The Christian Passover [GTM]

• Previous | Next | Directory

A-W

By Carl Franklin

Appendix

Genesis 1:3-5

Genesis 1 describes the re-creation of the earth after Lucifer’s rebellion and warfare: “In the beginning God elõh-heem' ⁴³⁰] created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was [had become] without form and void [desolate and waste], and darkness [covering the entire earth] was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided between the light and the darkness” (Gen. 1: 1-4).

The Scriptural account makes it clear that God was looking down upon the earth at the boundary line of light and darkness. From a specific point above the face of the earth, God “... saw the light [that now shone upon the portion of the earth facing the sun], that it was good; and God divided between the light [shining upon half the earth] and the darkness [that covered the other half]. And God called the light day yohm ³¹¹⁷], and He called the darkness night [Hebrew lah'-yil ³⁹¹⁵]. And the evening geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³] and the morning bõh'-ker ¹²⁴²] were day one” (Gen. 1:4).

God Himself defined the lighted surface of the earth as day and the darkened surface as night. The word lah'-yil, which literally means “a twisting away from light,” reveals that God created the cycle of day and night by setting the earth in rotation. As the earth began turning, the sun began to rise on one side of its surface while at the same time the sun was setting on the opposite side. Thus God instantaneously created both day and night. It is by the perpetual turning of the earth on its axis that the cycle of day and night was begun and has continued for thousands of years.

When God set the earth in rotation, He did not choose to begin marking time with the rising of the sun at the first dawn. Rather, He chose to begin counting from the first sunset, so that the evening of the day preceded the morning: “And the evening geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³, sunset] and the morning bõh'-ker ¹²⁴², sunrise] were day one” (Gen. 1:5).

That the first day began with the setting of the sun is confirmed by an analysis of this verse in the Hebrew text. As Owens shows, the Hebrew verb that is translated “were” in Genesis 1:5 is a Qal verb in the imperfective form (Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). The imperfective form reveals “an aspect (Aspeki) in which a situation is understood as ongoing, whatever its temporal relation to the time of speaking (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 691).

Waltke continues with a quote from Comrie explaining the significance of the imperfective: “Another way of explaining the difference between perfective and imperfective meaning is to say that the perfective [completed time] looks at the situation from outside, without necessarily distinguishing any of the internal structure of the situation, whereas the imperfective looks at the situation from inside, and as such is crucially concerned with the internal structure of the situation, since it can look backwards towards the start of the situation, and look forwards to the end of the situation, and indeed is equally appropriate if the situation is one that lasts through all time, without any beginning and without any end” (Ibid., p. 476, emphasis added).

The Hebrew imperfective is used in Genesis 1:5 to reveal the internal structure of a twenty-four hour day. This verse identifies four specific parts in the day: “Day” (yohm), “Night” (lah'-yil), “evening” (geh'rev), and “morning” (boh'-ker). Is there any indication in the Hebrew text as to the order of these four constituent units? Yes, there is. The use of the consecutive waw, translated “and,” not only defines the limits of each day, but also reveals the sequence of time elements within each day: “And the evening and the morning were day one.” The divine pattern for every day of every week is: sunset, darkness, sunrise, and daylight.

Verse 5 of Genesis 1 states: “And God called the light day, and He called the darkness night.” Some have interpreted the fact that “day” is listed first as evidence that day precedes night. However, the structure of the Hebrew text shows that the action of naming the night was completed before God named the day. The Hebrew verb that is translated “called” is imperfective in the first clause (showing ongoing action) but is perfective (showing completed action) in the second clause. The use of the perfective form in the second clause confirms that the night had already been named when God named the day.

God called the light “day” (yohm); He did not call the light “morning” (boh'ker). God called the darkness “night” (lay'-yil); He did not call the darkness “evening” (geh'rev). Yet many believe that “morning” (boh'-ker) is naming the daylight portion of the day, and “evening” (geh'rev) is naming the darkness of night.

The King James translation of verse 5 seems to justify the claim that “evening” (geh'rev) is synonymous with “night”, and “morning” (boh'-ker) is synonymous with “day” (yohm). In this translation, the verb “were” is renaming “evening” and “morning” as the first day, thus making it appear that evening/night and morning/day are synonymous terms. But this is not the meaning of the Hebrew text. Notice Owens’ literal translation of the Hebrew text:

The English verb “was” is translated from the Hebrew hãy-yãh' ^1961.Hãy-yãh' is a Qal stem in the imperfective form and is used here in a consecution of tenses; i.e., leading clauses are prefaced with a consecutive waw.

In its context in Genesis 1:5, hãy-yãh' ¹⁹⁶¹ has the fundamental meaning “to come into being, become” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament). Hãy-yãh' ¹⁹⁶¹ is used twice in this verse, with the nouns “evening” geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³) and “morning” bõh'-ker ¹²⁴²). Hãy-yãh' ¹⁹⁶¹ represents these two subjects as the agents of the action by answering the questions, “What is happening to the evening?” and, “What is happening to the morning?” Hãy-yãh' answers these questions by responding, “The evening is coming into being,” and, “The morning is coming into being.”

The fact that hãy-yãh' ¹⁹⁶¹ is a Qal stem in the imperfective form, and that it is used in a consecution of similar tenses, shows that it is describing a sequence of events. Thus Owens translates this verse:

Fox’s translation shows the precise meaning of geh'rev and bõh'-ker:

Fox adds the following footnote:

When we understand the true meaning of Genesis 1:5 as revealed in the Hebrew text, it is clear that the terms “evening” and “morning” are not renaming “night” and “day.” These terms are not synonymous but are identifying four distinct units of time in the daily cycle that God set in motion at the Creation: evening-night-morning-day, or, more specifically, sunsetdarkness- sunrise-daylight.

Appendix B

Genesis 2:2

Genesis 2:2 states, “And by the beginning of the seventh day God finished His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”

The first part of this verse makes it appear that God did not end His work until the seventh day had begun. However, this translation is not based on the authentic wording of the Hebrew text. The evidence shows that the ordinal number that is used in the first part of this verse was altered by tampering with the text. The verse originally stated that God ended His work on the sixth day. George Ricker Berry footnotes this fact and correctly translates this passage: “And on the sixth day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (A Hebrew/English Interlinear of Genesis and Exodus).

Appendix C

Genesis 8:11

“And the dove came to him in the evening, and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off. So Noah knew that the waters had gone down from off the face of the earth.”

Some claim that the phrase “in the evening” is referring to the afternoon hours of the day. However, the Hebrew text does not support this interpretation. The phrase “in the evening” is composed of three Hebrew words: the preposition lamed, the noun gehth ⁶²⁵⁶, and the noun geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³ (erev).

Lamed is a preposition that is used thousands of times in the Hebrew text. Its basic senses are spatial. Waltke points to its basic meaning by writing, “The preposition may mark location in or at a point.... With verbs of motion  [lamed] marks the object of the motion toward (allative...) and of motion to (terminative...). The temporal uses of  include a sense like the simple locational (in, at, or during a period of time...) and a sense like the terminative (to, by, until, or after a period of time...)” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 205-206).

The preposition lamed is used in a temporal sense in Genesis 8:11 to mark a location in time, and is best rendered “at” in this verse. Lamed is used in construct with the Hebrew noun gehth ⁶²⁵⁶, which means “time.” In Genesis 8:11, gehth should be rendered “the time of,” as it is in Genesis 24:11. The Hebrew noun geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³ (erev) means “sunset,” and is defined accordingly by Brown, Driver and Briggs, who render the phrase in Genesis 8:11 “at lamed] the time of gehth ⁶²⁵⁶] sunset geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³]” (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 787, emphasis added).

The phrase “in the evening” (Hebrew lamed gehth geh'rev) in Genesis 8:11 is correctly interpreted as the end of the day at sunset. Thus this verse offers no support for the claim that the Hebrew word geh'rev (erev) refers to the afternoon of the day.

Appendix D

Exodus 12:6

“And you shall keep it up until gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴j the beginning of the fourteenth day of the same month. And [Hebrew waw] the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the two evenings bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³]

The actual meaning of the Hebrew waw in this context is equivalent to our English “when,” as Owens has correctly translated it in his Analytical Key to the Old Testament. The Hebrew text views the two clauses joined by waw (“ye shall keep it...” and “the whole assembly...shall kill it...”) as a coordinated unit, presenting two aspects of the sacrifice as simultaneous action— i.e., the lamb is to be kept until the fourteenth of Nisan and is to be slain at that time.

This timing is indisputable when we understand the use of the Qal verb in the Hebrew text. The Qal answers the question implicit to this narrative: “When is Israel to kill the lamb?” The answer is: “They are to keep it up until the fourteenth, when (waw) they are to kill it.” The structure of the Hebrew text shows that these two aspects of the Passover are one and the same.

The key to understanding the commanded time for slaying the lambs is the word “until.” The word “until” is translated from the Hebrew preposition gad ^5704. Like other Hebrew prepositions, gad has both spatial (location) and temporal (time) sense. “The basic sense of the preposition [gad] is allative (movement toward) - terminative (movement up to)” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 215).

The use of the preposition gad expresses movement toward Nisan 14. However, this movement does not extend into the fourteenth day, as the movement is terminated when Nisan 14 begins: “...until gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴, “up to”] the fourteenth day.” To place bēhn hã arbayim in the afternoon of the day forces an extension of eighteen hours (noon reckoning) to twenty-one hours (3 PM reckoning) into Nisan 14. This definition of bēhn hã arbayim violates the basic sense of gad and ignores the rules of Hebrew syntax.

The temporal sense of gad marks time up to the beginning of Nisan 14 at sunset, at which time the event governed by the verb must immediately take place. In this context, the event which was to take place at the beginning of Nisan 14—immediately after sunset—was the killing of the lambs during bēhn hã arbayim. To place even one hour of time between the beginning of Nisan 14 and the killing of the lambs violates the temporal sense of gad as defined by Hebrew syntax.

The use of the preposition gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴ in Exodus 12:6 is conclusive evidence that the killing of the lambs took place immediately after sunset at the beginning of the fourteenth day.

Appendix E

Exodus 12:11

“And this is the way you shall eat it; with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in trepidation (KJV, haste) b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹]. It is the LORD’S Passover.”

Some have misinterpreted the phrase “in haste” as indicating that the Passover was eaten on the same night as the Exodus. The Hebrew text does not support this interpretation of Exodus 12:11.

The word “haste” (Hebrew 'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹) is found only three times in the entirety of the Old Testament. In each case, it is used with the preposition b or beer (different pronunciations of the same preposition).

“...and ye shall eat it in haste b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹]: it is the LORD’S passover” (Ex. 12:l1, KJV).

“…for you came forth out of the land of Egypt in haste b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹]” (Deut. 16:3).

“For you shall not go out with haste beer ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹], nor go by flight...” (Isa. 52:12).

The preposition b or beer may be used in a spatial sense (location or movement), a temporal sense (actual time or simultaneous time), or a circumstantial sense (physical circumstances or mental circumstances). (See Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 196-197.)

In Isaiah 52:12, the preposition beer is used in a circumstantial sense. The circumstances: Israel is not to go out “with haste beer 'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹]”; i.e., in a state of alarm. Israel will go out peacefully, as the holy arm of the Lord protects her. The meaning of hurried movement, or “flight,” does not apply to 'ghip-pãh-zõhn' in this verse, as that meaning is expressed in the word m'noo-sãh': “nor go by flight m'noo-sãh' ⁴⁴⁹⁹].” The word “nor” that precedes m'noo-sãh' shows that it does not share the same meaning as 'ghip-pãh-zõhn'.

In his Analytical Key to the Old Testament, Owens translates this verse as follows:

The preposition b is also used in a circumstantial sense in Deuteronomy 16:3. The circumstances: Israel came out of Egypt in a state of trepidation b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' ²⁶⁴⁹). B'ghip-pãh-zõhn' is not used in this verse to express hurried movement, or “flight,” but rather to convey the state of mind in which Israel left Egypt. Thus Fox translates this verse:

This translation of b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' also applies to Exodus 12:11. In Exodus 12:11, the preposition b cannot be interpreted in a spatial sense, indicating location or movement, as the verb “eat” is not a verb of movement. Israel was not eating “on the run.” Nor does b convey a temporal sense, indicating actual time in, at or when. It would be incorrect to translate the prepositional phrase b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' as “in a time of haste,” or “at a time of haste,” or “when a time of haste came.”

As in other occurrences in the Old Testament, b is used in Exodus 12:11 in its circumstantial sense to indicate the state of mind of the children of Israel on that night of great danger: “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. And I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD” (Exodus 12:12).

God passed through Egypt on the Passover night, slaying all her firstborn. Hearing the screams and wails of the Egyptians all around them, the children of Israel ate the Passover in a mental state of dread and trepidation, as expressed by the circumstantial sense of b'ghip-pãh-zõhn'. This fearful state of mind was a natural reaction to the death and terror that surrounded their houses during the Passover meal.

It is misleading to translate b'ghip-pãh-zõhn' as “in haste.” The children of Israel did not eat the Passover “in haste” but in a state of trepidation. Although they were prepared for travel, with staff in hand and sandals on their feet, they did not leave their houses immediately after eating the Passover. God had forbidden them to leave their houses until the morning (Hebrew boqer, meaning “dawn”). They remained in their houses all night, fully clothed and ready to leave as soon as the sun had risen.

Appendix F

Exodus 12:18

“In the first month, on bãh] the fourteenth day of the month at sunset (KJV even) bãh geh' rev ⁶¹⁵³], you shall eat unleavened bread, until gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴] the twenty-first day of the month at sunset (KJV even) bah geh 'rev ⁶¹⁵³].”

The phrase “on the fourteenth day of the month at even” is designating the end of the 14th day at sunset (bah geh'rev, or ba erev). The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins at sunset ending Nisan 14 and continues until sunset ending the 21st day of the month.

It is erroneous to equate the phrase “ON the fourteenth day of the month at even” in this verse with the command in Exodus 12:6 to keep the Passover lamb “UNTIL the fourteenth day” and slay it “in the evening.” The words “until” and “on” are translated from two different Hebrew prepositions and do not have the same meaning at all. In addition, the words “in the evening” in Exodus 12:6 are translated from bēhn hã arbayim, whereas in Exodus 12:18 the words “at even” are translated from bah geh'rev, or ba erev. Although arbayim is a form of the noun erev, and is accordingly listed under the same reference number, the two phrases are not synonymous. Bah geh'rev, or ba erev, is properly rendered “at sunset,” whereas behn ha arbayim is literally translated “between the two evenings,” or “between the setting-times,” and denotes the time between sunset and dark. (See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.)

The command in Exodus 12:6 specifies that the Passover lamb be kept “UNTIL the fourteenth day,” designating the beginning of the l4th day. On the other hand, the command in Exodus 12:18 specifies that unleavened bread be eaten “ON the fourteenth day of the month at sunset (KJV even),” designating the beginning of the 15th day. The only parallel that exists in these two verses is in the second command in Exodus 12:18, which specifies that unleavened bread be eaten “UNTIL the twenty-first day of the month at sunset (KJV even).” As in Exodus 12:6. the word “until” is translated from the Hebrew preposition gad, which denotes movement toward a specific point in time, and only up to that point (Waltke, p. 215). “Until” in Exodus 12:6 does not extend past the beginning of Nisan 14, nor does “until” in Exodus 12:18 extend past the beginning of Nisan 22.

Appendix G

Exodus 16:1-2

“And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came into the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai. And on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt, then the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.”

This translation makes it appear that Israel arrived at the wilderness of Sin while the 15th day was in progress. The Hebrew text, however, does not support the assertion that Israel traveled on the 15th day. The presence of a major logical pause between the verb “came” and the words “on the fifteenth day” verifies this fact. This logical pause is denoted by the use of the atnah, which resembles an upside-down “v,” under the Hebrew word for “Sinai” (See Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia).

The atnah and other accents are essential to understanding the thoughts that are being conveyed in the Hebrew text. These accent marks are all part of a system that “punctuates the text and is therefore a very important feature in its syntactic analysis.... This feature of Hebrew grammar is so important for understanding that medieval Jewish sources paid more attention to it than to establishing the correct pronunciation of words” (Waltke, An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 29).

Waltke describes the use of the atnah and other accents to express divisions of thought in the Hebrew text: “Accents in the MT [Masoretic Text] are of two kinds: disjunctives and conjunctives. Disjunctive accents, euphemistically dubbed ‘lords’ by earlier scholars, mark the length of pauses from full stop [complete break in logical thought] to various shades of shorter pauses [partial breaks in logical thought]; conjunctives, dubbed ‘servants,’ control the text up to the disjunctive. According to W. Wickes’s comprehensive study of the accents, the disjunctives mark a continuous ‘dichotomy’ of the verse, that is, they divide larger units [of thought], beginning with the verse itself (marked off by silluq closing the verse), into successively smaller half-units on a syntactic (or logico-syntactic) basis. A unit ending with a disjunctive of one grade is divided into halves, and its halves in turn are divided into smaller units by other disjunctive signs until the whole verse is divided into single words, or groups of words joined by conjunctives. Israel Yeivin groups the major disjunctive accents as follows: ‘Generally atnah divides the verse, zaqef the verse halves, pashta or revia the unit ending with zaqef, and so on’ ” (Ibid., emphasis added).

In translating Exodus 16:1, Owens indicates the presence of the atnah by parsing the Hebrew word for Sinai as “pr.n.paus.” (proper noun pausal). The division of thought that is expressed by the atnah is illustrated in his translation below:

The logical pause in Exodus 16:1 divides the thoughts that follow from the preceding thoughts that are expressed in the verse. The Septuagint, which follows the logical markings of the text very closely, translates this passage as follows: “And they departed from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinea; and on the fifteenth day, in the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt,² a11 the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron.”

The presence of the logical pause in Exodus 16:1 shows that Israel had come to the wilderness of Sin and made camp by the beginning of the fifteenth day. When the fifteenth day arrived, Israel complained to Moses that God had brought them to the desert to die. Thus there is no basis for the claim that Israel was traveling on the l5th day.

Appendix H

Exodus 16:6-7

“And Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, “At sunset (KJV even) geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³], then you shall know that the LORD has brought you out from the land of Egypt. And at sunrise, you shall see the glory of the LORD, for He hears your murmurings against the LORD: And what are we that you murmur against us?”

Some claim that because the preposition ba is not used in Exodus 16:6, geh'rev (erev) does not refer to sunset. But although there is no preposition in the Hebrew text, the translation “at even” is justified by the fact that geh'rev is used as an adverbial expression of time in the accusative case (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament).

Waltke verifies that geh'rev (erev) in Exodus 16:6 is an adverbial expression of time. Waltke translates this passage “In the evening you will know ... and in the morning you will see....” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 538).

Owens parses Exodus 16:6 as follows:

Fox translates Exodus 16:6-7 as follows: “Moshe and Aharon said to all the Children of Israel: At sunset you will know that it is YHWH who brought you out of the land of Egypt; at daybreak you will see the Glory of YHWH: when he hearkens to your grumblings against YHWH—what are we, that you grumble against us?” (The Schocken Bible.)

Fox’s translation expresses the precise meaning of geh'rev in Exodus 16:6, confirming that this Hebrew word is designating the time of sunset.

Appendix I

Leviticus 23:32

“It shall be to you a Sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. In the ninth day of the month at sunset, bãh geh’rev ⁶¹⁵³], from sunset to sunset, you shall keep your Sabbath.”

Some claim that the phrase “in the ninth day of the month (KJV at even)” places bãh geh’rev, or ba erev, during the ninth day, rather than at the end of the day. Based on this interpretation, they teach that the observance of all feast days and weekly Sabbaths should begin at noon or some other hour during the day, rather than at sunset. According to this line of reasoning, the observance of the Passover would begin at noon or shortly after, thus placing bēhn hã arbayim in the afternoon of the day.

This faulty interpretation of Leviticus 23:32 is based entirely on the meaning of the word “in,” which is translated from the Hebrew preposition b. But as Waltke shows, this Hebrew preposition does not necessarily have the same meaning as the English word that was used to translate it: “One must not assume that a Hebrew speaker would have categorized its [a Hebrew preposition’s] meanings according to English equivalents” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 192).

It is a mistake to assume that the Hebrew preposition b is equivalent to the English preposition “in.” Those who make this mistake do not realize that the preposition b is also translated “at” in Leviticus 23:32: “... in b] the ninth day of the month at bãh, variant pronunciation of b] even…” It is proper to translate h into both of these English prepositions: “Used temporally, b may mark an actual time in, at, or when” (Waltke, p. 196). The Hebrew preposition b may also be translated “on,” as in Exodus 12:15 and 16:1.

Because the Hebrew preposition b is much broader in meaning than the English preposition “in,” this English word cannot be used as a standard for interpreting the command in Leviticus 23:32. The specific meaning of b in this command cannot be determined by relying on a dictionary definition of “in,” nor can it be established by a concordance definition of b. As with all Hebrew prepositions, b must be interpreted by the context in which it is used. Waltke warns against using Hebrew prepositions as philological “wild cards;” i.e., assigning definitions to them without regard to the context or the rules of Hebrew syntax (Ibid., p. 190).

Those who attach a specific meaning to the preposition b and use it to interpret the Hebrew text are reasoning backwards. Instead of interpreting the preposition by the context, they are interpreting the context by the preposition. They have used a faulty definition of the preposition b to interpret the meaning of the command in Leviticus 23:32, with complete disregard for the meaning of the Hebrew noun geh'rev, or erev. In using the preposition b to determine the meaning of this Hebrew noun, they have violated the rules of Hebrew syntax. As Waltke shows, the purpose of prepositions is not to define nouns but to show their relationship to verbs. The use of a preposition clarifies the meaning of the text by making the relationship between the verb and the noun being modified (object of the preposition) more precise (Ibid., p. 188).

The use of the preposition b in Leviticus 23:32 clarifies the relationship between the verb “celebrate” and the nouns “day” and “even.” This double use of the preposition b pinpoints the exact time to begin the observance: “... in [b] the ninth day…at [b] even.” The following translation of Leviticus 23:32 is parsed by Owens in his Analytical Key to the Old Testament:

Note that the first use of b (“on”) limits the time to a twenty-four hour period (the ninth day), and the second use of b specifies the exact time during that twenty-four hour period: “beginning at evening.” The word “evening” (geh’rev, or erev) denotes the time of sunset, and is defined accordingly by noted authorities in Biblical Hebrew (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament).

Fox’s translation of Leviticus 23:32 clearly expresses the time that is designated in the Hebrew text: “It is Sabbath, a Sabbath-ceasing for you, you are to afflict yourselves; on the ninth (day) after the New-Moon, at sunset, from sunset to sunset, you are to make-a-ceasing of your ceasing” (The Schocken Bible).

According to the Hebrew text, the observance of the Day of Atonement begins when the 9th of Tishri ends at sunset, and continues until the next sunset, which ends the 10th of Tishri. That is the true interpretation of the command in Leviticus 23:32.

Appendix J

Numbers 9:9-11

“And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘If any man of you or of your generations shall be unclean because of a dead body, or in a journey afar off, he shall still keep the Passover to the LORD. They shall keep it the fourteenth day of the second month between the two evenings (KJV at even) bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³], eating it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Because the Hebrew phrase bēhn hã arbayim literally means “between the two evenings,” some argue that bēhn hã arbayim extends for a full twenty-four hours, from one evening to the next evening. According to this interpretation, bēhn hã arhayim includes the afternoon of the l4th.

This faulty definition of bēhn hã arbayim is based on a literal interpretation of the Hebrew word arbayim  which is the plural form of erev, or ereb, meaning “sunset.” Those who teach this doctrine mistakenly assert that the two evenings represented by arbayim are two literal sunsets beginning and ending the day. They err because they are assuming that the phrase bēhn hã arbayim follows the rules for Hebrew duals.

While it is true that bēhn hã arbayim is dual in its form, it does not conform to the rules of Hebrew duals. In the Hebrew language, the rules for interpreting duals apply only to matching pairs of human and animal parts—i.e., two ears, two eyes, two feet, two hands—or to clothing or other items that are composed of pairs or matching parts, such as a pair of sandals, a pair of trousers, or a pair of scissors. These Hebrew duals are known as “natural pairs” (Waltke, p. 117). Another use of the Hebrew dual is for countable units of time or measurement, such as two days, two years, two cubits, two hundred (Ibid., p. 118).

The phrase bēhn hã arbayim does not fall under either of these types of Hebrew duals. It is neither a dual of natural pairs nor a countable unit of time. To the contrary, it is referred to as a “fanciful dual” because it has the form of the Hebrew dual but does not function as a natural or countable dual (Ibid.).

Because bēhn hã arbayim is a “fanciful dual,” its meaning cannot be determined simply by breaking it down into its components, as some have attempted to do. As a “fanciful dual,” bēhn hã arbayim has meaning beyond the literal sense of its components. (In English, it would be termed an “idiomatic expression.”) Furthermore, its components themselves may vary in meaning, depending on their usage in the Hebrew text.

To illustrate this point, let us examine the use of the preposition bēhn in Nehemiah 5:18: “Now that which was prepared for me daily was one ox and six choice sheep; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in bēhn ⁹⁹⁶] ten days store of all sorts of wine....” Note that the phrase “once in ten days” contains the preposition bēhn. While bēhn is generally translated “between,” it is here translated “in” to show that an event occurred every ten days, or “during the interval often days” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 107).

The use of bēhn in Nehemiah 5:18 illustrates the diversity in the meaning of this word. It cannot be defined independently of the context in which it is used. Likewise, the expression bēhn hã arbayim can only be interpreted by the context in which it is used.

The Hebrew word for noontzoh'harim ⁶⁶⁷², is another “fanciful dual.” Tzoh'harini is literally defined as the “time of the double shadow” (Waltke, p. 118). This Hebrew word is describing the time period when the shortening shadows cast by the rising sun are offset by lengthening shadows cast back toward the east as the sun approaches its apex and continues westward. If tzoh'harim had been literally translated into English as the “time of the double shadow,” we would be in doubt as to its actual meaning as a measure of time. Similarly, to literally translate bēhn hã arbayim as “between the two evenings” leaves room for much conjecture. The actual meaning of both of these Hebrew expressions must be defined by the context in which they are used.

The Hebrew text gives us specific guidelines for interpreting the meaning of bēhn hã arbayim. Its usage in Exodus 12:6 reveals that bēhn hã arbayim begins immediately after sunset at the entering of the day. The preposition gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴ allows no room for any other interpretation. When we understand the structure of the Hebrew text, it is undeniably evident that the arrival of Nisan 14 at sunset marks the beginning of bēhn hã arbayim.

The end of bēhn hã arbayim is also defined by its usage in the Hebrew text and on the established rules of the ancient language. Authorities in early Hebrew culture, Hebrew syntax and the etymology of Hebrew words, as well as other Semitic languages of ancient times, define bēhn hã arbayim as “time between day and night” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 118). This description limits bēhn hã arbayim to the time of twilight, which ends with the coming of darkness.

The literal meaning of bēhn hã arbayim is “time between the two enterings.” Waltke describes these two “enterings” as entering sunset and entering dark (Ibid., p. 200). This definition of the two “evenings” (arbayim) is confirmed by the command for slaying the lambs (Ex. 12:6), which designates the arrival of the 14th as the beginning of bēhn hã arbayim. The whole congregation of Israel was commanded to slay the lambs at this time—immediately after sunset—not any time of their choosing during the next twenty-four hours.

There is no basis in the Hebrew text for the claim that bēhn hã arbayim extends through the entire day, from sunset to sunset. The ordinances of God required not only the killing of the lambs but the entire Passover observance to be completed before the night of Nisan 14 ended (Ex. 12:6, 8, 10, 12-13). And if, as some erroneously claim, bēhn hã arbayim did not end until the coming of dawn, this reasoning would still not allow an extension of bēhn hã arbayim into the afternoon.

Appendix K

Numbers 9:11

“They shall keep gãh-sãh’ ⁶²¹³] it the fourteenth day of the second month between the two evenings (KJV, at even) bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³], eating ãh-chãl’ ³⁹⁸] it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”

Some have interpreted the Passover commands in this verse as evidence that the lambs were to be both killed and eaten during bēhn hã arbayim. Because it was not possible to complete the roasting and eating of the Passover lambs during the brief period of twilight, they claim that bēhn hã arbayim extends into the dark hours after twilight, and may include the entire night.

Is there any Scriptural basis for this claim? A literal translation of the Passover instructions in Numbers 9:11 will help to clarify the meaning of the Hebrew text:

In this literal translation of Numbers 9:11, there is no “and” linking the two commands because there is no waw in the Hebrew text. (See Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1.) The fact that no conjunction is used in the Hebrew text indicates that there is no connection between the first command and the second command.

The separate nature of the two commands is substantiated not only by the absence of the waw but also by the verb form that is used in the Hebrew text. The English expression “they shall keep it” is translated from two words, the masculine plural verb gah-sah’ ⁶²¹³ translated “they shall keep,” and the direct object ãh-ghaz’ ^270, translated “it.” Gãh-sãh’ is a Qal verb stem in the imperfective form. Waltke quotes Comrie’s description of the Hebrew imperfective: “…the imperfective looks at the situation from inside, and as such is crucially concerned with the internal structure of the situation…” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 476). The imperfective form views the Passover from the inside, giving us a step-by-step view of its events. The sacrificing of the lambs is one event, and the eating of the Passover meal is another event. These two events are separate and distinct.

The Hebrew text does not link the eating of the Passover with bēhn hã arbayim. In the Masoretic text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the command to eat the Passover is designated as a separate command by the use of the atnah, a mark that looks like an upside-down “v.” The atnah is one of many accent marks that are used to logically divide the thoughts that are being expressed in the Hebrew text: “Accents in the MT [Masoretic Text] are of two kinds: disjunctives and conjunctives. Disjunctive accents, euphemistically dubbed ‘lords’ by earlier scholars, mark the length of pauses from full stop [complete break in logical thought] to various shades of shorter pauses [partial breaks in logical thought]; conjunctives, dubbed ‘servants,’ control the text up to the disjunctive. According to W. Wickes’s comprehensive study of the accents, the disjunctives mark a continuous ‘dichotomy’ of the verse, that is, they divide larger units [of thought], beginning with the verse itself (marked off by silluq closing the verse), into successively smaller half-units on a syntactic (or logico-syntactic) basis. A unit ending with a disjunctive of one grade is divided into halves, and its halves in turn are divided into smaller units by other disjunctive signs until the whole verse is divided into single words, or groups of words joined by conjunctives. Israel Yeivin groups the major disjunctive accents as follows: ‘Generally atnah divides the verse, zaqef the verse halves, pashla or revia the unit ending with zaqef and so on’” (Waltke, p. 29, emphasis added).

The atnah and other accents are essential to understanding the thoughts that are being conveyed in the Hebrew text. These accent marks are all part of a system that “...punctuates the text and is therefore a very important feature in its syntactic analysis.... This feature of Hebrew grammar is so important for understanding that medieval Jewish sources paid more attention to it than to establishing the correct pronunciation of words” (Ibid.).

The purpose of the atnah, or athnah, is to indicate the end of one complete thought and the beginning of another. The presence of the atnah between the two Passover commands in Numbers 9: 11 is conclusive evidence of the separate nature of these commands. Below is a literal translation of Numbers 9:11 showing the division that is signified by the atnah:

“...between the evenings bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³] they shall prepare gãh-sãh’ ⁶²¹³] it

[atnah]

“with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat ãhchãl’ ³⁹⁸] it.”

The placement of the atnah between the two commands separates the eating of the Passover from the sacrificing of the lambs at bēhn hã arbayim. The only event linked to bēhn hã arbayim in the Hebrew text is the killing of the lambs. Fox’s translation uses a semicolon to express this break in thought: “...in the second New-Moon, on the fourteenth day, between the setting-times bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³], he is to sacrifice [Hebrew gãh-sãh’ ⁶²¹³] it; together with matza (and) bitter-herbs they are to eat [Hebrew ãh-chãl’] it” (The Schocken Bible).

The Hebrew text does not support the claim that the children of Israel were required to roast and eat the Passover lambs during bēhn hã arbayim. Thus the Passover commands in Numbers 9 in no way contradict the Scriptural definition of bēhn hã arbayim as a very short period of time bounded by sunset on one side and total darkness on the other. The definition of bēhn hã arbayim as the twilight period of the day is fully substantiated by the Hebrew text.

Appendix L

Numbers 28:4

“The one lamb you shall offer at sunrise (KJV, in the morning), and the other lamb you shall offer between the two evenings (KJV, at even) bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³]

Many have assumed that this verse is listing the morning and evening sacrifices in the order in which they were to be offered each day. Based on this assumption, they conclude that the evening sacrifice—which was to be offered at bēhn hã arbayim—had to be offered before the day ended at sunset. This interpretation of Numbers 28:4 places bēhn hã arbayim in the afternoon of the day.

An analysis of Numbers 28:4 in the Hebrew text exposes the error in this interpretation. The structure of the Hebrew text reveals that the two sacrifices are not listed in the order in which they took place during each twenty-four hour day (from sunset to sunset). The Hebrew waw (translated “and”) between the two sacrifices does not express a consecutive order of events. This fact is made clear by the rules that govern the use of the waw in the Hebrew text.

The Hebrew waw is classified according to its purpose and function in the Hebrew text. A waw which indicates a temporal sequence of events (based on time order) or a non-temporal sequence of events (based on logical order) is known as a relative or consecutive waw. A waw which indicates linkage between events is known as a copulative waw. This linkage (copulation) may express:

—two aspects of the same setting;

—contrast between two events in the same setting;

—simple coordination of two events in a setting; or,

—a disjunction of events (out of chronological order).

A waw that is used to indicate a disjunction of events is known as a disjunctive waw. We know that the waw used in Numbers 28:4 is disjunctive (that is, it does NOT indicate sequential order) because:

When we understand the structure of the Hebrew text, there is no question that the “and” in Numbers 28:4 is a disjunctive waw. According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, because the waw (“and”) in Numbers 28:4 is disjunctive, it signals that the evening sacrifice is being named out of chronological order. As a disjunctive waw, the “and” in Numbers 28:4 does not express the daily sequence of the morning and evening sacrifices. Although the morning sacrifice is named in the first clause, the disjunctive waw’ that introduces the second clause shows that the evening sacrifice is being named out of chronological sequence. All clauses that are introduced by a disjunctive waw are out of sequence: “…the second clause may be in various relations, all non-sequential, with the first” (Ibid., emphasis added).

Based on the rules of Hebrew syntax, the second clause in Numbers 28:4, “...and the other lamb you shall offer between the two evenings [bēhn hã arbayim],” is NOT sequentially linked with the first clause, “The one lamb you shall offer at sunrise [Hebrew böh’-ker ¹²⁴²].” Thus this verse does not support the claim that bēhn hã arbayim occurs in the afternoon.

Appendix M

Numbers 33:3

“And they set out from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month. On the next day (KJV morrow) after the Passover day, the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.”

Those who teach that the Passover lambs were eaten on the night of Nisan 15 claim that the word “morrow” in Numbers 33:3 means “morning,” and that the Exodus did not begin until sunrise on Nisan 15. Is this a legitimate interpretation of Numbers 33:3? An examination of this verse in the Hebrew text will reveal the answer to this question.

The words “on the morrow after” are translated from the Hebrew phrase m moh-'ghorahth ^4283. This phrase is composed of the preposition mn (assimilated as m) and the noun moh-'ghorahth. The preposition mn is used in its temporal sense to express a specific period of time. Thus mn is correctly translated “on” in this phrase. (See Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 212). The noun moh-'ghorahth is defined as “the day following a past day” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 564). Thus Owens translates the phrase m moh-'ghorahth “on the day after the passover” (Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1, emphasis added). This translation accurately conveys that “the morrow after the passover” commenced at sunset ending Nisan 14 and continued to the end of Nisan 15.

The phrase “the morrow after the passover” shows that all Passover events were completed before the beginning of this twenty-four hour day— “the fifteenth day.” As Owens shows, the noun moh-'ghorahth (“the morrow after”) is used in construct with peh'sagh (“passover”). The term “construct” denotes that the noun moh-'ghorahth is being modified by the noun peh'sagh ⁶⁴⁵³ (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 138). The phrase that is formed from these two nouns (“the morrow after the passover”) is known as a “construct chain.” Waltke defines a construct chain as “a phrase involving a construct (regens) term followed by a genitive or absolute (rectum) term, often of a possessed-possessor type, e.g., bet hammelek ‘the kings’ house’ ” (Ibid., p. 690). The term regens (ruler) refers to a modified element, and the term rectum (thing ruled) refers to the modifier (Ibid., p. 137).

The use of the genitive construct in Numbers 33:3 clearly identifies Nisan 15 as the day after the Passover. The structure of the Hebrew text thus separates the observance of the Passover from the events of Nisan 15. There is no Scriptural basis for the claim that the children of Israel ate the Passover on the night of Nisan 15. Those who place the eating of the Passover on the night of Nisan 15 and the departure from Rameses in the morning are contradicting the Scriptural facts. The record that God has preserved in the book of Exodus plainly states that the children of Israel left Egypt during the night: “It is a night to be much observed to the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:42). This record is confirmed in the book of Deuteronomy: “…For in the month of Abib, the LORD your God brought you forth out of Egypt by night” (Deut. 16:1).

It is an outright rejection of the Scriptural facts to claim that the Passover was eaten on the night of Nisan 15. As recorded in Numbers 33:3, the only event that took place on Nisan 15 was the departure of the children of Israel from Rameses.

Appendix N

Deuteronomy 16:6

“But at the place which the LORD your God shall choose to place His name in, there you shall sacrifice the Passover offering at sunset (KJV even), at the going down of the sun, at the time that you came out of Egypt” (Deut. 16:6).

Some view this verse as a command to sacrifice the Passover lambs on the afternoon of the l4th. They interpret the phrase “at the going down of the sun” as the declining of the sun from its high point at noon to its setting at the end of the day, which places the sacrifice in Deuteronomy 16:6 during the afternoon. However, the Hebrew text does not support this interpretation of the command in Deuteronomy 16:6.

An analysis of the Hebrew text will demonstrate that this command does not refer to the slaying of the Passover lambs in the afternoon of the 14th but to a subsequent sacrifice that was offered at the beginning of the l5th. The phrase “at the going down of the sun” in Deuteronomy 16:6 is translated from kaph boh ⁹³⁵ha sheh'mesh ⁸¹²¹ The use of the preposition kaph rules out any possibility that this phrase is referring to the afternoon of Nisan 14.

Unlike other Hebrew prepositions that are commonly used in Scripture, kaph generally “...has no basic spatial [movement] or temporal [time] sense; it describes comparison and correspondence...” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 202). However, kaph does convey a temporal (time) relationship when it is used in the infinitive construct (Ibid., p. 205). An analysis of the phrase “at the going down of the sun” shows that kaph is used in the infinitive construct in Deuteronomy 16:6 (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1).

Because kaph is used in the infinitive construct in this verse, it functions in a temporal sense as a marker of time. Waltke describes the specific use of kaph in its temporal sense: “The temporal use of k [ kaph] is related to its sense either as a marker of approximation (‘about that time’) or of correspondence (‘at the (same) time’)” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 205, emphasis added).

In Deuteronomy 16:6, kaph is clearly used in its temporal sense as a marker of correspondence: “at the going down of the sun.” The phrase “at the going down of the sun” thus refers to a specific time—not to the declining of the sun through the entire afternoon. The use of the preposition kaph in the Hebrew text contradicts the claim that Deuteronomy 16:6 is describing an afternoon sacrifice of the Passover. Notice Fox’s translation of this phrase in Deuteronomy 16:6: “. . .rather, in the place that YHWH your God chooses his name to dwell you are to slaughter the Passover-offering, at setting- time, when the sun comes in, at the appointed-time of your going-out from Egypt” (The Schocken Bible).

The temporal use of kaph in the infinitive construct expresses correspondence in time between the “Passover-offering” and the setting of the sun. A more precise translation would be “at the same time as the going down of the sun.”

The phrase “at even” confirms that the command in Deuteronomy 16:6 is designating a sacrifice at sunset. This phrase is translated from the preposition bãh and the noun geh'rev, which specifically refers to sunset. In this usage, bãh expresses the meaning “at the time of.”

The phrase bãh geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³ (“at even”) is governed by the verb zãh-vagh' ²⁰⁷⁶ (“thou shalt sacrifice”). Zãh-vagh' is a Qal stem in the imperfective form. This verb answers the question implicit to this narrative: “When is all Israel to sacrifice this passover-offering?” Zãh-vagh' answers, “All Israel shall sacrifice the passover-offering at sunset bãh geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³).”

Deuteronomy 16:6 uses an additional phrase to specify the time of this sacrifice: “at the time (KJV season) that you came out of Egypt.” The phrase “at the season” is translated from the noun mõh-gehd' ⁴¹⁵⁰ used in construct (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). The fact that mõh-gehd' is used in “construct” shows that this Hebrew noun is being modified by a word, phrase or clause that follows (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 138-139). In this usage, the modifier is the clause “that you came forth,” which is translated from the Qal verb yãhtzãh' ³³¹⁸, used in the infinitive construct (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). The infinitive construct of the verb may be translated either as a subordinate clause (“that thou camest forth,” KJV) or as a gerund (“of your going-out,” Schocken).

The Hebrew word mõh-gehd', which is translated “seasons” in the King James Version, does not refer to the seasons of the year but to the specific days that God appointed to be observed as His feast days. (See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 417). Thus Fox translates this phrase “at the appointed time of your going-out from Egypt.” This same Hebrew word is used in Leviticus 23:2, where it is translated “feasts.”

The mõh-gehd' or feast of God that is described in Deuteronomy 16:6 is identified as the day of Israel’s “going-out from Egypt.” That day is clearly named in Numbers 33:3 as the 14th of Nisan, on this mõh-gehd', Israel was commanded to offer a special sacrifice to God from either the flock or the herd to commemorate the beginning of the Exodus.

The use of mõh-gehd' in Deuteronomy 16:6 in construct with the clause “that you came out” and in conjunction with the phrase “at the going down of the sun” confirms that the Exodus from Egypt began at sunset. The Hebrew text reveals that Israel was on the march as soon as the sun went down, ending Nisan 14 and beginning Nisan 15. The children of Israel did not sacrifice the lambs on the afternoon of the 14th and eat the Passover meal at the beginning of the 15th as they were leaving Egypt. Thus Deuteronomy 16 offers no support for the belief in the afternoon sacrifice of the Passover lambs.

Appendix O

Joshua 5:10

“And the children of Israel camped in Gilgal, and kept gãhsãh' ⁶²¹³] the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening bãh geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³] in the plains of Jericho.”

Some claim that this verse is describing a Passover at the end of Nisan 14. However, the structure of the text does not support this interpretation of Joshua 5:10. An examination of the context reveals that this verse is in a series of waw-relative verses. Each of these verses is linked to the next by the Hebrew waw, which is translated into the English conjunction “and.” The use of the relative waw at the beginning of each verse shows that the events in these verses are in sequential order. The consecutive chain of events begins with verse 8 of Joshua 5 and continues through verse 15 at the end of the chapter.

Waltke explains the use of relative waw to describe a sequence of events: “Situations described with wayyqtl [relative waw] are mostly temporally or logically succeeding. ‘The most obvious and frequent relation is,’ as S.R. Driver notes, ‘that of simple chronological succession…but of this there is no need to give…examples, as they abound throughout the historical portions of the Old Testament.’ Wayyqtl signifies logical succession where a logical entailment from (a) preceding situation(s)...is expressed” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 547, emphasis added).

As Waltke shows, relative waw may be used to show either chronological or logical succession. In logical succession, relative waw connects two events that are related by circumstances. He gives several examples of logical succession:

“YHWH was with Joseph and so he was prosperous” (Gen. 39:2).

“Because you have rejected the word of YHWH, he has rejected you as king” (I Sam. 15:23).

“He did not kill me in the womb, so that my mother would have become my tomb (Jer. 20: 17)” (Ibid., p. 548).

We can easily see that the element of time is not part of these descriptions. There is no indication as to when these events occurred. Logically linked events do not express chronological sequence but, rather, show a cause-effect relationship between events.

Verses 13 through 15 of Joshua 5 relate events that are linked logically. Although an initial time element is expressed in Verse 13, the wawrelative clauses that follow are all in logical succession; that is, each action is based on the circumstances of the preceding action:

“And it came to pass, when Joshua was beside Jericho [a temporal event], he lifted up his eyes and looked. And, behold, there stood a Man in front of him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, ‘Are You for us or for our foes?’ And He said, ‘No, but I have come as the Commander of the army of the LORD.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth. And he worshiped and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?’ And the Commander of the LORD’S army said to Joshua, ‘Take your shoes off your feet for the place on which you stand is holy.’ And Joshua did so” (Josh. 5:13-15).

The logical succession in verses 13 through 15 of Joshua 5 differs greatly from the chronological succession that is expressed in verses 10 through 12:

“And the children of Israel camped in Gilgal and kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho. And they ate of the old grain of the land on the next day after the Passover, unleavened cakes and roasted new grain in the same day. And the manna stopped on the next day after they had eaten the grain of the land...” (Josh. 5:10-12).

These verses are clearly describing a chronological sequence of events which took place during three consecutive days. The waw that introduces each verse shows that each event was completed before the next event took place.

Verse 10 describes the event that took place during Nisan 14:

“And the children of Israel camped in Gilgal and kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening [a specific unit of time] in the plains of Jericho.” Although the word “and” appears twice in the King James translation, the Hebrew waw is used only at the beginning of this verse. Owens parses Joshua 5:10 as follows:

This translation accurately conveys the meaning of the Hebrew text, which shows that the children of Israel were already encamped at Gilgal when the 14th of Nisan began. The only event that took place on Nisan 14 was the observance of the Passover.

Verse 11 describes the next event, which took place on Nisan 15:

“And they ate of the old grain of the land on the next day after the Passover [a specific unit of time], unleavened cakes and roasted new grain in the same day.”

Verse 12 describes the event that took place on the following day, Nisan 16:

“And the manna stopped on the next day after they had eaten [a specific unit of time] of the grain of the land....”

The events that are recorded in these verses took place during separate and distinct units of time; that is, three separate days. The relative waw that introduces the verses separates the unit of time (day) that is specified in each verse from the next unit of time (day). This use of the waw rules out any link between the events in the first unit of time (Nisan 14) and the events in the second unit of time (Nisan 15). The Hebrew text does not allow any overlapping of events from one day to the next.

The use of the relative waw in Joshua 5:10 places all the Passover events, including the eating of the Passover, “on the fourteenth day of the month.” This fact is further verified by an analysis of the phrase “on the fourteenth” in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew phrase contains three words: the preposition b, the number four ar-bag' ^702, and the number ten gãh-sãhr' ^6240. In this phrase, b is used in its temporal sense, indicating events that occurred on or during the fourteenth day of the month. The entire phrase is modifying the Hebrew verb gãh-sãh' ⁶²¹³ (translated “kept”), which is a Qal stem in the imperfective form. This construction of the text shows that the action is occurring at the time indicated by the preposition b; i.e., Nisan 14.

The Hebrew phrase translated “at evening” also contains three words: the preposition bãh, the definite article (untranslated) and the noun geh'rev ^6153. In this phrase, the preposition bãh is used in a temporal sense to indicate the time of sunset (geh'rev). Because they kept the Passover entirely “on the fourteenth,” it is clear that geh'rev in Joshua 5:10 denotes the sunset beginning the 14th day of the month. Thus the Passover observance in Joshua 5 corresponds perfectly with the Passover command in Exodus 12 to keep the lambs until the arrival of the fourteenth, when they were to be killed. This event was the initial act in the keeping (gah-sah') of the Passover (See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 794-795.)

The Hebrew preposition b is used in both phrases to designate the exact time of the observance. The use of b in the phrase “on the fourteenth day of the month” informs us that all the elements of the Passover were kept (gãh-sãh') within the bounds of the fourteenth. In the following phrase, “at evening,” b informs us that this Passover observance began at the time of sunset (geh'rev), which signaled the arrival of Nisan 14.

The relative waw that begins verse 11 shows that the events in the preceding verse have been completed and a new unit of time is being introduced. Notice: “And they ate of the old grain of the land on the next day after the Passover, unleavened cakes and roasted new grain in the same day.”

The phrase “on the next day” is translated from moh-’ghorahth, which is composed of the Hebrew preposition mn (assimilated as m) and the noun moh-’ghorahth’ ⁴²⁸³ (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). Mn is used in a temporal sense in this phrase to express a specific period of time. Waltke describes the temporal function of the preposition mn: “Temporal uses of mn vary in relation to the beginning point, which may be included (‘from, on, in’, #5) or not (‘after’; #6). Temporal mn can also mark a block of time (‘after’, #7)” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 212).

The preposition mn is used in Joshua 5:11 to describe the eating of the produce of the land “on the next day after [moh-‘ghorahth] the Passover.” The noun moh-‘ghorahth is defined as “the day following a past day” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 564). Thus moh-‘ghorahth includes the entire twenty-four hours of Nisan 15. Although the Israelites continued to eat of the produce after that day, the eating that is recorded in Joshua 5:11 was a special event—it was the first eating of the harvest on the Wave Sheaf Day.

As Owens shows, the noun moh-‘ghorahth’ ⁴²⁸³, translated by the KJV as “the morrow after,” is used in construct (Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). The term “construct” denotes that moh-’ghorahth’ is being modified by a noun phrase, or clause that follows (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew’ Syntax, pp.137-138). In Joshua 5:11, moh- ’ghorahth is modified by the noun peh’sagh ⁶⁴⁵³ (“passover”). Thus the Hebrew text designates “the morrow after” (i.e., Nisan 15) as separate from the observance of the Passover.

The Hebrew text clearly contradicts the claim that the eating of the lambs took place on Nisan 15. The KJV phrase “on the morrow after” does not include any period of time on which the Passover was kept. Every act related to keeping the Passover—including eating the lambs was completed on the preceding day, Nisan 14.

Appendix P

Joshua 8:28-29

“And Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a ruin to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening (KJV eventide). And as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his body down from the tree and throw it down at the entrance to the gate of the city, and raise on it a great heap of stones, still standing to this day.”

Some interpret this verse as evidence that “eventide” occurs before the sun goes down. Based on this assumption, they define the terms “eventide” and “evening” as the afternoon hours at the end of the day. Is that the meaning of Joshua 8:29?

An examination of the Hebrew phrasing in this verse will settle this question. The English expression “until eventide” is translated from four Hebrew words: the preposition gad ⁵⁷⁰⁴, the noun gēhth ⁶²⁵⁶, the definite article ha (untranslated) and the noun geh'rev.

Like other Hebrew prepositions, gad has both spatial (location) and temporal (time) sense. In both uses, gad expresses progress toward a specific point. “The basic sense of the preposition [gad] is allative (movement toward)—terminative (movement up to)” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 215).

The basic sense of the preposition gad expresses movement toward gēhth ha geh'rev, which literally means “the time of (gēhth) evening (geh'rev)” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 773, 787). Thus gad represents movement that is terminated when evening begins. The use of gad in Joshua 8:29 shows that the body of the king of Ai remained on the tree until the arrival of “eventide.” The use of the noun geh'rev with the definite article ha designates this time as “the sunset.” Thus the phrase “until eventide” is properly translated “until the sun had set.”

The temporal sense of gad marks time up to a point at which the next event immediately takes place. In Joshua 8:29, the event which took place at “eventide” was the removing of the body of the King of Ai. This event occurred “as soon as the sun was down.” To place any time between “eventide” and the going down of the sun violates the allative and terminative sense of gad as defined by Hebrew syntax. The preposition gad does not allow for any gap in time between the arrival of “eventide” and the setting of the sun.

An examination of the Hebrew text confirms that the expressions “eventide” and “as soon as the sun was down” are equivalent in meaning. The expression  “and as soon as the sun was down”) is composed of five Hebrew words: the conjunction waw, the preposition kaph, the Qal verb boh ^935, the definite article ha, and the noun sheh'mesh ⁸¹²¹, The entire expression is an infinitive construct governed by the Qal verb boh ⁹³⁵ (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1). This Hebrew verb has the root meaning “come in, come, go in, go” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 97). As used in the infinitive construct in Joshua 8:29, it may be translated either as a subordinate clause (“as soon as the sun was down”, KJV) or as a gerund (“at the going down of the sun,” Owens).

Notice Waltke’s remarks concerning the importance of the infinitive construct: “The ordinary Hebrew infinitive, called the infinitive construct, is a verbal noun used in the ways that English uses its infinitive (‘to go’) and its gerund (‘going’). It is typically presented as the ‘real’ infinitive of Biblical Hebrew, in contradistinction to the infinitive absolute (35.1). Like the infinitive absolute, but to an even greater degree, it is not unbounded, despite the etymology of ‘infinitive’ (Latin ‘non-limited’). Rather, it can be suffixed, used as the first term of a construct phrase, and governed by a preposition” (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 598, emphasis added).

“The most important use of the infinitive construct, “as Ernst Jenni notes, “is its use after prepositions in place of a subordinate clause (with conjunction and finite verb)....These temporal clauses are equivalent in sense, and, since the gerund construction is awkward in English, the first construction is best translated like the second, employing a subordinate clause construction. The preposition used most commonly with infinitives is  [lamed], and for this reason, we discuss it separately (36.2.3). The construction occurs with every preposition, but most frequently with b] and  [kaph], especially with a temporal sense. With the infinitive construct, b] denotes in general temporal proximity of one event to another,  [kaph] more specifically the more immediately preceding time” (Ibid., pp. 603-604, emphasis added).

The use of the preposition kaph in the infinitive construct in Joshua 8:29 denotes that the clause “as soon as the sun was down” is equivalent in sense with the immediately preceding time, which is “eventide.” The king of Ai was hung on the tree until “eventide,” or sunset, at which time his body was removed from the tree.

The Scriptural definition of “eventide” as sunset is firmly established by the structure of the Hebrew text. Thus Joshua 8:29 does not support the claim that the term “eventide” refers to the afternoon of the day.

Appendix Q

Jeremiah 6:4-5

“Prepare war against her; arise and let us go up at noon. Woe to us! For the day goes away, for the shadows of the evening geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³] are stretched out. Arise, and let us go by night, and let us destroy her palaces.”

Rabbi Jose uses this passage to redefine the word “evening” as the period of time from noon to sunset. His interpretation of Jeremiah’s words attempts to justify Judaism’s change from the evening sacrifice of Scripture, which was offered at twilight bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³) to an offering in the afternoon of the day.

In his exegesis of bēhn hã arbayim in Pesahim 5:1, Rabbi Jose acknowledges that bēhn hã arbayim is describing the time of twilight. However, in order to justify the tradition of Judaism, he chooses to define “twilight” as the afternoon of the day. Although he admits to a lack of evidence in the Hebrew text, he interprets the expression “the shadows of the evening” in Jeremiah 6:4 as the shadows of the afternoon. Because the phrase “at noon” is used in the same verse, the phrase “the shadows of the evening” may appear to refer to the shadows that are cast by the sun during the afternoon hours of the day. This interpretation views the phrase “at noon” as linked with “the shadows of the evening.” The Hebrew text, however, establishes a distinct division between the two phrases, as signified by the use of the atnah.

The atnah is part of an accent system that “... punctuates the text and is therefore a very important feature in its syntactic analysis.... This feature of Hebrew grammar is so important for understanding that medieval Jewish sources paid more attention to it than to establishing the correct pronunciation of words” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 29).

Waltke explains the function of the atnah and other accent marks that are used in the Hebrew text: “Accents in the MT are of two kinds: disjunctives and conjunctives. Disjunctive accents, euphemistically dubbed ‘lords’ by earlier scholars, mark the length of pauses from full stop to various shades of shorter pauses; conjunctives, dubbed ‘servants,’ control the text up to the disjunctive. According to W. Wickes’s comprehensive study of the accents, the disjunctives mark a continuous ‘dichotomy’ of the verse, that is, they divide larger units [of thought], beginning with the verse itself (marked off by silluq closing the verse), into successively smaller half-units on a syntactic (or logico-syntactic) basis. A unit ending with a disjunctive of one grade is divided into halves, and its halves in turn are divided into smaller units by other disjunctive signs until the whole verse is divided into single words, or groups of words joined by conjunctives. Israel Yeivin groups the major disjunctive accents as follows: ‘Generally atnah divides the verse, zaqef the verse halves, pashta or revia the unit ending with zaqef and so on’ ” (Ibid.).

The use of the atnah in Jeremiah 6:4 divides the first thought that is expressed in the verse from the second thought:

[atnah]

The phrase “shadows of the evening” is composed of the Hebrew plural noun tzeh'lel ⁶⁷⁵² and the noun pausal geh'rev ^6153. The term “pausal” denotes that geh'rev is marked by an accent (in this case, silluq) indicating the end of a unit of thought (Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, p. 59).

As the atnah is used in the middle of Jeremiah 6:4 to divide the phrase “at noon” from “the shadows of the evening,” so the silluq is used at the end of the verse to divide “the evening” from the phrase “by night” in the following verse.

“Woe to us! For the day ³¹¹⁷ goes away ⁶⁴³⁷, for the shadows ⁶⁷⁵²of the evening ⁶¹⁵³ are stretched out ⁵¹⁸⁶.

[silluq]

“Arise, and let us go by night ³⁹¹⁵, and let us destroy her palaces” (Jer. 6:4-5).

The use of the atnah and the silluq in the Hebrew text establishes a distinct division of thought between the three phrases that express time in Jeremiah 6:4-5. The first phrase, “at noon,” is translated from two Hebrew words: the preposition bah and the noun tzoh'har ⁶⁶⁷² with the plural ending im—thus the form tzoh'harim ^6672. The prefixing of bah to tzoh'harim expresses the precise moment of noon, as accurately conveyed by the translation “at noon.” This specific time of day occurs when the sun reaches the highest point in its meridian (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 843).

The noun geh'rev (“evening”) is used in the second phrase to designate the time of sunset, and is defined accordingly by leading authorities (Ibid., p. 787). In addition, the noun tzeh'lel (“shadows”) is used in construct with geh'rev (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 4). In this structure of the Hebrew text, the noun geh'rev is classified as a genitive because it functions as the owner or “possessor” of the noun tzeh'lel (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 137-138, 145). Thus the shadows (tzeh'lel) that Jeremiah is describing belong only to geh'rev, which is the time of sunset. These shadows do not belong to tzoh'harim (“noon”) or to any part of the afternoon.

That “the shadows of the evening [geh'rev]” are the shadows of sunset is confirmed by the phrase “for the day goeth away.” This phrase is composed of the conjunction  the verb pãh-nãh' ⁶⁴³⁷, the definite article ha and the noun yohm ^3117. The verb pãh-nãh' is a Qal stem in the perfective form (Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 4). This verb has the root meaning “to pass away, banish” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 815). The perfective form of the verb “denotes in general that which is concluded, completed, and past, that which has happened and come into effect; but at the same time that which is represented as accomplished [as in prophetic writings], even though it be continued into present time or even be actually still future” (Gesenius’Hebren’ Grammar, p. 125, note).

The use of pãh-nãh' in the perfective form reveals that the day being described in Jeremiah’s prophecy has come to an end. The Hebrew text emphasizes that the day is ending by declaring, “For the shadows tzeh'lel ⁶⁷⁵² ] of the evening geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³, denoting sunset] are stretched out nah-tah ⁵¹⁸⁶.]” Owens translates this passage “for lengthen nãhtãh'] the shadows tzeh'lel ⁶⁷⁵²] of evening geh'rev ⁶¹⁵³]” (Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 4).

The use of the genitive construct and the perfective form in the Hebrew text makes it clear that the lengthening shadows are the possession of evening or sunset, at the day’s end. They are not the shadows of the afternoon. Thus this passage in the book of Jeremiah offers no basis for placing bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³ in the afternoon of the day.

Appendix R

Ezekiel 45:21

“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall observe the Passover; for the festival of seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten.”

This passage appears to indicate that the 14th day of the first month is both the Passover day and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. However, this interpretation is contradicted by the command of God in Exodus 12, which states that the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the 15th. Exodus 12 also establishes the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a seven-day observance, but the Passover is only one day.

What then is the meaning of Ezekiel 45:21?

The King James translation of this verse is misleading because it does not convey the division of thought that is expressed in the Hebrew text. An examination of this verse in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reveals that the verse is divided at the word peh'sagh ⁶⁴⁵³ (“passover”) by the atnah, an accent mark which indicates the end of a thought. The atnah is part of an accent system that “… punctuates the Hebrew text and is therefore a very important feature in its syntactic analysis….This feature of Hebrew grammar is so important for understanding that medieval Jewish sources paid more attention to it than to establishing the correct pronunciation of words” (Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 29).

Waltke explains the function of the accent system in the Hebrew text: “Accents in the MT are of two kinds: disjunctives and conjunctives. Disjunctive accents, euphemistically dubbed ‘lords’ by earlier scholars, mark the length of pauses from full stop to various shades of shorter pauses; conjunctives, dubbed ‘servants,’ control the text up to the disjunctive. According to W. Wickes’s comprehensive study of the accents, the disjunctives mark a continuous ‘dichotomy’ of the verse, that is, they divide larger units [of thought], beginning with the verse itself (marked off by silluq closing the verse), into successively smaller half-units on a syntactic (or logicosyntactic) basis. A unit ending with a disjunctive of one grade is divided into halves, and its halves in turn are divided into smaller units by other disjunctive signs until the whole verse is divided into single words, or groups of words joined by conjunctives. Israel Yeivin groups the major disjunctive accents as follows: ‘Generally atnah divides the verse, zaqef the verse halves, pashta or revia the unit ending with zaqef and so on’ “(Ibid.).

Owens notes the use of the atnah in his translation of Ezekiel 45:21 by showing a pause at the word “passover.” He parses the verse as follows:

The logical pause that is expressed by the atnah in the Hebrew text divides the observance of the Passover from the observance of the sevenday Feast of Unleavened Bread. Thus Ezekiel 45:21 does not support the claim that the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the Passover day.

Appendix S

Bēhn hã arbayimin the Jerusalem Talmud

The Talmud, or the Gemara, is a lengthy commentary on the civil and religious laws and the ethical lore of the Mishnah. There are two major versions of the Talmud: the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. Each version is composed of sixty-three books, or tractates. A tractate is simply a treatise, or “tract” on a given subject. The tractate that is cited in this appendix is the Pesahim, which exegetes Passover matters.

The rabbinical debates that are recorded in the Pesahim attempt to justify the changes that the leaders of Judaism had instituted in the Passover and the daily burnt offering of the evening. According to the Scriptural commands, both the Passover and the evening burnt offering were required to be sacrificed during bēhn hã arbayim, which was acknowledged as a term for the twilight of the day. However, the leaders of Judaism had redefined “twilight” as a period of time in the middle of the afternoon. A dilemma arose on Nisan 14 because it was impossible to conduct both sacrifices at the temple during the time that was designated as bēhn ⁹⁹⁶hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³ (2:30 to 3:30 PM by rabbinical definition). To accommodate the Passover sacrifice, each year on Nisan 14 the evening offering was moved outside the designated time.

A debate ensued over the legality of moving the evening offering outside the time that was officially recognized as bēhn hã arbayim. The Pesahim records the views of the following rabbis who debated the issue: Jose of Galilee, Joshua son of Levi, Ishmael son of Elisha, Jeremiah, Nathan, Yose son of Bun, Simeon son of Laqish, Yudan, and Samuel son of Avduma. These rabbis rely on the views of Hananiah son of Judah, Aqiba son of Joseph, and Ishmael son of Yohanan son of Beroqah.

Let us examine the rabbinical commentary that is recorded in the Pesahim of the Jerusalem (Yerushalmi) Talmud. Chapter 5 of the Pesahim relates the schedule of the daily burnt offering for all days other than Nisan 14, and shows the two adjustments that were made for Nisan 14. (Note: All single bracketed material is that of the editor of the Yerushalmi Pesahim. All double bracketed material is that of the author.)

Yerushalmi Pesahim

Chapter Five

“Introduction: Turning to the slaughter of the Passover sacrifice, Chapter 5 opens by describing the fourteenth of Nisan’s special afternoon sequence of offerings in which the daily Tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before the Passover offering instead of being the last offering, as is usual.1 The Gemara probes the exegetical basis and rationale for the standard procedure and for the special case of Passover eve [[a rabbinical term for the afternoon of Nisan 14]].

5:1

“[A] The Tamid [daily offering] is [[usually]] slaughtered at the eighth-and-one-half [hour after dawn, i.e., about 2:30 PM] and offered at the ninth-and-one-half [hour, for presumably the preparations and actual sacrificing take an hour].

[[Rabbi Jose of Galilee now comments on the Scriptural command forthe daily burnt offering.]]

“[B] It is written, ‘Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar,’ etc. [“TWO yearling lambs each day, regularly” (TMYD)] (Exod. 29:38). I might have said that both of them should be offered in the morning or both of them at twilight. [Therefore] the teaching says, ‘You shall offer the one lamb in the MORNING [and you shall offer the other (lit., “second”) lamb at twilight]’ (Exod. 29:39).

“I might have said that [the lamb] of the morning should be offered with the sunrise and that of the twilight with the sunset,² [therefore] the teaching says, ‘at TWILIGHT bēhn ⁹⁹⁶ hã arbayim ⁶¹⁵³]].”

[[Although Rabbi Jose acknowledges that bēhn hã arbayim refers to twilight, he proceeds to define “twilight” as the hours from noon to sunset. Notice Rabbi Jose’s justification for this definition of bēhn hã arbayim.]]

“[C] Why did you see [fit] to say that ‘twilight’ [in Exod. 12:6 denotes] from the sixth hour [[noon]] and on? [For it says]:³

‘[Up. we will attack at noon.] Alas for us.

For DAY IS DECLINING, the SHADOWS OF EVENING GROW LONG’ (Jer. 6:4). [Here the word “evening” is applied to a period that ensues after the time of noon, once the day starts to decline and the shadows of evening start.] Just as ‘evening’ which is said there [denotes] from the sixth hour and on [after “noon”], so ‘evening’ which is said here [denotes] from the sixth hour and on.⁴”
[[For a technical exegesis of Jeremiah 6:4, see Appendix Q.]]

[[Rabbi Jose’s next comment, which admits that there is no Scriptural proof for his interpretation, is omitted from the main text but is recorded in a footnote .]]

“[C] Why did you see [fit] to say that ‘twilight’ [in Exod. 12:6 denotes] from the sixth hour [[noon]] and on? [For it says]:³

“³ The Venice edition, the first printed edition of the Leiden manuscript, adds from the margin of the Leiden manuscript: ‘even though there is no proof for the matter, (there is) a hint to the matter’

[[To support his interpretation of Jeremiah 6:4, Rabbi Jose cites thewords of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi:]]

Yerushalmi Pesahim
Chapter Five
(continued)

“[D] [On the basis of C:] And should it be fit [to offer a Passover sacrifice (YK)] from the sixth hour [[noon]] and on?

“[E] R. Joshua b. Levi said, ‘[The idiom “twilight” is made up of two words] “BYN HCRBYM.” How [is this to be understood]? Divide between the evenings [taking BYN as “between” and HCRBYM as “evenings,” perhaps in the sense of the two periods in which the day becomes darker; hence, divide between the postnoon period, when the day grows darker, and the postafternoon period, when the day becomes even darker with the onset of night]5 and assign [[on what authority?]] two-and-one-half hours before it “[the sacrifice] and two-and-one-half hours after it and one hour [[2:30 to 3:30]] for involvement with it [the doing and preparation of the Tamid offering]. You as a result may say that the Tamid offering is offered at the ninth-and-one-half hour [[3:30]] [and the time of the Passover sacrifice is derived from that of the Tamid offering (YK)].”

This rabbinical interpretation:

1. Illegitimately places bēhn hã arbayim in the afternoon.

2. Illegitimately divides bēhn hã arbayim into three parts:

a. A period of time from noon to 2:30 PM, which the rabbis designate as the first evening.

b. A period of time from 2:30 to 3:30 PM, which the rabbis designate as bēhn hã arbayim.

c. A period of time from 3:30 PM to sunset, which the rabbis designate as the second evening.

This rabbinical interpretation served as the basis for the afternoon sacrifice of the daily burnt offering in the later years of the temple. On Nisan 14, the time of this offering was moved up one hour to accommodate the temple sacrifice of the Passover, and an additional hour if Nisan 14 fell on a Friday. These adjustments in the schedule for the daily burnt offering are recorded in the Pesahim:

“[A] The Tamid [daily offering] is slaughtered at the eighth-and-one-half [hour after dawn, i.e., about 2:30 PM] and offered at the ninth-and-one-half [hour, for presumably the preparations and actual sacrificing take an hour].

“[B] On the eves of Passover, [it] is slaughtered at the seventh-and-one-half [hour] and offered at the eighth-and-one-half [hour]— whether [they] fall on a weekday or the Sabbath.

“[C] [If] Passover eve fell on the eve of Sabbath [Friday, when extra time is needed so as to roast the Passover offering before the onset of the Sabbath, it] is slaughtered at the sixth-and-one-half [hour] and offered at the seventh-and-one-half [hour], and the Passover offering follows it.”

The schedule for the afternoon sacrifice of the daily burnt offering on every day of the year except Nisan 14 is presented below in chart form. This schedule illustrates the rabbinical division of the afternoon hours into the “two evenings,” with bēhn hã arbayim placed in the middle.

The Afternoon Sacrificeof the Daily Burnt Offering

Every Day Except
Nisan 14

Bēhn hã arbayim
(2:30-3:30 PM)

The following two charts show the schedule for the afternoon sacrifice of the daily burnt offering on Nisan 14. These charts include the schedule for the temple sacrifice of the Passover lambs, which was conducted in three courses.

The Afternoon Sacrificeof the Daily Burnt Offering

When Nisan 14
Was Not a Friday

First Evening
(12 PM to 2:30 PM)

Bēhn hã arbayim
(2:30-3:30 PM)

Second Evening
(3:30 PM to Sunset)

Note that this schedule did not allow the third course of Passover lambs to be sacrificed before sunset. If Nisan 14 fell on a Friday, the sacrifices would run over into the Sabbath. Thus the entire schedule for the daily offering and the Passover was moved up one additional hour when Nisan 14 was a Friday.

The Afternoon Sacrificeof the Daily Burnt Offering

When Nisan 14
Was a Friday

First Evening
(12 PM to 2:30 PM)

Bēhn hã arbayim
(2:30-3:30 PM)

Second Evening
(3:30 PM to Sunset)

As the records of the Jerusalem Talmud show, each year on Nisan 14 the daily burnt offering was moved outside the time that the rabbis had designated as bēhn hã arbayim. Furthermore, only the first of the three courses of Passover lambs was sacrificed during the designated time. These historical records bear witness to the folly of the leaders of Judaism, whose traditional practices stood in violation to their own teachings.

Appendix T

Matthew 16:1-3

“Then the Pharisees and the Sadducees came to Him, tempting Him and asking Him to show them a sign from heaven. But He answered and said to them, ‘When evening [opsios ³⁷⁹⁸] has come, you say, “It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.” And in the morning [proi ⁴⁴⁰⁴], you say, “Today it will storm, for the sky is red and lowering.” ’ ”

In this passage, Christ Himself defines the term “evening” and the term “morning.” The color of the sky appears red at only two times of the day: sunset and sunrise. Thus Jesus equates “evening” and “morning” with the setting and rising of the sun.

Jesus’ use of the Greek terms opsios (“evening”) and proi (“morning”) shows that these New Testament terms share the same definitions as the Hebrew terms that are used in the Old Testament. The Greek opsios and the Hebrew geh'rev are both used to denote the time of sunset and the arrival of bēhn hã arbayim, during which the light of day fades into darkness. Likewise, the Greek proi and the Hebrew bõh'-ker are both used to denote sunrise, or dawn, and the renewal of daylight.

Although the Greek term opsios (“evening”) may also refer to the time immediately preceding sunset, as the day draws to a close, this term is never used to denote the afternoon of the day.

Appendix U

Mark 1:21, 29-32

“Then they went into Capernaum; and on the Sabbath day He immediately went into the synagogue and taught....And as soon as they had gone out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. And Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever. And they spoke to Him at once about her. And He came to her, and took her by the hand and raised her up. And immediately the fever left her, and she served them. Now in the evening [opsios ³⁷⁹⁸], when the sun had gone down, they brought to Him all who were diseased, and those who were possessed by demons.”

This passage in the Gospel of Mark confirms that the Greek term opsios (translated “at even” and “evening” in the King James Version) refers to the time of sunset. Berry translates the phrase “when the sun did set” [] as “when went down the sun” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).

To avoid incurring the wrath of the Pharisees, the people waited until the Sabbath had ended at sunset to bring their sick and possessed to Jesus. This New Testament record testifies to the fact that the days of the week are reckoned from sunset to sunset.

Appendix V

Matthew 26:20

Mark 14:17

“And after evening had come, He sat down with the twelve” (Matt. 26:20). “Now after evening had come, He came with the twelve” (Mark 14:17).

What is the meaning of these two passages, which describe the time of Jesus’ last Passover? It is obvious that Mark 14:17 cannot refer to the same period of time as the preceding verses, which record Jesus’ command to Peter and John to go and prepare the Passover. Verse 12 reveals that Jesus delivered this command at the beginning of bēhn hã arbayim, immediately after the sun had set, when the lambs were being killed for the domestic observance on the night of Nisan 14.

Since bēhn hã arbayim is a relatively brief period of time, from between 1 hour and 15 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes, it was evidently near the end of bēhn hã arbayim when the disciples completed the preparations for the Passover. This amount of time would have been sufficient, as all provisions for the meal, including the lamb, had been furnished by the master of the house (Mark 14:15, Luke 21:12). When the preparations were complete, Jesus arrived with the other disciples to eat the Passover.

In Matthew 26:20, the time of Jesus’ arrival is stated as “And after evening had come....” In Mark 14:17, His arrival is described as follows: “And in the evening He cometh....” Both verses are translated from the Greek noun opsios ³⁷⁹⁸, which refers to the time of sunset, and the Greek participle genomenees, which is a form of the verb ginomai, meaning “to come into being.”

As a past participle in the second aorist tense, genomenees denotes an action which was in the immediate past. Some interlinears translate this participle as “evening being come,” which indicates that “evening” (sunset) had just occurred. The Greek participle genomenees is more accurately translated: “Now after evening had come....” This translation gives the correct sense that a period of time had elapsed between the setting of the sun and Jesus’ arrival to keep the Passover with His disciples.

The use of the Greek participle genomenees in Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 confirms that Jesus observed His last Passover in the early hours of the night of Nisan 14. He sent Peter and John into Jerusalem to prepare the Passover table at the beginning of bēhn hã arbayim, but He Himself waited to enter the city until the end of bēhn hã arbayim and the coming of darkness, so that He would not be discovered by the Jewish authorities and arrested before He had kept the Passover.

Appendix W

Matthew 27:49

“But the rest said, ‘Let Him alone! Let us see if Elijah comes to save Him.’ Then another took a spear and thrust it into His side, and out came water and blood.”

The latter half of this verse, which begins with the words “…And another took a spear…”, has been omitted from the King James Version. However, a majority of the ancient manuscripts contain this part of the verse; these manuscripts include the Codex Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, which are two of the most ancient. The latter part of the verse is also found in other manuscripts that are designated by letter (L, T, Z) and by number (33, 49, 892 and ¹²⁴¹).

Older translations which contain the complete verse are the Moffatt translation and the Fenton translation. Newer translations generally footnote this portion of Matthew 27:49 rather than including it in the text. The weight of evidence indicates that the latter half of the verse is an authentic part of the Greek text and should be included in translations of the New Testament. The veracity of this portion of Matthew 27:49 is substantiated by the record in John 19:34.

Appendices

X - Y

Appendix X

At Jesus’ Last Passover—
Did He Wash the Disciples’ Feet
Before or After Supper?

By Fred R. Coulter

At Jesus’ last Passover, before He instituted the New Covenant Ceremony, He and the disciples partook of the Old Covenant Passover of roasted lamb and bitter herbs (Ex. 12:3-10). He then instituted the New Covenant Passover with the symbols of the broken unleavened bread and wine: “And as they were eating, Jesus took the bread and blessed it; then He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup; and after giving thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘All of you drink of it; for this is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins’ ” (Matt. 26:26-28; also see Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19-20).

While these three accounts are very similar, they do not address Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. Rather, we find this in John’s Gospel— chapter 13. When we examine John’s account, we also find that he did not write about the bread and wine of the New Covenant.

John’s description of the event—as translated in the KJV—shows the timing of the foot washing as taking place after supper, and therefore after the bread and wine ceremony. But is that when it really occurred? Was the foot washing at the beginning or at the conclusion of the Passover service? Before we examine this question, there several things that must be kept in mind when dealing with topics such as this.

1) The Bible is inspired of God as written in the original language. Translations may or may not reflect the meaning of the original.

2) When there is an apparent conflict between scriptures, every facet of the problem must be considered.

3) When there is a difficulty with the KJV, an investigation into the Greek or Hebrew is often necessary to clarify the situation.

4) When dealing with the Gospels, a key to understanding is that no single Gospel account contains all of the facts and evidence on a given subject. The four Gospels are complimentary to each other and must be harmonized for a complete understanding.

Each Gospel account is essential. For example: During Jesus’ ministry, Matthew and Mark show only one Passover; Luke shows two; John records three. If we did not have the accounts written by John and Luke, we would be missing vital keys concerning the timing and sequence of events recorded in the Gospels. Here are some examples:

1) John does not show the bread and wine ceremony, only the foot washing. So if only John were used as a guide, we would only know of the foot washing ceremony and nothing about the bread and wine.

2) Matthew, Mark, Luke and I Corinthians show only the bread and wine ceremony and not the foot washing; so if only these accounts were used, we would only observe the bread and wine ceremony of the Passover.

3) Matthew, Mark and Luke do not show that Judas ever left the meal to betray Jesus.

4) Matthew, Mark and Luke do not show the long discourses Jesus gave to His disciples after the supper—as does John in chapters 14-16.

5) Only Luke records the argument about who would be the greatest among the disciples.

6) Only Luke records the instruction concerning the taking of swords.

Thus, if one takes the negative approach of pitting each Gospel account against the other, the list of apparent contradictions throughout the Gospels would be almost endless. Because many scholars have taken precisely this approach, they are in hopeless confusion as to how to solve many of the so-called conflicts between the Gospel accounts.

The Apparent Problem

When we read the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ last Passover, there is a question as to when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Was it after the supper or before? The confusion is the result of a mistranslation.

In the KJV, John 13:2-5 reads: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.”

From this translation—“And supper being ended”—it appears that the foot washing took place after supper. However, when the Greek is closely examined, it is evident that it was not after supper but right at the beginning of supper.

In John 13:2, the Greek word used for this expression is , which is derived from the prime root . The prime root means to be or to become or to come into being. This means that  has the meaning of during the taking place of supper, or while taking place. Because its prime root can mean coming into being,  can have the implied meaning of near the beginning of supper—as differentiated from ending or “supper being ended.”

There are other Greek words John would have used to show that sup- per had actually ended. A Greek prime root word for “end” is , which means “conclusion or termination of.” The Greek for “being ended” is  (see Luke 4:2 as an example). Notice that the prime root stem  for “end” is the basis for this word. This would have been the word used to express “supper being ended.” However, John did not use this particular Greek phrase because supper had not ended.

Therefore, the supposition that the foot washing did not take place until after supper is not supported by the Greek. A more accurate translation is this: “And during supper….” A literal, though awkward, translation reads, “And supper taking place,” with the Greek implying “toward the beginning of supper”—not “after supper” as the KJV shows.

Now let’s examine the rest of the John 13, and see that supper was continuing up to and past the time when Judas left, as the other accounts support:

13:2 And during supper [or, as supper was taking place] (the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Him)

13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father….

13:4 Rose from supper…. Additional proof that supper was in progress. Thus, the complete thought is: “During supper [i.e., the beginning of supper]…. Jesus knowing…. He rose from supper…. [and] began to wash the disciples’ feet…. [and] sat down again” (summary through verse 12). “Sat down” could also read “reclined.” With all the disciples in this reclining position, foot washing was easily carried out.

It becomes clear from the context that Jesus instituted the foot washing at the beginning of the Passover supper/ceremony. Then He sat down (or reclined) again to finish eating the Passover supper. If the supper were finished, there would obviously be no reason to sit down/recline again.

13:13-17 Jesus gives the explanation for the foot washing.

13:18 Jesus indicates that He has chosen Judas, one who is “eating bread with Me.” As the Greek indicates, this statement is an active present tense fulfillment of that particular prophecy. So supper was still in progress because they were still eating. Mark 14:18 is even more direct, as Jesus is quoted in the first person saying that “one of you will deliver Me up, even he who is eating with Me.”

13:26 Jesus dips the sop “morsel” and gives it to Judas. Satan enters into Judas and he immediately leaves. Supper was still in progress—not yet finished.

If supper were already finished, the disciples would not have assumed that Judas was going out to buy more things for the Feast (i.e., the Passover supper they were eating)—or that he was going out to give something to the poor who were also eating the Passover supper in different locations nearby, but who might not have enough to properly keep the Feast.

This again shows, in context, that supper was still in progress when Judas left. Matthew 26:21-25 and Mark 14:18-21 bring in additional details of the same account. However, John shows when Jesus gave the morsel to Judas and when he left.

• The Conclusion Derived from John 13: Only John’s account shows when Judas left. John shows that Judas left while supper was in progress and immediately after receiving the sop. THEREFORE, THE FOOT WASHING COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE PASSOVER SUPPER HAD ENDED.
• The breaking and eating of the bread took place while they were still eating supper. Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22 show that while they were eating Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, etc. Therefore, supper was still in progress at this point. It would only be proper for Jesus to institute the breaking of the bread ceremony after Judas had left. Thus, Judas received only a non-ceremonial morsel from Jesus, symbolizing the betrayal.
• Matthew, Mark, Luke and I Corinthians all show that the partaking of the wine was after the partaking of the bread.

The wine was taken after supper. The foot washing did not occur after supper.

Luke 22:20 and I Cor. 11:25 show that it was after supper when they partook of the wine. The Greek phrase is . This cannot mean “during supper” in any way. Meta can only mean after the supper. Remember, Judas had already left during supper and the drinking of the wine was after supper. Therefore, Judas could not have taken part in the wine ceremony either.

Was Luke “confused” about the sequence?

On the surface, Luke’s account (chapter 22) gives the appearance of a different sequence than the other Gospel accounts. Or does it?

Luke clearly states in verse 20 that the taking of the wine was after supper. Then, in verse 21, he mentions Judas’ betrayal, but not by name (Luke does not show the dipping of the sop or that it was Judas who was the betrayer). And remember, John shows that Judas was not present during the taking of the bread and wine.

So why is Judas indirectly mentioned after the taking of the wine— when he had already left? Luke is simply recalling something that had already taken place.

Luke 22:21: “Moreover, behold the hand of him who is betraying Me up is with me at the table.” Jesus made that statement while Judas was with Him at the table as the meal was in progress—even though it is here narrated after the drinking of the wine.

Moreover, verse 20 is a past tense action while verse 21 is in the present progressive tense. This means that the two verses are not necessarily in chronological order. Thus, there is no conflict in the overall chronology with the other Gospel accounts.

Conclusion

The Gospel accounts are in perfect harmony on the sequence of events of Jesus’ last Passover. Apparent inconsistencies are due to incorrect translation. The foot washing clearly took place at the beginning of the Passover meal.

Appendix Y

Christ’s Last Passover—
Leavened or Unleavened?

By Ben T. Ambrose

For over 50 years, the Churches of God have kept the Biblical New Testament Passover ceremony commemorating the death of Jesus Christ. There are three parts required to partake of the Christian Passover: 1) footwashing service which renews our baptismal vows in Christ and symbolizes what our relationship should be to God and to our fellow man, 2) partaking of unleavened bread symbolizing Christ’s broken body which we are to eat, and 3) partaking of the wine symbolizing His shed blood representing the sacrifice of His life as the Redeemer of mankind.

Following the apostasy within the various Churches of God, confusion has arisen concerning whether leavened or unleavened bread should be eaten when one partakes of the Passover. Some claim that since Christ had the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2) within His human nature, the bread which He and the disciples ate at His last Passover was leavened, therefore we should be partaking of leavened bread in the Passover observance instead of unleavened bread, as God originally commanded (Exodus 12:8).

In Scripture, leaven is used to depict sin. Christians are admonished to remove the old leaven of malice and wickedness and to replace it with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). This is why Christians are to remove physical leaven from their homes. In other words we are to put sin out and put in truth and righteousness. Additionally, leaven depicts false doctrines. In Matthew 16:11, Christ warned His disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” referring to their false doctrine, so Christians are to remove false doctrine and teaching as well.

While leaven symbolizes sin, it is never used in Scripture to symbolize the “law of sin and death” within a person. Christ had the “law of sin and death” within Him because His mother was human. Though He was tempted in all points as we are (Hebrews 4:15) and had the law of sin and death within him, He never sinned. Voluntarily, He took upon Himself the sins of the world bringing the death penalty upon Himself. Our sins were responsible for His death, not “the law of sin and death” within Him. Therefore, why would He use leaven which pictures sin to depict Himself when He never sinned?

Christ instituted the New Testament (Covenant) Passover using the footwashing, the bread and the wine during His last Passover before His death. What are the Biblical instructions concerning the manner in which Passover should be taken? It is absolutely imperative that the Passover be properly administered and understood.

“Partaking of the true Christian Passover with the New Testament symbols, as Jesus taught, is absolutely essential for salvation and to receive the full gift of eternal life at the resurrection. The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is the True Passover Lamb of God for all time, by the one perfect sacrifice of Himself....At His last Passover meal with the disciples, Jesus instituted the new symbols representing His body and His blood: “Jesus took bread and blessed it, then He broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup; and after giving thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘All of you drink of it; for this is My blood, the blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins’ ” (Matthew 26:26- 28).

When God instituted the first Passover for Israel, how important was it for Israel to follow God’s instructions precisely to spare the lives of their firstborn when the Lord passed over their houses? Wasn’t it a matter of life and death? How important is it for true Christians to take the Passover as instructed? Is it not also a matter of life and death? The consequences for not following instructions in the Old Testament was physical death. What would be the consequences for a true Christian to take the Passover improperly? Would it not be eternal death?

Due to the seriousness of this question, this article was written to establish what the Scripture instructs us concerning the eating of unleavened bread at Passover. Not only should we establish what the Bible says, but what it DOES NOT SAY as well.

Leavened or Unleavened?

The two words translated bread, or in conjunction with bread, in the New Testament are the Greek words: 1) artos (bread, loaf) and 2) azumos (unleavened). In addition, the word sop is translated from the word “psomion” which means “morsel or crumb.” Why did Christ inspire “artos” to be used without distinguishing whether it was leavened or unleavened? Why did He inspire “azumos” to be used only when speaking of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as a title? Why did Christ inspire the word “psomion” to be used in John 13 instead of the word “artos” or “azumos”?

Before going to the New Testament to examine this subject, let’s look briefly at the original Passover instituted under the Old Covenant. For an in-depth study into the time the Passover is to be kept, the events involved in the Passover, and the meaning of the Old Testament Passover, you will find an excellent account given in The Christian Passover.

God had brought Egypt to utter ruin through the miraculous exploits performed through Moses. In preparation for the release of all Israelites held in bondage in Egypt, God was about to send the last plague which would bring Egypt to it’s knees. God was positioning His people to escape Egypt through His divine intervention, direction and protection. This last plague was to be the most devastating of all—the killing of all the firstborn of man and beast in Egypt. It was not God’s intention to kill His people. The Egyptians refused to let the children of Israel leave Egypt, therefore God was going to slay the firstborn of every man and beast.

God instructed the Israelites to distinguish their homes by putting the blood of a lamb on the doorposts. Wherever this blood appeared, the LORD would pass over their homes sparing their firstborn. Why did God have them do this? Did God need to have the mark to distinguish who His people were? Or was this a test of the obedience for the congregation of Israel? Did it not also have symbolic meaning to serve in teaching them an object lesson? What would have been the consequences had they not done as they were instructed? Their firstborn would have been killed as well.

God instructed all Israelites to enter their homes and to remain there throughout the entire night until day break. They were to prepare a meal consisting of roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. He told them to be dressed, to eat it in trepidation and be ready to leave at the signal of daybreak. These instructions were very explicit down to the last detail— including burning all the remains of the lamb before morning. If you knew that the LORD would pass through Egypt in a few short hours, and would kill every firstborn of man and beast of the disobedient, would you have taken those instructions lightly? If you did, you would have been struck dead if you were a firstborn.

The New Testament reveals that the One Who became Christ was the God of the Old Testament. The One Who became Christ performed these exploits through Moses. Christ is the One Who commanded that unleavened bread be eaten for the Passover (Exodus 12:8). Christ is the Author of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Was it just coincidental that the bread was unleavened because there was no time to prepare leavened bread? Or did God intend that it be unleavened throughout the Passover day and the seven days of Unleavened Bread? Would Christ eat leavened bread at His last Passover meal when He was the One Who commanded that unleavened bread be eaten at the original Passover? If Christ changed the bread from unleavened bread to leavened bread at His last Passover, why did He not command this and explain why he was changing the symbols?

In the greater festival area surrounding Jerusalem, the majority of the Jews kept a domestic Passover in private homes on the correct date of Nisan 14 and in the proper manner. However, many Jews and the religious leaders of Judaism kept the Passover incorrectly on Nisan 15 with a temple sacrificed lamb. The Passover meal was eventually replaced with the traditional Jewish seder meal. In addition, they had combined the two feasts into one which became known as the “Passover of the Jews.” John distinguishes it from the true Passover of God by calling it the “Passover of the Jews.” Jesus Christ did not keep the Passover of the Jews. He kept the Passover that He instituted in the Old Testament at the same time, on the same day, and in the same way. At His last Passover, He changed its ceremonial symbolism to reflect the conditions of the New Covenant. The account of this is in John 13, Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22.

Why didn’t Christ simply leave the ceremony as it was? What was the purpose of changing it? Did each ceremony have it’s own individual symbolism and significance depicting two different things and serving two different purposes altogether?

Christ knew that the Jews were going to kill Him the following day. He knew the betrayal of Judas completed Judaism’s total rejection of Him. Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old Testament Passover ceremony. Since His death would completely fulfill the conditions of the Old Covenant, He replaced that ceremony with a new ceremony yet to be fulfilled. The Passover meal that the Jews would keep following His crucifixion was the Passover of the Rejected—not the Passover of God.

Let’s look at the Scriptures concerning the eating of bread during the New Covenant Passover ceremony.

In every case where bread is mentioned in the gospel account of this meal, the word is translated from the Greek word “artos.” The word “sop” in John 13:26, 27 and 30 is translated from the Greek word “psomion” and means “morsel or crumb.” Why did Christ use bread (artos) without prefacing it with the word for unleavened “azumos”? Can we judge from the original language whether these scriptures using the word “bread” determines whether the bread was leavened or unleavened? Can we determine that the word “sop” means a morsel of food or a piece of bread? What did the word “sop” mean to them? As found in the Passover accounts, was a “loaf of bread” the same as what we know as a “leavened loaf of bread” today. These are thought-provoking questions.

Below are the Scriptures in question and the Greek/English words used in each instance:

As we examine the above scriptures, the New Testament DOES NOT show the bread to be leavened or unleavened. Why does God omit something this important? He had a purpose for doing so. What was that purpose? Could it have been the same purpose that He had Israel paint the doorpost with blood? A test command? Since we don’t always know why God chose to inspire the New Testament scriptures to be written in the way that He did, we should take the approach that Mary took in Luke 2:51 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12.

Let’s look at the following Scriptures where the word bread (artos) is used:

The above Scriptures DO NOT refer to the state of bread that is being consumed. The word for “unleavened” in the Greek is not preceding the Greek word(s) for bread thus signifying the specific act of the eating of leavened or unleavened bread.

Since the Greek word(s) used for bread at the eating of Jesus’ last Passover is the same word(s) used elsewhere to denote leavened bread, then how do we know Scriptures say that Jesus ate unleavened bread at the Passover? (See the Appendix at the end of the booklet that contains most of the Greek words for bread throughout the New Testament.)

We have looked at the Scriptures of Christ’s last Passover concerning bread and sop, now let’s look at Scriptures that pertain to unleavened bread.

The above scriptures are the only verses where the word “unleavened” is used in the New Testament (according to the Bauer’s Greek/English Lexicon). This word is always referring to a period of time known as the “unleavened”—not a specific piece or loaf of physical bread. The last two verses do not refer to bread but the spiritual condition of the individual being addressed. There is NOT ONE scripture in the New Testament dealing with an individual(s) eating bread where that bread is specified as being unleavened.

Now, let’s look at the scriptures concerning (zume) leaven:

The only conclusion is that one cannot determine from specific New Testament scriptures that the bread being eaten is unleavened bread or leavened bread. NOT a single one of these scriptures describe the fermented state of bread that was being eaten. All of these scriptures are using leaven either as an object lesson (such as a parable) or a character flaw or spiritual condition of someone. Therefore, one must go beyond the verse containing the word “bread” to determine whether it was leavened or unleavened bread being eaten.

To read a single verse in the New Testament where one is consuming bread and state that the bread being eaten was leavened based on the Greek word(s) runs the risk of making a false assumption. Due to the seriousness of the question, we cannot afford to do that.

Having determined that the New Testament makes no distinction concerning leavened or unleavened in this particular case, how does the Old Testament treat the subject? Looking at the scriptures below, can we determine if the bread is leavened or unleavened?

Without question the Old Testament clearly distinguishes whether the bread is leavened or unleavened. For Old Testament purposes, God inspired it to be written that way. God inspired it to be written in the New Testament the way He did for a very special purpose. If we place our faith in God by rightfully dividing the Word of God, we will understand its correct meaning.

IMPORTANT POINTS

1. God gave the direct commands about when to eat unleavened bread in the Old Testament.

2. The New Testament carries the spiritual connotation of leavened and unleavened.

3. The just shall live by faith and obey God’s commands.

4. The New Testament is written to true Christians who are commanded to live by faith.

5. God has established what we are to do and observe. (Exodus. 12:17; 13:10; Deuteronomy 16:1-8)

While the New Testament doesn’t necessarily differentiate between leavened and unleavened, in view of all the Scriptures pertaining to the symbolism and meaning of leavened and unleavened bread in the New Testament and taken in the context of the Old Testament Passover, the conclusion is that unleavened bread should be eaten at the Passover ceremony. We are to eat Christ in the sense of taking into our minds the truth He lived and taught which should be completely void of leaven or false teaching. We are to eat the broken bread symbolizing His broken body acknowledging our sins were part and parcel in causing His death, that He is now our Savior and His shed blood has atoned for our sins.

There are other examples where the Old Testament differentiates and the New Testament does not, such as, “clean and unclean meats,” “keeping the seventh-day Sabbath,” “paying tithes (10%),” and yes, “eating unleavened bread” at the appointed season.

Where in the New Testament does it say, “You shall not eat,” and then lists the unclean animals like it does in the Old Testament? Yet, what do true New Testament Christians eat? Where in the New Testament does it say, “You shall keep the seventh day a Sabbath,” etc? Why didn’t God just make all these doctrines iron-clad sure so no one today could deny what the Scripture says on a given subject? Why didn’t Christ just plainly say that the Passover was on the 14th and that we are to eat unleavened bread and not to eat any leavened bread for a week during the days of unleavened bread?

Did God make a mistake or overlook something between the time He inspired the Old Testament and the time that He inspired the writing of the New Testament? True Christians should give thought and careful meditation as to why. It may be that God deliberately left things out of the Scripture— both Old and New Testament. In the accounts of Jacob in Genesis 37:11 and Mary the mother of Jesus in Luke 2:57, they didn’t fully understand, but they didn’t make unfounded assumptions. If we don’t understand a given Scripture where it may appear to be a conflict, do we assume as this world does that Scripture contradicts itself? What does 1 Corinthians 13:9- 12 mean? Surely we don’t understand all things in the Scriptures. However, it is God’s intent that His called-out ones understand the mystery of God hidden from this world (Colossians. 2:2-10). If we do not fully understand something, should we not look at our inadequacies for the moment and instead have faith in God that in due time He will give us the understanding we lack.

The question should not be, what does one Greek word in a verse of Scripture mean, but rather in light of both the Old and New Testament, what did Christ do, or what would He do? This is what we should be seeking— what Christ would do in any given situation. Then we can follow directly in His footsteps, imitating Him in every way.

A simple example might help. When I was a child, my family ate two kinds of cornbread. One was leavened made with corn meal, eggs, shortening, buttermilk, salt, and baking powder, and baked in the oven. The other type was unleavened, made of cornmeal, water, and salt cooked on top of the stove in a hot skillet in oil. The former would rise and puff up, the latter was thin, flat and solid and crispy around the edges. My mother cooked these two types of cornbread interchangeably from meal to meal, week to week. We called both types cornbread.

Let’s say that in July, you came to visit. My family was sitting at the dining room table eating when you arrived. You were invited to join the family for dinner, but since you had just eaten, you declined and sat down in the sitting room OUT OF SIGHT of the dining table and the food until the family finished their meal. While you were waiting, you heard a family member in the dining room say, “Pass the cornbread, please.” Based on the above, let’s suppose you were now put in the position of having to answer the question: “Were they eating leavened cornbread or were they eating unleavened cornbread?” Let’s say that this was a life or death question. What would your answer be? Rest assured, your chance of survival would be only 50%. Let’s repeat the same drama, but alter only one small detail.

You came in the house and sat in the sitting room out of sight of the dining room table and heard someone say, “Pass the cornbread, please.” You were again put to the “life or death” test. What kind of cornbread were they eating? Was it leavened or unleavened? You now have the added facts that this was ¹⁹⁵² and you and this family attended the Church of God and it was during the days of Unleavened Bread. What would your answer be? You would know that it was unleavened cornbread. Now your chance of survival would have increased from 50% to a fully assured 100%.

Let’s shift our story now from our present day experience as outlined above, to Jesus’ last Passover. We know the scriptures of the Pentateuch and we believe and live by these scriptures.

We are sitting outside the door to the upper room. We cannot see the food, but we can hear every word that is said by Jesus. We hear the discourse between John and Jesus. “...Lord, who is it?” Then Jesus answers, “After dipping this sop it is he to whom I shall give it.” Within a minute we see Judas hurriedly pass by us and disappear into the night from where we are sitting by the door (John 13:26). After listening a while longer we hear Jesus pray a prayer of thanks over the bread. He then tells his disciples to eat it (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19).

Suppose we were now brought back to the present day. We find ourselves in a “life or death” situation to answer a question. Did Jesus eat leavened or unleavened bread at his last Passover?

What is the answer? If God Himself were to ask you this question, what would be your answer? This writer’s answer is: Jesus ate unleavened bread!

What about eating leavened bread during the daylight portion of Nisan 14 as was the custom of the some of the churches of God.

Not only do the Gospel writers specifically designate the Passover day, as a full day of unleavenedness, but nearly all first century writers use the same terminology when writing of that day. It is clearly understood from the Greek text that Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 were not referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, the translators incorrectly inserted the word feast into the phrase “on the first of the unleaveneds,” because the Gospel writers were not referring to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, but to the Passover day itself; Nisan 14. The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on Nisan 15. This improper insertion of the word feast has caused much confusion.

Notice what Richard A. Parker, University of Chicago wrote concerning Nisan 14. “But on what authority should Hebrew translators, as Salkinson and Delitzch, introduce the word [the Hebrew word for feast, chag or chagag, or the Greek word for feast], into these texts, when the corresponding Greek phrase has no word [in it] for ‘feast,’ and only speaks of the ‘first of the unleavened bread’— a common expression for the Jewish 14th with practically all first century writers. Furthermore, why attempt to change Luke’s account of an actual passover meal (22:15) to agree with a common meal...” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume LXII ¹⁹⁴⁴, “Ancient Jewish Calendation: A Criticism”, emphasis added).

This is clear historical documentation that the Passover day itself; Nisan 14, was commonly called the first of the unleavens, or the first day of the unleaveneds by all first century writers.

Therefore, we can conclude, without a doubt that the Passover day was a full day of unleavenedness, most particularly bread. Furthermore, we can conclude with absolute certainly that the word “bread/artos/” used in the Gospel Passover accounts was unleavened. It is impossible for the bread used by Jesus and the disciples at Jesus’ last Passover to have been leavened.

A NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDY ON “BREAD”

*The context and the context only defines whether the bread referred to in these scriptures was leavened or unleavened. The Greek word(s) for bread as used in these New Testament scriptures DO NOT signify whether it was leavened or unleavened. However, the CONTEXT MUST be used to supply the correct understanding. The context in these verses show that this bread was UNLEAVENED. To say or believe otherwise is to say that Jesus broke the command of God given in Exodus 12:8 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8.

**These two scriptures serve as an example of where it is impossible for us to state emphatically whether the bread here referred to is either leavened or unleavened. In my understanding of this incident, there is nothing in the CONTEXT that can be used to show what kind of bread was to being eaten (leavened or unleavened). It may have been leavened or unleavened. God has so inspired the writing of the New Testament concerning this subject that the determination must be made by the individual, not only in faith, looking at the context in which it is written.

• Previous | Next | Directory