We Owe Peter an Apology or There Is No Tonight

As we look to the Gospel accounts we may well succumb to a bit of a critical attitude toward the disciples. We could justify this as we might have noticed that the Lord had His moments of frustration with them as well.  Mark 9:19, "And He answered them and said, “O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him to Me!” or Matt. 8:26, "But He said to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm." And let us not forget Matt. 16:23, "But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Yeshua had His moments when He was less than complimentary to Peter and the twelve.

However, I do not think that we can be excused for our critical attitudes toward these early followers of Messiah. We have just honored the death and resurrection of our Lord. Many have heard messages concerning the Triumphal Entry, the Last Supper and Resurrection Sunday. In all of them we could point out the disbelief and cowardice of Yeshua's disciples. We could take note of their inability to grasp the clear teaching of their Lord and Rabbi who told them repeatedly of the plan to defeat death. This is clear in Mark 9:31-32, "For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day. But they did not understand this saying, and were afraid to ask Him." How could they miss such an obvious teaching?

It would help if we were Jews living in Palestine about 2000 years ago. The Jews were anticipating Messiah's arrival. They wanted a deliverer. Rome was oppressive and they had not known true freedom for generations. They saw the promises in Isaiah 9:7, a descendant of David whose kingdom would never end, or perhaps Psalm 110:1 where He would sit at God's right hand with His enemies at His feet. But few would have thought of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 as their idea of a coming redeemer and deliverer. So it should not be a surprise when Yeshua begins healing, preaching good news to the poor and setting the demonic captives free (Isaiah 61:1) that the disciples and the crowds saw Him as the coming Messiah. With this in mind the message of death and resurrection would have sailed over their heads. They already knew that Messiah was to deliver them and establish His kingdom so they didn't understand this teaching that was in full opposition to what they had held as the promise for so many years.

I heard a message last week on the Last Supper. The speaker said he could not believe how stupid the disciples were as they ate with Jesus. How much clearer could you get concerning Judas and his betrayal. "The one who dips in the bowl and I give him the bread will betray me. Then Judas leaves as Jesus says , "It is you, what you do go and do quickly." The rest of the group is still clueless and think Judas is doing a convenience store run or giving money to the poor. How could they be so dense? The application was that people are still just as dense today and they, like Peter, just cannot see the obvious.

Let's review a few facts that might help explain things. First, as I already stated, no one was thinking death and resurrection. Everyone was thinking Kingdom, as in, "Is now the time you will restore the Kingdom?" Second, they are just a few days from the entry into Jerusalem. Remember those shouts of, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", and "Hosanna to the Son of David". It is true that Messiah spoke of his death just before they got to Jerusalem but doesn't this change things? Hey the whole city is behind us. Third, no one suspected Judas. He had never ever given any indication that he was not on board. That is why they each wonder if they are the one who will betray (See Mark 14 or one of the other Gospel accounts for the details). Fourth, It is Peter who asks John to ask Jesus who is the guilty party. Jesus tells them but it is not an announcement to the whole group. Fifth, betray can be to turn over but it also carries the idea of verbal betrayal not necessarily physical betrayal. It can be more like denial. The disciples had seen this before in John 6:66-67. Many disciples deserted Messiah and He asks if the twelve will desert as well. Sixth, Jesus had just washed Judas' feet, as He had the rest. so why would they suspect him of any treachery? Finally, Yeshua, Jesus never says "Tonight he shall betray me". He only says betrayal is coming. How would they know when? Why would they think it would be this night? This is Passover night. This is just before the feast of unleavened bread. This is just after the Triumphal Entry. This is a time of celebration with the masses on Jesus' side. Those opposing Jesus would be fools to come after Him at a time like this. If there is going to be an attempt on the Master's life it will be when the crowds are not there to defend him . Yet, it is obvious that Judas has left. Where did Judas go? He must have gone to get food or to bless the poor on this Passover night. After all he did have charge of the finances.

In spite of the teaching and warnings of Messiah it is really not a surprise that the disciples missed the message concerning His impending death. If we are true to the text we should be neither surprised or critical of their lack of understanding. I dare say we would had been just as "stupid" and "dense" if we had been at the table. Maybe we need to cut Peter and the rest a little slack. Maybe some of preachers and teachers owe Peter an apology? Check the text. There is no "tonight" when the Lord speaks of betrayal. So how could they know when betrayal is coming? How would they have known it was Judas? They didn't even know if they themselves were the betrayer. I think it is time to be a bit more forgiving of the twelve. If I am honest with myself I am probably at least as dense and slow witted as any of them. How about you?

The Bible Does Not Say Jesus Rose On The First Day Of The Week

Have you ever heard that Jesus rose on the first day of the week? It is a common held belief. Would you be surprised to learn that the Bible does not say He rose on the first day of the week? I know if you look at Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, where each carry the account of our Lord's resurrection, that this is what is written in virtually every translation. However, it is not what the Greek says. This also holds true for Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. The truth is that the phrase "first day of the week" never appears in the New Testament. So why do we find it in all these passages? It is called translation bias. What to know what the text really says? Then read the next paragraph or two.

In all of these instances the Greek text actually says, "eis mian sabbaton" (A transliteration from the Greek), literally translated, "one to or toward Sabbath". For the Hebrews there is one significant day each week. It is the day YAHWEH set aside and declared holy in Genesis 2:3. It is the seventh day, or the Sabbath. Every other day was lived in expectation of Sabbath. Thus, from a Jewish perspective, days were "one toward Sabbath, two toward Sabbath, three toward Sabbath ... Six toward Sabbath and finally Sabbath." Virtually all English translations hide this Hebraic perspective. The intentional mistranslation is rationalized by calling it an equivalent translation. Everyone knows the day "one toward Sabbath" is also the first day of the week. So for English this is the equivalent of the Greek, thus close enough for most translators. This may seem incidental. After all, they both mean the same thing so we haven't really lost anything, have we? Besides, it is an easier read in English. This way we do not even have to think. We do not have to recognize the Hebraic nature of the New Testament.

However, there is more to consider. If the phrase throughout the New Testament is "one toward Sabbath", which is undeniably Hebrew in its origin, then something else holds true as well. The Hebraic understanding of time also comes into play. The day for a Jew begins at sundown and ends at sundown. Following the Genesis account of "evening and morning day one, evening and morning day two, etc." Therefore the Lord rose from the dead any time after sundown on our Saturday night. The women waited until after Sabbath, sundown on our Saturday, to prepare the spices and headed for the tomb while it was still dark. Perhaps our Western/American perspective has skewed our understanding a bit. Maybe we could have a Saturday night worship time celebrating Messiah's resurrection instead of a sunrise service. Or maybe not.  One doesn't want to mess with tradition. Messiah could have waited twelve hours to to rise from the dead. Anyway, we know it was getting light, one toward Sabbath, when the women found the empty tomb. I really am fine with the traditional sunrise celebration.

The "equivalent" translation of "first day of the week" has little bearing as to the timing of the resurrection. No matter what the clock in your house says, Yeshua rose after sundown Saturday and before sundown on Sunday so we are clearly in the right ballpark. The real problem with this "equivalent" translation is the damage it does outside of the Gospel accounts. It leads to misinterpretation, some poor preaching and false support for an end to Sabbath observance. This error is most pronounced in the account found in Acts 20.

I suggest you take a moment and read Acts 20:7-11 but, if you do not have time, here are the high points. On the first day of the week, actually on one toward Sabbath, Paul breaks bread with the disciples and then preaches all the way to midnight. It is warm from all the lanterns. Eutychus falls asleep and drops from a window and appears to be dead. Paul revives him, has something to eat, preaches some more and at daybreak he departs. I have heard many a sermon about Paul preaching for fourteen hours and then another six "And you thought my sermons were long" says the preacher. Because we all know every "church" meets at 10:00 on Sunday morning and Paul preached until Monday morning.  Thus, it may be one of the worlds longest sermons.

Let us return this account to the culture and Hebraic context it was written in. It is the seventh day, the Sabbath, our Saturday, and Paul and the disciples have been at the synagogue, as was Paul's custom throughout Acts. At sundown, the beginning of one toward Sabbath, our Saturday night, Paul and the disciples gather for the breaking of bread. Perhaps a meal and the memorial we call communion. It is around eight or nine on our Saturday night. Paul preaches three hours or so, it is now midnight, and Eutychus takes his tumble. Paul revives him, eats and teaches a while longer. He then leaves early on our Sunday morning. Actually, the whole account is more reasonable when we put things in a Hebraic context. It also discounts the "evidence" that this points to the  "church" beginning to meet on Sundays, replacing the Sabbath day with "first day" worship.

Refusing to acknowledge that the text clearly points to the Hebraic understanding of time distorts the account. This is also true with the offering gathered "one toward Sabbath" in 1 Cor. 16:2. Following their time at the synagogue, as the sun went down and one toward Sabbath or the first day of the week began, Paul says, "Before you go home for the night remember to gather the offering for the suffering saints in Jerusalem." This is used as well as evidence for an end to Sabbath and the beginning of Sunday worship. It simply does not exist in the text or the New Testament.

Just as an end note. Sunday worship began under the rule of Constantine who was antisemitic and worked to complete the divide between the "church" and Judaism. Until this time the Messianic believers were, for the most part, viewed as a sect of Judaism. Also, everyone in the Roman Empire worked on Sunday. The only day recognized as a day of rest was the seventh day or the Sabbath due to the influence of the Jews scattered throughout the empire. Sunday worship never replaces the Sabbath in the New Testament. However, I believe any day is a great day to praise and worship so do not think I believe Sunday worship is a bad thing.

I hope you enjoy your Resurrection Celebration. When we remember that Yeshua, our Messiah, rose one toward Sabbath and conquered the grave. We are set free from the curse of death and have life everlasting in Him. He is risen indeed!