Posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:32 AM PST by NYer
For many modern Catholics, the practice of granting indulgences to hasten the path through purgatory to heaven is thought to have been ended by Vatican II. Under Benedict XVI there has been a revival – and it is one which tells us much about papal authority
“When a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.” Every good Protestant who is old enough to have grandchildren will recognise these words. They are attributed to a sixteenth-century German friar, Johann Tetzel OP, who actually sold indulgences to help finance the construction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. It was this abuse that ignited the rage of Martin Luther, who in 1517 helped launch the Protestant Reformation.
Many Catholics today, at least those on the progressive wing of the Church, probably never give indulgences a second thought. The notion that by securing an indulgence – quite simply the removal of the temporal punishment of sins that have already been forgiven by the Church – one can secure a fast track to heaven seems curiously outmoded to many. It is an aspect of Catholic life that belongs, if not to the Middle Ages, to the pre-Vatican II era.
But now there is clear evidence that indulgences are very much back at the heart of Catholic life as seen from the Vatican. In his first 10 months of office, Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly – and surprisingly – granted a plenary indulgence in connection with three major ecclesial events: last year’s World Youth Day, the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican II, and the recent World Day of the Sick.
So what should we make of such recommendations? Has the Church taken a step backwards? Or have indulgences continued to exist, but been quietly ignored? In fact it can be argued that Benedict’s interest in indulgences tells us a great deal about how he perceives his own authority and that of the Church.
In classic Catholic teaching, forged between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries, the practice reflects the belief that pastors can “set the individual free from the vestiges of sin by applying to him or her the merits of Christ and the saints” – what has been called the “treasury of the Church”. Basically, an indulgence – either partial or plenary (full) – allows one to reduce his or her “time” in purgatory or apply this grace to someone else who is already deceased. In order to obtain a plenary indulgence one must perform the prescribed task, plus go to sacramental confession, receive Eucharistic Communion, and pray for the Pope’s intentions.
The Council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to 1562, not only outlawed the selling of indulgences but also roundly condemned Martin Luther as well: “The Church… condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.” This same formula was re-stated, verbatim, by Pope Paul VI in 1967, some two years after the end of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which – significantly – had chosen not to issue condemnations or anathemas.
The practice of indulgences was never really addressed at Vatican II. And yet, some four decades later, a good number of Catholics – and many Protestants, too – continue to hold rather firmly but equally erroneously to the notion that the Council did away with indulgences – or, at least, severely altered them. It was actually Pope Paul who oversaw the “revision” of the practice. But the formula that Paul devised was only a partial reform that satisfied neither the Neo-Tridentines (such as the schismatic Lefebvrists) nor the so-called “progressives” more sympathetic to Luther’s position.
Shortly after his election as Bishop of Rome in 1963 Paul VI formed a commission to revise the practice of indulgences. The findings, in a text called the Positio, were sent to the all the presidents of the world’s episcopal conferences in June 1965. The main thrust of the paper was to link the indulgence with the interior attitude of the believer and his or her action rather than with a place (such as a shrine or church) or an object (perhaps a holy medal).
Further, the numerical calculation of partial indulgences (for example, reducing a fixed number of days or years from purgatory) was to be banned and inflation of indulgences in general curtailed. This means that only one plenary indulgence could now be gained per day.
When the bishops arrived in Rome later in the autumn of 1965 for the fourth and final session of the Second Vatican Council the conference presidents were asked to state their views on the Positio, but when they did there was outrage among some. The feisty Antiochan Patriarch of the Melchites, Maximos IV, urged that indulgences be suppressed outright, saying they were “not only without theological foundation but the cause of innumerable grave abuses which (had) inflicted irreparable evils on the Church”.
Then the German bishops added fuel to the fire. The Archbishop of Munich – Cardinal Dopfner – stated unabashedly: “The idea of a ‘treasury’ that the Church ‘possesses’ leads all too easily to a materialistic or quasi-commercial conception of what is obtained by indulgences.” He recommended that the Positio be scrapped and that a group of international theologians (Karl Rahner was one such he had in mind) be selected to re-write it.
The Pope formed his new commission and in early 1967 issued the Apostolic Constitution, Indulgentiarum Doctrina – which looked similar to the original Positio. The new document said that a believer could gain the indulgence only by fulfilling three obligations: by doing the prescribed work, by having the proper disposition (attitude of the heart) while doing the work, and by acknowledging the authority of the Pope in the process.
Indulgentiarum Doctrina was in effect a restatement of the medieval Catholic doctrine of indulgences, with more personalistic language common in the theology of the initial post-Conciliar period. (This remains a criticism of the neo-Tridentines today.) And yet the anathema of Trent is still there. Partial indulgences were no longer calculated by days and years and the number of plenary indulgences was reduced. Yet critics from the other end of the spectrum are perhaps still most disturbed that indulgence theology likens divine justice to human justice and its need for reparation.
More than a change in practice, the early post-Conciliar period saw a change in attitude. But all that began to change still further with the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and his heavy emphasis on traditional devotional practices.
In his 1998 bull for the Holy Year – Incarnationis Mysterium – the Polish Pope made the indulgence a “constitutive part” of the Church’s Jubilee celebrations, which bewildered some Protestants, for in the same document the Pope also sought to give an ecumenical flavour to the event. The World Alliance of Reform Churches’ (WARC) representative on the ecumenical commission for the Jubilee – Waldensian Pastor Salvatore Ricciardi – was one of the more ardent protesters. The bull “seems wholly untouched by the events which shattered western Christianity in the sixteenth century”, Ricciardi wrote in October 1998, and then withdrew from the commission.
Receiving the indulgence “is not automatic, but depends on our turning away from sin and our conversion to God”, Pope John Paul said at a general audience in September 1999. “The paternal love of God does not exclude chastisement, even though this always should be understood in the context of a merciful justice which re-establishes the order violated,” he said.
The late Pope also issued a new manual that added a fourth way people could “gain” indulgences: by giving public witness of their faith by their frequent participation in the sacraments or by proclaiming the faith through word or example to someone who does not believe.
“If you die immediately after receiving a plenary indulgence, you go directly to heaven,” said Fr Ivan Fucek SJ at the Vatican press conference that unveiled the book.
Then after the Holy Year the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity invited representatives from WARC and the Lutheran World Federation to a two-day discussion on indulgences. Participants expressed satisfaction with the meeting and a Vatican official said there would be follow-up sessions. But to this date, there have been none.
Since then Pope Benedict has indicated that he will make indulgences much more visible than his immediate post-Conciliar predecessors. There are good reasons for this. Theologically, the Pope seems to be emphasising the medieval doctrine – codified at Trent – of the “economy of salvation” and the necessity of the Church. And politically he is making direct appeal to those Catholics – both those still in communion with Rome and those like the Lefebvrists that are in schism – who feel the practice of indulgences and the doctrine of Purgatory have been almost irreparably minimised.
But by revising the granting of the indulgence, Pope Benedict is actually doing nothing new at all. But the words of Paul VI in his 1967 document might offer a further clue to the new Pope’s motives: “We ought not to forget that when they try to gain indulgences the faithful submit with docility to the lawful pastors of the Church. Above all, they acknowledge the authority of the successor of Blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven. To them the Saviour himself entrusted the task of feeding his flock and ruling his Church.”
Well, we have come to an impasse on this one, to be sure. We're just going to go around in circles from here on.
I must say, though, that I would have to categorize the whole thrust of your take here as a "novel interpretation" not shared by any historical group of Christians before the 19th Century. Certainly not by the early Church.
To convince me otherwise, you would need to explain the very early (directly and unambiguously stated before the end of the first Century) understanding of the entire Church - already delineated by me earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat it here - that the Lord's Day was Sunday, and it was understood definitively as the day of the week in which Jesus rose from the dead. Further, your take on the timeline as stated in the various Gospel accounts is far from air-tight. I have already stated my case on that, too, in part from the original Greek. That we talk past each other on this point demonstrates that the matter is certainly open to interpretation, at least in the sense that the mind of the Church is not considered. Were I you, I would do more to seriously consider the witness of the Church on this issue through the ages, rather than that of Ellen White, or any other Sabbatarian that you may be influenced by.
Tradition says that the year 33 A.D. was the year of our Lord's crucifixion. This is because the 14th (Passover) falls on Friday and consequently that places Sivan 6 (Pentecost) on a Sunday. These, being two of the important holidays of the "Roman Church", caused this reckoning to come about.
This is incorrect and I will attempt to show you why.
From many reliable historical sources we know that King Herod died in the year 4 B.C. We also know that The Messiah was born during the reign of King Herod. In addition to that we know that Jesus was probably about 1 year to 18 months old when the Wise Men visited. Just this information alone would put the birth of our Lord to at least 6 B.C.
We are told that Jesus was about Thirty years old when he began his ministry. We also know that three separate Passovers are spoken of in the Book of John....Here, here and here. So we must conclude that our Lord was probably 33 years old when he was sacrificed for us.
Now, if the Lord was born in 6 B.C. and was put to death 33 years later....the year of the crucifixion would be 27 A.D.. There is and was no zero year!
Now, I'm sure you can see by the calendar that Passover falls on Wednesday and Jesus was our Passover and from my explanation in my previous posts, Christ would be in the tomb 72 hours and resurrecting on the Sabbath.....late in the day....about sundown.
Hi Diego. You're definitely the go-to guy on the resurrection. I've been reading over the debate and notice one glaring difference between you and the others - Scripture content. Lots and lots of Scripture in your post and a noticeable absence of it in the respondents' posts. That is the great divide, brother. Whether to believe the commandments of men or the Testinony.
Ellen White, I believe, began the Seventh Day Adventist Church???? Never read anything about her...or by her...or care to.
I have enjoyed the sparring and look forward to another bout.
Hey Senator....how you been?
Scripture sometimes helps for people with traditional, preconceived ideas.....not always. All I can say is a whole bunch of folks are "gonna be" surprised someday!
However, you seem to be taking the statement that "Jesus was about thirty years old" and translating it to "Jesus was exactly thirty years old."
If I'm 33, I'm 'about' 30. If I'm 27, I'm 'about' 30. But in reality, that is a swing of seven years. Not wanting to figure out the Jewish calendar, how would a swing of seven years affect your calculus? It seems that you depend on 'about 30' to mean 'exactly 30' for your calculations to work.
I also don't follow how you calculate the age of Christ at the arrival of the wise men. Herod killing every male under the age of 2 doesn't translate to the age of Christ in my book.
Ventana's Wife:
Ok, I'll give it a try and let you know.
Just trying to use logic. We see that Herod found out exactly when the star had appeared...the scripture is pretty clear here. When the Magi arrived, Jesus of course, was not in the stable manger any longer....but now living in a house. So, this was evidently some time later.
The fact that Herod included all boys under the age of two in his murderous scheme is significant... don't you think so? And again, I think the key words here are "the exact time he had learned from the Magi".
However, you seem to be taking the statement that "Jesus was about thirty years old" and translating it to "Jesus was exactly thirty years old."
When Luke wrote these words do you think he allowed for a seven year swing?
I think indulgences are useless and that the Church does not have the power to grant them, can I be under an anathema now???
Logic and reason leaves no other choice. Since Luke used the words ‘about thirty’ and not ‘thirty’ nor ‘exactly thirty’, one should assume that Jesus was not thirty when he began his ministry. If he was 29 or 31, that’s a three year swing – completely plausible and logical. If he was 28 or 32, that’s a five year swing – again, completely plausible and logical.
The seven year swing comes from my use of 27 and 33 to be considered “about” thirty.
So how do your calculations work if you use an age other than ‘exactly 30?’ About doesn’t mean exactly.
Just curious.
I think this is very significant, but my logic takes me to a different conclusion on the age of the Christ child.
Herod knows exactly the time the star appeared, so he knows the age of the child. The range of appearance of a newborn and a two year old is huge. No one could mistake a two year old with a two week old. However, both were ordered killed. Why?
Understand that birth records and identity documentation are a recent thing. The orders had to be carried out on the appearance of the child. But since newborns were included in the death orders, it is most plausible that the child was very young at the time the orders were given. Having raised five children, I know that a child of 18 months could look like a child of two. My children were large, and my 18 month old (10 lbs at birth) was larger than many 2 year olds, and some 3 yr olds. The 2 year cutoff is based on the fact that Herod did not want to make a mistake and wanted to be certain he killed the Christ child. Why kill all the children and not be certain? It makes no sense that the child was older than a year or nine months. I would suggest the child was less than a year old, probably much less. One would have to kill all 3 yr olds if you wanted to be certain to get the 18 month olds.
So tell me again the logic you used to fix the age of the Child.
NYer also maintains a prayer list.
My prayers to you and yours that your father pulls through the operation and will be with us for many more years. I also pray that we all can ultimately meet at that glorious resurrection where we can live forever with Jesus and without debate! In Jesus' name. Amen
He has my prayers, as well.
Your father is and will be in my prayers. It is good that we should seek each other's comfort.
When Moses wrote "Torah" he said thirty was the age a young Israelite should begin his priestly duties.....so I believe that Jesus also began his about the same time. I think we should accept the scripture for what it says....nothing more, nothing less. Luke did not say He was about 29.
Historians generally put Herod's death in 4BC, it is true. This is primarily based on the appearance of an eclipse that reportedly coincided with his death. However, there is some speculation that another eclipse, less spectacular in appearance, but an eclipse nonetheless, in 2 BC could be the candidate. There isn't any person known to have interacted with Herod near the end of his life who also died in this time frame, so it isn't out of the question.
Anyway, whether 4 BC or 2 BC is Jesus' birth year, the key point you seem to be making rests on the report that "when He was about 30," Jesus began His ministry after baptism by John the Baptist (Luke 3:23). According to Luke 3:1, John the Baptist began his ministry at the Jordan between August 19, 28 AD and August 18, 29 AD. How do we know this? Because Luke 3:1 says that he began in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias." Tiberias became emperor and "reigned" - as opposed to merely being nominated by Augustus to succeed him - on August 19, 14 AD. His fifteenth year started on his fourteenth anniversary and ended the day before his fifteenth anniversary as emperor. Therefore, we know that John *began* his ministry within the timeframe stated.
What about Jesus? Well, if John *began* his miistry somewhere betewwn August 28 and August 29, we also have to allow some time for his ministry to *grow* before Jesus appeared for His baptism. After all, the context clearly shows that John had developed a following and notoriety. This would take time, especially in those days before mass communications. Given that, it would be fair to suppose at least a year had gone by. This would put Jesus' baptism somewhere between the summer of 29 and the summer of 30 AD. That would make Jesus between 30 years old (2 BC to 29 AD) and 33 years old (4 BC to 30 AD). The entire range, to any reasonable person, qualifies for being "about 30."
Your are correct in saying that there are three Passovers spoken of in John's Gospel during which Jesus exercised His ministry. If he was baptized after Passover of 30 AD (which is clearly within the range I developed above), then He would have been active, after His baptism, during the Passover of 31 and 32, with the final one of the three coinciding with His crucifixion (as John 13 indicates clearly enough) in 33 AD.
According to the standard understanding of the Church through time, Jesus was crucified on a Friday which corresponded to a first day of Passover commencing at sundown. During the procuratorship of Pilate, these circumstances came together only twice, in 30 and 33 AD. A Good Friday in 30 AD is a bit problematic, really, as it is less than three years from the *beginning* of JOHN's ministry, much less Jesus'. It would be impossible, therefore, to squeeze in three Passovers for Jesus' active ministry in that timeframe. So 33 AD seems a better choice, as it fits the parameters much better.
If that is so, then we can get an EXACT date for each of the key days in Holy Week. The paschal full moon fell on Friday, April 3, 33 AD. A good astronomy program on CD like the Redshift 5 that I have will "replay" the whole thing for you *from Jerusalem*. The moon was in eclipse during the early and mid-afternoon, while still below the horizon. It exited the earth's shadow *just as it was rising on the local horizon*! This was also the time of sunset, and Jesus would have been laid in the tomb at just about that time. This doesn't have any bearing on my point, really, but it is an interesting side-story.
Well, if Good Friday was April 3, then Easter Sunday was April 5, and Palm Sunday was March 29. You can plug in any day of Holy Week you want, and come up with an exact calendar date for it. The Palm SSunday date, BTW, fits in with my understanding of the "weeks of years" prophecy in Daniel 9. I've worked on it over the years, and reduced it really to just one non-demonstrable assumption at the front end of it. Here is a *highly* truncated, article-length form:
For Christians, there are many events in the New Testament which, while certainly considered to be historical, are nevertheless hard to assign a fixed date to. One of these events is that which is the most central of all: Good Friday, the date on which Christ was crucified. While there are clues within the Gospel accounts that can provide some boundaries to the date of the crucifixion, it has never been a sufficiently critical issue that theologians and historians have felt compelled to glean more precision from these accounts. There are, however, many people with more than a slight curiosity with regard to the dating issue, and I believe it is possible to satisfy that curiosity, without appealing to evidence that is simply sensationalist. The following article will present a case for developing a firm date based primarily on internal Scriptural evidence.
The usual analysis of the dating of Good Friday (and the other events of Holy Week) simply uses the dates of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate as upper and lower boundaries. It then proceeds to eliminate those years within that timeframe that do not have Passover falling on the correct day of the week, which, of course, is Friday (we know that Christ’s crucifixion took place on a day which was both the Preparation Day for Passover and the Preparation Day for the Sabbath. Compare John 19:14 and Luke 23:54). Pilate was Procurator of Judea from 26 AD to 36 AD. The only years within his procuratorship that had the beginning of Passover fall on the requisite Friday were 30 AD and 33 AD. It has generally been assumed, therefore, that Jesus’ Passion occurred in one or the other of these years. It has also been assumed that nothing more precise could be determined.
However, a hypothesis can be developed, showing that it is possible, cross-referencing passages in Daniel, Nehemiah, Luke and Revelation, to arrive at an exact date. Daniel 9:24-27, the famous “seventy weeks of years” prophecy, has been used throughout the Christian Era to give a “ballpark estimate” to the timing of Holy Week, but, no specific date ever seems to be derived from it. Nevertheless, as an aid in determining the date of the Passion, the passage is clearly a linchpin of sorts; cross-referencing it twice, forward and backward in time, can give an initial dating accuracy of one month to the events of Holy Week. With just one subjective, but rather logical, inference from this data, it is possible to refine the precision to the level of a series of exact dates for Holy Week.
The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 starts the clock running till the time of the Anointed One (the Messiah) and his being “cut off.” The clock is said to begin, in verse 25, “from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” and is temporarily stopped, at the end of the sixty-ninth week of years, with the Anointed One being killed in verse 26. The events described in Nehemiah 2:1-8, in which King Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah permission to restore the walls and city of Jerusalem, are clearly referenced in verse 25 of Daniel 9. The Anointed One being “cut off” in verse 26 is generally recognized as the crucifixion of Jesus.
Fortunately, Nehemiah 2:1 gives us the month and year of Artaxerxes’ order enabling Nehemiah to restore Jerusalem. It occurred “in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.” Artaxerxes became King of Persia sometime in the late spring or early summer of 464 BC, after the death of Artabanus, the usurper of Artaxerxes’ father Xerxes’ throne. This would mean that the month of Nisan in Artaxerxes’ twentieth year would be the equivalent of March/April 444 BC in our calendar. Using the schema found in Daniel 9:25, 69 weeks of years -- (7+62) x 7 -- equal 483 years. Moving forward 483 years from this date would bring us to March/April 40 AD. A date in 40 AD is problematic, with respect to the crucifixion of Christ, since it is well outside the key timeframe constraint of Pilate’s procuratorship, which had ended approximately four years earlier. However, this calculation, ending in 40 AD, assumes each year consists of 365 days. It could be argued, based on Revelation 11:3 (which actually refers to the passage in Daniel 9:25!), that the years should be reckoned on the basis of a 360 day-calendar. Revelation 11:3 speaks of 42 months consisting of 1260 days; this equates to every month having 30 days, or each year having 360 days (30 x 12). If the assumption can be made that scripture, being inerrant, cross-references itself inerrantly, then the 360 day-year would be the correct model to employ in successfully calculating the time period prophesied in Daniel 9:25. It is then a matter of simple calculation. The correct passage of time would be 483 years x 360 days, or 173,880 days from the time that the “clock starts ticking” in Nehemiah 2:1. Using a method which will be described shortly, this would bring us to March/April 33 AD, which is, along with 30 AD, one of the “target” years for the Passion of Christ.
It may be worth noting at this point, as an aside, that 30 AD may meet the “Friday Passover during Pilate’s procuratorship” requirement, but it has problems which are derived directly from internal evidence in Scripture. It would be highly unlikely that 30 AD is the correct year for the Crucifixion, since it is too close to the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke 3:1 says that John the Baptist began his ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,” or, between August 19, 28 AD and August 18, 29 AD (Tiberius became emperor on August 19, 14 AD). A 30 AD date for Jesus’ Passion, given the timeframe of the beginning of John’s mission, simply doesn’t allow sufficient time for both John’s and Jesus’ ministries to develop. The only alternative, 33 AD, leaves four to five years for their missions – a realistic breakdown of a year or two for John, and the traditional reckoning of three years for Jesus.
But back to the arithmetic! The 173,880 days from the clock “activation” in Nehemiah 2:1 put us squarely in the Spring of 33 AD. Let us take hold of this happy coincidence and assume we now have at least the correct year. A typical astronomical calculation program pertaining to lunar phase cycles will show that the Paschal full moon for that year (which fixes the first day of Passover) took place on April 3, 33 AD. We can assume that, therefore, Friday, April 3, 33 AD is the date of the Crucifixion. The prophecy in Daniel 9:25, however, doesn’t properly end with the Crucifixion, but with the “coming of an Anointed One” to Jerusalem. The calculation refers more to “the coming” than the “cutting off.” This would translate, therefore, to Palm Sunday, when Christ enters Jerusalem in triumph, fulfilling Psalm 118:26-27. Our fixed reference point should therefore be moved back from the astronomically certain date of Passover (April 3) to the previous Sunday, which, by definition of the scriptural sequence of events in Holy Week, was Palm Sunday. That would bring us to fixing the stopping of Daniel’s “clock” at Palm Sunday, March 29, 33 AD.
It is now possible to close the loop, and assign exact dates all around. A handy device which astronomers use in calculating days between distant dates is the Julian Day. All dates since January 1, 4713 BC (the reasons behind this choice in dates are too complex, as well as irrelevant, to discuss here) are assigned a unique number in sequence. March 29, 33 AD corresponds to Julian Day 1,733,199. Going back the required 173,880 days from this date brings us to Julian Day 1,559,319, or, March 8, 444 BC. Therefore, if the usage of a 360 day-calendar is correct, and the resultant 173,880 days are meant to be taken as literally and exactly true, the conversation between Nehemiah and King Artaxerxes referenced in Nehemiah 2:1-8 took place on March 8, 444 BC. It can additionally be shown, with astronomical calculations, that March 8, 444 BC meets the requirements of the text in Nehemiah, since the Paschal full moon (by definition in Exodus 12:18 and Numbers 28:16, the 14th of Nisan) occurred that year on March 17; this would put March 8, nine days earlier, at the fifth day of Nisan, and therefore within the correct month in Nehemiah’s account of his meeting with Artaxerxes.
In summation, I am proposing that, using Daniel 9:24-27 in conjunction with Nehemiah 2:1-8 it is possible to:
· Start with a date for Artaxerxes’ order which is accurate to within a month (March/April 444 BC) and move forward a specified number (483 x 360) of 173,880 days to March/April 33 AD. This is the only year, remember, which meets both the Passover/Sabbath coincidence requirement and the necessity of providing enough time for Jesus’ ministry to develop after the beginning of John’s. Then…
· Find the date for the Paschal full moon for that year (April 3, 33 AD) and establish that as Good Friday. Then…
· Back-up five days to March 29 and establish that, by definition, as Palm Sunday. Then…
· Go back 173,880 days from that exact date and establish March 8, 444 BC as the exact date of Nehemiah’s request to Artaxerxes regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem. And finally…
· Show that the date of this conversation, nine days before the Paschal full moon of March 17, 444 BC (the 14th day of Nisan, by definition) was the 5th day of Nisan and, therefore, totally in harmony with the text of Nehemiah 2:1.
All of the foregoing is, in the end, simply my conjecture. I feel it has solid enough underpinnings, however, to be useful both in apologetics with those outside the Christian sphere, and as a faith-bolstering tool for those who are wavering in part because they’ve been repeatedly chided about the alleged “imprecision” of the Bible in historical matters. It is noteworthy that this hypothesis demonstrates the uncanny precision of at least this messianic prophecy, even when the New Testament authors make no real reference to it, though they would have much to gain, in a self-serving apologetic, if they did so. At least, in this exegetical work-up, Christianity cannot be accused of engineering “ex post facto” prophetic fulfillments to make Christ fit the facts. The facts fit Christ!
(C) June 1999 by L. Higgins
Well, for once we *agree* on something! ;-) I too would utilize the fact that the fullness of "adulthood" among the Jews was considered to be 30, so Jesus would not have been baptized by John to begin His public life until He was at least that. However, in post 279, I give an argument for demonstrating a range of 30-33 without insisting that He was exactly 30.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.