Grafted into…

Recently my wife was having a discussion with another individual and he was telling her that as Gentile believers we had to be grafted into Israel.

I know that this is a widely held belief among many different groups but I would suggest that this doctrine is not according to what the Apostle Paul writes, nor is it accurate even according to how  grafting is done.  Let us look at this together briefly.

Paul speaks of this in Romans the 11th chapter.  I’m going to be quoting from the English Standard Version.  Let us begin reading with verse 11.

Rom 11:11  And so I ask, "They have not stumbled so as to fall, have they?" Of course not! On the contrary, because of their stumbling, salvation has come to the gentiles to make the Jews jealous. 12  Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their fall means riches for the gentiles, how much more will their full participation mean! 13  I am speaking to you gentiles. Because I am an apostle to the gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14  in the hope that I can make my people jealous and save some of them. 15  For if their rejection results in reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance bring but life from the dead? 16  If the first part of the dough is holy, so is the whole batch. If the root is holy, so are the branches. 17  Now if some of the branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive branch, have been grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, 18  do not boast about being better than the other branches. If you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19  Then you will say, "Branches were cut off so that I could be grafted in." 20  That's right! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you remain only because of faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid! 21  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he certainly will not spare you, either. 22  Consider, then, the kindness and severity of God: his severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness toward you—if you continue receiving his kindness. Otherwise, you too will be cut off. 23  If the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted in again, because God is able to graft them in. 24  After all, if you were cut off from what is naturally a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much easier it will be for these natural branches to be grafted back into their own olive tree!

Notice that I have bolded a few things in these verses.  If the root is holy, so are the branches, share the rich root, you do not support the root, but the root supports you.  This becomes a bit easier to understand when we know a bit about grafting.  There are many good articles concerning grafting found on the internet but I’m quoting from one written by the people at Stark Bro’s Nursery, who have been propagating and selling fruit trees for well over 100 years.

“Grafting involves taking a scion or bud chip cut from the desired parent tree and physically placing in onto a compatible rootstock.”  You may not be acquainted with the word ‘scion.’  Scion derives from the Middle English sioun and Old French cion and is related to the Old English cith and the Old High German kidi (meaning "sprout" or "shoot"). When it first sprouted in English in the 14th century, scion meant "a shoot or twig." That sense withered in horticultural contexts, but the word branched out, adding the grafting-related meaning we know today.  So, what is being said is that a small branch or slip from the tree that we want to propagate, i.e. the branch cut from the wild olive tree, is joined to the rootstock of another tree.  A rootstock is defined as a plant, sometimes just a stump, which already has an established, healthy root system, onto which the cutting (or scion) from another plant is grafted.

In Paul’s analogy in Romans 11 he states that the root is holy and that it is the root that supports the branches.  It is clear that the Gentiles are referred to as branches broken off of the wild olive tree.  Israel he states were branches from the cultivated olive tree that, notice verse 20, were also broken off.  One does not graft a broken off branch into another branch that has also been broken off.  They will just lie there and dry up and totally die.  To receive nourishment they must be both grafted into a rootstock, the holy root.  Guess who that is!  Jesus, the Messiah!  He tells us straight out in Revelation 22:16, “...I am the root and the offspring of David,...” 

Blessed Are the Meek, For They Shall Inherit the Earth

I think all of us are familiar with the words of Matthew 5:5 as given above.  Throughout the Scriptures we are admonished to seek meekness (Zeph. 2:3), to put on meekness (Col. 3:12), and to follow after meekness (1 Tim. 6:11).  And, yet, most of us have a hard time really defining or knowing what being “meek” is all about.

A fellow by the name of J. Upton Dickson has reportedly said that he was writing a book entitled “Cower Power.”  And, he has founded a group of submissive people called “DOORMATS.”  That is an acronym for “Dependent Organization of Really Meek And Timid Souls  – if there are no objections.”  Their motto is “The meek shall inherit the earth  – if that is okay with everybody.”  Hopefully this is done rather tongue in cheek but it seems that this is the opinion of many people regarding meekness.

Even many versions of the Bible replace the noun “meekness” by “gentleness” or “humility.”  Many seem to equate “meek” with “weak.”   Even though the words may rhyme that is their only similarity.  Even Strong’s concordance isn’t of much help.  He states that “meek,” number G4235, means “gentle, i.e. humble.  It is a form of number G4239, a prime word meaning mild, i.e. (by implication) humble.”

The Greek word praus is translated “meek” in our text, but it is difficult to find an exact English word to match what it means.  Ancient Greeks used this word to describe their war horses.  One commentator has this to say about this word.  “The word praus was borrowed from the military and relates to horse training.  The Greek army would find the wildest horses in the mountains and bring them to be broken in.  After months of training they sorted the horses by categories: some were discarded, some broken and made useful for bearing burdens, some were useful for ordinary duty and the fewest of all graduated as war horses.  When a horse passed the conditioning required for a war horse, its state was described as ‘praus,’ [that is meek].  The war horse had ‘power under authority,’ ‘strength under control.’  A war horse never ceased to be determined, strong, passionate.  However, it learned to bring its nature under discipline.  It gave up being wild, unruly, out of control and rebellious.  A war horse learned to bring that nature under control.  It would now respond to the slightest touch of the rider, stand in the face of cannon fire, thunder into battle and stop at a whisper.  It was now ‘meek’,”

A horse trainer from Texas was asked about the qualities of a meek horse. Her answers may be helpful to us in our walk and our relationship with God. She gave four qualities. Her comments corroborate the preceding definitions of meekness!
“First: Power under control. Once broken, a good horse doesn’t require much correction. He has learned to accept the reins of his master, and a gentle tug is all that is needed to urge him in the direction intended. The training process does not remove the strength and power that used to make the animal wild; rather it places the same energy under control. The phrase ‘channel their spirit’ is commonly used to describe this process. Properly channeled, the horse is able to jump higher, run faster, and work harder than an uncontrolled animal.
“Second: Learning the Masters’ mind. A special relationship develops between horse and master. After years of working together, they develop a rapport that becomes second nature to both of them. Thus trained, a good horse can sense a bad rider and will resist false guidance. An intimate kinship evolves, and it is not long before the horse acts according to what it knows the master would do, even if the master does not give explicit instructions.
“Third: Partnership. Teamwork is crucial. A rider may leave his horse temporarily. He is not there beside the horse telling it what to do and personally directing every move. The horse knows its job and is capable of working even when it doesn’t feel the immediate presence of its master. They work as a unit even when physically apart.
“Fourth: Loyalty. The meek horse has an elevated sense of loyalty and commitment. In the days of the wild west and the pony express, the lives of the mail carriers depended upon the horses they rode. They needed to be swift and hardy, with a measure of grit that enabled them to keep going, no matter what. Those horses would die in the running if that is what it took. They were bent upon completing the course. And despite the heat, the parching thirst, raging storms, Indian attacks and injury, horses of that caliber never whined in protest.
“These are the qualities of a meek horse. It has learned the secret of submitting to the control of it’s master. It trusts the rider enough to follow uncomplainingly wherever he leads.”
The trainer also added: “Perseverance is very important to the meek horse. A horse doesn’t become that way overnight. It takes a long, hard period of training. Horses must be taken in, trained, and made accustomed to the instruments used to harness their potential and lead them to productivity. It takes patience, sweat, and a view toward the promising future. But with these vital ingredients, the effort pays rich dividends.”

I believe that to truly be meek we must come to the point of totally trusting the Father.  We can have no fear, no doubts, no hesitation to respond to His leading through His Spirit.  It isn’t just being “gentle,” “humble,” and it isn’t being “weak.”  We must be “mighty men (and women) of valor.”  Moses and Jesus were described as being “meek.”  Both were forceful and determined.  Both were obedient to God’s commands.  Both had absolute trust in Him.  Neither could be described as “weak” or as a “pushover.”   We all need to put aside our old rebellious way of life and come under the total control of God.  Our strength, power and authority must be under the perfect control of Him.  We need to be strong men and women who know how to be aggressive and assertive when necessary and at all times totally trust Him.  He wants to make us war horses that through His Spirit He can lead us into any battle, at any time, knowing that we won’t go by our emotions, our past experiences, or our opinions, but only by His direction and prompting. It is to individuals like that who will inherit the earth.

The Genealogy of Jesus

 

We find in the Gospels two accounts of the genealogy of the Messiah.  Matthew chapter one and Luke chapter three contains these accounts, which many of us have never looked closely at.  We often become bogged down in all of the “begats” and hurriedly move on.  If we do take a few minutes to look at these accounts we will begin to find some difficulties in reconciling them.

Let us notice some of these.  Matthew 1:16 says, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,...” However, Luke states something different in Luke 3:23.  “...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.”  We are being told that Joseph has two different fathers.  That is one problem.  But, let us move on.

In Matthew’s account we see that David the king was the father of Solomon born of Bathsheba and this is the line that comes on down to Jesus.  (Matt. 1:6-7)   In Luke’s account we find that the descent is from David BUT it is through Nathan, a different son.  (Luke 3:31)

There is yet another difficulty we need to look at.  Notice a very important statement found in Matthew 1 and verse 17.  “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”  You can count them for yourself and you will find the first two listings truly are fourteen BUT let us count together the last grouping, from the carrying away into Babylon unto Messiah.  Beginning with verse 11 of Matthew 1 through verse 16, 1.) Salathiel,  2.) Zorobabel, 3.) Abiud, 4.) Eliakim, 5.) Azor, 6.) Sadoc, 7.) Achim, 8.) Eliud, 9.) Eleazar, 10.)  Matthan, 11.)  Jacob, 12.)  Joseph 13.) Jesus.   Whoa!  We have a problem as there are only 13 generations.

How do we reconcile everything?  Commentators and Bible scholars have tried all kinds of theories and explanations, but have overlooked the obvious.  Let us look again at Matthew 1:16.  We are told that the Joseph listed here is the husband of Mary.  The Greek word used for the English word “husband” is aner, the primary definition being “man.”  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the Bible has this to say, “Denotes, in general, ‘a man, and adult man,’ it is used of man in various relations, the context deciding the meaning.”  The translators, knowing that Joseph was the name of Mary’s husband have used the word “husband” when it should have been “FATHER.” 

Correctly translated we are able to resolve all of the difficulties.  We don’t have two fathers for Mary’s husband, Joseph, BUT a Joseph that was her father, whose father was Jacob.  And, her husband’s father was Heli.  We now have 14 generations from the carrying away into Babylon until Messiah.  We find that the genealogy in Matthew is of the royal, kingly line which comes down from King David through Mary to Jesus, the Messiah.  Luke’s genealogy record is a legal one, which was always carried down through the males.  Luke even tells us, Luke 3:23, that Joseph was supposed by everyone and for genealogical purposes, to be the Father of Jesus.

Although every English translation that I was able to check has Matthew 1:16 saying “husband” many Aramaic versions indicate that Joseph is the father of Mary.  The Aramaic word, where the Greek “aner” is used is “gbra,” which means “mighty man.”  A man who is head of a household (a father) is referred to as the “mighty man.”  “Bala”is the Aramaic word for husband, and is used a few verses later, verse 19.  Matthew 1:16 is referring to the FATHER of Mary while Matthew 1:19 is referring to the HUSBAND of Mary.

The following quotations are from The Chronological Gospels by Michael Rood.  “Though translations derived from the Greek text of Matthew confuse the genealogy, the Ancient Hebrew text of Matthew’s Gospel, from which the Aramaic and, later, the Greek were translated, clearly details Miriam’s lineage through her father Yoseph ben Yaakov through the kingly line of David through Solomon.  Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, details the lineage of Miriam’s husband Yoseph ben Eli through David’s son Nathan.”  An additional quote, “Mt 1:16, 1 (AHM) father - The Peshitta Aramaic texts of Matthew 1:16 (which was translated from a later Greek text) indicates that Miriam’s gevra (mighty man) was named Yoseph, and Matthew 1:19 specifies that Miriam’s ba’ala (husband) was also named Yoseph.  Yoseph is a very common name in Israel.  Miriam’s husband Yoseph had three grandfathers with the same name.  This undoubtedly led the translators to make “a mistake of familiarity,” thinking that the two “Yosephs” of verses 16 and 19 were one and the same.  The Greek translators chose to render both Aramaic words gevra and ba’ala as the Greek word aner, which simply means “a person of full age.”

And one more quotation from this same work, “There is only one ancient Biblical source that maintains the correct lineage of Yeshua, through his mother, to King David - and that is the ancient Hebrew Matthew that has been preserved in Jewish archives...  In two of the oldest manuscripts of the Ancient Hebrew Matthew copied into the appendix of Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut’s “Even Bochan” we have the accurate lineage of Yeshua that shows his direct ancestral path to the throne of David -“Yoseph avi Miriam” - Yoseph the father of Miriam of whom was born Yeshua.”

What a difference the translation of one word can make.

Jephthah’s Daughter

Reading through the book of Judges in my daily Bible reading I once again read with interest the story of Jephthah and his vow.  This is found in chapter 11.  Over the years this account has created a great deal of controversy.  Did Jephthah offer his daughter as a burnt offering or did he not?  There has been a lot of discussion among Bible scholars and students.  Let us look at this account and see if we can’t clear the muddied waters.

In verse 1 we find that Jephthah was a “mighty man of valour.”  We find that due to circumstances he was shunned by his family and fled from them.  In verse 4 we are told that after a period of time “the children of Ammon made war against Israel.” The “elders of Gilead” went to “fetch Jephthah, verse 5.  They appealed to him to become their captain in their fight with the children of Ammon, verse 6.  After a bit of negotiation between Jephthah and the elders and he being assured that he would become their “head” if “the Lord deliver them” before him, verses 7-11, Jephthah went with them. 

You can read the subsequent events outlined in verses 12-28.  Now, coming to verse 29 we read that “the Spirit of Lord came upon Jephthah”.  Then in verse 30 and 31 we read the vow that Jephthah made.  “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the “LORD”, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 

Verses 32 and 33 tells us that the God delivered the children of Ammon into Jephthah’s hands and they were subdued.

Now we come to the interesting part of the story, verse 34.  Jephthah returns home and notice what happens!  His daughter, his only child, came out to meet him with “timbrels and dances.”  When he saw her, verse 35, Jephthah was devastated.  It says he “rent his clothes” and exclaimed “Alas, my daughter!”  He proceeded to tell her that he had “opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.”  He knew that his vow to God was very binding.  His daughter told him that IF he had made such a vow then he must go ahead and do to her has he had vowed, verse 36.

She did ask her father one favor, verse 37, and that was to let her have two months that “I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity,...”  Verse 38 states that he told her to go and do as she had asked.  At the end of the two months we are told, verse 39, “she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.”

In conclusion, verse 40 tells us that each year the “daughters of Israel” went to “lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.”

In this brief reading we see the vow that Jephthah made, that it was his daughter that met him and that after her two months of “bewailing her virginity” Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.”  It would sure seem that he offered her as a burnt offering to the LORD.

But, let us consider a little further. 

Leviticus 22:18-19 tells us a bit about burnt offerings.  “...Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.”  Notice that a burnt offering could ONLY be a male animal and it could only be of the three species, cattle, sheep or goats.

God very clearly states that He does NOT want a human sacrifice.  Let us read Deuteronomy 12:31,  “Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.”  God states very clearly that He hates what these people had been doing, in offering their children as burnt offerings.  He says it is an abomination to Him.

IF Jephthah, in direct opposition to God’s clear instructions about burnt offerings and His definite hatred of human sacrifice, had offered his daughter as a human sacrifice, it is unlikely the he would have been included in the list of those of great faith found in Hebrews 11. And, yet his name is there in verse 32.

How then do we understand this story of Jephthah and his daughter?

Let us look again at Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11:31.  “Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s...”  The vow continues with the word “and.”  “and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”  The key to understanding is that little word “and.”  The word “and” is a connective particle.  A connective particle can be used conjunctively or disjunctively.  IF the connective particle here were to be understood disjunctively, which it often is in the biblical text, then the phrase would be translated, “whatever comes out of the doors of my house...shall be the LORD’s, OR I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” 

This same Hebrew particle is used in Exodus 21:17, for example, and is translated by some as: "He that curses his father AND his mother." Most versions of the Bible, however (including the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate), employ the word "OR" here, and rightly so, because the particle is clearly to be understood disjunctively; that is: cursing of either father OR mother is unlawful. This disjunctive use of the connective particle is further confirmed in Matthew 15:4, which so understands that use with regard to the Exodus 21:17 passage.

A disjunctive use of this particle actually makes sense when one understands that in the Law the objects of vows could be either persons, animals or things. Thus when making a simple vow regarding "whatever" may come forth from the house, there must of necessity, in any rational vow, be a disjunctive aspect to that vow to allow for differences in what may come forth. This is cleared up when the particle is rendered disjunctively.

Let us look at some comments made by some leading Bible scholars.  First from Adam Clarke’s commentary.

“Verse 31.  Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.] The text is vehayah layhovah vehaalithihu olah, the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering, that is, ‘If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him.’  That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman.  If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering, and if his neighbour or friends’ wife, son or daughter, visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them.  Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites.”
 
Bullinger’s “The Companion Bible” has this comment.  “and = or.  The Heb.  vav is a connective particle, and is rendered in many different ways.  It is also used as a disjunctive, and is often rendered ‘or’ (or with a negative, ‘nor’)...Here Jephthah’s vow consisted of two parts: (1) He would dedicate it to Jehovah (according to Lev. 27); or (2) if unsuitable for this, he would offer it as a burnt offering.  He performed his vow, and dedicated his daughter to Jehovah by a perpetual virginity (vv. 36, 39, 40); but he did not offer her as a burnt offering, because it was forbidden by Jehovah, and could not be accepted by Him (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5).”

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary makes this statement: “shall surely be the Lord’s; and [or] I will offer it up for a burnt offering–The adoption of the latter particle, which many interpreters suggest, introduces the important alternative, that if it were a person, the dedication would be made to the service of the sanctuary; if a proper animal or thing, it would be offered on the alter.”
Young’s Literal Bible translates verse 31 this way: “then it hath been, that which at all cometh out from the doors of my house to meet me in my turning back in peace from the Bene-Ammon–it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it–a burnt offering.”

In my KJV I have a marginal note for the word “and.”  The note reads  “Or, or I will offer it,”

With this understanding the rest of the story becomes more understandable.  Jephthah’s daughter is “bewailing her virginity” NOT the fact she is about to be put to death.  She was to be given to the service of God  and was to remain a virgin, never to marry and raise sons to carry on her father’s linage.  This was quite a sacrifice for her and her father.  We can understand the custom of the young women of Israel that went each year for four days to “lament” Jephthah’s daughter.  This word, lament, is Strong’s #08567, tanah.  It is used only two times and it is translated “rehearse” in Judges 5:11.  It is defined “to recount, rehearse, tell again.”  The Darby and American Standard Version translate the word here in Judges 11:40 as “celebrate.”  Green’s Literal says “to tell again.”  However, Young’s Literal Translation perhaps gets the true essence of what is being said when it translates this word as “go to talk to.”  It appears that as long as Jephthah’s daughter served the Lord she was encouraged by the women of Israel by their coming to see her and talk with her for four days each year.

I imagine Jephthah often regretted the vow he made.  But, even though his daughter was lost to him and was given to the God and to His service Jephthah DID NOT offer her as a burnt offering!

“Iron Sharpeneth Iron”

Solomon writes in Proverbs 27:17, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” (KJV) “Iron is sharpened by iron, And a man sharpens the face of his friend.”  (The Scriptures)  Just what is Solomon telling us?

A number of years ago I ran a saw and tool sharpening shop so this verse intrigued me.  What did it mean, “iron sharpeneth iron?”  Metal tools, “iron” or steel, were sharpened with abrasive wheels and belts.  How was “iron” sharpened by “iron” and how did that relate to sharpening the countenance of his friend?

As we come to understand these 12 words that Solomon gave us we will grasp some of the importance of this instruction, this proverb.

Long before grinding wheels and the use of abrasives,  sharpening was done in a completely different way.  Instead of taking metal away by grinding,  the edge was restored by heating the “iron” to a red or white hot condition and a cold “iron” or metal hammer was used to forge a new edge.   This is much like a farrier shoeing a horse where a bar of metal is heated until it is quite hot and then is shaped by pounding it with a large hammer on an anvil.  In the same way a metal tool was sharpened, the edge was hammered by a large, cold “iron” hammer.

This proverb is a comparative proverb, using an example to explain a principle.  To paraphrase this proverb we might say, “AS, in like manner, in much the same way, as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the face of his friend.”  So, how does “pounding” a new edge onto a tool relate to “sharpening” the countenance , or face, of one’s friend?

In our English language the word “countenance” has as its primary definition in Webster’s dictionary  “the look on a person’s face that shows one’s nature or feelings.”  We might define it as the expression on the face and by that we mean a transmission of something felt or thought.

Notice a few Biblical examples that helps us understand this.  Neh. 2:2, “Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick?  This is nothing else but sorrow of heart....”  And, then in verse 3 he responds, “...why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place o my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste,...”  His sadness, his sorrow was known by the very expression on his face.

Proverbs 15:13 states, “A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken.”  When one is happy the expression on the face makes it plain.  A totally different expression is found when one is sorrowful.

So, back to Proverbs 27:17. I think we can begin to see that Solomon is saying that we can effect the expression on the face of our friend, we can “sharpen” it.  But, how do we do that?

Read a positive example, found in 1 Sam. 1.  This is the story of Hannah who didn’t have any children.  We read of her praying to the Father about this and Eli, the priest, saw her and thought that she was under the influence, that she was drunk.  After she explained he responded and told her that her petition would be granted.  Let us notice verses 18.  “And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight.  So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.”
By his words Eli had “sharpened her countenance.”

The Messiah stated, John 13:34, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”  This is not “love” from afar, but a personal, close relationship.  There needs to be close contact, just as “iron” had to come into close contact with “iron” to sharpen it.  Read through Romans chapter 12.  We are all the many members of the  body.  We have different “offices” or functions.  For some it is ministering or serving, to some it is showing mercy, to others it is being “kindly affectionate.”  To still others it is being hospitable.  In verse 15 we are told to “rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.”

If we are not getting close to others we can’t read their countenance, the expression on their faces.  We won’t know and understand their trials, or fears or hopes or even the blessings they are experiencing.  We won’t and can’t be effectively ministering to them, showing them mercy, being kindly affectionate, seeking their well being.  In other words, we are not able to sharpen their countenance.

Let us look at one more verse together.  1 Thes. 5:11, “Wherefore comfort (the margin in my Bible and several other translations render this “encourage”) yourselves together, and edify (build up) one another, even as also ye do.”  For one’s countenance to be sharpened a change has to take place on the inside.  What is felt and thought has to undergo a change.  Many times all it takes is a few words of sincere encouragement.

Most have heard the expression “strike while the iron is hot.”  Pounding on a cold iron implement won’t sharpen it.  The smith, the sharpener, is able to know when the “iron is hot.”  Likewise if we have a close relationship with others, with our friends, we will be able to read their countenance and know when the “iron is hot,” when they need and are ready to receive sharpening.

I Am Rest!

“I am Rest.  I am the One who gives rest.  I am the One that invites you into a relationship of rest with Me.”  We are told in Genesis 2:1-2 that God finished His work, the heavens and the earth and all the host of them.  “Host” often used of all that goes forth, an army to war, etc. but Brown, Driver and Briggs gives also the definition of “whole creation.” God had finished all of creation.  There was nothing left that needed to be created.  Everything was created for mankind, man that was created in the very image and likeness of God. 

So, after six days of creation God ended His work which He had made.  This it tells us was the seventh day.  And, it tells us, verse 2, that He rested that day “from all His work which He had made.”  What was that all about?  Was God totally worn out?  Did He need to recuperate?  No!  He doesn’t tire out and He didn’t need to be refreshed from a tiring week.  What are we being told?  What does it mean “He rested?”  Many will tell us that He was giving mankind a law, a command, to stop work every Friday evening and not do any labor until after sunset Saturday.  Is that what was happening here?

No!  Much like a lawyer that finishes presenting his legal case will say “I rest,” meaning “I’m through, I’m done, I don’t have anything else to add,” God said, “I’m done.”  Let us continue with the story here in Genesis 2 with verse 3.  “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.”  I see my God being happy, excited , joyful that His plans for the creation of mankind and all that he would need was finished.  I recall what we are told in Ephesians 1:4, “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.”  Here our great and wonderful God is, having just completed the most marvelous creation, culminated with mankind, created in His likeness and image.  Can’t we just catch a bit of His excitement, His joy, His desire to make this moment, this time, this day special and a day to be remembered?

No, He wasn’t making any command or law for mankind at this time.  He was extending the greatest invitation that could be extended, to become in special relationship with Him, the Creator.  This was the “rest” we see throughout the Bible and that we will look at more as we go on.

We have a vague idea what rest is.  But, it means so many things, means so much.  Here are just a few of the meanings one can find in the dictionary: peace, ease, refreshment, relief from anything depressing, peace of mind, mental and emotional calm, tranquility, shelter, lodging, a support, to become still and quiet, to be supported, rely on, depend on, free from distress and cares.  And, there are many more.  These express rest physically, emotionally, mentally and above all rest in the Spiritual realm.  Our God shows us from one end of the Bible to the other that He wants to give us His Rest, to be in that relationship with each of us.  We’ll look at more of this.

In Genesis 2:2 where we are told that God rested the Hebrew word is shabbath, Strong’s number H7673.  Some may see this word and immediately identify it with Saturday, the seventh day of the week.  But, that is not what it means.  The basic meanings are cease, desist, rest.  It is a verb, an action word.  When “His rest” is referred to throughout the Bible it is a noun.  We remember that a noun is “a person, place or thing.”  “His rest” is that special relationship.  Here in Genesis 2 we see outlined what God had prepared for man, all of those things and more we reviewed as definitions of rest.  We read that God planted a garden.  Out of the ground He made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight (it was beautiful) and it was good for food.  We are told that there was a river running out of the garden that branched out into 4 heads or streams.  Notice what it says about where these rivers flow and what is found there, pure gold and precious stones.  God was providing wealth and beauty. 

I submit that God was seeking that relationship with the first humans.  We are told in chapter 3 and verse 8 of Him walking in the garden in the cool of the day.  This verse is at the time after the first couple had sinned, but is it not logical that this was an everyday occurrence leading up to this point in time.  How does one establish a relationship without spending time together?

This event of Adam and Eve disobeying God’s instruction severed that special relationship that was beginning to develop.  It is that relationship God has continued down through time to seek with mankind. Jesus made a statement we find recorded in Matthew 11:28, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Notice what the writer of the book of Hebrews has to say.  In chapter 4 he continues what is being given in chapter 3, discussing how God brought the Israelites out of Egypt and wanted to take them into the land that He had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which He referred to as “His rest.”  The land was prepared with everything they would need, homes already built, farms with crops growing, granaries full of produce.  But, due to their unbelief they were prevented from entering.  Continuing in chapter 4 we are informed that we have been given a promise to enter into His rest and a warning lest we should come short of it.  Verse 3 states that we which have believed do enter into rest.  We won’t cover all that is here in detail but notice verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”  In particular I want to call verse 5 to our attention.  “If they shall enter into my rest.”  The word “rest” here is Strong’s number G2663, katapausis.  Mr. Strong defines this word as “reposing down, that is (by Hebraism) abode: - rest.”

Bear with me a bit.  I see something very interesting here.  In an Old/New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary that I located on the internet there are given Hebrew equivalent words to katapausis.  The first one is m’nuchah, H4496.  It is defined as “repose or (adverbially) peacefully, fig. consolation (spec. matrimony) hence (concretely) an abode: - comfortable, ease, quiet, rest (ing place) still.”  This Hebrew word is used in Psalms 95:11, “Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest. (abode)”

Okay, where am I going with this?  Notice with me Jesus’ statements made to His apostles the night He was betrayed in John 14.  We could spend a lot of time in this chapter but let us look at a few verses.  In verse 10 He states that “the Father dwells in Me.”  Verse 16 He says He will pray the Father to give them (and us) another comforter, “that he may abide with you for ever;” I call our attention to verse 23, “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”  I won’t go into the full explanation here as I have done elsewhere but the Greek word translated “abode” in verse 23 is the exact same word translated “mansions” in verse 2.  What Jesus is telling His apostles in verse two is that His body, the temple, was the Father’s house, place of abode, at that time.  His body, the church, would be prepared for us to dwell in, to have our abode there.  Then He tells us in verse 23 that He and the Father would make their abode with us through the Holy Spirit.  This is the true Rest.

Do we see how this all fits together?  We enter into that rest, that relationship, when we receive the Holy Spirit.  It is through the Spirit that Jesus said that He and the Father would make their abode, the same English word used to proclaim the entering into His rest, with us. The Greek word translated “abode” in John 14:2 and 23 is mone, G3438. It is defined as “a staying.”  This word is derived from the Greek word meno, G3306.  Strong’s definition is “A primary verb: to stay (in a given place, state,  relation or expectancy):”  With Jesus and the Holy Spirit the relationship that was broken with mankind’s disobedience and sin in the garden is reconciled, the breach is healed.  We enter into that REST! 

Some are still thinking that some how the seventh day Sabbath day has to fit in here some how. Just what was that all about?  Let us understand.  God did not give mankind a command to keep the Sabbath at creation, as we have just been showing.  He was inviting mankind into His Rest, that abiding relationship, He in us and we in Him.

The Sabbath day, that 24 hour period of refraining from physical labor, was not given until God made the covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai, often called the Law or the Law of Moses.  God had earlier made a covenant with Abraham in which He had promised that Abraham would be the father of multitudes, specifically of the nation of Israel, the family that the Messiah would come through. We are familiar with the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt, Jacob and the rest of the brothers moving there, the enslavement of Israel, the miracle at Moses’ birth and his call to lead the Israelites out and into the promised land.  As we saw earlier, this land was called by God “rest.”

God was working through Abraham, Isaac (the son of promise), and through Jacob and his sons.  He brought the Israelites out with a “high hand” and showed them His love and desire to be their God.
At Mt. Sinai He entered into a covenant with Israel.  Many misunderstand what a covenant is.  It is an agreement between two parties.  With men covenants, agreements, contracts are negotiated.  With God they are decreed.  This covenant at Mt. Sinai was a covenant based on law, works, performance.  Do good, God said, and receive good, receive blessings.  However, if you do bad, do wrong, you will receive bad, receive curses.  And, to this Israel said, “ We agree.”  However, being human they never upheld their end of the agreement.  And, God knew that they would never do it.  IF they had and IF they could have they would have received great and manifold blessings.  But, as I said, He knew they wouldn’t.  That was the whole purpose and reason behind this covenant, this Law, this Law of Moses.

Notice what the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 4:15,  “where no law is, there is no transgression.”  That fits with what we see expressed by John that sin is unrighteousness (1John 5:17) BUT what about Gal. 3:19?  This verse says that “...the law?  It was added because of transgressions...”  How are we to understand this?  There was no law to transgress and yet it seems to say that because of transgressions the law was added.  The word “because” becomes the problem for most of us, at least it did for me.  I assumed that this word meant that in looking backwards there were transgressions that the law was added onto.  Some other translations, other than the King James, begin to make this a bit clearer.  Notice a few.  The Contemporary Version, “it was given later to show that we sin.”  The Good News Bible, “it was added in order to show what wrongdoing is.”  Weymouth New Testament, “it was imposed later on for the sake of defining sin.”  And, notice even how the Jewish New Testament renders this verse, “it was added in order to create transgressions.”

These translations/paraphrases fit with what the Apostle Paul states.  Romans 7:7, “...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘Thou shalt not covet’.”  And, back a few chapters he again expressed this, Rom. 3:20, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Scofield, in his notes on Gal. 3:19 says “because of   For the sake, that is, in order that sin might be manifest as transgression.”  Clearly, when correctly understood, the law, the old covenant made at Sinai, was not added because of the “transgression of the law” but was added to point out sin and show the need for Messiah to come.

While we are discussing Gal. 3:19 please notice one other thing.  It says that it, the law, was added, not forever, but “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made”.  Christ, the seed, came and fulfilled the requirements of that old covenant, the law. That is something to cover in another study.

Okay, so just what was in this covenant, this agreement?  Exodus 20 we know contains the 10 commandments.  Verses 22-26 speaks of making an altar and of sacrifices.  Chapters 21-23 spells out the weekly Sabbath and the land Sabbath, the festivals, again more about sacrifices, among other things.  Note in chapter 24 that Moses and the other leaders and the seventy elders went up the mountain.  Moses was the only one allowed to approach God.  And, verse 4, Moses wrote all the words of the LORD.  Then in verse 7 we read that Moses took this book of the covenant and read it to the people.

What were all of these words for?  We saw earlier that it was to show a need for a savior.  Paul clearly shows us what all of this was for.  Colossians 2:16-17, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”  I know that these two verses have been misunderstood by many.  But, let us go through this and understand.  The word “therefore” in verse 16 lets us know that what is being said here is in conclusion to what has just been covered in the preceding verses.  You can read this in detail, but he tells us that we had been dead in our sins.  We  have been “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands” and have been buried in baptism and risen with Jesus.  We have been forgiven all our trespasses and the charges that had been drawn up against us have been taken out of the way.  Verse 15 states that Jesus “having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

Now to verse 16, we are told to not let any man try to dictate to us that we need to be doing sacrifices (meat and drink) or keeping the holydays, new moons or sabbath days.  Why?  He tells us, verse 17, all of these were given under that covenant at Mt. Sinai as “a shadow of things to come.”  What was to come?  “But the body is of Christ.”  Other translations make this clear.  Murdock Translation, “which were shadows of the things then future, but the body is Messiah.”  Passion Translation, “all of these were but a prophetic shadow and the evidence of what would be fulfilled, for the body is now Christ!”

Why would one want to look to the shadow of something when the object casting the shadow is right there.  Jesus has come.  He is the fulfilment of all that was being pictured and foreshadowed by all that was contained in that covenant.

Perhaps we haven’t really grasped that all of those things were but shadows.  We showed earlier that God’s rest was to be 24/7, He abiding in us and we in Him.  The seventh day sabbath was one day that had that picture.  In Exodus 20 where we find God speaking the words of the ten commandments He calls attention to the rest He was desiring.  Verse 11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested...”  We saw that God ceased, He stopped creating,  because all of creation was completed. Continuing, “the seventh day: wherefore the LORD  blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”  We looked at this in Genesis, of God’s excitement and His joy at the completion of creation that had culminated with the creation of man in God’s image.

The word “sabbath” here is Strong’s H 7676.  It is derived from H7673, the word used for “rested” in Genesis 2, which we discussed earlier.  God is again, here in Exodus 20:11, stating that He wants that relationship, that rest.

Many have never understood the statement found in Leviticus 23:3, “an holy convocation.”  I was told for years that meant I was supposed to be in church on the seventh day. What makes a convocation holy?  God is there.  So, a “holy convocation” is a “convocation” with  God or one that He is in and is a part of.

Let us spend some time looking at the word “convocation.”  The Hebrew word is miqra, #H4744 in Strong’s concordance and dictionary.  Strong’s states, “From #H7121; something called out, that is, a public meeting (the act, the persons, or the place); also a rehersal; - assembly, calling, convocation, reading.”  Since it is from #H7121 let us look at that as well. #H7121 in Strong’s is qara, and is defined as “A primitive root (rather identical with #H7122 through the idea of accosting a person met); to call out to (that is, properly address by name, but used in a wide variety of applications): - bewray [self], that are bidden, call (for, forth, self, upon) cry (unto), (be) famous, guest, invite, mention, (give) name, preach, (make) proclaim ( -ation), pronounce, publish, read, renowned, say.” Brown, Driver and Brigg’s Hebrew Definitions adds a bit.  The basic definition for  #H7121, qara, is “to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim.”  BDB further defines this word, depending on the tense of the verb, as “to call, cry, utter a loud sound; to call unto, cry (for help), call (with name of God); to proclaim; to read aloud, read (to oneself), read; to summon, invite, call for and commission, appoint, call and endow; to call, name, name to, call by; to call oneself, to be called, be proclaimed, be read aloud, be summoned, be named; to be called, be named, be called out, be chosen.”

These definitions give a bit of a different sense to the word “convocation.”  I went another step.  I have a copy of the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint , that has the Strong’s numbers.  The Greek word used here in Leviticus 23:2, translated “convocation” in the KJV, is kletos, Strong’s #G2822.  Strong’s defines this word “From the same as #G2821; invited, that is, appointed, or (specifically) a saint: - called.”  Thayer’s Greek dictionary defines this word “called, invited (to a banquet).”  I then looked up #G2821.  This is the Greek word klesis, and is defined by Strong’s “From a shorter form of  #G2564; an invitation (figuratively): - calling.” Thayer’s definition is similar, “a calling, calling to; a call, invitation.” (As somewhat of an aside, the word “proclaim” in the KJV of Leviticus 23:2 is the Hebrew word qara, #H7121, to call out.  The Greek Septuagint uses #G2564 referenced above, kaleo.  Both Strong’s and Thayer’s gives the basic definition as “to call, to bid, to invite.”)

Out of curiosity I checked to see how #G2822, kletos, was used in the New Testament.  I found that it was used 11 times and translated “called” every time.  Here are a couple of examples.  Matthew 22:4 “For many are called (kletos) but few are chosen.”  Romans 1:6 “Among whom are ye also called (kletos) of Jesus Christ.”

Rather than a command to assemble with like believers it appears from all of these definitions that it was first and foremost a call and an invitation to meet with God.  Yes, we have seen that He wanted mankind to come into His Rest, that relationship.  Here, as a shadow, He invited them to come on the seventh day and also on the festival days. 

The other items listed within that covenant made at Mt. Sinai were also shadows.  Sacrifices were shadows of Christ’s death, His sacrifice.  Even the commandments were shadows. Jesus gave His laws of love and although they were similar to the commandments contained in the covenant made at Mt. Sinai they were more extensive.   For example, He said that they had heard of old time “Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement:...” (Matt. 5:21-22)   In verses 27 and 28 He says, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

We referred earlier to Hebrews chapter 4 and the writer’s comments about God’s rest.  Before we conclude this study I do want to address briefly the belief and teaching of many that are “Sabbatarians,” such as those from various Church of God groups (holding to the teachings of the old Worldwide Church of God), Hebrew Roots, Messianic and Messianic Jewish.  That teaching centers on Hebrews 4:9, which in the King James Version, states that “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”  Many translations render this “a Sabbath rest.”  The teaching and understanding is that this is saying that everyone has yet to keep the seventh day Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

We could spend a lot of time studying all of this, but, I believe that many of the newer translations grasp and convey what we have been showing in this study.  Let us look at one..  The following is from the Message Bible, Hebrews chapter 4.

1 For as long, then, as that promise of resting in him pulls us on to God's goal for us, we need to be careful that we're not disqualified.
2 We received the same promises as those people in the wilderness, but the promises didn't do them a bit of good because they didn't receive the promises with faith.
3 If we believe, though, we'll experience that state of resting. But not if we don't have faith. Remember that God said, Exasperated, I vowed, "They'll never get where they're going, never be able to sit down and rest."
4 Somewhere it's written, "God rested the seventh day, having completed his work,"
5 but in this other text he says, "They'll never be able to sit down and rest."
6 So this promise has not yet been fulfilled. Those earlier ones never did get to the place of rest because they were disobedient.
7 God keeps renewing the promise and setting the date as today, just as he did in David's psalm, centuries later than the original invitation: Today, please listen, don't turn a deaf ear . . .
8 And so this is still a live promise. It wasn't canceled at the time of Joshua; otherwise, God wouldn't keep renewing the appointment for "today."
9 The promise of "arrival" and "rest" is still there for God's people.
10 God himself is at rest. And at the end of the journey we'll surely rest with God.
11 So let's keep at it and eventually arrive at the place of rest, not drop out through some sort of disobedience     (Emphasis mine)

From one end of the Book to the other our Almighty God tells us that He is Rest, He is the One who desires to give us rest, the One who wants a relationship with us and has invited us into His rest.  When we were born again, born from above, converted, or whatever term you wish to use, we entered that place of abode in Christ’s body, the church.  1 Corinthians 12:13, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,...”  When we receive the Holy Spirit both Jesus and the Father make their abode with us (John 14:23).  We are in that REST!  We have been given everything we have need of.  The apostle Paul tells us that in Ephesians 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:”   Yes, our God tells us “I am REST!”

When Was Jesus Resurrected?

If that question was asked of most  Christians they would tell you, “Sunday morning!”  If you inquired further of them they would explain that the Messiah was put into the tomb on Friday evening and was there parts of three days and nights, i.e. Friday night, Saturday day, and Saturday night.  Some of us, taking Jesus’s words as being literal, could never figure “three days and three nights” from that amount of time.  And, remember, He said that the only sign He would give was the sign of Jonah.  Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish He was to be “in the heart of the earth,” the grave, for three days and three nights.

The only way that could be reconciled was to understand that there were two Sabbaths that week, the regular weekly Sabbath that began Friday at sunset and another Sabbath, a high day (John 19:31).  A “high day” referred to an annual Holy Day, an annual Sabbath.  In this case we know it would have been the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:5-6).

From many different sources, which we won’t take the time to look at at this time, we know that the Passover lambs were killed on Wednesday afternoon and eaten that evening, the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  The conclusion of many with this understanding was that Jesus would have been buried late on the Wednesday afternoon and would have been resurrected 72 hours, three days and nights later, at the same time on Saturday afternoon.

However, there are some factors in the story that were never looked at or considered.  While I believe the Wednesday crucifixion and death of the Savior, I must ask “Was the Messiah buried before sunset that same day?”  Some have stated that the individuals responsible for His burial were in a hurry because the Passover meal was to be eaten that same evening.  Of course they fail to bring to mind that anyone having touched a dead body was prohibited from partaking of the Passover (see Numbers 9:6-14) but could take of it in the 2nd month.  So, what would have caused them to be in a rush?  Just what procedures had to be taken care of in order for the body to be buried?  Let us notice some things we may have overlooked.

John tells us in chapter 19 of his gospel account about a man named Joseph of Arimathaea, a disciple of Jesus, who went to Pilate and requested the body (John 19:38).  Mark fills in a bit more information, Mark 15:44, informing us that Pilate called the centurion and inquired whether Jesus was in fact already dead.  After being told that He was in fact dead, Joseph was given the body.  Once he had received the body what happened?

John, in his narrative, tells us of another individual that came forward to assist, Nicodemus (John 19:30).  This verse tells us something else very interesting.  Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, as the KJV says “about a hundred pounds.”  Others tell us that this may have been closer to 75 pounds as we weigh things today, yet quite a large quantity.  What was that all about?  We also find from Marks gospel account that Joseph bought linen cloth (Mark 15:46).

Mark continues in the same verse to tell us  what the linen was used for, “wrapped him in the linen.”  Matthew and Luke both say that Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a linen cloth (Matthew 27:59; Luke 23:53).   But, it is John’s account that really begins to shed light on what was happening.  Notice John 19: 40, “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”  Here we find a clue as to what all had to take place in the preparation of the body, “as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”  We have to look to historical sources to find just what the “manner” or custom of the Jews was.

We can piece together from numerous sources what would have taken place.  We aren’t told in the gospel accounts but we can, I believe, properly assume that the body was taken to some place close by, a home perhaps.  Here the preparations would take place.  Most sources agree that the body would have been washed to cleanse it.  In addition we find that the body would have been washed several times in very cold water to cool the body and for rigor mortis to set in.  The linen we read about would have been cut into strips and sewn together end to end, no knots were permitted.  The body was not embalmed as is commonly done today but the myrrh and aloes were used partly to perfume the body.  But, that was not the primary purpose of the myrrh and aloes.  It was placed between the wrappings of the linen strips.  Being a resin this would have fused the layers together.  Generally, it appears that the body was completely wrapped mummy fashion.  The head, other than the face, was also wrapped.  The face was covered with a cloth. (We have Biblical confirmation of this in the account of Lazarus, John 11:44.)  Many of the sources indicate that all of this proper preparation done according to the “manner of the Jews” would take several hours, maybe as much as 12 hours.

To this point we have put together a “case” for a late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning burial based mostly on “circumstantial” evidence.  However, we don’t have to just leave it at that because the Bible tells us exactly when the burial took place.  You may be asking, “if that is so why haven’t we ever seen that?”  Due to our translators the clear and plain details of the time have been kept covered up.  But, let us look at the passage and understand what it is really telling us.

Let us go to Luke’s gospel account, Luke 23:50-56.  As we rehearsed above, he tells us in verses 50-54 of Joseph obtaining the body of Jesus, of the wrapping of the body in linen and of laying the body in the sepulcher.  Verses 55-56 recounts that the women from Galilee followed them to the sepulcher and saw how He was laid.  Verse 54 is a transitional verse.  The KJV reads, “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.”  I believe all of us have run the first part of this verse together with the last part.  I know that I always have.  I submit that the first part, “And that day was the preparation” refers back to the timing of the death of Jesus, the obtaining of the body and it’s preparation we have just read about.  The last part of the verse, “and the sabbath drew on” now refers to the next two verses recounting the women following and observing how the body was laid and their returning. 

What is unclear in the KJV and most other versions is the phrase “and the sabbath drew on.”  We have assumed that this is referring to sunset and the beginning of the sabbath.  However, when we check the Greek word here translated “drew on” we find something else altogether.  The word here is epiphosko, Strong’s number G2020.  It is only used twice in the N.T. and is more correctly translated in the other passage, which we will look at in a moment.   Notice the definition of the word, “a form of G2017, to begin to grow light: - begin to dawn.”  Number G2017, epephauo, is defined, “a form of G2014; to illuminate (figuratively): - give light.”  Number G2014, epiphaino, means “to appear, give light.”  Some of the other definitions given are “to bring to light, to appear, become visible.” 

When we understand what the word here translated “drew on” really means we have to conclude that the time the body of Jesus was placed into the grave was about dawn on Thursday morning.  Let us look at the other verse where number G2020, epephosko is used.  In Matthew 28:1 we read the phrase  “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...”  The English “began to dawn” is  translated from G2020, much more accurately than in Luke 23.  Mark 16:2 recounts this same event but does not use G2020, but notice how he states the timing, “at the rising of the sun.”

Clearly the body of the Savior was prepared for burial after the manner of the Jews, taking several hours, and was placed into the grave near dawn on Thursday morning.  72 hours later, or three days and three nights later, He was resurrected near dawn on “the first day of the week.”  And, there was great significance to this, because that morning was the morning of the wave sheaf offering, the waving of the firstfruit of the barley harvest.  Jesus, as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, was the firstfruits of those who were dead.  (For more on the wave sheaf offering see my study entitled “A Study of the Wave Sheaf Offering.)

I’ve had to ask, “IF Jesus had been resurrected on Saturday afternoon what did He do all night?”  What kind of typology could we see?  In addition to the very powerful typology of the wave sheaf offering on the “morrow after the Sabbath,” I believe personally that we see some typology with the early morning resurrection and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea.  Their crossing would have been on “Saturday night” and they were in a watery grave (Paul states that they were “baptized” or immersed “in the sea.” 1 Cor. 10:1-2) They came up out of the water early “Sunday morning,” (Ex. 14:27 “...when the morning appeared.”) That morning would also have been the day of the wave sheaf offering.

As was mentioned above, we understand that Jesus was the wave sheaf, the firstfruits to be “lifted up” to be accepted for us.  His being lifted up, I believe, would have taken place very shortly after His resurrection and after His brief discourse with Mary Magdalene.  Remember, He told her not to touch Him for He had not yet ascended to His Father.  This event was priority, it needed to be done as soon as possible after His resurrection before anything further was done.  I don’t believe He would have been resurrected 12 or more hours earlier and spent the night “cooling His heels” waiting for dawn.

Just an aside.  Jesus said that He would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.  He didn’t say He would be dead that long BUT in the grave.  He said that He would be there “three days and three nights,” NOT “three nights and three days.”  Think about it!

Garry D. Pifer

“In my Father’s house are many mansions…”

John 14:2, “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.”  This verse is quoted or referred to frequently by Christian ministers, who believe that Jesus was telling His followers that He was going to be going to heaven shortly and that He was going to be preparing a big and beautiful home, or mansion for them.  It is taught that at the end of life one’s spirit would immediately go to heaven and would reside in one of these mansions.

Is this what Jesus was teaching here in John 14?  Is that the context of this passage?  Is the Father’s house heaven?  What was Jesus teaching His disciples in this passage of Scripture?

Let us first look at the context of Jesus’ statement.  After having washed the apostles feet Jesus sat down and began to speak to them.  Then after Judas left Jesus began in greater detail to instruct them.  In verses 33 and 36 of chapter 13 He told them that where He was going they could not come, that they could not follow Him.  Then in chapter 14 Jesus begins instructing them about the Holy Spirit and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This instruction continues on through chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17.

So, how does verse 2 of chapter 14 fit into this teaching?  I believe we need to answer a few simple and basic questions in order to understand. When Jesus speaks of “the Father’s house” is He speaking of heaven?  That is the common assumption and teaching.  The expression “father’s house” is used throughout the Old Testament in  referring to the family, the household, a family of descendants.  In the New Testament the expression is only used four times and two time it is used exactly as it was used in the Old Testament.  But, we do find Jesus using this expression two times, both in the book of John.  One time is here in John 14:2.  The other is found in John 2:16 “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”  He was here referring to the temple.
 
I believe it should be mentioned that although the temple was referred to by Jesus as “His Father’s house” and was called in the Old Testament the House of God and the House of the Lord, it was acknowledged that God did not reside in a building made with hands.  1 Kings 8:27, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?”  Acts 7:47-49, Stephen’s message, “But Solomon built him a house.  Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?”  Acts 17:24, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;”

Although the temple was called the House of the Lord or the House of God throughout the Old Testament that was a shortened statement of a house that was built for the name of the Lord God of Israel.  (See 1 Kings 8:17,20)   Notice what David said in reference to the temple, 1 Chron. 28:2,  “Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people” As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building:”

Let us return to John 2.  Immediately following His statement we read in verse 16, Jesus made an interesting statement to the Jews who were seeking a sign from Him.  Verse 19, “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  They, of course, thought He was speaking of the temple that He had just cast the money changers out of, BUT notice what He was speaking of!  Verse 21, “But He spake of the temple of His body.”

Maybe when we read John 14:2 in context we will begin to see what Jesus was speaking about when He said “In my Father’s house.”  The physical building of the temple was not where the Father was dwelling.  Where was He dwelling?  Jesus proceeded to tell His apostles and us where the Father was dwelling.  All of the verses, 3 on down are important, but let us draw our attention to verses 10 and 11, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: He doeth the works.”

Let us go back to verse two.  “In my Father’s house,” is NOT speaking of heaven.  Jesus is telling His apostles and us that He was the Father’s house, where the Father was dwelling.  He was the only one on earth at that time that the Father was dwelling in.  That was to change and that is what Jesus is proceeding to tell them and us.  Let us continue reading, “In my Father’s house are many mansions...”  Okay, what is He saying?  Not that “mansions” is a wrong translation but it is an old English word that meant something different in 1611 than it does now.    And, it is a word that in the Greek is only used two times in the entire New Testament (we will look at the other instance momentarily) and is translated differently and clearer in the second occurrence.

Look at what Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words has to say, (Strong’s number G3438) mone “Primarily ‘a staying, abiding (akin to meno, ‘to abide’), denotes an ‘abode’” Thayers’s concordance defines mone   “1.)  A staying, abiding, dwelling, abode 2.)  To make a (ones) abode 3.)  Metaphorically of the God the Holy Spirit indwelling believers .

Let us read verse two with understanding, “In my Father’s house are many abiding places, many places of abode, many dwelling places.”  Are we beginning to see what Jesus is saying?  Earlier He had told them that He would build His church.  Paul in his writings really clarifies the fact that we abide in Jesus’s body, the church.  In His body, the church, there is plenty of room for all of us to dwell.

Notice the last part of verse two, “I go to prepare a place for you.”  He isn’t speaking of building them and us fancy homes in heaven.  He was preparing for us to dwell in Him, in His body, the church.  Only after His death and resurrection could we enter into His body and dwell there.  As we continue to read Jesus’ teaching in chapter 14 He speaks of sending the Holy Spirit to indwell us.  Verse 20 clearly tells us that we are to be in Him, Jesus, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”

Let us look at verse 23 and perhaps we will see something that we may never have seen before.  “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we (Jesus and the Father) will come unto him, and make our mansion with him.”  Wait a minute!  It says “our abode” with him.  If you will check the concordance the word translated ‘abode’ here is the same word, and the second place it is used, that is rendered ‘mansions’ in verse two.

Jesus was NOT teaching that He was going to heaven to prepare some big, fancy houses for us, but was teaching that after His death and resurrection the Holy Spirit was to come into His apostles and all born again believers.  And, through that Spirit He and the Father would make their abode, their home, with us.  Paul speaks of the mystery, which is Christ in us.  And, not only Christ, but He says here that the Father will dwell and make His abode with us as well.  No longer would Jesus be the only one that the Father was dwelling in, the only one that was “the Father’s house’ BUT we now are the Father’s house, the house of God.  Notice a couple of Scriptures.  1 Tim 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”  1 Pet. 4:17, “For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”

When we let the Bible interpret itself, rather than accept what religion tells us, we can understand some powerful truths.  The truth that we, the church, are now the house, the dwelling place of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is awsome!


Garry D. Pifer
June 17, 2018

“Whoso Eateth My Flesh, and Drinketh My Blood…”

A few weeks ago (as I write this) I was having a discussion with a cousin about the Biblical prohibition against blood.  The following morning I began to get further revelation about blood, which I shared later with this cousin.  In one of his comments he brought up Jesus’ words regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood.  This teaching is from John 6 and I felt that I had a bit of understanding on it but I was led to do a bit more study.

As I studied this and read what others believed about it I found that it is as confusing to many today as it was to those hearing Jesus’ words at the time He spoke them.  Many of His own disciples said, verse 60, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?”  And, in verse 66 we read that “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”

So, just what was Jesus teaching us?  How does one eat His flesh and drink His blood?  Was Jesus teaching cannibalism?  Or,  is Jesus’ teaching totally contrary to the Biblical prohibition against blood?  Let us look at what Jesus was teaching and come to understand.

First, we need to look at the context of this whole chapter.  Verse 1 and 2 of John 6 tells us that Jesus had gone over the sea of Galilee and that a great multitude had followed Him.  Why were they following Him?  It says that they “saw His miracles which he did on them that were diseased.”  Their reason for pursuing Him was because of the miracles of healing.  Let us keep this in mind.

We continue to read of the setting.  Jesus and His disciples went up into a mountain, and as an aside it gives a note of the timing, near the Passover feast.  Jesus looked out and saw that the people, a great company, had come to Him.  Matthew 14 and Mark 6 gives more details but the account here focuses in on the feeding of the crowd of about 5000 men, plus women and children, with five barley loaves and two small fish.

Following the feeding of the crowd Jesus went up into the mountain to pray, verse 15, and His disciples got into a boat and put out to sea, verses 16 and 17.  They were on their way toward Capernaum and it says that as it became dark a great wind came up, verses 17 and 18.  They continued to row but were not making much headway.  But, as they were looking out from the boat they saw Jesus walking on the water and coming near the boat.  He spoke to them, told them that it was He, Jesus, and not to be afraid.  (Verses 19-20.)  This whole passage is filled with  accounts of miracles.  We find that when they had received Him into the boat, it says, “and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.”, verse 21.

The next day, the people they had fed and left behind, saw that Jesus and His disciples were now gone.  And, they also noted that Jesus had not gone into the boat with His disciples, verse 22.  Verse 24 says that they saw all of this and apparently came to the conclusion that they had all gone across to Capernaum.  So, they “also took shipping, and came to Capernaum.”  Now this is where we begin to read of Jesus’ teaching regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Notice Jesus’ very first statement to the people, verse 26, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because of the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”  Initially, in verse 2, we read that they came to Him because “they saw the miracles He did on them that were diseased.”  But, Jesus pointedly says that this is not why they are here now, BUT because they got their bellies filled.

He didn’t stop speaking about their thinking and approach to food.  In verse 27 He tells the crowd that had come to Him, “ Don’t work for physical food that doesn’t last, that spoils and perishes.”  (Paraphrased.)  He indicates that it satisfies our appetite for a very brief time and then we are hungry again.  He tells them and us of the food, the meat, that truly satisfies and will be lasting, food for the Spirit, although this wasn’t perceived by most of His listeners.  He makes this clear a bit later.   He says that this food is the food we need to be working for, the “meat which endureth unto everlasting life.”  And, this food, He says is the food that He shall give.  He states that God the Father has sent Him with this meat, this food.  The Father has “sealed” Him.

What did He mean by this?  To be “sealed” carries a number of meanings, such as, to mark a person or thing; something that proves or confirms or attests to something; a mark or a sign that confirms  and authenticate and places something beyond a doubt; something that proves one’s testimony that he is what he professes to be.  Notice how some other translations of this last phrase from John 6: 27 is rendered.  The Amplified says, “for God the Father has authorized and certified Him and put His seal of endorsement upon Him.”  The Message says, “and what He does are guaranteed by God the Father to last.”  The New Literal Translation states, “for God the Father has given me the seal of His approval.”  One more, The Passion Translation, states, “for God the Father has destined me for this purpose.”

Notice the question that the people ask, verse 28.  “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?’  Or, as one translation renders it, “What exactly does God want us to do?”  They, as many of us, felt that it was about their performance, their doing something.  Jesus’ next statement reveals several things.  Let us read verse 29.  “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.’” He did not lay out a bunch of things that one must do, but, just believe on Him.  And, that He says is the “work of God.”  One could get on a soapbox about “god’s work” and all of the “things” we have been told we must be doing to do “God’s work.

The key point in His answer to them is “believe on Him.”  He continues to emphasize this as He continues His teaching, as we shall see.

In verse 30 the people want a sign.  “Show us something that we can see, something that we can believe in.”  Now watch what they bring up in verse 31, “Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”  To paraphrase what they say, “You fed the 5000 BUT we have Moses who fed millions for 40 years.  Your one time event doesn’t seem all that great!”

In the following verse we see Jesus’ response.  He tells them that Moses wasn’t the one who supplied the manna and He adds, but my Father gives you the TRUE bread from heaven.  In verse 33 He continues, “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.”  This was a most powerful statement, but the people did not understand what He was telling them.  They thought He was talking about some kind of super- food, some miracle food that would keep one alive physically if they ate of it.  Notice verse 34, “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.”  Or, as we might paraphrase it, “Lord, give us this bread and don’t ever stop!”

Of course they did not understand His words.  He responds, verse 35, “I am the bread of life.  He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”  I would call your attention to what He says here, “he that believeth on me.”  This is the same thing He told them in verse 29.

But, Jesus doesn’t stop His response with what we read in verse 35.  In verse 36 we read His additional words, “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.”  This is the third time we have Jesus telling them and us that it is about believing on Him.  Jesus’ response continues with verses 37-40..  “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  Did you notice, He has now told us four times that it is about believing on Him.

All of this was going right over the heads of the Jewish crowd.  In verse 41 we read of their murmuring at Him because He said He was the bread that came down from heaven.  We see in verse 42 that they attempt to discredit Him because they knew His “daddy and mamma” so how could He say He came down from heaven?

Jesus responds in the following verses, 43-51.  He told them not to murmur among themselves.  He told them that no man could come to Him except that the Father who had sent Him would draw them.  He again states that He would raise them up at the last day.  Jesus is continuing to speak about everlasting life, not sustained physical life that could be continued by some kind of super-food.  In verse 45 He quotes from an Old Testament prophesy, Isaiah 54:13.  And, He tells them that every man that has heard and learned of the Father comes to Him, Jesus.  He throws another kink into their  lack of understanding when He tells them that no man has seen the Father, other than he which is of God (and He had been telling them that He was the one who had come from the Father) and He states boldly, “He hath seen the Father.”

Notice what He says next, verse 47, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”  How many times has He now stated that?  If our count is correct it is five times.

Jesus makes a very clear statement in verse 48, “I am that bread of life.”   The bread He had been speaking of over and over, the bread which He said that Father was giving from heaven, which if one came to Him should never hunger.

Jesus refers back to their statement about manna.  He makes it clear, verse 49, that their fathers that ate of it in the wilderness were all dead.  But, He states again, verse 50, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat of this bread, he shall live for ever....”  This, of course, is what He has been repeating over and over to them and us.  But, He continues, “and the bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”    This statement really caused the Jewish crowd consternation.  Verse 52 say that they “strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  Jesus added more consternation when He said, verse 53, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”  Whoa! Not just eat His flesh but drink His blood!

Jesus isn’t through with His statement.  He continues in verse 54-58, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (vs, 54-56)  He continues with verse 57, “...he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”  In verse 58 Jesus says, “...he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

Let us rehearse what Jesus has just told those there, and us.

    Verse 29   “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
       Verse 35   “...he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
     Verse 36   “...and believe not.” Again, this is about believing on Him.
     Verse 40   “...and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the
     last day.”
     Verse 47   “...He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
    
In all of these verses Jesus says that everlasting life comes because of believing on Him.  Keep this in mind as we look at a few more statements that Jesus made.

    Verse 51   “...if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:”
     Verse 53   “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
     in you.
     Verse 54   “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise
     him up at the last day.”
     Verse 57   “...so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.”
     Verse 58   “...he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

Perhaps we have read through this teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood and never noticed that Jesus repeatedly tells us that it is the one that believes on Him that will live for ever, that will have everlasting life.  And, then He states that it is the one that eats His flesh and drinks His blood that shall live for ever, have eternal life, shall live.  IS there two ways to receive everlasting life?  NO!  Believing on Him and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is the same thing.

Why couldn’t those listening to Him and many of us reading this teaching understand this?  He tells us.  Verse 59 states that He spoke all of this in the synagogue.  His disciples asked, verse 60, how can anyone “hear” or understand this teaching.  Jesus knew that they, His disciples were having a hard time with this.  In verse 61 He asked them if these words offended them.  He continued His question to them in verse 62, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?’    And, I’m sure that they were having a hard time processing that question.  Jesus then gives them, and us, the answer to why they and many of us have had difficulty understanding what He had been teaching.  Verse 63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

If we, like the Jews Jesus was speaking to, try to understand His words in the natural we won’t grasp what He was saying.  Those words have to be revealed by the Spirit,

As I wrap up this study I want to address something that one individual said regarding eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood.  He understood that it was and is the equivalent to believing on Jesus.  However, I do take issue with a statement he made, and I quote it.  “John 6:35 is clear that to believe in Jesus is equivalent to eat Jesus [and will never be hungry] and to come to Jesus is equivalent to drink Jesus [and will never get thirsty].  This shows that eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood by faith is a one time event or else, are we to believe [if it is literal] that we need to re-eat and re-drink Jesus’ flesh and blood? This would contradict Jesus’ words that we will never get hungry or thirsty if literal consumption was meant in John 6:35.”

I can agree that to receive salvation we are to believe and we are saved. (Acts 16:31)  However, we can not stop believing. It appears that “believing” and “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” is describing a relationship, one that continues and grows. 

Grammar is “proof” that we are to continually partake of Him.  The word translated “eateth” in verses 54, 56, 57, and 58 is Strong’s number G5176.  Mr. Strong gives us the meaning of “eating” but he does not give us any grammatical notations.  This can be found, however, in The Complete Word Study New Testament edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th. D.  His notations shows this word is  a Present Active Participle.  Notice his explanation.  “The present participle expresses continuous or repeated action.  Since in Greek the time of the action represented by participles is relative to the main verb, the present participle is used to signify action that is contemporaneous with the leading verb, whether that action occurs in the past, present, or future.”  And, as mentioned, he shows this word to be “active” rather than “passive.”  It is a continuous action.

The Greek word translated “beleiveth” used in verses 35 and 47 is Strong’s number G4100.  The Complete Word Study shows that this word is also a Present Active Participle.  It shows a continuing to “put faith in,” a continuing to “believe.”

There are a few translations of the Bible that have made this clear.  One of those is Green’s Literal Translation.  I found this comment on-line about this translation.  “In addition every precaution was taken to preserve the particulars of the text; each verb is carefully scrutinized to maintain its tense, number, voice and mood; the case of each noun examined to retain its proper function in sentence; each participle carefully translated to preserve its aspect.”

Here is how Mr. Green translated these verses we have been looking at.  Verse 35, “...and the one believing into Me will not thirst, never!”  Verse 47, “...the one believing into Me...”  Verse 54, “The one partaking of My flesh and drinking of My blood...”  Verse 56, “The one partaking of My flesh and drinking of My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”  Verse 57, “...also the one partaking Me,...”  Verse 58, “...the one partaking of this Bread will live forever.”

He uses words ending in “ing.”  Believing, partaking, and drinking all indicate a continuous action.  Notice what Webster’s dictionary has to say about participles.  This is under the entry for “participle.”  “In English ...the present participle ends in -ing (asking) and the past participle most commonly ends in -ed or -en (asked, spoken).”  As we noted from Mr. Zodhiates notation in his Word Study “the present participle expresses continuous or repeated action.”

It appears that “believing” and “eating and drinking” is much more than a one time event.  Most all of us are familiar with the “Lord’s Prayer” or the instruction by Jesus on how to pray.  Before He gave the outline prayer He stated that the Father knows the things we have need of before we ask, verse 6.  In verse 11 is the well known line, “Give us this day our daily bread.”  I believe that most of us have taken this to mean our physical food, but when we examine all that He said I don’t think this is what He was referring to.  Dropping down to verse 25 He states that we should take no thought for our life, what we are to eat or drink, or wear.  He continues to show how God takes care of the birds.  He tells us to consider the flowers and how He provides for them and that we need not be anxious about what we are to wear.  In verse 31 He says, “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?  Notice His point in this, verses 33 and 34.  “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.  Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. ...” 

Why would Jesus tell us in the early part of the chapter to pray daily for our food and then tell us to take “no thought” concerning what we are to eat or drink?  With what we have studied in John 6 and what we read here it seems that the daily food we are to be speaking to the Father about is the Spiritual food, His flesh and His blood, that Jesus says we need to be partaking of.  We need to be ingesting Him, the Word, daily.    

Garry D. Pifer

7/19/19

A Study of the Wave Sheaf Offering

 
    

Saul, who became the Apostle Paul, went into Arabia following his “conversion” on the road to Damascus and spent 3 years receiving revelation from Jesus. (Gal. 1:12)  Paul, we know from his own testimony, knew the “Scriptures,” the Old Testament, backwards and forwards.  But, like his brethren, the Jews, he never understood that they were speaking of Jesus, the Savior.  After receiving revelation he was able to read with “new glasses.”  And, he taught from that revelation.  We read that he “taught Jesus and Him crucified” from the Scriptures.  He was able to give true understanding to what had been just “rules, regulations and rituals.”

He saw clearly the shadows in the sacrifices, holydays, new moons, and sabbath days.  (Col. 2:16-17)  The Jews knew of these things but never knew they were all foreshadowing Jesus Christ. Paul explained in 2 Cor. 3 how there had been a veil upon the heart.   Paul explained what he had received from Jesus when he went into the synagogue in the cities he went to.  He spoke of the passover, the days of unleavened bread, the wave sheaf offering, the feast of weeks, etc.  We, as Christians, are able to see Jesus in these things because of Paul’s “new glasses” and because the veil is being removed, but many times we don’t see as much as is there because, unlike the Jews he spoke to, we aren’t that familiar with those things that were shadows.

In this study I want to specifically look at the wave sheaf offering, what it was and what Paul was able to understand and relate what it was all about.  Although we don’t follow and try to celebrate those things from the Mosaic law there is much to be gained in our understanding by reading and grasping what was pictured.

Let us first read the instructions as given in the book of Leviticus, chapter 23, verses 9-14.  “And  the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.  And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.  And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.  And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”

So, we see that a sheaf of the grain was to be brought to the priest to be waved and accepted prior to their being able to eat of the new crop.  It was to be brought on the “morrow after the Sabbath.”  Along with the sheaf of grain there was to be a lamb offered as a burnt offering, a “meat” or better rendering, a meal offering and a drink offering.

To help us to begin our study we need understand the instruction given to the Israelites regarding the determination of the new year.  Deuteronomy 16:1 is key to this.  “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God  brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.”  Observe is most often taken by many to mean to celebrate.  Observe here means, not to celebrate but, to look at, observe.  Observe what?  The KJV here says “the month.”  The Hebrew word is chodesh, Strong’s number 02320.  It is defined “the new moon; by implication a month; month (ly), new moon.”  The instruction was to observe, watch, look at the new moon.  Let us continue.  “The new moon of Abib...”  I always understood “Abib” to be the name of the first month of the year, and it came to be applied that way but note what it really is.  Strong’s defines abiyb, #024, “from an unused root (meaning to be tender): green, that is a young ear of grain; hence the name of the month Abib or Nisan:–Abib, ear, green ears of corn.” 

Okay, what does all of this mean?  Anciently the determination of the new month was always done by observation, by the sighting of the new crescent moon.  At the end of the 12th month the barley was looked at to determine if the heads were “abib,” that is in a state that would be ripe enough to harvest within about two weeks.  If so, the new month commencing with the sighting of the crescent would be the first month of the year.  If not, a 13th month or a “leap month” was added. (Just a note, the Jewish Rabbis later began determining a calendar by calculations rather than by observation.)

But, why the concern about whether the barley would be ripe enough to harvest in a couple of weeks?  If not, there could not be a wave sheaf offering, plain and simple.  When it was determined that the barley was “abib” the first month was declared.  On the 14th the passover lamb was sacrificed and the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on the 15th of the month.

Returning to the instructions in Leviticus 23 we read that a sheaf of the grain was to be brought to the priest to be waved on “the morrow after the Sabbath.”  This part of the instruction has been an area of misunderstanding over the years.  The Rabbis of Judaism have declared this “Sabbath” to be the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  They have declared the 16th to be the day of the wave sheaf offering and the beginning of the 50 days until Pentecost.  This then puts Pentecost always on the 6th of Sivan, a fixed date but variable day of the week.  Interestingly God  DID NOT give a date for the Feast of Weeks but it was to be determined by counting.

Let us read a bit more of the instructions found here in Leviticus 23.  Verse 15 says, “And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete:”    The primary definition of the word shabbath,  is “Sabbath.”  Brown, Driver and Briggs shows that it is primarily used for “Sabbath, Day of Atonement, sabbath year” and it can be used as “week.”  This use of “week” is what the Rabbis have attempted to use in their teaching.  However, there is a bit of a problem with this.  Notice verse 16, “Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.”  How, I ask, do you determine what the morrow is after the seventh week?  So much simpler to understand it as it was given, the wave sheaf to be brought and the count to be begun on the day after the Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.  No matter what day of the week the Feast commences, the day following the weekly Sabbath day that falls during the Feast was the day for the wave sheaf offering and the beginning of the count to the feast of weeks, which we refer to as Pentecost

Now, back to the wave sheaf offering itself.  The instruction was to bring a “sheaf” of grain.  The word translated “sheaf” is Strong’s #06016, omer.  The definition is, “a) a dry measure of 1/10 ephah (about 2 litres)   b) sheaf”.  Many places this word is used it is translated “omer” and many others it is rendered “sheaf.” The determination for the most part depends on the context.  Many commentaries will tell us that this offering was not just a sheaf that was waved but was a measure of the grain that was waved or lifted up.  This is based on the Rabbinical law.  The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary states, “...it was reaped after sunset on the previous evening by persons deputed to go with sickles and obtain samples from different fields.  These, being laid together in a sheaf or loose bundle, were brought to the court of the temple, where the grain was winnowed, parched, and bruised in a mortar.  Then, after some incense had been sprinkled on it, the priest waved the sheaf aloft before the Lord towards the four different points of the compass, took a part of it and threw it into the fire of the altar - all the rest being reserved to himself.”  Several commentaries state that the Jewish historian, Josephus gives this basic account.  However, there are some problems with what the Jewish writers indicate was being done and what the Scripture states.  I believe the comments made by the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament sums it up pretty well.  “The priest was to wave the sheaf before Jehovah, i.e., to present it symbolically to Jehovah by the ceremony of waving, without burning any of it upon the altar. The rabbinical rule, viz., to dry a portion of the ears by the fire, and then, after rubbing them out, to burn them on the altar, was an ordinance of the later scribes, who knew not the law, and was based upon Lev. 2:14. For the law in Lev. 2:14 refers to the offerings of first-fruits made by private persons, which are treated of in Num. 18:12-13, and Deu. 26:2. The sheaf of first-fruits, on the other hand, which was to be offered before Jehovah as a wave-offering in the name of the congregation, corresponded to the two wave-loaves which were leavened and then baked, and were to be presented to the Lord as first-fruits (Lev. 23:17). As no portion of these wave-loaves was burned upon the altar, because nothing leavened was to be placed upon it (Lev. 2:11), but they were assigned entirely to the priests, we have only to assume that the same application was intended by the law in the case of the sheaf of first-fruits, since the text only prescribes the waving, and does not contain a word about roasting, rubbing, or burning the grains upon the altar.”

I would tend to agree with the comments by K & D above, since, as they state, “the text only prescribes the waving, and does not contain a word about roasting, rubbing, or burning the grains upon the altar.” God stated that  He did not want them adding or subtracting from His instructions. 
We know from our reading thus far that this wave sheaf offering was important to the people of that time because it was the event that had to take place before they could begin their barley harvest.  It was also very important because without it one would be unable to determine the exact day to celebrate the Feast of Weeks. (Deut. 16:9)  But, does it have any importance to us, New Covenant believers?  Yes, it certainly does!  When we grasp and understand that it was on that day, the day of the wave sheaf offering, that the resurrected Jesus ascended to the Father to be accepted for us just as the wave sheaf was to be accepted for the people.  That day we call Sunday, the morrow after the Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, would have been the day of the wave sheaf.  We can begin to understand that the ancient offering remained important, in fact it was essential, to our redemption.  Yeshua was our Wave Sheaf Offering!

Let us look at a few verses.  John 20:16-17 states that Jesus told Mary, who had thought Him to be the gardener, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:” At later times we find that individuals did touch him, “Doubting” Thomas for example.  Jesus had to be “waved” as the firstfruits, to be “accepted” for us, just as the wave sheaf was to be waved “to be accepted for you,” (Lev. 23:11).  Paul, with revelation from Jesus, states plainly, twice, in 1 Corinthians 15 that Yeshua was the “firstfruits.”  Notice, verses 20 and 23.  Verse 20, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and, become the firstfruits of them that slept.”  Verse 23, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.”

Why, being that the wave sheaf is so important do we not find it mentioned anywhere else other than Leviticus 23 or do not find many references to it or examples of it being done?  Actually, there are references to be found but many have been mostly hidden from us by inadequate translation.

Although veiled to most of us, Joshua chapter 5 appears to reference the wave sheaf offering.  Remember, we read that the harvest was not to begin until the sheaf or omer was waved, or lifted up.

Adam Clarke comments on Joshua 5:11 and says, “but they could neither eat bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, till the first-fruits of the harvest had been waved at the tabernacle; (see Lev. 23:9, etc.); and therefore in this case we may suppose that the Israelites had offered a sheaf of the barley-harvest, the only grain that was then ripe, before they ate of the unleavened cakes and parched corn.”
 
The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of The Old Testament adds to what Adam Clarke has to say.  Here is a bit from their fairly long comments.  A short discussion is given concernng the “English version” having “old corn” (which the KJV has) but a better rendering is “fruit” or “produce.”  Many translations do use “produce.” Then they say, “i.e., corn that had grown in the land of Canaan, as the manna entirely ceased from this day forwards.  ‘The morrow after the passover’ is used in Num. 33:3 for the 15th Nisan, but here it must be understood as signifying the 16th, as the produce of the land, of which they ate not only on that day, but, according to Jos. 5:12, throughout that year, cannnot mean corn of the previous year, but the produce of this same year, i.e., the new corn, and they were not allowed to eat any of that till it had been sanctified to the Lord by the presentation of the wave sheaf on the second day of the passover (Lev.23:11).”  It appears that the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread would have been on the weekly Sabbath and the following day would have been “the morrow after the Sabbath” upon which the wave sheaf would have been offered.

Interestingly there are at least eight verses that refer to the wave sheaf offering in the New Testament but due to some inadequate translations they have not been seen by most of us.  Those eight passages contain an English phrase we are all familiar with, “first day of the week.”  The Greek in seven of those is “ mia ton sabbaton.”  The eighth is from the Greek “protos sabbaton.”  We’ll look at this expression and the verses in which it is used.

“First day of the week” is found in the following verses: Matt. 28:1; Mark 16: 2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2.  One thing you will notice when you turn to these verses is that the word “day” is in italics.  Most of us are aware that a word in italics has been put there by the translators although there is no word for it in the Greek text.  So, if we leave out the word “day” we have “first of the week.”  But, sadly that is not a truly correct and honest translation.

The first Greek word in the phrase is “mia,” Strong’s number 3391.  The definition is “one, only one.”  62 times in the New Testament “mia” is translated “one.”  Only 8 times is it rendered “first” and 7 are the above verses with the exception of Mark 16:9.  (We’ll look at that verse later.)  The correct and honest translation would have been “one” not “first.”

The Greek word “ton” can be translated “of the.”  When you see the word “sabbaton” you can probably correctly guess what it should be translated as.  Correct, “sabbath.”  And, in the New Testament “sabbaton” is translated “Sabbath Day” 37 times, “Sabbath” 22 times and “week” 9 times.  8 of the 9 times it is translated “week” is in the verses we are looking at.  The 9th verse is in Luke 18:12 and several translations have translated it “Sabbath” instead of “week.”  (Literal Translation of the Bible, Concordant Literal, and Modern KJV are a few.)

So, the correct rendering of “first day of the week” should be “one of the Sabbaths.”  (“sabbaton” in all of these 8 verses is plural.)  But, just what does this mean?  Let me quote a few sources that correctly understand.

The next couple of paragraphs are from an  article entitled  "Is the phrase 'first day of the week' properly translated in the New Testament?" by Daniel Gregg which appears at www.torahtimes.org/Sabbaton_Week_Sabbaths.html. 
“Outside of eight texts in the NT (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, and 1Cor. 16:2), where we find μια των σαββατων translated as first day of the week, there is no example of σαββατων having the meaning of "week" in any Greek literature before ca. AD 100, and then only in "Church" Greek after that. ... This sense is entirely wanting in Secular Greek, the LXX, Josephus, Philo, or any other Greek literature of Jewish provenance before the destruction of the Second Temple except for these eight texts. That sense is also entirely lacking in classical and Koine Greek except for its alleged use in these eight texts...” 

Dropping down at bit we continue to read, ‘There are several points that secure the above sense beyond reasonable doubt. First, according to Lev. 23:15 "seven Sabbaths" were actually counted following the Passover. If μια των σαββατωνis counting the first of these seven Sabbaths, then we expect it to be used just after the Passover, and nowhere else. And this is exactly what we find. Yeshua was crucified just before the annual Sabbath; then the resurrection day just happens to be the first sabbath after the Passover, and it is called μια των σαββατων.In the other two uses in the NT, the same synchronization with the Passover is observed.  Acts 20:6 tells us about the Passover before introducing the key phrase μια των σαββατων.  In 1 Corinthians 16:2, it is mentioned that Pentecost is coming not too much after μια των σαββατων (cf. 16:8). Hence all of our texts fit the chronology implied in Leviticus 23:11-16 exactly.” (When the author of this says “the resurrection day just happens to be the first sabbath after the Passover” he is expressing a belief held by many Messianics and others that Jesus was resurrected on Saturday afternoon, not on Sunday morning.)

The following is from notes by E. W. Bullinger in The Companion Bible.  The first one is at John 20:1.  “The first day of the week = on the first (day) of the Sabbaths (pl.).  Gr. Te mia ton sabbaton.”  Dropping down he continues, “Luke 24:1 has the same.  Matthew reads, ‘towards dawn of the first (day) of the Sabbaths’, and Mark (16.2), ‘very early on the first (day) of the Sabbaths.  The expression is not a Hebraism, and ‘Sabbaths’ should not be rendered ‘week’, as in A.V. and R. V.  A reference to Lev. 23. 15-17 shows that this ‘first day’ is the first of the days for reckoning the seven Sabbaths to Pentecost.  On this day, therefore, the Lord became the firstfruits (vv. 10, 11) of God’s resurrection harvest (1 Cor. 15.23).”

The second note is on Acts 20:7.  “First, etc. - first day of the sabbaths, i.e. the first day for reckoning the seven sabbaths to Pentecost.  It depended upon the harvest (Deut. 16. 9) and was always from the morrow after the weekly sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Lev. 23. 15).  In John 20. 1 this was the fourth day after the Crucifixion, ‘the Lord’s Passover.’”

We are aware that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing their accounts of Jesus and His ministry to a mostly Jewish audience.  Through out their accounts we read of the annual holy days that the Jews were observing, such as the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, etc.  So, it would not be surprising that they would refer to the day of Jesus resurrection, not as “the first day of the week” or “Sunday morning” but as “the day of the waving of the wave sheaf.” Not that those descriptions would be wrong, but does not convey what they were expressing.  They were clearly and accurately expressing the timing to be on the day that the wave sheaf would have been lifted up or waved by the Priest at the Temple.

I mentioned earlier that we would look at Mark 16:9.  We have the same phrase in English as in the other 7 passages, “first day of the week.”  Those other 7 had the Greek expression “mia ton sabbaton,” which we have discussed.  Here in Mark 16:9 the Greek is “protos sabbaton,” literally, “first sabbaths.”  This is an even greater stretch to translate as “first day of the week.”  Very clearly this verse, as well as the other 7 is referring to the day of the wave sheaf offering.

Now let us look at the other two places where we have the rendering “first day of the week” used.  Let us go first to Acts 20:7.  Here we read, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”  We know the approximate timing because the writer, Luke, had mentioned in the preceding verse “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread,...”  Then down in verse 16 we are told that Paul was in a bit of a hurry in order “to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.”

In verse 6 we are told that the group sailed away from Phillippi.  It would probably be clearer if the word “and” had been included, as “we sailed away from Phillippi and after the days of unleavened bread  came unto them to Troas in five days (or after a journey of five days); where we abode seven days.”  Luke continues his narration in verse 7, telling the events that took place as they were leaving Phillippi.  He gives us the exact timing, on the day of the wave sheaf offering.  We are told of the individual falling from the  third loft, taken up dead and raised back to life.  We are told Paul “talked a long time.”  What did he talk about?  We are not told, but I would think that he might have explained more fully the real meaning of the wave sheaf offering, which the Jewish Priest would be doing the following morning, and doing without the revelation knowledge of what it was all about.  Of course, this was also the day of Jesus’ resurrection, which was very important in his teaching.

And, now let us look at the last passage that has this phrase “first day of the week,” 1 Cor. 16 :2.   The Greek is, just as we pointed out earlier, “mia ton sabbaton.”  Not only is this phrase mistranslated in the KJV but it is horribly done in numerous translations and paraphrase versions which try to support the erroneous teaching that one is to bring a monetary offering each Sunday morning.  Let us read the verses here and come to understand.  Let us begin with verse 1, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.”  Paul is telling the called out ones at Corinth about a “collection for the saints” that he has already given some instructions about to some of the other congregations.  What was this all about?  He says that it is for the saints.  What saints?    From verse 3 we find that it was to be taken to Jerusalem, obviously then it was for the saints, the fellow believers, that dwelt in Jerusalem.

We will come back to this passage in a moment but first let us look at a couple of comments that Paul made later, in the second letter to the Corinthians and in his letter to the congregation at Rome.

In chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Corinthians he refers to their gift for the saints.  You can read through both chapters but we will look at a few verses.  In verse 1 of chapter 9 he begins with the comment, “For as touching the ministering to the saints,...”  Verse 5 gives a bit more information, “Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, that the same might be ready,...”  The following two verses are ones we have quoted and heard quoted repeatedly, “for God loveth a cheerful giver.”  Paul is still in context speaking about their contribution that they were setting aside for the saints in need.  Now notice verses 12 and 13.  “For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them , and unto all men.”

As I’m sure you are aware, the second letter to the Corinthians was written a few months after the first letter.  The first letter was,  from all evidence, written in the Spring.  Most scholars feel that it would have been 57 A.D.  Some feel that it may have been about 55 A.D.  But, from all I can find they are in agreement that it was in the Spring.  The second book was written in the Fall of the same year.  The letter to the congregation at Rome was written a few months later, 57-58 A.D. or maybe 56 A.D. depending on whose figures you look at.  But, all are in pretty much agreement that Romans was written later than the letters to the Corinthians.

We find some additional information in Romans chapter 15.  Let us read verses 25 through 28.  “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.  It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are.  For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.  When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.” 

We see several things from all of these verses.  The various congregations, as well as the Corinthians had been putting by their bounty for those at Jerusalem who were in need.  We also see that it wasn’t money that they had been putting by.  Romans 15:28 says “fruit.”  The Greek word is kapos, Strong’s #2580.  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words says, “‘Fruit’ is used of the fruit of trees, fields, the earth, that which is produced by the inherent energy of a living organism.”

So, let us now look at 1 Corinthians 16.  Verse 1 speaks of the “collection for the saints.”  Verse 2 we find the phrase we have looked at throughout this study, mia ton sabbaton, one of the Sabbaths.  Paul says to them “let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”  What is he telling them?  With the understanding that the phrase “one of the Sabbaths” is specifically referring to the day of the wave sheaf we find that Paul is telling them than once the new harvest season commences (remember that the instruction had been to not  “put the sickle to the grain,” or to begin the harvest, until the wave sheaf was waved) they should start putting by a portion according to how they had been blessed.  He doesn’t say to “take it to church” or collect money.  He is telling them that a portion of their harvest should be laid aside in readiness so that they don’t have to get it together when he comes.  In verse 3 he mentions that individuals that they select would be sent with what they had prepared.  If this had been a sum of money he could have taken that by himself.  Undoubtedly sacks of grain (the barley harvest began at the time of the wave sheaf offering) and or other produce would require a number of individuals to transport it all by animal and also by ship.

When we read of the Apostle Paul’s journeys and his normal M.O. we find that he went first to the Jews, preaching Christ and Him crucified.  He taught from the Scriptures that the Jews knew but he taught with the understanding and revelation he had received from Jesus.  He gave them understanding about Jesus being the perfect sacrifice, the sacrifice pictured by the lamb.  He would have explained that the picture of the  lamb that was selected on the tenth day of the first month was fulfilled by Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem, that His sacrifice was foretold in the killing of the lamb and how in the Exodus 12 Passover the blood that provided them protection from the death angel was a shadow of Jesus’ shed blood.  He knew and understood that the Israelites passing through the Red Sea was a picture of baptism, of our burial and resurrection with Jesus. (1 Cor. 10:2).  He would have understood (which can be demonstrated) that the crossing and coming up out of the Red Sea would have been the very day that would later be the timing of the wave sheaf offering and of the resurrection of Jesus.

Understanding the wave sheaf offering is not necessary for our salvation but it does help us more fully understand the gospel message which Paul preached.  And, that offering was looking forward to the next Holy Day, the Feast of Weeks, or sometimes called the Feast of Firstfruits, now commonly called Pentecost.  He was the first “sheaf” of the larger harvest of which we are a part of.

Garry D. Pifer

revised 8/3/19