I Stand Alone at Easter

Easter weekend has arrived at last, supposedly bringing a temporary end to the chilly Winter days until they return once again on the approach to Christmas. Unfortunately, as it's always the case here in England, the weekend of warm sunshine was during the previous week, when at last everyone ventured out into the streets, shopping malls, parks, and other attractions free from the heavy overcoats, jackets, scarves, and carrying an umbrella on the ready, all which epitomise public life in general here in the UK. But as I ventured out earlier this morning for my weekly dose of Starbucks cappuccino and a copy of the Daily Mail newspaper, once again the sight of overcoats, jackets, scarves, and the potential of catching sight of an umbrella were back on the agenda. For according to the Met Office, the Easter weekend will actually be chillier than Christmas Day 2016 by about a couple of degrees. Thanks to a persistent polar wind blowing in from Iceland.

But that did not stop the lengthy traffic congestions building up on our motorways and major trunk roads, as British families with characteristic stiff upper lips head for the coast for the long weekend, with full knowledge of the dreary holiday weather. Within many family cars, fathers silently curse the driver of the car in front under his breath whilst mothers attempt to calm their boisterous children with a promise of more Easter egg treats after arrival at their sea-side Bed & Breakfast hotel. Other vehicles stuck in prolonged stationary traffic hide their bored kids at the back seat from the outside world, whilst both parents try to engage them into a game of I Spy, using the first word beginning with "C" - with the five-year-old immediately guessing correctly by submitting his word, Car.

Well-to-do Dads who were not so slavishly addicted to the steering wheel were taking their families to the coast by express train, where without doubt the family would be more relaxed. Promises of more chocolate treats or the need to play I Spy may not have been such a necessity, as the kids, sitting by the window, were enthralled at the scenery as it whizzed past at a speed no car could ever attain, not even illegally. Then there were those who cannot hack the British holiday climate, making their way to the airport. But even here the traffic on the roads leading to the terminals were so congested with like-minded sun-seekers, that some frustrated drivers had literally abandoned their cars for a quicker way to the check-in desk. If there was one crisis that would melt the stiff upper lip to butter and cause the lower lip to tremble in rage and frustration - it's the risk of missing the flight.

And so Easter comes and Easter goes, and the pulse of life beats on. After three months of driving to work and ferrying the kids to school in the cold, wind and rain, Easter is perceived as the gateway for the coming Summer months. Perhaps the egg is the perfect symbol of this. It stands for the beginning of new life when the weather at last warms up, the chick hatch, the trees bud, the daffodils blossom, the sheep in their lambing season - and at last, heavy Winter clothing are once again stored away in the wardrobe and chest of drawers. A time for optimism. But did I leave something out?

According to a You-Gov poll, nearly half of the UK population do not prioritise the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the real reason for the long weekend. Rather, it lies in fourth place after the confection, the long weekend being a statutory holiday and therefore the need to get away. Yet, Easter is meant to be the most important festival in the Christian calender, even more so than Christmas, even if the former lacks the commercial glitter and party joviality which goes with the latter. And for many years I accepted without question that our Lord was crucified, died and was sealed in a rock tomb on a Friday, remained dead all day Saturday, and came back to life before dawn on the Sunday, even though I had found it hard that the total of 38-39 hours of non-life can equal three days - if 3 x 24 hour days adds up to 72 hours. Somehow, even from childhood, the figures did not seem to add up, which caused serious consequences in my perception of God and of the Christian faith. 

This was important to me, even back then. Because even after conversion near to Christmas 1972, I perceived God as loving his Son so much more than he loves me, that he wasn't patient enough to keep his body lying lifeless in the tomb for the full duration of 72 hours, so he cut the time short, so to speak, leaving me with a subconscious conclusion of my unworthiness, and that I had to "complete" the atonement by means of personal merit - something which is actually endorsed by the Catholic Church in which I grew up. To conclude that God loves Jesus much more than he loves me has left me in the state to question whether He loves me at all. Was God's character really like my father's and of the school teachers, who only perceived any act of kindness from me as a means of wanting something? In short, the Friday Crucifixion has made me doubt God's love. 

Then when I began to read the Bible after conversion, sooner or later I came across that one verse in the Gospels, and it was Matthew 12:40, which reads:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This verse stands alone in the entire New Testament, there is no repeated statement found in the other three Gospels, nor in any of the letters. Therefore this left me to check out the prophet Jonah and see for myself exactly what actually took place when he fled on board a ship from God's presence. In Jonah 1:17, the narrator states that the prophet was in the belly of a large marine creature "for three days and three nights" - apparently with no qualification for a shorter or longer duration. That is a bare minimum of sixty hours if only a few minutes of either a third day or night is considered. The maximum duration would be 72 hours - if nothing of a fourth day or night is included. And that is why I have considered the late Dave Hunt and the Berean Society he founded, a group committed to "Searching the Scriptures daily to see whether it was so" - as stated in Acts 17:11. In his book, How Close Are We? he advocates a Thursday crucifixion. This means that if Jesus died around 3.00 pm on a Thursday afternoon, was buried, and by dawn on the Sunday he was already risen, then the duration of his death would have been in the region of 63 hours, which is within the acceptable time frame of 60-72 hours, when considering that he was dead during the last three hours of the first day, by the normal reckoning of Hebrew numeracy.*

What does this all mean to me? By accepting a Thursday crucifixion rather than the traditional Friday execution changes everything, especially my perception of God's character and his steadfast love. And that despite that I stand alone in my church and in the wider Christian community. Although I am familiar with three other churches in my own town, plus up to ten other churches within a radius of thirty miles from home, I have not heard a single preach advocating a Thursday crucifixion. However, I did have two Christians at different times and at different places having spoken to me in likely agreement.

All the Elders at my regular church in Ascot believe in a Friday crucifixion. I was there with them yesterday, a Good Friday, worshipping God among a people I love dearly. I don't dispute this matter with the Elders. Instead I submit to them, as the Bible itself recommend. If at the Judgement Seat of Christ, I am asked by God himself why I dared to simplify what he had set up to be a very complex issue, then I will answer this to God alone, and I will not deny my responsibility.

A Thursday Crucifixion changes everything. With this I can be assured that God does what he says he will do. There are no short cuts with him, no renegade on his word. Instead, God's love for the likes of one as myself can be reassured by the keeping of his promises. The beautiful offshoot of such divine character is my assurance of salvation, Eternal Security, Once Saved Always Saved. If the concept of the Friday crucifixion causes me to question the love of God and his assurance of fulfilled promises, then how can I possibly believe in Once Saved Always Saved? Really, I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a connection between the Arminian idea that salvation can be lost with the lack of assurance of God's promises properly fulfilled. But on this issue of a Thursday Crucifixion, I will stand firm, even if all alone.

Just as I will stand alone, if necessary, in believing that both our planet and the entire Universe are no more than six thousand years old, and which came into existence by God's spoken word. Yes, I'm willing to stand alone in this, as I am ready to stand alone with Holy Scripture endorsing the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the Scriptural fact that the Atonement made by Jesus Christ on the Cross was because of the Fall in the Garden of Eden, endorsed as historic by both Jesus himself (Matthew 19:1-12) and by Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12-21). In short, if Adam and Eve had never existed, then the whole of the Christian faith is fit only for the trash-bin. All the words in the Bible will not be worth the paper they are printed on.

And the same applies to Biblical semantics. I'm willing to stand alone in my conviction that the English word Repent means A change of mind, so verbally demonstrated in Peter's sermon narrated throughout the whole second chapter of Acts. I am ready to stand alone with the historical fact that in the Fourth Century AD, St Jerome mistranslated the Greek word for Repent to a Latin word for Penitence, thus changing God's plan of salvation from simply changing your mind about Jesus being the risen Christ, to the need to forsake sin, which involves works performed to exonerate the believer from his sins, and then to remain faithful afterwards in order to be saved. I will stand with this opinion that the Roman Catholic Church, along with quite a number of Protestant and Reformed churches, were never freed from St. Jerome's mistranslation, even if this great scholar did not make such a error with malicious intent.

And with these things I stand, even if no one takes any notice. And yes, I'm very much used to all that. Thanks to that great psychologist Cyril Burt who, in the early 1940's, composed a theory that innate intelligence could be measured at eleven years of age. This led to the 1944 Education Act, bringing in the eleven-plus exam for all primary school children, thus pigeon-holing every pupil according to how he performed in the test. Bright kids who passed were selected for Grammar School education, followed by University graduation. Those who failed ended up at the Secondary Modern school, back then known as the academic trash-bin, and geared for vocational and manual labour occupations. Ironic, coming to think of it. What I have found to be rather surprising was whilst the Alliance, including the British forces, were up against Hitler's Nazi powers, much time and attention were given over to such matters such as child intelligence and schooling. Of course, not only did I fail the eleven-plus, but came rock bottom, and condemned to sit at the slowest learning class in the whole school between the years 1964 to 1968. This resulted in four years of my life wasted. How come? Because all I received in secondary education was a re-hash of everything I had learnt at primary.

The snag was that if a student fails the exam by just one mark, he would be classed as a failure. Meanwhile, another student just scrapes through, and he would be categorised as a genius, and both go on to their respective schools.  Unless out of a stroke of good fortune, it does not allow for the chance of later mental development. However, I'm very happy to say that conversion to Jesus Christ as Saviour and exploring the Bible and reading it freely has vastly improved my intelligence and academic quality! And I'm not exaggerating. The Christian faith has done more than merely save my soul from eternal loss. It has made me a new man, a better person, here and now.

But this is England, blessed England. A land with its culture where the fate of an individual is determined before his twelfth birthday. Failed the exam? Then I must know my place. And sad to say, most, if not all, of our churches go along with this British culture. For example, fresh young leaders and preachers will always hold a degree. In the whole of the 45 years as a Christian believer, I hardly recall any exceptions. Rather, I do recall the Junior Church department at my home town fellowship, which was staffed by graduates, all of them believing in Evolution. They were most prominent throughout the late 1970's and well into the Eighties. In addition, the Church of England has always relied on the gene pool at Oxford and Cambridge for future leadership. As for Cyril Burt, it takes the opinion of just one doctor to decide the fate of countless numbers of students over the decades, without leaving room for later development of academic ability and intelligence. 

Canterbury Cathedral - Head of the Church of England.

This means that although I'm accepted and loved by my regular church, and even held at a high esteem by at least two of the Elders as well as by some of the students who attend, I doubt that I would ever be given a chance to teach, even though I might have a gifting for it. Some years ago, back in the early/mid nineties, a family suggested that, with my then knowledge of the Bible, I should teach a class, with themselves being willing students. But when I presented the idea to one of the Elders (no longer with us) - he said that this responsibility belongs to someone out of university and therefore better trained. Little wonder that, for a very different reason, he was defrocked by the congregation, and soon afterwards moved across the Atlantic to Florida.

It was to the likes of Cyril Burt that our schooling culture is at it is to this day, with the likes of me remaining unqualified for such responsibilities within the local church, whilst forever watching young graduates take their place at the pulpit or teaching a group. But nevertheless, I make my stand, even if it means standing alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*You can read more on why I believe in a Thursday Crucifixion by clicking here

Contradictions...Contradictions...

Good Friday came and went, that's it for another year. At the time of writing, Easter Sunday is yet to come. Our worship celebration at our church was excellent. Contrary to wider culture, our worship of Jesus Crucified was not shrouded with glum faces and mournful dirge, weeping over the unjustifiable demise of an innocent, righteous man. Rather, it was a celebration of what the Lord accomplished while he hung there - an atonement made for the sins of the whole world, and a victory over the Adversary who held the whole of Adam's descendants captive. Little wonder, that on his very last breath, he shouted out, It is finished! Not the kind of reaction made by anyone else with his dying breath. But Jesus did it because his was a cry of victory, and not of defeat.

Mosaic at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem.

No other human endeavour in history has ever eclipsed this event. Yes, for an example, we may think that putting a couple of men on the moon in 1969 was a great achievement in the quest to conquer the Final Frontier. It might well have been a "giant leap for mankind" - which reminds me in a way of the post-deluge descendants of Noah attempting to "Reach to the heavens" by constructing a giant ziggurat in the plains of Shinar, later to be the site of the ancient city of Babylon. This was an attempt to reach the stars by their own pride-driven efforts. Their efforts with the ziggurat took them no closer to the stars in a literal sense than if their self efforts would have brought to God! But no matter how great mankind's achievements might have been, the intervention of God himself into human affairs at such a manner will always remain unique, unattainable by any other human who ever lived.

I greatly thank and praise God for such a wonderful demonstration of his love and mercy for us all who is without strength. Here is the Divine Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - having a council in eternity past, most certainly before anything was created:-
"Whom shall I send? Who shall go for us?"
"Here am I. Send me."
Isaiah 6:8.
And such was the response of the Second Person in the Godhead. And all three partied in great joy, before commencing with creation. Such as I like to imagine the unity within the Holy Trinity, with their love for each other so strong, it was, and will always be, unbreakable.

Except for one brief moment.

That was when Jesus, the incarnated Second Person of the Godhead, while hanging in agony on the cross, cried out, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  Just imagine it! For the Son to be separated from the Father and from the Holy Spirit for the very first time in all eternity. This must have had a soul-crushing effect to a much greater intensity than the physical pain he was suffering. Yet he still cried out with a powerful tone of voice, It is finished! Father, to you I commit my spirit.

Since this is the Easter weekend, I felt that it was a good idea to look into some of the seemingly apparent contradictions found in the four presentations of the narration, as our very souls depend on the veracity of the story, which holds the only true hope for salvation. It's basically set on just one verse in the entire New Testament.

After his death, since this was the Preparation for the Passover, the lambs slain all over Israel had to be roasted and eaten later that night, the body of Jesus (along with the two others crucified with him) had to be taken down, and buried in an unused tomb which has only been hewn out recently. There the body was laid to rest for three days and three nights. Three days and three nights? Yes, according to his own words recorded in Matthew 12:40. Here Jesus was quoting from the prophet Jonah. When the prophet ran away from a commission God had assigned to him, he boarded a ship which was caught in a storm, and was threatening the lives of the crew. The only life-saving solution was Jonah to be thrown overboard. In the sea, Jonah was swallowed up by a large fish or whale, and in its stomach the prophet spent three days and three nights before being spewed out alive onto the beach. This was the same duration the body of Jesus remained in the tomb.

The awkwardness of this lies in the fact that this statement made by the Lord does not appear in any of the following three Gospels, or for that matter, anywhere else in the New Testament. It is just one, single, solitary verse, yet has a powerful effect in the way such things should be thought through. If Jesus was crucified on a Friday, as all church traditions demand, then the duration of three days and three nights cannot be taken literally. Even the acceptance of the last three hours of Friday daylight after his death, all day Saturday, and just a few moments of Sunday morning, would give only two nights rather than three, that is, what we today would refer as Friday and Saturday nights. Checking through various commentaries on this verse, I have not come across any explanation which is satisfying to my soul. Coming to think of it, the idea of a Friday crucifixion had always seemed at odds with what I perceive as common sense, even going back to pre-converted adolescence.

That's why, as an independent free-thinker, I prefer to believe in a Thursday crucifixion.* That is, the last three hours of Thursday daytime, all day Friday, and all day Saturday, along with Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday night (i.e. the small hours of Sunday morning, as the new Hebrew 24-hour day always begins at sunset). Jesus was already resurrected before daybreak on that Sunday. I am fully aware about going against the grain of all church tradition, which places the crucifixion on the eve of a typical Saturday Sabbath. It was John who gave us a hint that the Sabbath which followed the crucifixion was "a high day" (John 19:31) - meaning the first day of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Friday. Therefore it would have followed that the two days after the Crucifixion were both Sabbaths - the first day of Unleavened Bread, followed by the normal Saturday Sabbath.

This means then, that at the moment Jesus gave up the ghost, Passover lambs were being slain right across Israel. John backs this idea up in his narration of the Jews not wanting to defile themselves by entering a Gentile palace, "for they wanted to be able to eat the Passover" (John 18:28-29). So at this point in time, when Jesus was brought before Pilate, not only was the Passover not yet eaten, but the lambs themselves were not yet slain. This could explain Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that Christ is our Passover Lamb, who was slain at the same time all other lambs were killed. Therefore, during the Last Supper, which took place after dark, and as such, at the commencement of the day of Preparation, the Passover lambs across Israel were still alive.

But why not assume that the first day of Unleavened Bread fell on the Saturday, the normal Sabbath? After all, doesn't it all make sense? What better day of the week to have the first day of Unleavened Bread to fall on the normal Jewish Sabbath? What is the one obstacle to this idea? The one solitary verse of Matthew 12:40. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

However, it does leave one very apparent contradiction. Such an example is found in Matthew 26:17-19, where Jesus instructs his disciples to prepare a place to eat the Passover. Mark 14:12-15 tells the same story, as does Luke 22:7-20. Each of the three tells us that it was on the first day of Unleavened bread that the Last Supper took place, and they ate the Passover there. This seems to contradict John's version, which insists that the Passover was not yet eaten when Jesus was brought before Pilate.

Yet in Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and a hint from Matthew 27:62, it was the Day of Preparation when Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. Preparing for what? For the Passover, which included the slaughtering of the lambs and the roasting of the meat. When did Jesus instruct his disciples to prepare the upper room? Apparently, it was soon after sunset, and the start of the Day of Preparation, also called the first day of Unleavened Bread, because that was the day all leavened bread had to be cleared out of every house in Israel before the Passover Lamb is killed. The Last Supper was on the same day as the Crucifixion. But did they eat the Passover Lamb? No, they couldn't have done, for the lambs weren't yet slain. So what was the "passover" they ate during the Last Supper?

Matthew gives us a clue here, (26:26-29) so does Luke (22:7-20). They write that the disciples "prepared the Passover". Then we read about all of them sitting at table when Jesus took the cup of wine and had it passed around to all who sat there. He then said that how he was eager with desire to eat the Passover with them before he suffered, and he will not eat it again before finding fulfilment in the Kingdom of God. He then initiated what we call the Holy Communion - to remember his body broken and his blood shed in order to be "passed over" from judgement and eternal death. His announcement that the bread and the wine will not be eaten until finding fulfilment in his Father's Kingdom is narrated in Revelation 19:1-10, known as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, which takes place shortly before his return to Earth.

Just as the original Passover was for Israel to remember how, by slaying a lamb and dubbing the door lintels of their homes with its blood, delivered them from the Angel of Death which struck Egypt, so this "New Passover" is for us to remember the body broken and the blood spilt to deliver us from eternal judgement. The bread will be broken and the cup drank in Heaven, I think, as a reminder that every saint present there, would not be there if the Lord had not atone for them on the cross (Revelation 19:1-10). Just imagine! Every single redeemed human in Heaven, both from Old and New Testament times, together with us as well, would be reminded that they are only there because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Heaven, every saint will be compelled to partake in the Supper, which will, apparently, be carried out with exuberant joy and worship. The entire angelic host will also be there, but they will only be allowed to watch, while offering their praise to God as well.

Most, if not all in my church, and in other churches as well, will disagree with me on the issue of a Thursday crucifixion. But that won't stop me from worshipping God with them and celebrating his redemption for us. My fellowship is my spiritual home. I belong there, and I'm willing to submit to my Elders, as God would want me to do, and I would be the first to say that God's presence was felt during the Good Friday meeting. Yet if I'm branded as one of "the lunatic fringe" so be it. My final authority is the Holy Scriptures, and it's my passion to uphold its truthfulness and historical veracity. Even if some may scoff at me for believing, in addition to a Thursday crucifixion, a six literal-day Creation over Darwinism, as well as my passion for Eternal Security of the Believer. But in our land and its culture, it's very unlikely that I would ever be scoffed. This is because I'm from a low background in education, occupation, and social status. Not only would I be ignored, but to be seen as irrelevant and totally disregarded.

Fine, as long as they don't disregard the Bible and the Gospel of salvation either.

I wish you all a happy Easter. God bless.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An excellent, scholastic reference source for a Thursday crucifixion is in the book:
How Close Are We? by Dave Hunt, Copyright 1993, Harvest House Publishers.

A Spanner in the Works!

Once a year, here in the UK, I believe the longest statutory weekend of the year comes round. It is Good Friday, with Easter Saturday to follow, then Easter Sunday, followed by a Bank Holiday Monday. It the time of year that we remember the Atonement made by Jesus Christ when he died on the cross, and the Resurrection three days later. The time of year children look forward to Easter eggs after the Sunday roast - so at least my brother and I did when we were both children. Although I wondered back then what a chocolate egg had to do with a man dying on a cross, nevertheless, I recall the anticipation of chocolate only after we cleaned our dinner plates.

To me, the Easter break meant the start of the Summer, and during my adult bachelor days, it was always a trip to the coast, normally for the whole weekend. And during adolescence, Easter always meant a break from the day-to-day grind at school, feeling constrained in a buttoned up shirt and tie of the uniform, sitting bored at the desk being rehashed over what I have already learnt at primary school. In all cases, Jesus always meant something to me, even if I believed at school, wrongly, that Jesus was aloof in his own goodness and was only interested in those who were as good as he was.

Back in the 1960s there was this unspoken feeling among us boys that there is something akin to being a cissy in believing in God. For example, if there were any at school who were in the church choir, then they kept this area of their lives a guarded secret, in fear of teasing and even rejection. The general feeling among us was that we kept separate from the girls - which, compared to the present rise in teenage pregnancies, abortions, and easy access to contraceptives - was not a bad thing altogether. A boy in Secondary Modern school of the mid sixties, if he wasn't academic, he would show his virtue in being good at team sports. It could be said that the average schoolboy was assessed by his physical prowess and the English Bulldog spirit out in the sports field. Belief in God did not fit into it.

And this was a sad fact, a terrible misrepresentation of God's character, which came across as punitive towards naughty children, but pleased with those who were good. He was also seen as extremely fickle on who would go to Heaven after death, which was based not on free grace, but on the boy's performance in life. It was natural, therefore that atheism was common among us schoolboys, and I felt myself sucked in, one reason was an attempt to make myself more popular, and to be seen as "tough". I guess at the time, that the character of God was fully reflective in the strict discipline in both our birth fathers and the schoolteachers. And the worst thing about all this, was if I wanted to be good and be pleasing to God in one way or another, then I would perceive him as being somewhat suspicious; that I wanted something for myself, but remained uninterested in his affairs.

But deep in my heart, I think, I always wanted to know Jesus Christ as a friend, and not as a disciplinarian. But I was always afraid to approach him, in anticipation of being told to "not to tell tales", "man up", or other dismissal methods, in reflection of the schoolmasters, with whom we shook with fear of some of them. So it was not surprising that even after I believed towards the end of 1972, it took me a very long time to unlearn what I built up throughout childhood.

Even to this day, I can be wary of the Lord's attitude towards me if there is sin in my life. Even after building a sound theological edifice on Justification by Faith, the eternal acquittal bestowed on the wicked through faith without works, it can be difficult to realise that such a person as myself can be seen by God the Father as the same as Jesus himself. Yet it's true. I have found that believing in eternal acquittal in my heart has made a big impact in my life, and the way I see the world, and the way I see and relate to other people. Of course, as with anyone young in the faith, I would have wanted the foundation to be solid, cut and dried. So when I was with a fellow believer in the South London district of Brixton in 1974, I was surprised to hear him tell me that he had problems with a Friday Crucifixion.

Although I poo-pooed the idea, I could see sense in what he was saying straight away, even if I didn't want to believe it. His idea ran counter to all the churches of all denominations which insist on a Friday crucifixion. Yet, although I didn't want to believe it, it did make sense to me, nevertheless. But after that incident in Brixton, I had put away the idea, conforming the general trend that Jesus died on a Friday. And a Friday crucifixion is taught with clarity at my present church, with all the elders believing in it. And rather than argue, which wouldn't have got us anywhere, when the leaders called to celebrate on Good Friday, I was there. My own ideas on when Jesus died, I had to keep to myself, to keep the peace.

But it was on one social evening in the early to mid 1990s, while I was in a pub with some Christian friends (all young unmarried men, including myself) that I offered some unwanted books by one of them, written by the late Dave Hunt, for free. I decided to accept them. One was titled, A Cup of Trembling, and it was about God, his relationship with Israel and the Jews, and the history and theology of Islam, its Palestinian followers, and their claim to the land God had originally given to Abraham, and what, how, and why this famed Patriarch was living in Mecca with his son Ishmael, nearly a thousand miles from the border of the Promised Land and his final burial tomb at Hebron. I found the author to be a highly trained and informed scholar, and later discovered that he was the founder and director of the Berean Bible Society in the United States, taken from Acts 17:10-12, where Paul commended the citizens of Berea for checking his Gospel with the Scriptures to verify what he taught was Biblical. Another book I was given with the first was How Close Are We? and this was about our attitude towards the Second Coming of Christ. It was from this book that I finally became convinced that Jesus might have died on a Thursday rather than a Friday, with one of the most insisting verses - Matthew 12:40, which reads:
For as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Checking on the prophet Jonah, he was thrown overboard a ship for being the cause of a violent storm, after fleeing from the Lord when he told him to preach in the city of Ninevah, which was a potential threat to Israel. After being thrown into the huge waves, a large fish swallowed him alive, and we are told that the prophet remained within the fish's stomach for three days and three nights. It was a miracle that he remained alive during that period without the digesting acids dissolving his flesh. But as the fish regurgitated the man alive on to the beach, so did the risen Jesus walked out of his tomb alive as well. Little wonder that the Lord compared his own duration of his burial with that of Jonah.

For a more deeper discussion on this subject, please click on the blog, Good Friday? I'm Confused, which should be among the top ten most popular blogs at the column on the right. It was posted April 2012. But just to say here, by reading Hunt's book, I recall the conversation which my young friend and I had together at Brixton. And I think I remember him quoting this very verse, and coming to the conclusion that holding on to tradition may not be at times a wise decision. For much of my life, I always believed in a Friday crucifixion, because that was what I was taught, first by the Catholic Church, then by the Anglican Church, and later by the two Baptist churches - Bracknell and now, Ascot. In one way I settled with this, but for much of my life, yes, even before I became a Christian, I had asked myself; Did Jesus Christ really die on a Friday? Even with just three days in the tomb, the idea gave the impression that God himself was somewhat mean, as there was only three hours left of Friday, all day Saturday, and practically no daytime of Sunday, as he was already risen by daybreak. And of course, I automatically assumed that he was just two nights in the tomb, Friday and Saturday nights, or as the Jews would have said - the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings. But whatever, there were just two, not three nights spent in the tomb.

Therefore, reading Matthew 12:40 really threw the spanner into the works. Three nights? With a statement like this, the traditional Friday Crucifixion simply did not make sense. Then to add to this, other than Jonah's biography, there is no duplicate verse in the entire Bible. Neither Mark, Luke, or John had recorded what Jesus himself has said on that occasion, and John even hinted that when Jesus appeared to Pilate, it was before the Passover was eaten (John 18:28) - while Matthew, for example, narrates Jesus instructing his disciples to prepare a place where they can eat the Passover (Matthew 26:17-19.) Then again, Paul refers Jesus as the Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7)  - which indicates that John had got it right, since if Jesus was the Passover Lamb, then he must have died within the same hour as all the Passover lambs were slain across Israel, which was after his verdict and sentencing from Pilate, not before. Then again poor Matthew seemed to have gotten confused with the prophets. It was Zechariah, and not Jeremiah, who foretold about the thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 27:9-10 with Zechariah 11:12-13.) Then not to let Mark off the hook, he narrates that Jesus was already on the cross by nine in the morning (Mark 15:25 - the third hour)- while John has Jesus still standing before Pilate by midday (John 19:13-14 -the sixth hour.) With so many spanners thrown into what would have been a harmonious fourfold story, little wonder the atheists rub their hands with glee!

But I have read elsewhere that it was highly unlikely that Jesus was already at the cross by nine in the morning, if the trial before Pilate had also involved a trip across the city to be tried by Herod, then sent back to Pilate, which was recorded only by Luke. Unless nobody ever slept throughout the night during Roman times, the idea of him already on the cross that early in the morning looked very unlikely. Unless what Mark was trying to say was that the process which led to his crucifixion began about nine, which if true, would have coincided more with John's account.

So all these irregularities within the four Gospels, including a statement which would have made a Friday crucifixion impossible, are all somehow covered and made smooth by tradition, mainly from the Roman Catholic Church. This has made me wonder why the Catholic Church had never allowed the laity, or the non-clergy public, to read the Bible until after the Reformation. And in many Catholic countries to this day, the Bible is not available to the public as it is here in the UK, in America and other English-speaking countries. So to sum up, I have accepted a Thursday crucifixion, even if based on a short, one-off statement made by Jesus himself. But if Matthew had made a mistake in this quotation as well, then the Gospels would be so unreliable, that my own faith, with no proper rock to rest upon, would crumble. Then I wonder why all the secular academics are having such a field day.

But as I accept the idea of a Thursday crucifixion (even the present names of the seven days of the week were unknown by Jews at that time) if this was to make the Gospel narrative feasible. According to this theory, Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, which meant that Thursday late afternoon was counted as the first day, as there was no zero in ancient Jewish numeracy. Then Friday was the second day, with Saturday the third day. The three nights, as the Jews would have calculated, would have been the early hours of Friday morning, then Saturday morning, and finally Sunday morning, with Jesus coming back to life and the stone rolled back before daybreak on that Sunday, therefore ruling out the possibility of a fourth day in the tomb.

Tradition. There seems to be something incredibly powerful with tradition. Not only had it dominated the Roman Catholic Church for the last 1,600 years, but the whole of human history since the dawn of mankind, with Hinduism, Animism, and even Buddhism being good examples of long-term tradition. It can be so strong and binding that even modern day Evangelical believers would not question the current tradition, even if the Bible questions some aspects of it. Let's face it - the tradition of a Friday crucifixion was started by the Catholic Church in its early years of its inception. And the Good Friday tradition has endured the centuries, and passed unscathed through the Reformation, and believed on by the vast majority of churches to this day.

But I suppose none of us can live without one form of tradition or another. After all, who would deprive their children of the excitement of receiving presents for Christmas, or in this case, the treat of a chocolate egg one Sunday of the year.

Or more important, the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine to commemorate the breaking of the body and the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ for an atonement for our sins. After all, isn't this what's Easter all about?

"Easter Again!" Says the Atheist.

Easter to me is more than seeing off the end of a cold, miserable winter, and seeing and feeling the weather become warmer, the days become longer, and the sun floating higher in the sky rather than briefly hugging the horizon. It is more than putting away the heavy coat, thick woollen jumpers and wellington boots for the next six months or so. Spring brings promises of warmer days, milder nights and the mental images of barbecues on the beach, swimming in the sea, hiking through glorious nature trails and being out in natural surroundings at its best, with the sun beating down as I pull out a bottle of sun lotion from the rucksack...

Except of course, that here in the UK, we Brits need to first head for the airport to fly south to some foreign country to experience all these things. At least this year, the UK winter is prolonged, it's bitterly cold as we are about to enter the month of April, and there are still snow flurries drifting through the air. And the only source of heat is the gas central heating system in our home, the thick duvet over our bed and, not forgetting, my weekly walk to the public sauna.

To the atheist, Easter originated from some ancient pagan festival celebrating the start of new life - the budding of tree leaves, the blossoming of flowers, the lambing season and the promise of fairer weather ahead - and attributed to some god or deity without the scientific knowledge that the two Poles of the Earth are lopsided by some 23 degrees, and as the planet swings around the Sun on its orbit, its tilt being the cause of the seasons.

Little wonder, that deprived of this scientific truth, the ancients worshipped some deity, with the Sun being reborn each day, seen by them as a deity riding across the sky in a fiery chariot.

 

 

Therefore what the ancients believed fuels the atheist's opinion of the ridiculous. But unfortunately, this applies to the Christian faith as well. As a matter of fact, the Christian faith has become the target for the sceptical arrows above all other faiths. Only today I was reading in the Daily Mail newspaper an essay about the decline of the Christian faith in Britain, based on Archbishop Carey's criticism of the Government's endorsement for our faith to be obliterated by the secularists, the latter being the end result of the writings of such authors as Simon Cowel and Richard Dawkins.

For me, of course, the Easter weekend is all about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, which makes Easter the most important holiday of the whole year, more so than Christmas (although the retail outlets may not agree on this.) I firmly believe in the historicity of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah who died on the cross to atone for our sins. Indeed, this is tremendous news - about the God whose love for us is strong enough to put his Son through such agonising suffering. Furthermore, God had given me the wonderful privilege to spend time in the Holy Land, a total of 23 weeks in five separate visits spanning 24 years, with my last visit together with my wife Alex in the year 2000.

Orthodox Jews ushering the Sabbath, 1993

Visiting the Holy Land had brought the Bible to life in such a way that one has to be there for the experience. Back in 1993 for example, and as a lone backpacker back then, I felt my emotions deepen as I stood just outside the forecourt of the Western Wall on a Friday evening, and watching Orthodox Jews celebrate the ushering in of their Sabbath, on a Friday evening during and after sunset, as with the Hebrew clock, the new day always begins at sunset. To me it was Friday, to them, Saturday. Then as I walked the next day through the deserted streets of West Jerusalem, the area of city occupied by Jews, not a car was to be seen, let alone buses and trucks, and every shop closed, along with offices and every private and Government institution. The whole city being empty of life certainly looked as if the whole of mankind was obliterated, leaving the planet's population of zero (or just one - myself.) It was an extraordinary experience, yet a testimony of the truthfulness of the Bible.  And yet, believe it or not, shortly after sunset Saturday, the whole city was alive and bustling like any Saturday afternoon here in the UK. It also seemed strange to me that Sunday was a normal working day right across Israel and the West Bank alike, yet still attended a church service while the shops were busy trading alongside.

Modern Israel is a testimony of the Bible's truthfulness. But as a Christian, I somehow feel apologetic to the atheist about my firm belief and conviction of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for one, calls the God of the Old Testament the most savage and cruel, infanticidal bully he had ever known. It would be natural for any Christian to wonder how anyone could address God in such a manner. Yet how would I feel or re-act if Dawkins approached me, aware of his excellent knowledge of the Bible?

Take, for example, Numbers 16. From verses 27 through to 34, there is a narrative of the destruction of the families of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. It was these three men who sinned against the Lord although their wives and adult sons most likely co-operated and gave their blessings. But in verse 27 there were mentioned of "little ones" - most likely their grandchildren. Dawkins can argue that these were far too young to understand any implication of their transgression, yet perished screaming with the rest of the family by pure divine justice.

Another striking example of infanticide can be found in 1 Samuel 15:3 where God through Samuel, instructs King Saul to annihilate the whole of the Amalekite nation, not just adult men and women but also children, infants and sucklings too, along with all their livestock. Although King Saul did sin in sparing the livestock, he did obey the Lord in slaying every human being - including infants and sucklings.

Dawkins would have the perfect right to ask me where is the justification in such innocent infants to be slain. He would ask, how was it possible for such children to be slain for the sins their ancestors had committed against Israel? All they were concerned were for their mother's maternal love and comfort and to be breastfed. What does the suckling know about some transgression committed by some great grandfather? It is like saying that both my wife, daughters and myself be punished for the crimes of the Crusaders committed 900 years ago, who happen to be my Mum's ancestors. How would I answer Dawkins?

Then American atheist Sam Harris takes up the issue in questioning the validity of the Bible being God's word by calling into question the measurements of the huge circular bath, or sea, constructed by King Solomon to be set up by the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2.) Both narratives gives the measurements as ten cubits from rim to rim and thirty cubits in circumference. To Harris, this was the most crudest approximation for PI as it could have ever gotten, a strange thing for Almighty God to give through his inspired writer. Even the ancient Babylonians, a thousand years before Solomon, had a far more accurate approximation for PI than what the Bible allows, according to Harris.

Indeed, Harris would be right. Ten cubits times PI would give a result of over 31.4 cubits, nearly one and a half cubits more than what the Bible had given. But if you look carefully at the above pic, (I know it's rather small - there is little I can do about this) - you will notice a recess just below the rim. If this recess was four inches deep, then the diameter would have been eight inches less than the actual rim. Considering that the measurement would be made much easier if taken at the recess than from the rim itself, assuming that one cubit was 18 inches, this would have given a circumference a tad over 540 inches, or almost exactly thirty cubits. The Bible wasn't too far out after all.

I perhaps can give a plausible answer to Harris on the approximation of PI, but in the New Testament there are issues that would have thrown me back, even to this day. For example, Matthew quotes a prophecy which he says that it was from Jeremiah, but it is actually from Zechariah (Matthew 27:9-10 with Zechariah 11:12-13.) If Matthew wasn't able to check his resources properly, then how could this piece of Scripture be inspired of God? So Harris also asks. True enough, Jeremiah did buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-9, also 19:1) which might have given enough inspiration for Matthew to quote, nevertheless, the actual quote was from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.

Then there seems to be a disagreement between Mark's and John's accounts on the timing of the crucifixion, an issue which bothers me to this day. Mark has Jesus being nailed on the cross by nine in the morning (15:25) while John has Jesus still before Pilate by noon (19:14) when Pilate cries out, "Behold your king!" According to John, by noon Jesus was still with Pilate, while Luke, like Mark, has Jesus not only on the cross by noon, but also the start of the darkness which was to last three hours, i.e. until three in the afternoon. Luke also recorded the meeting of Jesus with Herod. Even if Herod was in Jerusalem at the time, if Jesus was already on the cross by nine in the morning, then his meeting with Herod must have been brief indeed. Atheists by the likes of Dawkins would have a field day. Given credit that the Sanhedrin had delivered the Lord to Pilate as early as six in the morning, with an hour spent with Herod, both quite plausible, it does not solve the discrepancy between Mark's and John's accounts.

I'll be honest here: If Dawkins, Harris or for that matter, Cowel, confronts me with these issues, I must admit that I'll be at a loss on how to answer them. For me, these are serious issues on which my faith in Christ rests upon. In fact, the Bible is the sole authority on which the whole of the credibility of the Christian faith rests. Our salvation depends on it.

In my blog, Good Friday? I'm Confused, written two years ago, I dealt on when Jesus was crucified, and I advocated a Thursday Crucifixion, based on one sole verse, found in Matthew 12:40. It was Jesus' own saying, tying his duration of his burial to that of the prophet Jonas, who was in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights. At the Good Friday service, one of the Elders mentioned in his sermon that in two days time we would be back here (in the church building) to celebrate his resurrection. Two days from Friday. In Hebrew numeracy, there is no zero. Therefore Friday itself would have been counted as day one, Saturday as day two, and Sunday as day three, even if the day began at sundown Saturday, giving a complete first twelve hours of Sunday for Jesus to remain entombed. But even with no zero in Hebrew counting, this does not add up to three nights as well, as there would have been only Friday night and Saturday night (or Saturday morning and Sunday morning, both before sunrise.) A Thursday crucifixion makes better sense, but this does not only go against the grain of my church at Ascot, but the whole of Christian tradition. Another area where the atheist would have had his day.

But also in the Bible there is much to credit for its inspiration. Just read Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 along with Zechariah 9:9 and others. There was no way that these writers imagined the future from their standpoint without divine inspiration. Despite some difficult bits, the Bible is still trustworthy and the Holy Word of God. And because of it we can trust the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation and celebrate Easter as well.

Happy Easter to you all.

*******************************************************************************

Any comments shedding light to the issues mentioned above would be most welcome. True, I have a modification system set up, but this is to keep out advertisers (e.g. Click on this link to see my great product etc.) and it's is not to discourage discussion. God bless.