Formatting is our friend. But it doesn’t always occur automatically:
One controversial translation issue is the phrase, “mia ton sabbaton.” This has traditionally been translated as “the first of the week.” Under pressure from 7th-day Adventists, however, some translations of the bible have taken to translate this “on one of the Sabbaths.”
But the Adventists’ translation is based on a faulty transliteration. In the Greek, “sabbaton” is spelled with either an omicron (“small ‘o’”) or an omega (“big ‘o’”). When spelled with an omega, “sabbaton” is the genitive plural. In other words, it means “Sabbaths’.”
The Adventists’ position is that “primus” means “first;” “mia” means closer to the number, one. This is ordinarily true, but “primus” means “first” not only in time, but priority. Hence, to call Sunday the “primus” day of the week would be to denigrate the Sabbath. Hence, a strange idiom meaning, roughly, “Sabbaths’s one” is used for the first day of the week.
The Adventists’ position would mean that for no reason, the bible uses a grammar which makes no sense: If the bible had meant “on one of the Sabbaths,” there’s no reason it would state, instead, “on one of the Sabbaths’.” An English speaker, fluent in Greek would ask, “on the Sabbaths’ one what?”
Other bible passages make clear that the Resurrection took place on a Sunday, which would mean the Adventists’ translation contradicts other scripture… or makes one have to create more strange translation.
A traditional reading of Luke 23:56-24:1 suggests Christ’s followers worked with all due diligence. Immediately after burying Christ, they prepared his burial ointments, then “On the Sabbath day, they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week…”
The Adventists reading would have them resting on the Sabbath, according to the commandment, “but on one of the Sabbaths.” The Adventists’ position is that the Sabbath they rested on wasn’t a Saturday, but was a different kind of Sabbath, so that one Sabbath can immediately follow another. (Leviticus does call two other holy days Sabbaths.) While that might explain how “one of the Sabbaths” (if that were actually a valid translation) might make sense in general, it certainly doesn’t suggest that the author refers to a Sabbath on the very next day. Rather, one gets the sense that such events happened some undetermined number of weeks later.
One reason that Adventists gain some cache with such odd claims, however, is that the timeline of events in the gospels is somewhat difficult to understand. According to traditional interpretations of the bible, Jesus celebrates Passover with his disciples, is condemned, killed, and then buried… all before the Jews celebrate Passover. The Adventists correctly assert that the evening after the crucifixion is not actually Passover! But they get the meaning of that wrong.
The Essenes, who formed the core of Jesus’ disciples (Peter, John, Andrew, and others) celebrated Passover according to a different calculation than the Sanhedrin. That Jesus’ apostles are depicted as doing what the Sanhedrin would have regarded as women’s work in preparation for the Passover confirms that Jesus was celebrating the Passover according to the Essene tradition. The Essenes celebrated Passover from what would have been Thursday evening through Friday afternoon. Hence, Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice of the seder, and was killed the next day, all within the Passover. Then, the Sanherin began their Passover. Many Adventists suppose that the “day of Preparation” is only preparation for the Sabbath.
Luke 23:55-24:1 confirms the traditional timeline: They buried him on one day, rested for the Sabbath, then went back on the morning of the third day to anoint the body with spices, as Jewish custom dictated must be done in all appropriate haste. If we were dead for three days, as we count days, then the bible omits mention of one day, leaving the reader to wonder why they neglected his body that day. Even though he was dead for only about 40 hours, he was dead for three days by the way days were counted then: he was dead on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. If three days meant he had to be dead for the largest part of each day, he would not have risen until the fourth day.
The observance of Sunday is a remembrance of the Resurrection. It is in honor of his resurrection, not as a substitute for a Saturday Sabbath, that Christians choose Sunday as a day of prayer. Some people suppose that when Christ healed on the Sabbath, he was excused because the work was so critical, yet Jesus and his disciples did such mundane work as harvesting food for their immediate consumption (Mt 12:1). Given Jesus’ fasts, certainly satisfying hunger was no such critical labor.
It is senseless to suppose that one is going to Hell because one fails to keep the Sabbath properly. As Paul preached, “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day (Col 2:16).” The Sabbath was a day to renew our bodies and spirits. As Jesus stated, “The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27)” Today, this purpose is fulfilled by keeping holy the day on which Christ rose from the dead.
Most excellent!
I recall a study by Chuck Swindol on the Ressurection.
A key fact discussed was the 3-days & 3-nights issue. The Sunday AM resurrection cannot include three days and three nights ont he Jewish reconing of time, with a Friday crucifiction. However it has been taught that the crucificxion was Friday because we’re told that the next day was the sabbath.
However, Chuck had found in the Greek the implication that it was called the “Week of Sabbaths”, as there were actually two sabbaths that week...Friday and Saturday. THis apparently makes the Thrusday Crucifixion make the 3day/3night scenario work perfectly too.
I have to do lots of searching in my notes to find the specific scripture references and am not prepared to present them while at work right now, but will look this evening.
So hold the flames until tomorrow please!
nobody like their sheep burnt!
Medium rare is best!
Excellent! That was much more concisely stated than I would have put things! One question, though. Why do you assert that Peter, John, Andrew and other Apostles were Essenes? They were simple fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, with no direct line of communication to the overwhelming preponderance of Essenes on the shore of the Dead Sea, over one hundred miles away. Not trying to crank you, I’m just curious to see what you have here.
Thanks.