Why the Saturday Resurrection Theory Is False, and Why It Matters.

Those who teach the Saturday resurrection usually believe in a Wednesday crucifixion (which they believe was the 14th day that year). They are not always clear on whether they believe the last supper was the Passover or not (my book makes it clear that it was not). The Saturday resurrection option is popular among those who understand that Jewish law would never have Jesus crucified on the holy 15th-day high Sabbath, but this Saturday option falls short of the scriptures because of the reasons listed below:

  1. No early historian even mentions a Saturday resurrection, because all of the sides in the early disputes agreed on the Sunday resurrection. Several early doctrinal disputes did arise between Roman Christians and Messianic Jewish believers, and the “Setting the Table 1” chapter of The Messianic Feast documents some of these disputes. The Messianic Fourteenthers (i.e., those early Jewish believers who were called this because they understood that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day) wrote of a Sunday resurrection, as did those called Church Fathers in Rome. Although early Jewish believers disputed the Roman concept of a 15th-day crucifixion and other Roman beliefs, both sides in these early doctrinal disputes wrote of and agreed on the Sunday resurrection.
  2. Paul called Jesus the “first fruits” because his resurrection on Sunday (the morrow of the Sabbath) fulfilled this offering (Leviticus 23:10–14; 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23). Early church writer Clement of Alexandria (a Fourteenther who understood that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day) wrote that the resurrection was on the morrow of the Sabbath (i.e., Sunday), when the priest was to offer up this sheaf of the first fruits. In the following quote, early “Fourteenther” Clement shows how Christ fulfilled this offering: “He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf” (click here for full quote in book, on p.381). Clement shows another way the Messiah’s words about being resurrected “on the third day” could apply, with a Thursday crucifixion and Friday being the 15th day high Sabbath and first day of the seven day Feast, then Sunday would have been “on the third day” of this seven day Festival. By forcing a Saturday Sabbath resurrection it would render Christ as our “day-early first-fruits” offering, by it not taking place on the “morrow of the Sabbath.”
  3. Those who teach this Saturday resurrection usually believe in a Wednesday crucifixion, but this would make Sunday the fourth day since Jesus was delivered up, condemned, and crucified instead of the third day since “these things” happened (Luke 24:1, 19–21; John 20:1). Jesus said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). He did not mean to the exact second, but that he would be in the tomb for a portion of three different days and nights. The occurrence of the Last Supper on late Wednesday and the crucifixion on Thursday fit this perfectly. He was in the tomb for a portion of Thurs-day, Fri-day, and Satur-day, and for a portion of Friday nighttime, Saturday nighttime, and Sunday nighttime (Sunday nighttime started at sundown on Saturday). The Wednesday crucifixion with a Saturday resurrection would have Jesus in the tomb for a portion of four days—Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. This Saturday option does not fit the scriptures, and the Messiah said the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). There is no Greek variant in these verses that would change this timing.
  4. Some say that the Saturday resurrection is the only way to fulfill the three days and three nights exactly by having the Messiah resurrected late Saturday afternoon, exactly 72 hours after he entered the “heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). But the Jews did not have stopwatches or atomic clocks to mark exact times, so when Jesus said “three days and three nights,” he did not mean exactly 72 hours to the minute. In the Old Testament interpretation, even a portion of a day or night counted as the whole day (such as for ritual cleansings). Jesus said he would be in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights just as Jonah was in the whale, and no proof exists that Jonah fulfilled this timing to the exact minute.
  5. Jesus also said he would be killed and arise from the dead on the third day (Matthew 16:21 and Luke 24:7), meaning the third day after he was killed. The scriptures are clear that the Thursday scourging and crucifixion fulfills this, where Friday is the first day since, and Saturday is the second day since, and as the disciples are walking on Sunday it is the “third day since these things happened” (which is exactly what the scriptures prove in Luke 24:1, 19–21).
  6. The Saturday resurrection option rejects Mark 16:9, which states (in Greek) that Jesus arose early on the first day of the week—our Sunday. Also, if Jesus had arisen on Saturday, why would he have waited more than twelve hours (until the following day) to reveal himself? Some say that the scripture in Matthew 28:1, translated as “in the end of the Sabbath” by the King James Version, shows a Saturday resurrection. But the Greek actually says “after the Sabbaths,” with the plural “Sabbaths” probably referring to the 15-day Sabbath (Friday that year) and the Saturday Sabbath that followed it.
  7. Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 show Mary Magdalene and the others leaving very early in the morning (while it was still dark) with spices to anoint the body. If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, why would these women have risen and left home in the darkness of Sunday morning when they had all day Friday to complete this task? After all, if the 14th-day crucifixion was Wednesday and the 15th-day Sabbath was Thursday, then Friday would not have been a Sabbath—and that would have been the obvious time to anoint the body, rather than waiting until the fourth day when decay would have set in. By waiting until Sunday (Luke 24:1) to come and anoint the body they would have known that corruption would have set in, as was said of Lazarus on the fourth day, “by this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead four days.” (John 11:39). And the scripture says of the Messiah that he would not see corruption (Acts 2:25-27).
  8. Mark 16:1 specifies that the women “bought” the spices and were now coming to anoint the body. Therefore, they probably purchased the spices right after the crucifixion (as Thursday the 14th day was ending) and before the 15th-day high Sabbath set in, as Luke makes clear (23:55, 56). It would also have been legal to make this purchase anytime after sundown of the Saturday Sabbath.
  9. The proof for the Sunday resurrection is quite strong; it is the only possible way to fit the template challenge for this Jewish feast (see link here), whereby all of the scriptural time keys harmonize and make sense. While it is true that when Mary Magdalene and the others arrived early Sunday morning, Jesus had already arisen, it must be remembered that anytime after sundown on Saturday would then be Sunday.
  10. Any option that does not have Jesus eating the Passover at the last supper would still have to explain Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7, which on the surface appear to show it was the Passover. The “Three Major Greek Keys That Unlock the Gospels” chapter lists what I believe is the proper way to interpret these scriptures, using the accepted rules of Greek grammar.

Conclusion: To believe the Saturday resurrection, we therefore have to believe that the apostles and the early Messianic Jews did a horrible job of teaching and handing down the supposed truth of a Saturday resurrection, because both sides (the Messianic Jewish believers and the Roman Christians) fully agreed on the Sunday resurrection.

Why it even matters: There are many reasons why it matters whether Jesus (Yeshua) was raised from the dead on Saturday or Sunday. For one thing, the Messiah said to buy the truth and sell it not. Truth is always important; oftentimes it builds out bigger truths that can only happen correctly if the smaller foundational truths you build upon are in fact true. The Sunday resurrection fits with a Thursday crucifixion (where Sunday is the 3rd day since all “these things happened”—i.e., arrest, trial, and crucifixion—Luke 24:1, 18, 19, 21). This then opens the door to understanding that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day in which the lambs were offered up, which then proves that his final supper the night before could not possibly have been a Passover. This then opens one’s eyes to the fact that they were eating regular leavened bread at this meal (all of the Greek scriptures show this as Course 1 proves linked here). And finally, this proves that the unleavened-bread Communion ritual handed down by Rome was not what Jesus or the early Messianic Jews taught or believed, which then helps us to see what the Messiah really meant in his vitally important parables at the last supper. This is all explained in my book, The Messianic Feast: Moving Beyond the Ritual.

Purchase the book The Messianic Feast


  1. This is all very interesting as I am presently investigating this matter of sabbath keeping and first day resurrection. Thank you, i will look into it further.

  2. I am reading your chapter on ‘breaking bread’.
    You seem to rather like Darby’s translation, and defer to that to say the disciples post ascension did not go from house to house in order to eat bread – physically eat bread – as a meal and you give other easons for that.
    Both Young and Green (LITV 2001) show a literal ‘from house to house’ or ‘at every house’ picture.
    When Jesus broke bread to the hungry, it was a literal meal which all present enjoyed, and they were allowed to eat to their fill, it was the Father’s will that Jesus provide so. Such an event occured at least twice in His ministry. And in both cases it is talking about an actual meal which He provided at the same event where He was teaching them the things of the Kingdom. So the physical and the spiritual were present.
    While He longed for them to actually eat His words, and digest them spiritually, so that His Words become flesh in their daily living, this does not dismiss the concept of true believers in Yehoshua – Yeshua, eating their meal together in houses of believers at the time of the teaching and preaching of the gospel, and also remembering His death in the manner He prescibed, and which to them there was no doubt THEY knew what He meant.

    Also, on the first day of His resurrection life He actually broke bread at one house in Emmaus, and the context seems to imply at least to me that it was an actual meal with ‘bread’ that was before them. Whether they were too excited to eat it or not is secondary.
    While the spiritual bread – Jesus Christ and His Words are to be heard and digested spiritually, this does not negate the importance of a meal shared in simplicity and faith, whether much or little, among believers of like faith.
    What Paul says to the Corinthians abput indulgent eating at the expense of the poor; this would never have happened (surely not…) at the Temple; “If your hungry eat at home – your own, not at the place of meeting”.
    It is plain that they were in excess and needed some correction. But the correction does not necessarily mean that their original eating at the very first was at fault, just as the issue of tongue speaking was not at fault but the manner in which it was conducted.
    If the only valid interpretation is that they ONLY met at the Temple, then as the Word of the Lord mulitplied, which it did, and the disciples also multiplied exponentially, which they did, there would have come a time when it would have been impossible for them to all congregate at the Temple, especially as Gentiles were not allowed except in the outer court. Or was the Temple precinct able to accomodate tens of thousands?

    Even if the Temple at Jerusalem had that capacity to accomodate ALL believers throughout Israel, at the Temple at one time, in other countries where believers were also multiplying – seeing they ‘had turned the world upside down’, it would not have been possible. And this would have necessitated believers to meet in homes to remember the Lord’s death till He come.
    I had already read some of your work re Resurrection of Jesus – day, and had come to some of those conclusions myself. Thank you for your work.

  3. Hello Ian and thanks for your comments. I totally agree with you that some (or even most) of these scripture occurrences were actual meals. I also believe the Jews had a clear idiom of speaking the natural but meaning the spiritual truth behind it (see Setting the Table 4, The Jewish Idiom of Natural to Spiritual). For instance when Jesus said beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, we later see he was not referring to the leaven in bread. And when we come to the parables at the last supper, what makes it so clear that these were symbolic teachings and not the creation of a new ritual was the strong Jewish idiom to never ingest blood. God had said he would set His face against any Israelite who ingested blood. So when Jesus gave them a sip from the cup and then said it was his blood of the new covenant, we would know that this was symbolic, and had spiritual meaning (such as his blood cleansing us within from all sin, just as the lambs blood had previously). The main proof that we see that shows the apostles all understood these were parables, is that they then went out teaching that WE are members of Christ body, and WE are the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it.). They understood this was what Jesus meant when he broke one leavened bread at the last supper and told them to partake of it, and said “this is my body.” So again, the Jews did not have these kinds of rituals, they knew it was another parable, as Jesus so often spoke in. And thank you again for sharing your thoughts Ian!

  4. First off, Our Lord died for our sins according to the Scriptures; He was buried; and he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. I started reading your article and right off the bat you say “No early historian even mentions a Saturday resurrection”. Not true. Matthew literally reads “It was the latter of the Sabbaths” in 28:1. OPSE is usually translated as a preposition, as in “AFTER the Sabbath (singular). But OPSE is a adverb not a preposition. It simply does not function as a preposition. “I jumped High that day”, “I jumped VIGOROUSLY that day”; when we take these two examples with the adverbs “high” and “vigorously” in these statements, we understand that the adverb does not change the fact that I jumped that particular day. The adverb simply don’t have the power to change the day. And the other two instances of OPSE has the same meaning of late/later/latter. Since we are dealing with a plural of Sabbaths, it does becomes “latter of the sabbaths”. Another mention of this is the “gospel” falsely attributed to Peter in the early second century. This writing follows Matthew’s transmissions (“tradition”) closely and put the resurrected at the beginning of night on Saturday, the so-called Lord’s day it is advocating. Only difference between the two timings is a matter of the day with a small margin in between, that is, Sabbath or “the Lord’s day”. Writing names Didascalia Apostolorum an advocate of Friday crucifixion, places the arrest of our Lord on the fourth day of the week, and attempts to explain away the difficulty. Epiphanius of Salamis in the fourth century mentions the same thing. Socrates in the fifth century mention those in he East who celebrate the resurrection on the Sabbath day. Here we are dealing with the voices which we still have today, and the Friday/Sunday proponents has the majority of work preserved in our day. Bishop Gregory of Tours in the 6th century says that many deem the resurrection to be on the seventh day. We see that not even the Friday/Sunday advocates denied that our Lord was arrested on the fourth day of the week. And just about all advocates today would not deny that the arrest and crucifixion took place in the same 24 hour period (the same day in Jewish reckoning). Thus three days “after” is the Sabbath, and the third day of unleavened bread according to the Scriptures. You also mentioned Paul, that he said our Lord is the first fruits and the first fruits begin the day after the Sabbath. I am completely assured that he fulfilled first fruits. But just like the Passover lamb are sacrificed on the eve of Passover, so also the first fruits are reaped on the eve of first fruits. The day after the Sabbath is the offering not the reaping of the first fruits. According to an ancient first fruits custom, we find out that the first fruits were reaped at the end of the Sabbath day (please look this up) and not on first fruits itself. This brings us to the time of Matthew at the closing of the Sabbath day, well the literal translation of Matthew that is. Three days after Passover was therefore the Sabbath when the first fruits were reaped, and this is the third day (of Unleavened Bread) according to the Scriptures.

    Paragraphs got messed up.

    • ATennent says:

      Hello Joseph, and thank you for your comment. The best Greek scholars do not agree with you (which I agree does not necessarily make your view wrong). For instance Lenski’s Commentary (who is excellent in Greek) says that although that Greek word is sometimes translated “late” in the classics, in the Koine (which the NT uses) when its connected to a Genetive (as in Matthew 28:1, it means “after” as Bauer states (BDAG) here:
      marker of a point of time subsequent to another point of time, after, w. special ref. to lateness, funct. as a prep. w. gen. ovye. sabba,twn after the Sabbath Mt 28:1

      Mark agrees that it was after the Sabbath had passed:
      NAS Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

      Then Luke shows how the context in which this is spoken is also very important, for the reason they give the timing is because these women were going to perform “work” that was not allowed on the Sabbath (finishing the burial of the body). These women were not going against what they believed was God’s law, but waited reverently for the Sabbath to be over before going out, very early that Sunday morning, not late on the Sabbath, against God’s law:

      NAS Luke 23:56 And they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

      Another huge point that Luke shows (the very next verse from the one given above) is that the day they were walking with the Resurrected Messiah was the first day of the week, which was later called Sunday in Rome:

      NAS Luke 24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

      Then a little later in that same day they state that today it was “the third day since these things happened.” The “these things” are enumerated in Luke, where he lists the delivering up and the crucifixion.

      NAS Luke 24:19-21 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. 21 “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.

      So if Sunday, the first day of the week was the “third day since” these things happened (with “these things” being the arrest and crucifixion), then going backwards, Saturday would have been the second day since, and Friday would have been the first day since, and Thursday would have been the day these things happened. So the Wednesday crucifixion and the Saturday resurrection cannot fit the scriptures, and the Messiah said the scripture cannot be broken.

      On your other points, I believe that the so called “gospel of Peter” is spurious, probably done up by someone in Rome. There were reasons it was not included in the canon of New Testament scripture around 200AD when that was done. And as for Socrates, since he lived more than 400 years before Christ I’m not sure how he could have commented on the Resurrection? I think the main point on that aspect is that the Jewish Fourteenthers (quartodecimans) who held to a fourteenth day resurrection debated openly with Rome against the Roman idea that the last supper was the eating of the 14th day Passover. This all came to a head at the Council of Nicea when they were eventually cast out of the Roman controlled Church. They battled very strongly against Rome, risking their life, by going against Roman theology which believed Jesus was crucified on the day after the eating of the Passover, the 15th day. For holding to this 14th day as the day Jesus was crucified Rome mocked them as heretics and as “Fourteenthers” (which is what Quartodeciman means). And these Fourteenthers never once mentioned Rome being wrong on the Sunday resurrection, but instead they agreed on this point. If you would like to read that chapter and that fascinating Jewish history it can be found by clicking here, for The Jewish Disconnect and the Fourteenthers: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_SettingTable_1.pdf

    • Atennent says:

      Joseph, I just realized I forgot to respond to your first fruits points. I believe that what Paul is referring to, and what is important from a typological aspect, is when the first fruits offering took place (when it was waived by the priest), not when it was cut down or harvested. Since Paul is connecting the first fruits offering to the resurrection, then what is being pictured is not the crucifixion (cutting down of the wheat) but the resurrection (the offering of the sheaf, Christ, the first fruits of the resurrection, being accepted by God):

      1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,

      That offering happened on the “morrow of the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:10, 11) and pointed forward (by God’s foreknowledge) to the Messiah’s resurrection that first day of the week, early, the day following the Sabbath (i.e. “morrow of the Sabbath).

  5. Wow.

    I certainly disagree on just about all your points, and I would be willing to go into detail. But instead I will just leave a few points.

    The whole late/early mentions should not be an end in itself. For instance all four gospels are first named around 180 AD. Thus the conclusion of many is that before this it was not the case, which is awful scholarship. Socrates points to a transmission that has been handed down for a long time.

    The so-called “fourteenters” were not all Jewish, but that was orthodox. The assemblies of Asia Minor continued to observance as taught by the apostles. This include Polycarp the learner of John, and overseer of Smyrna; Melito of Sardis; etc. Polycrates around the end of the second century testifies to this when he writes to Victor and the assembly of Rome. His letter was approved by a great many overseers with him. The response from Victor was to excommunicate the assemblies of Asia, but this did not sit well with the others. Everyone knew that Asia Minor followed the orthodox observance, while the other assemblies just wanted them to conform to their new observance.

    The whole thing about OPSE meaning after has its motivation in doctrine not context. OPSE in Mark 13 meaning evening, which is the latest portion of the day. In Mark 11 it is accompanied with the verb form “it began to be” or “it became”, Thus “when it became late” not “after”. OPSE with the genetive meaning “after” is based on the translator’s belief, not the rules of Koiné Greek, as one can observe is an adverb meaning “late”. In fact the Genetive shows more clearly that it should be “latter of [the two] Sabbaths”, retaining the proper meaning of OPSE, instead of a virtually fictional meaning of OPSE based on one’s assumption.

    The first fruits connection you made, are your own. The cutting of the first fruits in on preparation day are against the law. At this time the first fruits was bind, in order to cut it off on the eve of its offering. Looks like your assumption doing the talking on this point.

    Another point is that even among those who held to the Friday/Sunday tradition, we see that they accepted the arrest of our Lord on the fourth day of the week. The same day is the preparation day, thus to following day the annual Sabbath and first day of unleavened bread, making the Sabbath the third day of unleavened bread (according to the Scriptures). Which is three days “after” preparation day.

    As for Luke “the third day” is “from” (APO) the preparation day, which again aligns with the days of unleavened bread. thus the third day as confirmed in Luke is the third day of unleavened bread (according to the Scriptures). And “after three days”. The preparation day cannot be day one since that would mean that we count the day of crucifixion after one day. But “after three days” and Luke’s “third day from” are aligned with Unleavened Bread. Another thing in Luke 24:21 when you read it properly in Greek the learner says “it is leading [in relation to] the third day from which these things occurred”. The line is awkward in Greek, but there is an implied preposition between the verb AGEI (it is leading) and the the third day. The third day in this sentence is the direct object in relation to which the verb is acting. This means “it” (now, or this day) are leading in relation to the third day. Even the some translators from the Aramaic has caught this. But in this case it is the verb being added to smoothen the translation.

    “three days have already passed”. Then look again at the messenger’s rhetoric at the tomb. Why were they looking for the living one among the dead when he himself said he would rise the third day. If it was on the other hand the third day, his question does not make sense.

    By the way, I am not endorsing the false gospel of Peter, but it holds value because of its date, and its close proximity to the authentic accounts. The legendary elements are still in development, which is interesting. And also there is the use of EPIPHOSKW in Greek which are used for both the beginning of the day part of day (morning) and the beginning of the 24 hour day at night in one single verse. And this is in accordance with the biblical reckoning, Matthew when he says in 28:1 of the new day “lighting up” at night at the conclusion of the Sabbath, in the same way Luke says “and that day was preparation day and the Sabbath lighted up” at night. This is also contrary to the claim that EPIPHWSKW can only mean the daybreak at Matthew 28:1.

    So are there any real proof that OPSE should mean after?
    The literal translation harmonize with the Biblical appointed times, including the fact that first fruits are reaped on the eve of first fruits.
    The reaping are synonymous with the resurrection, and our Lord ascended to his Father at the tine of the waving.
    The third day in Luke is from the day of preparation and not the third day including the day of preparation.
    Furthermore on the first day of the week it was already moving in relation to the third day.
    The messenger at the tomb suggest that the third day has passed.
    It was accepted even by the Friday/Sunday traditionalists that the arrest of our Lord was on the forth day of the week.
    The resurrection takes place three days after preparation day in line with Unleavened Bread.

    • ATennent says:

      Joseph that is your choice to disagree with me, but when you disagree with the scriptures, or use a gospel you admit is false (Gospel of Peter) because it backs up your idea, then I think that is not good. God said the First Fruit offering was on the morrow of the Sabbath (ie the next morning), He did not say it was ON the Sabbath. Yeshua fulfilled the first fruits offering by his resurrection, early on the morrow of the Sabbath (Sunday morning). As Paul said, the Messiah fulfilled this offering, and he did this when he was resurrected on the morrow of the Sabbath (just as God commanded to Moses in Lev 23:11).

      Concerning the scriptures I brought out in Luke showing Sunday was the third day since these things happened you wrote:
      As for Luke “the third day” is “from” (APO) the preparation day, which again aligns with the days of unleavened bread. thus the third day as confirmed in Luke is the third day of unleavened bread (according to the Scriptures). (end quote)

      Joseph I believe you are not looking at what the scriptures in Luke say. They did not say it was the third day since preparation, nor did they say it was the third day of unleavened bread, they said it was the “third day since these things happened” and “these things” were listed as Messiah’s delivering up, arrest, and crucifixion. Since those things happened on Thursday, then the Sunday (morrow of the Sabbath) resurrection fits perfectly.

      You then wrote: It was accepted even by the Friday/Sunday traditionalists that the arrest of our Lord was on the forth day of the week. (end quote)
      Joseph how can this be, for the fourth day of the week is Wednesday and the Catholics believe Jesus ate the Passover as Thursday ended and was crucified on Friday. And we know that Jesus was arrested the same day he was crucified, so I think you should check your source again on that one. Regardless, I believe the church in Rome had many things wrong, so what they believe should not be automatically considered as true doctrine.

      Then you wrote: So are there any real proof that OPSE should mean after? (end quote)

      Yes, I believe there are. And one of them is that the women waited until “after” OPSE the Sabbath before they went out and did work that was not allowed on the Sabbath, such as finishing up the burial for Yeshua. Are you going to say that these reverent women went out while it was still the Sabbath and did this work?

      NAS Luke 23:56 And they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

      NAS Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. (the Greek word for after is OPSE above)
      Joseph I am happy to answer any questions you may have, or to share different beliefs with a goal to finding truth, but if you want to continue I would ask you to tell me what you believe, such as what day of the week was the last supper, and what day of the week was the 14th day Passover sacrifice? I would ask you politely to please be specific, if you would like to continue. Thank you, Alex

  6. Hi Alex, I’ve reviewed your article here: http://www.torahtimes.org/writings/tennent_review/article.html

  7. One Who Cares says:

    I also would like to add to Daniel’s quote by reminding you that if you insist on the Thursday crucifixion than you are also insisting he’s a Sabbath breaker. (John 12: 1- 14) If Thursday is the 14th then the 10th was Sunday and that means the supper cooked on the 9th was on the Sabbath…. A huge violation of the commandment. In your defense… So much of the scriptures we rely on to be truth has been tampered with by the adversary you have to always go back to the original writings to see what Hebrew words were really used in almost everything we study. (Matthew 7: 13-14)
    Shalom my friend… May peace be with you always!

    • One Who Cares,
      As far as Daniels posting, I really found it to be so wrong on so many points that I could not bring myself to write a four page rebuttle. However we did debate most of the issues on the Christian Forums website, under the heading “What is the true Messianic Breaking of Bread” with the link here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-true-messianic-breaking-of-bread.7899024/page-17#post-69948260

      But I appreciate the good spirit of your post One Who Cares. I believe that the facts for the Thursday crucifixion are extreemely strong and that there is no other way to harmonize the scriptures on the Last Supper and the Crucifixion than what my book has laid out. Anyone who takes the time to go through the chapters such as “The Template Challenge”, and “50 reasons the Last Supper was not the Passover” will find there is no way to overturn the weight of evidence. That being said, you raise an excellent question in your post which I have never seen, and I truly thought I had seen everything, having studied this for 30 years (10 of those was putting the book together). I believe that the answer to your point concerns how the Messiah and the first century Jews used the term Passover. Today, in most Jewish circles, it is the 15th day that is called the Passover. But during the time from Moses to the Messiah it was more traditional to refer to the 14th day (the day the lambs were sacrificed) as the Passover (Numbers 28:15, 16; Leviticus 23:5, 6 etc…). Although the whole Festival was also called Passover. The key to your point is to see that the Messiah told them he would be crucified on the Passover, and he meant this 14th day, when the lambs were offered up, and he used the traditional meaning of the Passover (see Matthew 26:2). He told them he would be delivered up and crucified on this 14th day, and both things happened just as the Messiah said. This is also proven in Luke 24, where on the first day of the week (Sunday) they are walking and saying that it was now the third day since these things happened (i.e. these things being the delivering up and crucifixion, Luke 24:19-21), and of course Sunday is the third day since Thursday. Please take the time to read those few chapters I mentioned, they are available for free here on the website, and I believe you will see there is only one way to harmonize all the scriptures.
      Thank you again my friend and may the Lord’s peace abide with you as well!
      PS you might also check out the very first chapter titled “The Jewish Disconnect and the Fourteenthers”, where I document that the main body of Jewish believers in the Messiah all understood that the Last Supper was not the Passover, but that the Messiah was crucified on this 14th day, just as he said would happen.

Leave a Comment