebellion. It is just as
naive to insist that the phrase "in
the day" means that on that very day death would occur. A little
knowledge of the Hebrew idiom will relieve the tension here as well.
For example, in 1 Kings 2:37 King Solomon warned a seditious Shimei,
"The day you leave [Jerusalem] and cross the Kidron Valley [which is
immediately outside the city walls on the east side of the city], you
can be sure you will die." Neither the 1 Kings nor the Genesis text
implies immediacy
of action on that very same
day;
instead they point to the certainty of the
predicted
consequence that would be
set in motion by the act initiated
on that day. Alternate wordings include at the time when,
at
that time, now when and the day [when]
(see Gen. 5:1; Ex. 6:28; 10:28; 32:34).
The final concern is over the definition of death.
Scripture refers to three different types of death. Often only the
context helps distinguish which is intended. There are physical death,
spiritual death (the kind that forces guilty persons to hide from the
presence of God, as this couple did when it was time for fellowship in
the Garden, Gen. 3:8) and the "second death" (to which Rev. 20:14)
refers, when a person is finally, totally and eternally separated from
God without hope of reversal, after a lifetime of rejecting God).
In this case, spiritual death was the immediate
outcome of disobedience demonstrated by a deliberate snatching of real
fruit from a real tree in a real garden. Death ensued immediately: They
became "dead in...transgressions and s ins" (Eph. 2:1). But such
separation and isolation from God eventually resulted in physical death
as well. This, however, was more a byproduct than a direct result of
their sin. Spiritual death was the real killer! - Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter
Kaiser pages 91-92
We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from
God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended
all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for
as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down
from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man
without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing
from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly
called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils
both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on
earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely
absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being
oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own
destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God
threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit,
when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to
death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should
bring a remedy. - selection from Calvin's commentary
on Genesis (2:17) http://www.studylight.org/com/cal/print.cgi?bk=0&ch=2&vs=19
Thou shalt surely die.] twmt twm moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou
shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die
spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt
become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die.
This
we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be
considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other
meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general
either fanciful or incorrect. -Adam Clarke's commentary on Gen. 2:17 http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=2
"for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"; or "in
dying, die" {z}; which denotes the certainty of it, as our version
expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a
corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became
at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of
innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do,
would have lived an immortal life -selection from John Gill's Commentary
on Gen. 2:17 http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=2
Perhaps Lee is alluding to the timeframe: “on the day.” But that’s a
Hebrew idiom for "when." And, in fact, Adam and Eve did die. They lost
the hope of immortality. - Steve Hays from the blog
Randolph is mentallyincompetent-http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/evan-is-mentally-incompetent.html
Gen. 2:17 (also Gen. 2:4, and 1
Kings 2:37) has a preposition before
the word "day" (bay yom) which qualifies it so that it means "when".
So, in one sense, this blog isn't necessary. I refer everyone to those first. However, now and then I find myself wanting to address some alleged Bible difficulty. This is what this blog is for.
