Having very recently completed a post about the Garden of Eden, I can’t resist the urge to talk briefly about what is, in my view, the central theological importance of Adam. Eve, too, but she’s sort of out of the context of my title.
I had planned for years to write about the location of the Garden. The rest of that previous article was kind of new to my thinking. I am out of step with much of Evangelical Christian tradition with respect to the first two chapters of Genesis but, though I am leaning toward Adam and Eve as a second “crop” of humans, created much later than the Genesis 1 humans, I consider that their literal existence in history is unquestionable, as is their role in salvation history.
Dr. John H. Walton, who I introduced to my readers in the previous post, suggests two key indicators he uses for determining when a Bible character with no historical provenance is most likely literal, rather than a literary device to convey an important lesson, as in a parable, for example. First, if the Scriptures present a genealogy of descendants, then the character is probably real. Second, if the character’s existence is itself essential to establish a theological or exegetical proof, then the character had better be real or your belief system needs to be reexamined. Adam and Eve meet both of those criteria for me.
Obviously, there is a long genealogy, which incidentally fits very well with key dates in history if you accept the long lives attributed to the earliest descendants.
A Genealogy of Adam and Eve, opbm.net.
The Theological Proof
But more importantly, there is a vital soteriological link between Adam and Jesus.
We hear over and over about the temptation of Adam, but the temptation of Jesus is, in my opinion, the most underappreciated and neglected event in the Bible. The Garden is where humanity stumbled. The Wilderness is where Jesus established His credentials to pick us up again.
Adam
In Genesis 3, we’re all familiar with the Temptation:
4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. — Genesis 3:4-6 (ESV) emphasis added
The first three underlines above, most of you will recognize, are the three common classes of temptation. In order, “the lust of the flesh”, “the lust of the eyes”, and “the pride of life” as enumerated by John:
[16] For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. — 1 John 2:16 (KJV)
I also underlined the phrase pointing out that it wasn’t just Eve being tempted. Adam was with her. The discussion was between Eve and the Serpent (נָחָשׁnâchâsh, a snake, from its hiss), but Adam was the senior human present, so I’m sure Eve glanced at him for confirmation before she reached out for the fruit. In the garden as in the military and industry, the buck stops at the top.
So, with the disobedience of one man, Adam, humankind following gained the propensity, and likely the capacity, to deliberately choose rebellion against God.
This is off topic, so it’s free of charge: Contrary to what many believe, I don’t think the “sin nature” is genetic. I think it is imprinted within the human spirit, the incorporeal part of a human. Jesus wasn’t without sin because He had no human father. He was without sin because He had a God nature alongside His human nature. He had no human father because His miraculous conception was a vital demonstration of His uniqueness.
Jesus
In order to qualify as a “the Second Adam”, Jesus had to succeed where the First Adam failed.
Jesus’ temptations almost certainly took place on one day—on Yom Kippur, Tishri 10, AD 26. This was on the final day of the Days of Awe, culminating the annual 40-day period during which Jews around the world fasted, prayed and abstained from Marriage and all other happy events as they considered their sins of the past year. On this day, the same tempter and the same temptations came to Jesus in the wilderness and in Jerusalem.
The lust of the flesh:
3 The Adversary said to him, “If you are the Son of God, order this stone to become bread.” 4 Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” — Luke 4:3-4 (CJB)
The lust of the eyes:
5 The Adversary took him up, showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world, 6 and said to him, “I will give you all this power and glory. It has been handed over to me, and I can give it to whomever I choose. 7 So if you will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Worship ADONAI your God and serve him only.’” — Luke 4:5-8 (CJB)
The pride of life:
[9] Then he [the devil] took him to Yerushalayim, set him on the highest point [Greek pterugion, literally, a “wing” or “turret”] of the Temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, jump from here! [10] For the Tanakh [Old Testament] says [Psalm 91:11–12],
‘He will order his angels to be responsible for you and to protect you. [11] They will support you with their hands, so that you will not hurt your feet on the stones.’”
[12] Yeshua [Jesus] answered him, “It also says, ‘Do not put ADONAI your God to the test.’” [13] When the Adversary [Greek diabolos, literally, “accuser”] had ended all his testings, he let him alone until an opportune time. —Luke 4:9–13 (CJB)
Matthew presents a different order for the temptation, which is not a problem because chronological order was not strictly important in the literature of the day. I’m certain that “pride” was last in real time, as listed by Luke. Why? Because pride is the deadliest of sins, and because this temptation put Him where failure would have been witnessed by thousands of Jews…
On the Pinnacle of the Temple, on Yom Kippur, the one day when the Plaza below the Temple Mount, the Ophel, and the City of David would be packed with visitors. If Satan, “the Serpent of Old”, had succeeded with this final temptation, all would have seen Jesus’ rescue, and His ministry would have been over with before it started.
Conclusion
All the major events of Jesus’ life, starting with His birth, were tied to the important Feast days. It was no accident that He chose to kick off His earthly ministry with the people He came to save by joining them during the Feast dedicated to prayer and repentance. Everything He did during the 40 days was designed to demonstrate to them and to us that He was, Himself, a righteous Jew and endorsed by the Holy Spirit.
Could His mission have been accomplished without the contrast of a literal Adam in a literal Garden? Well, He’s God, so of course He could, but my observation is that God delights in symmetry and order as well as poetry and symbolism. A metaphorical Adam would not reduce my faith, but I am confident that Genesis 2 and 3 record historical events.
Aside from inevitable passing references here and in future posts, I think I’m finally done with banging a drum over Genesis 1. I view verse 1 as the definitive, all-important statement by God that He is the uncreated, everlasting creator of all that exists.(see Gen 1:2 through 2:3), I think, are a polemic against the pervasive pagan claims of the surrounding cultures and of the Israelites, who at the time of writing were migrating from one pagan enclave (Egypt) to another (Canaan). In this post, I want to Move on to chapter 2, verses 4 and following.
I absolutely believe that the Garden of Eden was a real place, Adam and Eve were two real people, and even though there are some language issues to deal with, the story related is real and vital, and the time frame geologically recent, i.e., 6,000 (Ussher) to 10,000 (Whitcomb, if the genealogies skip some generations) years ago.
The first order of business is to tell you where I think the Garden was.
Most commentators seem to favor one of two general regions for the Garden: either northern or southern Mesopotamia, though proposals exist for locations surrounding the Arabian subcontinent and in eastern Africa. I’ve seen one suggestion that Eden lies at the bottom of the Red Sea, and another that puts it in the Indian Ocean.
Some proposed locations for Eden, per Babylon Rising.
Northern Mesopotamian versions tend to favor Eastern Turkey/Armenia, since (a) there is a perception that Shinar is in that area, based on Genesis 11:2 (ESV): “And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there”; and (b) the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate in that general vicinity.
Possible Mesopotamian locations, per Blue Letter Bible.
Personally, I have favored a southern Iraq location for years, since obtaining a copy of an unpublished book titled, simply, Eden, by a late pastor named David J. Gibson, who understood that rivers don’t divide flowing downstream as described in Genesis 2:10 (ESV), “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.” Gibson suggested, and I agree with him, that this verse should be interpreted from the perspective of an observer within the Garden gazing out at four rivers converging as they entered the Garden.
This is awkward language for us, but not necessarily for Moses in antiquity, writing in Hebrew. Consider that in Genesis 2:8 (ESV), “the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east”. This implies to me that the four rivers converged in the western part of Eden before flowing through the Garden, which was planted in the eastern part.
This makes sense, and from a hydrodynamics standpoint, it is the only interpretation that makes sense. Tributaries converge, they don’t diverge. If, for some reason, a river splits to flow around an obstruction or a sandbar, it will always come back together downstream nearby. If, for some reason, it splits to flow down two or more separate drainage basins, an unstable pattern results. One path will erode more quickly than the other(s), and eventually that path will “steal” all the flow from the other(s).
The only exception from that rule is the case of delta flow, but deltas aren’t formed by erosion, they’re formed by deposition of silt carried downstream in the water. As a river flows onto a plain and slows down, turbulence decreases, and silt falls out of suspension and stays more or less where it drops. Without sufficient turbulence to pick it up again, there is just enough energy available to keep the channels open.
Large deltas usually form at the mouth of a river where water leaving the delta’s channels flows into the sea or a lake. Sometimes deltas form inland, usually where a mountain stream empties onto a plain. The water from an inland delta will either evaporate, sink into the substrate, or collect into a single stream or a lake. Two examples are shown below.
The Inner Niger Delta, in Mali, is a wetland that floods during the rainy season in the Guinean Highlands, to the southwest. The delta formed where the topography flattens for 250 miles before spilling downwards again to the east.The Okavango Delta is formed by seasonal flooding form the Angola Highlands, where the Okavango River course flattens and slows in Botswana. Unlike the Inner Niger, this delta has no outlet.Pishon ? The deltaic terminal of Wadi Al-Batin. From Ali Al-Dousari on Researchgate
Genesis 2:10 would make total sense if the four “rivers” were delta channels, but the naming of those four rivers in verses 11–14 belies that possibility. Indeed, in my opinion the naming of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers conclusively fixes the location of the Garden in southern Iraq.
What about the other two rivers named?
The Pishon is fairly well defined because verse 11 says that it “flowed around the whole land of Havilah.” Havilah was a son of Cush who settled in what today is northwest Arabia. 1 Samuel 15:7 (ESV) defines that location: “And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt.” “Flowed around” could be literal (I found a map showing the Pishon as an ocean current flowing counterclockwise around the entire Arabian subcontinent), but more likely it simply means that it flowed through and provided water for Havilah. Gibson equated the Pishon with Arabia’s Wadi Al-Batin, an ancient and now-dry river and delta system flowing northeast through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to the Tigris/Euphrates valley. I think he was right.
Gihon? Karun River, Wikipedia
As for the Gihon River that “flowed around the whole land of Cush” (verse 13), I would equate that with the Karun River, flowing out of Iran, through the ancient land of the Elamites.
I think that Christian commentators are thrown off by an assumption that “Cush” refers only to the region around Ethiopia and Somalia. My view is that Cush (a son of Ham) and his descendants settled large regions of Asia, as well as the upper Nile area. They apparently mixed with the Canaanites in the Lavant, and Nimrod, a son of Cush, was described in Genesis 10 as “9a mighty hunter before ADONAI. … 10His kingdom began with Bavel, Erekh, Akkad and Kalneh, in the land of Shin‘ar.” These abodes of Nimrod are all lands of southern Mesopotamia. Nimrod was, I’m convinced, none other than Sargon of Akkad, the world’s first great emperor. Elam and Asshur were Semites, but Cush may have extended into the Steppes alongside Shem (see Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe, 2023, by Douglas Petrovich).
It’s admittedly a stretch, but I have wondered if perhaps the ancient Kushan Empire, spanning the central Asian “stans” might have gotten its name from Cush/Kush. If so, then the influence of Cush stretched all the way to the Xiongnu tribe, north of the Yellow River, because the peoples who started the Kushan Empire, centered around Afghanistan, where refugees from the Xiongnu.
Putting all this together, I think that the following map states the case for Eden in southern Iraq:
What about the placing of Shinar in Turkey? I agree with the predominant view that Shinar is the area once occupied by Sumer, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It’s not hard to explain away migration “from the east.” I suspect that waters from the Great Flood took years to retreat from low-lying areas, so descendants of Noah returning to their homeland in Shinar would have initially moved southeast along the spine of the Zagros Mountains. Saying that Shinar is west of Ararat because they entered from the east is analogous to assuming I live west of my church because I (sometimes) approach it from the west. The full story on that is that I live to the southeast and occasionally take a circuitous route along the freeway.
Post-flood migrations from Ararat to Shinar. From Google Earth. Annotations by Ron Thompson.
The creation passage and the Garden passage are separated by verse 2:4 (see below).
There seem to be contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as traditionally understood. Because I believe Scripture is inerrant, but tradition is not, I inevitably try to let the former inform the latter.
Here are the relevant passages that I wish to discuss now:
[11] And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. [12] The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. …
[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
—Genesis 1:11–13,26–29 (ESV)
and
[4b] …in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. [5] When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, [6] and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— [7] then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. [8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. [9] And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. …
[15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. …
[18] Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” [19] Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. [20] The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. [21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. [22] And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. [23] Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
—Genesis 2:4b–9,15,18–23 (ESV)
Almost all conservative Evangelicals believe that Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and Eve: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” But Scripture never actually states that these are Adam and Eve!
I have suggested in past posts that Christians should be willing to consider alternatives where erroneous understandings might exist in uninspired translations and interpretations, but not in inspired autographs(the original manuscripts as prepared by the human authors). When comparing these passages, we must account for apparent contradictions and ambiguities.
John H. Walton, a conservative Old Testament scholar with Moody Bible Institute and later with Wheaton College, has proposed alternative understandings of these passages, suggesting that chapter 1 describes one human creation event, and chapter 2 a separate creation of just Adam and Eve. He bases this idea on several observations, including:
There are obvious contradictions in the reported order of the creation events (see below).
The descriptions of each category of creation in chapter 1, including humankind, gives the impression that a significant population of every species were created. Creation of just 2 humans in Genesis 1 would be a breaking of the pattern.
Verse 4 is a “toledah” (Hebrew for “generations”), which is a fragment of Scripture used to separate two “chapters”, or thematic passages, of Genesis.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. —Genesis 2:4 (ESV)
Walton presents the following table to show how other toledoth (plural) relate to material preceding and following them:
— Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2017.
In the table, all of the cases marked as “sequel” separate events in the past from events in the future.
The three labeled “recursive” indicate cases where one individual or family is followed, then the timeline is reset to follow another. In these cases, there may be chronological overlap, but no detail added to the first.
In the single case labeled “parallel/sequel” Cain is followed, then the timeline reset to Adam; then a toledah introduces parallel coverage of Seth.
There is no precedent in the ten cases enumerated for a toledah introducing an expanded account of the same thing previously covered. This is not definitive proof, but it is suggestive.
First, “creation” in verse 27 is the Hebrew word בָּרָא (bara‘, which means ex nihilo creation, or creation from nothing at all). In contrast, the Genesis 2 description is יָצַר (yatsar, which means to form something specifically by molding some constituent material into a shape, i.e., as a potter forming something in clay). The potter imagery is consistent with forming Adam “of dust from the ground”. “Dust”, here is Hebrew עָפָר, (‘afar), meaning things like “dry soil”, “loose earth”, “rubble”, or even “ashes”. None of these is clay, and none of them alone can be worked by a potter, but the intended image is of the detritus of death. More likely, it simply refers to the familiar elements on the periodic table, pasted by God into organic molecules.
Second, and more telling, we appear to have a serious contradiction regarding the creation of beasts of the field and birds of the heavens.
The sequence as written in Genesis 2 is (a) God formed Adam and gave him life; (b) God planted a garden on the east side of Eden; (c) God placed Adam in that garden; (d) God caused plants to grow from the ground; (e) God gave Adam his mission statement; (g) from the ground, God “formed” (yatsar) the land and air creatures; (h) Adam named the creatures; and finally (i) God formed Eve from Adam’s rib.
The serious contradiction here is that:
in chapter 1, air creatures are created on day 5 and land creatures on day 6, both of these prior to the creation of man on day 6.
In chapter 2, Adam (though not Eve) was created on or after day 6 while both the air and land creatures were created later.
The ESV translation above follows NIV in trying to resolve the problem by hedging on the language in 2:19. I can’t find any support for “Now the LORD God had formed“. This translation certainly does leave room for saying, “Oh, this isn’t where he forms them, that was already done.” But the correct translation seems to be “And out of the ground the LORD God formed.” Almost every translation words it this way, and even ESV includes that as a footnote. NIV is notorious for paraphrasing Scripture to make it say what they think it should say. I take this passage to mean that God formed new animals in the garden in addition to those that existed—possibly just new individuals, not new species.
I don’t see a clear, fair, and decisive path to resolving this contradiction.
On the other hand, if Genesis 2 is subsequent to Genesis 1 rather than a retelling, the garden theoretically becomes sacred space—a prototype tabernacle—and Adam’s race a priesthood.
While the concept that Adam and Eve’s creation at a time when earth was already populated by humans may be startling, it answers more questions than it raises. It gives Cain a wife without requiring biologically harmful incest. It reveals who it was who Cain thought might kill him. It answers the question, where did all the people come from to populate the city that Cain founded.
By the way, what was that city? Depending on how you define the term, it may have been Uruk, shown on the map above with the four rivers of Eden. Uruk was founded about 6,000 years ago, which fits very nicely with the picture I’m painting here.
You may say, “But the Bible teaches we’re all descended from Adam!” Yes, it does, and since Noah was descended from Adam, and we’re descended from Noah, then where’s the problem? The other humans all perished in the Flood.
Are we also descended from the pre-Garden people? I don’t know. Perhaps no pre-Garden genes were in the chromosomes of Noah or Mrs. Noah. But would it have mattered if there was some mixing? I don’t think it matters if Noah had non-Adamic genes mixed in, any more than it matters that Jesus had genes not contributed by Judah or King David. Mitochondrial DNA shows that all humans today have a common “mother” and Y-chromosomal analysis shows a common “father”, but both of those are way too late to have been Mr. or Mrs. Noah’s. Due to the nature of genetic inheritance, it will never be possible to trace back that far.
The Genesis 1 creation, whether it was Adam or not, was created in the image of God. They, too, were righteous or sinful, saved or unsaved. The difference is that they had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, so they were presumably innocent in the same way as Adam and Eve before the fall.
But wait! you say. That means that they were immortal! No, it doesn’t. Were Adam and Eve immortal before the fall? I think “you will surely die” is talking about spiritual death, not physical. Maybe they were immortal, but if so, why was there a Tree of Life in the Garden?
Was death even possible, theologically, before the fall? That’s way too big a subject to take on here, in this post. I’ll eventually write about it. It’s a key question, since part of the reason some Christians shun fossil evidence is that they think it’s a violation of Scripture for animals to have died pre-fall. Obviously, I believe death was possible before the fall, but I owe you some analysis to justify my belief.
Then, there’s the biggest question of all. I’ve been telling you that the 7-day creation story is a polemic and not literally true as written. What about Adam and Eve, and the Garden? Well, that’s a whole ‘nother story. From Genesis 2 on out, there is way too much specificity for me to doubt. I mean, we have the begats, for crying out loud, and they are way too believable to dismiss.
I want to address just a few issues here that may seem confusing.
On the day that the LORD God made earth and heavens, no shrub of the field being yet on the earth and no plant of the field yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused rain to fall on the earth and there was no human to till the soil, and wetness would well from the earth to water all the surface of the soil… —Genesis 2:4b–6 (Alter)
The first phrase above, ending “made earth and heavens”, bookends the Genesis 1 story, which begins with “In the beginning … heavens and earth”. That makes it more likely that the phrase is part of the toledah, packaging the entire process—”the day that the LORD God made the earth and heavens.” Most of you take this “day” as seven literal 24-hour days—I take it to mean the entire 13.8-billion-year period from the Big Bang to the formation of Adam.
The term “LORD God” here is the Hebrew “YHVH Elohim“, the first occurrence in Scripture of God’s covenant name.
In 2:5 we are told that, before God created Adam or planted the Garden, there was as yet no “brush of the field”, i.e., no wild vegetation, in the land (the Garden). Paleontology suggests that Homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, but for most of that time they were strictly hunter-gatherers. Agriculture doesn’t appear until around 10,000 years ago, and it didn’t predominate until around 6,000 years ago. Domestication of livestock began during that same period. Given some flexibility in dating by means of Biblical genealogies, it is entirely realistic to date Genesis 2 somewhere in that 6-to-10,000-year time frame, and thus to consider that Genesis 2:5 implies that both herding (hunting) and farming (gathering) were inaugurated in the Garden.
If you think I’m about to say that the resurrection is a myth, forget it! The resurrection of Jesus is central to my life and theology. I’d have no reason to exist without it. This is about “other stuff.”
Myth: The resurrection occurred on Easter Sunday
This won’t come as a shock. We all know that Easter is a Christian commemoration of the event, not a celebration of the exact day of the year. But why do we do it that way? In the early centuries of Christianity, many churches in the Roman Empire began to object to celebration on the traditional date, considering it to be a “humiliating subjection to the Synagogue.” During the 2nd Century, many of those churches had begun celebrating Easter on a Sunday, regardless of the Biblical calendar. For a clue to the mindset, there’s this ancient text: “Sunday commemorates the resurrection of the lord, the victory over the Jews.” (Emphasis mine)
In AD 325, Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to discuss two major issues in the church. One of those was “the Passover Controversy”, the disagreement between churches that commemorated the resurrection on the Jewish feast day and those that did not. Constantine’s view, of course, won out. He wrote,
It seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches! Having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds.
It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord’s passion even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. … In pursuing this course with a unanimous consent, let us withdraw ourselves, my much honored brethren, from that most odious fellowship. … [I urge you] to use every means, that the purity of your minds may not be affected by a conformity in any thing with the customs of the vilest of mankind. … As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord.
The date for Jewish celebration of the Passover season Feasts is tied by Divine Ordinance to specific dates on the Hebrew calendar (see Leviticus 23). Non-Jews are released from such ordinances, so I don’t care on what day we celebrate the Resurrection. But you should be aware that the name, “Easter”, and most of the secular traditions tied to the holiday are pagan in origin, and that the Nicene Council separated it from Passover for blatantly anti-Semitic reasons.
Myth: The crucifixion occurred on Passover, Nisan 14
Well, yes and no. The crucifixion happened on Nisan 15, after the sacrifices and after the official Passover as specified in Torah. It became customary, even within the pages of the New Testament, to refer to the three spring feasts together as “Passover.” Technically, Passover is just the short period of twilight between Nisan 14 and 15, on the Jewish calendar (see Part 2 of this series). Immediately after this interval, the 7-day Feast of Unleavened Bread begins—on Nisan 15. And in the middle of this 7-day period, there is the Feast of Early Firstfruits. Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover Seder. That meal always begins during that twilight period, true Passover, and ends around midnight on Nisan 15, when celebrants adjourn to the streets and rooftops to sing the Hallel Psalms together. The crucifixion, therefore, occurred on Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Myth: Jesus died at the very instant that the High Priest plunged his knife into the heart of the Passover Lamb
I’ve heard this one even from Ray Vander Laan, a man I consider to be an expert on Israel and its customs, in his series of videos for Focus on the Family. But it’s wrong on so many levels! First, the sacrifices occurred during the day before the Seder, on Nisan 14; the crucifixion was the next day, Nisan 15. Second, there wasn’t just one lamb; there was a lamb for approximately every ten people celebrating. Perhaps 100,000 lambs, killed over a period of hours! Which one are they talking about? Third, the High Priest killed only his own lamb, and that much earlier in the day, before the Temple gates were opened. All the other lambs had to be killed by their owners, not by a priest. Fourth, each lamb was killed by a quick slash of its throat, as specified by scripture. A knife to its heart would be considered cruelty, and in the context of the Feast, could get one stoned. Sometimes, the melodrama in the pulpit is just crazy!
Myth: The crucifixion actually took place on a Wednesday
For two thousand years, most Biblical historians and scholars have held to a Friday crucifixion. More recently, though, many evangelicals have begun to teach that Jesus died on a Wednesday or Thursday. At the heart of this matter is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12:39–40:
But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. —Matthew 12:39–40 ESV
For some reason, it’s hard for some folks to see how you can find three nights between Friday and Sunday! I’m going to present the actual timeline (below, but see also the first chart, above), as I see it, and then I’ll explain several important concepts:
As most Biblically educated people know, prophets often used the word “day” (Heb. yom) to indicate a long or indeterminate period of time, rather than a literal 24-hour solar day. The key to understanding the timing issue here lies in Hebrew idiom—figures of speech. Where there was a likelihood of confusion, ancient Hebrew writers used terms like “three days and three nights” and “the evening and the morning were the first day” to emphasize that true solar days or portions of literal days were in view, not a longer prophetic period of time.
In the Matthew 12 passage quoted above, Jesus was prophesying. Many of His listeners believed in a coming resurrection of the dead in the acharit hyamim, or end times, so it was necessary for Him to emphasize that He was speaking of something that He would personally experience, and that it would be of short duration. Paraphrased, He was saying, “In a little while, I’m outta’ here, but I’ll be back before you know it, on the third calendar day.”
In both spoken and written Hebrew, references to literal solar “days” or “days and nights” did not necessarily imply that complete 24-hour periods were meant. “Three days and three nights” meant “some part of one solar day, all of a second, and some part of a third.” On the first line of the second timeline chart above, “Day 1” was Friday. Recall that Jewish days last from evening twilight until the subsequent evening twilight (see the third chart, below). Jesus died around 3 PM and was entombed before twilight, so at most He was dead only around three hours on this day. He remained in the tomb all through the night and day of Saturday, “Day 2”. His resurrection was sometime on Sunday morning, “Day 3”, before His tomb was found open. The total period was thus composed of a little more than one full period of daylight and at most two full periods of dark. “Three days and three nights” by traditional Hebrew reckoning.
Many conservatives refuse to believe this non-literal interpretation of Jesus’ words and insist on exactly 72 hours, but the hermeneutic employed by me and many conservative, Evangelical scholars allows for a non-literal (but not random!) interpretation of various obvious (to those who understand Hebrew literary techniques) figures of speech.
Many well-meant attempts to rescue the Friday crucifixion tradition resort to various forms of Greek linguistic gymnastics, trying to prove that “in the heart of the earth” doesn’t really mean buried, but could, for example, mean the period from Jesus’ betrayal to His resurrection. I urge caution in using Greek to understand Hebrew concepts. Hebrew idiom does not always translate well into Greek.
Each Jewish day begins at nightfall and lasts until the following sundown. The twilight period between any two days technically does not belong exclusively to either day, or in another sense, it can be viewed as belonging to both days. The Seder supper always begins during this twilight period between Nisan 14 and Nisan 15 (see Lev 23:5). Note that the lambs are sacrificed on Nisan 14, before the Seder and thus before, not during, the traditional weeklong Feast of Passover.
Every Sabbath is preceded by a Day of Preparation, when meals are prepared, candles lit, and other chores performed that are unlawful on the Sabbath itself. Many arguments against a Friday crucifixion focus on misunderstandings of John 19:31 and its parallels:
Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. —John 19:31 ESV
The argument is that Friday was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so it could not have been the previous day of preparation. It is true that the first and last days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread are important Sabbaths. But in Jewish custom, the regular weekly Sabbath that occurs during the Passover week is the most important of all the 7th-day Sabbaths.
So, in that particular year, there was a Feast Day Sabbath on Friday and a weekly Sabbath the following day, on Saturday. Confusion arises because many non-Jewish scholars believe, incorrectly, that it was unlawful to ever cook or make other preparations on any Sabbath. In fact, Jewish law makes an exception when two successive days are Sabbaths. Preparations for each are permissible on the preceding day, whether or not it, too, is a Sabbath.
Some confusion also arises due to a failure to recognize that the “First day of unleavened bread” is one day prior to the first day of the Feast by that name.
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” —Luke 22:7–8 ESV
On Nisan 14, the day of the sacrifices, all hametz (leaven) must be removed or destroyed so that none at all is present during the entire week of the Feast.
Another verse that leads to confusion about the timing is John 18:28:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. —John 18:28 ESV
To most, this seems to imply that Jesus’ trial and crucifixion came on the day before the Seder, implying that the Last Supper was something entirely different. Not so—the Last Supper was a traditional Passover Seder. Any ritual defilement caused by entering Pilate’s presence would only last until sundown, so it would have no effect on eating the Seder meal. But it isn’t talking about the Seder. Instead, this refers to the chagigah (festival sacrifice) which was eaten with much celebration and joy in the afternoon following the Seder.
You may ask how the Wednesday crucifixion proponents manage to get “three days and three nights” out of a Wednesday to Sunday entombment. Mostly, there are two schools of thought. Some actually place the resurrection on Saturday and justify this by misinterpreting the passages about the women at the tomb. Others say that while Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, he was not placed in the tomb until evening, which would be early Thursday on the Jewish calendar. In that case, a resurrection early Sunday (on our Saturday evening) would meet the requirement.
A less prevalent theory is that the crucifixion was on Thursday. I believe that there are severe problems reconciling Sabbaths, preparation days, and calendar days if this approach is taken, but I will not cover it here.
Myth: By dying on Passover, Jesus became our Passover Lamb
I touched on this above. I suspect that the vast majority of Christian theologians would say that, at the very least, it is foundational that Jesus died on the same day as the Passover lamb or lambs, because He had to be seen as the fulfillment of the prophetic purposes of the Feast. If that were the case, then I ask why His throat wasn’t slit inside the Temple precincts and His blood splashed on the altar as required by Torah? How is it permissible that He died in a completely different manner, nailed to a Roman cross way over on the other side of the Tyropoeon Valley?
Sheep grazing near Jerusalem. Source unknown.
My contention is that Jesus did not die on the same day or the same time as “the Passover Lamb”, of which there were many thousands. In fact, I think that it was theologically necessary that Jesus did not die on the same day or in the same way as the Passover lamb! Had He done so, would He not have linked Himself prophetically to that sacrifice alone, to the exclusion of all others? The truth is that Jesus was the prophetic fulfillment of all of the sacrifices! And in terms of Soteriology, Passover is less important by far than, say, Yom Kippur!
Myth: As our Passover Lamb, Jesus brought salvation to the world
In a word, no! But didn’t Yochanan the Immerser—John the Baptizer—tell his followers to “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29)? And what about Paul, who called Him “Christ, our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7). Those are accurately reported sayings but mind the context! John was urging immersion as part of a ritual of repentance, connected, I’m sure, to the onset of the extended Days of Awe on that very day and extending to Yom Kippur, 40 days in the future. He was making no claim to offer salvation! Instead, he was pointing to the Messiah, often referred to in Scripture as “the Lamb of God”, or just “the Lamb.” Jesus didn’t die until some 3½ years later. And Paul was not talking about salvation at all, but rather separation of the Corinthian Church from the “leaven of sin.”
Yes, Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins, but His sacrifice encompassed and surpassed all of the daily and seasonal sacrifices, not just the Passover lamb.
The Passover sacrifice was not even a sin offering! It was a type of fellowship offering. Sin offerings could not be consumed by the people, but they were required to eat their Passover sacrifice to symbolize their freedom from the bondage of sin and the resulting right to sup at God’s table, in fellowship with Him.
The Yom Kippur sacrifices were far more to the point of salvation, but even sin offerings only deal with incidental sin—not deliberate, malicious, God-defying sin. There was only one hope for that. Not a specific blood sacrifice, but simply the Grace of God, as symbolized at Yom Kippur by the Scapegoat, which wasn’t even killed! (Well, it was, but not as part of the ceremony; it was driven over a cliff in the wilderness so that it couldn’t come wandering back to town with the sins of the people.)
It was, then, as a goat—the Scapegoat—that “the Lamb of God” took away the sin of the world!
Myth: Peter accidentally cut off Malchus’ ear while taking a wild swing with his sword in an effort to protect Jesus
(Note: I have expanded on this subject in a separate post, Malchus’ Ear.)
The following quote from the Complete Jewish Bible, my personal favorite translation, sets the stage:
Then Shim‘on Kefa [Simon Peter], who had a sword, drew it and struck the slave of the cohen hagadol [high priest], cutting off his right ear; the slave’s name was Melekh [Malchus]. —John 18:10 CJB
Short sword similar to what Peter would have used to maim Malchus.
First, it is unlikely that Peter was carrying a military sword that night after the Seder. Neither he, nor Malchus, was a soldier. Peter was a fisherman by trade and would be accustomed to carrying a knife for tending nets and lines, and for gutting fish. The Greek term here is machaira, which was probably a double-edged knife or dirk, a shorter version of a sword design that had been introduced into Israel by the Phoenician Sea Peoples. Nor do I think Peter was a trained fighter. We know he was impetuous, but was he an idiot? Did he think he could mow down a band of trained Roman soldiers and Temple guards? Was he distraught and attempting to commit “suicide by Roman soldier”? I think that if he had attempted a frontal assault in Jesus’ protection, he would have been reflexively cut to pieces before he drew a drop of blood, and quite likely the slaughter would have extended to the other apostles present, as well.
What I think really happened was that Peter took advantage of the soldiers’ preoccupation with Jesus, slipped around behind Malchus—his intended target—and deliberately sliced off his ear. Why Malchus? Because Malchus was the High Priest’s servant and right-hand man. The High Priest was probably not present, and Malchus was presiding. At any rate, harming the High Priest, had he been there, would have resulted in quick execution. By taking Malchus out, Peter would be insulting and effectively crippling the High Priest and, to some extent, the Sanhedrin. But then, why an ear, of all things? Because Peter wasn’t a killer, and taking an ear did the job! Priests, Levites and all other Temple officials were required to be more or less physically perfect. With a missing ear, he would be considered deformed and unfit for Temple service.
Today I learned that David H. Stern, PhD died late last year, at the age of 87. I’ve never met Dr. Stern, but between his books and his English translation, The Complete Jewish Bible, with a commentary on the New Testament, he, more than anyone else, influenced my interest in Jewish life and culture and the Jewish foundations of Christianity. He was born, educated and married in America, but as a devout Messianic Jew, he emigrated to Israel in 1979.
Dr. David H. and Martha Stern, courtesy All Israel News.
Life isn’t always easy for Messianic Jews in Israel. They are regarded by both secular and ultraorthodox Israeli Jews as “missionaries”, a term used in scorn, and are often denied Israeli citizenship. At the same time, I have known many non-Jewish Christians around the world, particularly those in Reformed denominations, to strenuously object to non-assimilated Jews, and to resist any recognition of the debt Christianity owes to its Jewish origins. And given the argumentative nature of many religious, ethnic Jews, I’m sure that even they could be a challenge to Dr. Stern. Many years ago, I had lunch at a Shoney’s Restaurant in Shawnee, Kansas, with Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus. Not to be too hard on a great man, but Rabbi Rosen was intensely critical of Dr. Stern, for reasons that I could not and still do not at all agree with.
Rest in peace, Dr. Stern. נוח על משכבך בשלום דוקטור שטרן
The Back of My Mind 