The Passion Week: Good Friday

This Easter season, I’ve made a series of posts addressing skeptics’ criticism surrounding the Resurrection.  As we close in on Easter, I want to do a day-by-day detail discussing the events happening during the Passion Week. 

Please keep checking back!

Good Friday

So many things happen on this day that it’s impossible to fit a thorough discussion of them into a single post.  The most important event - by far, of course - is the Crucifixion.  Yet, what do I do about the other events?  Though they may be overshadowed by the Cross, should I omit them when there is still so much to learn from them?  Of all the days of the Passion Week I’ve covered before now, I knew this day would be the most difficult to address adequately.  I just pray in advance that God will guide my thoughts and forgive my clumsy words.

In my western way of thinking, it’s hard to draw a defining line between the events of Thursday and the events on Friday.  The Jewish day begins at sundown, while in the west, the next day starts at midnight.  So in this case, Friday technically began on what some (including me) would call Thursday.  Since I ended my last post with the arrest of Jesus, I will consider the events that followed His arrest to be happening on Friday.  I know it’s complicated, but realize that the events are historical regardless of the day to which we assign them.

The flight of the disciples and Peter’s denial

Jesus had warned His disciples earlier that they would soon fall away, citing Zechariah 13:7.  I will remind you of that conversation:

Matthew 26:31-33, Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.

I’m amused at the pride of Peter who seemed more upset that his loyalty would be questioned rather than amazed at Jesus saying He would rise again!  It’s as though Peter was so offended, that he completely missed the remark.  Of course, Jesus was correct and, just as He had also prophesied, Peter would later deny even knowing Him.

I think we sometimes judge people of the Bible too harshly.  We have the entire revelation of Scripture so, in a sense, we know more than they.  They were living in the times the Bible was being written and probably struggled to understand what was happening.  

In my life of comfort, it’s easy for me to look down on Peter and boast that I would have never denied knowing Him.  I like to think that I would stand fast if I had to face real threats of harm on account of my faith.  But I know that I’ll probably never be in that situation.  In the meanwhile, I know there are some Christians who wouldn’t take their Bibles to work because they’re afraid of what their coworkers might say.  Knowing what I know now, if I were to ever deny knowing Jesus, that would make me 100 times more a coward than Peter!

The trials of Jesus

The Bible tells us that Jesus was taken in front of multiple authorities to face the accusations being made against Him: Annas (John 18:13), Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:57-68), Pilate (Luke 23:2-5), and Herod (Luke 23:6-12).  

When Jesus stood before the Jewish authorities, He spoke nothing in His own defense just as was prophesied in Isaiah 53:7, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

The accusation against Him was made by 2 false witnesses who said He had said He would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days (Matthew 26:59-61).  Yet even when faced with the lies spoken against Him, Jesus remained silent until the Chief Priest asked, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63).  In response, Jesus made His only confession, (v. 64) “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

I see in this scene a picture of Christ as the Lamb of God.  He was examined by the Jewish priests and shown to be without blemish - worthy of being a sacrifice that would atone for sin.  In this case, it was the sin of the whole world! Praise Him!!

John 19 tells us about Jesus before Pilate.  V. 13 says, “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”  The word translated as “judgment seat” here is the Greek word Bema (béma, βῆμα, Strong’s word 968).  It’s the same word used in 2 Corinthians 5:10 where the works of Christians are judged by fire.  

I thought it was interesting that Jesus Himself was once judged before the Bema seat. We know the outcome, of course; He was ultimately sentenced to be crucified. However, note carefully what Pilate said about Him. He said that Jesus was a “just person” who had done no evil. It's significant that Jesus was found to be without guilt. The Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If Jesus had been guilty of any sin, He would have been deserving of death. If He had been deserving of death, He could not have given His life as the payment for our sins since He would have had to die for His own sins. But He was innocent.  Before we stand before the Judgment Seat, it was necessary for Him to stand before the judgment seat. It is by His obedience that we are made righteous (Romans 5:19).

Jesus or Barabbas?

While Pilate was trying to find a way to release an innocent man without raising the ire of religious leaders, he resorted to the Roman custom of freeing a condemned man on the Passover (John 18:39-40).  He offered the people a choice: Jesus, the King of the Jews or Barabbas (a murderer).  To his surprise, the people chose Barabbas.

There’s something very interesting about the name, “Barabbas.”  Bar (bar, בַּר, Strong’s word 1247) is an Aramaic word that means “son of.”  It’s used in a few other places in the Bible such as Matthew 16:17 where Jesus refers to Simon as “Simon Barjona” (Simon, son of Jonah). Many people already know that abba (ab, אָב, Strong’s word 1) means “father.”  Barabba, then, means “Son of Abba” or “Son of a father.”  

Wow.  I happen to be the son of a father.  When you think about it, everyone is the child of a father, so Barabbas could have been anyone.  That could have been my name written there!  This paints a wonderful picture of the substitutionary death of Jesus. Each one of us is a Barabbas: all guilty of many sins and all sentenced to die. But we don’t have to die. Jesus – the innocent man who knew no sin – has died in our place. He went to the cross and we were set free.

Jesus on the Cross

There is more that could be said about Good Friday: the scourging, the mocking, the purple robe of Herod, the crown of thorns, the road to Golgatha, the two thieves, the accusation posted over His head, His clothes being divided, and so much else.  However, time and space does not allow them all to be examined.  

Concerning Jesus on the cross, let us examine this passage given in John’s gospel:

John 19:30-35, When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

The last words of Jesus recorded by John were, “It is finished.”  The ultimate goal of Jesus’ incarnation had been accomplished.  The penalty for sin had been paid.  The wrath of the Father had been satisfied.  Our debt has been settled and there is no more need for a sacrifice.  God and sinners are reconciled.  

John tells us that he saw the event with his own eyes and wrote it down for our benefit.  In his own words,  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.  

Let John’s desire be our desire: that we tell others about Jesus so they, too, might believe!

Easter apologetics: Part 3. How did Judas die?

Opponents of Christianity often try to attack the faith by pointing out supposed contradictions in the Bible.  It’s a rather futile tactic because I don’t think their conclusion necessarily follows their premise.  What, if one passage of the Bible is wrong then all the Bible is wrong?  If two verses contradict each other, then there is no God?  It just doesn’t make any sense.  

Now, I get that, if the Bible isn’t reliable, then what we can know about God becomes suspect but I hardly see that as proof that God isn’t real, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and that our sins can’t be forgiven!  Of course, I am of the opinion that the Bible is 100% accurate and that all criticisms directed at the Bible will disappear with a fair reading of the text.  I was just pointing out that an alleged contradiction, even one which is not easily explained, isn’t proof of anything!

Many examples of alleged contradictions surround the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus: things like, how many women went to the tomb?  What time did they arrive?  How many angels were there?  What did Judas do with the 30 pieces of silver?  How did Judas die?  This Easter season, I thought I’d make a series of posts dealing with the most often used criticisms of the events, and conclude the series with a day by day discussion of what Jesus may have been doing each day during the Passion Week.  

Please keep checking back!

How did Judas die?

There are two passages that mention the death of Judas:

Matthew 27:3-5, Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:15-18, And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

One issue often raised by critics of the Bible is the question, “How did Judas die?” We know that after the arrest of Jesus, Judas, in a fit of remorse, ended his own life.  However, at  first reading, the two accounts we have of the event seem to contradict each other.  Matthew says simply, “[He] went and hanged himself,” while Acts says, “and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”  

Perhaps one reason this criticism is so enduring is because, unlike so many other criticisms, this one is not as easily rebutted. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is a valid criticism of the Bible; the fact of the matter is that the two passages are so scarce in detail that it's not obvious how to reconcile them. Actually, multiple explanations exist and we're just not sure which might be the correct solution.

It must be remembered that different people will describe the same event differently. Consider this analogy: police are called to a crime scene and find a dead man. They ask witnesses what happened. One witness says the victim was killed in a fight with another man. A second witness says the victim fell and hit his head. Using only these details, it seems like the witnesses have contradicted each other. However, the simple solution could be that two men were fighting when one fell, struck his head, and died. If we had more details, the passages from Matthew and Acts might be that simple to reconcile. Alas, we only have these two, short descriptions. There are at least 3 ways these events might be reconciled:

A SPIRITUAL FALL

I once read an intriguing possibility that Peter (Luke 1) was not describing the physical death of Judas but was merely describing his spiritual fall. This would be a fall in the same sense that Adam “fell” and died. Regarding the reference to “bowels,” there are multiple passages (especially in the KJV) where the “bowels” are a reference to mercy or compassion (Colossians 3:12, Philemon 1:7, 1 John 3:17, etc). So according to this theory, Judas may have died physically but he also “fell” spiritually and his bowels bursting is a reference to his act of betrayal.

I am a little skeptical of this as a possible solution but it could have merit. I've already mentioned that different people might describe the same event differently so Peter may have been speaking of his spiritual fall. Consider also that Peter is introducing the need to replace Judas among the apostles. We have no reason to believe the act of replacing the apostles was continued after subsequent deaths of the apostles – those apostles who remained faithful unto death. It could be then that Peter is introducing a doctrinal need to replace him, namely that he not only died but that he fell from grace.

A GRUESOME HANGING

I've heard various scenarios that attempt to explain how the hanging of Judas might have been especially gruesome and could fit the description in both passages. 

• The first is a rather mundane explanation that the rope Judas used was too long and rather than hanging, he fell to the ground. Alternatively, the rope simply broke during the attempt causing Judas to fall.  These are hardly plausible. A fall from a tree might be sufficient to kill a person but it would have to be an especially high tree for the body to break open. This is the least likely explanation that I've heard.

• A second possibility is that Judas wasn't “hanged” in the ordinary sense of the word but instead impaled himself – perhaps on a spear. The word “hanged” is also used in reference to the death of Jesus (Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39) who we certainly know wasn't hanged by the neck. Besides Jesus, the thieves crucified with him are also described as being “hanged” (Luke 23:39). If a person were impaled through the belly with a spear, it might be described that his bowels burst open and spilled out. I once considered this an extremely possible explanation but I later learned that the Greek word in Matthew 27:5 (apagcho, ἀπάγχω, Strong’s word 519) quite literally means “to choke.”  It is a different word than what is translated as “hanged” in Acts 5:30.  This may still be a possible explanation but I feel it is less likely.

• Yet another possibility occurred to me many years ago when I heard a radio news bite of a US state that was trying to hire an executioner. In that state (I believe it was Washington), the proscribed method of execution was still hanging even though no one had been hanged there for many years. In the sound bite it was mentioned how much is actually involved in a hanging. The rope should be the right length for the sentenced man's weight so that his neck will break and he will die quickly. If it is too short, he will die slowly by strangulation. However, if it is too long, the man could be decapitated! Please excuse the gore but if a person were decapitated and his stomach contents were regurgitated out of his esophagus, it might fit the description given by Peter.

POST MORTEM

When Peter spoke before the other apostles, it might have already been understood by all that Judas had already died. So rather than telling everyone that Judas had died (or how he died), Peter might be adding some information about an event that happened post mortem. As mentioned above, a body falling from a tree will not likely “burst open.” However, after death, the skin and tissues begin to decompose. The body also begins to bloat. Answers in Genesis gives this very graphic description:

Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon: as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking), the skin easily broke, and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

In conclusion, let me remind my readers that we cannot know which of these possible scenarios might be the correct one. There could still be other explanations I have not discussed or even considered. But just these few possible scenarios clearly demonstrate that the passages in question need not be contradictory.

Popular misconceptions about the Nativity

As is a tradition in the Bentley household, I’ve set up my nativity set.  Every Christmas, the nativity is really the only decoration I look forward to setting up - perhaps even more than the tree.  I believe it’s because the Nativity is the most stark reminder of why we celebrate Christmas.  But even though I enjoy setting a good nativity, I know the traditional scenes that decorate lawns and tabletops all over the world aren’t very accurate depictions of the actual nativity. 

Let’s start with the trip to Bethlehem.  The Christmas card image of Joseph walking through the desert at night, while leading Mary who is riding a donkey isn’t found anywhere in the Scriptures.  Since the purpose of the journey was a census/tax, then all of Mary’s and Joseph’s family would have probably been traveling together.  They would have all been of the same house and lineage, afterall.  Furthermore, they would have likely been together when the Baby was born.  Did neither Mary nor Joseph have any living parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, or siblings?  Where are they in the nativities?

Next, the couple didn’t necessarily arrive in Bethlehem the very night of Jesus’ birth, as if often depicted in films.  The Bible merely says that she delivered Jesus, “while they were there” (Luke 2:6).  More precisely, the verse says, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered,” strongly suggesting that she spent that remaining part of her pregnancy in Bethlehem.  They could have been there for days, weeks, or even months!  

My next point is probably the most controversial and puts me at odds with most Christians but I don’t believe Jesus was born in a stable.  The word translated as inn in the KJV (Strong’s 2646, kataluma, καταλύμα) is the same word used in Mark 14:14 to refer to the room where Jesus had the Last Supper.  In Mark, the word is translated as guestchamber and suggests it was just an area in a residence available for guests.  Typical Jewish homes in the 1st century weren’t spacious buildings with many bedrooms.  Instead, they were smaller buildings built upward with a second floor.   Mundane living, cooking, and family gathering was done on the 1st floor during the day.  At night, the animals (typically some goats or maybe a donkey) were brought inside, and the family slept on the 2nd floor.  As already discussed, Mary and Joseph would have had family in Bethlehem and they likely would have been staying with them.  Because of the census, many members of the same family were probably staying in the same house, making the normal sleeping areas overcrowded.  This, combined with Mary nearing delivery and so would have had difficulty climbing to the 2nd floor, means Mary and Joseph may have been sleeping on the 1st floor where the animals were kept.  This is the type of situation Jesus likely was born into - a poor, overcrowded home - not a stable.

The final misconception many people have about the Nativity is that the wisemen weren’t there!  This point really isn’t debateable.  The coming of the wise men discussed in Matthew 2 happened when Jesus was nearing 2 years old.  Matthew 2:16 says that Herod ordered the murder of all children up to two years old “according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”  In other words, the wise men had seen the “star” as long as two years earlier and had just then arrived to worship the Savior.  I should probably do a separate post about the Star and the wise men.  

When I point out these little details, some people despair.  I’m not sure why.  I guess it’s because it upsets the scene of that night they have always pictured in their minds but there’s no need to lament.  The most important details about Jesus’ birth have been recorded correctly.  It’s the message given by the angel to the shepherds in Luke 2:8-14:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.   And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Wow, that is good news!!

The Greek New Testament does not call the Holy Spirit an it!

Grammatical gender is rather ordinary in most languages but completely absent from English.  In English, men are he/him, women are she/her, and everything else is an it.  Because English follows a sort of “natural gender,” English speakers often believe gender in other languages also denotes the sex or personhood of what is being discussed.  If a noun in another language is masculine, for example, English speakers assume it denotes a human male.  

Grammatical gender is merely a type of grammatical designation.  In Spanish, for example, the word for a lady’s dress is el vestido, which is masculine, while the word for a man’s necktie is la corbata, which is feminine.  This seems totally absurd to English speakers because a lady’s dress should obviously be feminine and the necktie, masculine!  

In my opinion, it’s unfortunate we even use the word gender to describe it.  It might help native-English speakers if we imagine the word class when talking about gender.  For example, instead of saying masculine nouns, we could say class-M nouns.  SInce this blog is written in English, I’m assuming the people who read it also speak English so grouping nouns into classes instead of gender might help you as you think about this post.  

Spanish only has two genders: masculine and feminine.  There is no neuter gender in Spanish.  However, Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.  Since the New Testament was written in Greek and since English uses he, she, and it, the tendency to project our English understanding of gender onto the text becomes almost irresistible.  Therefore, problems sometimes arise when people try to use the gender of a Greek word to make a doctrinal point.  

A blog that calls itself Examining the Trinity has pointed out that the Holy Spirit in the original Greek is neuter.  They went on to say this:

But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

This is an extremely amateurish argument. It demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Most people who use this argument really can't read Greek. Instead, they have heard once that the Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter so, because of their understanding of English, they buy into the argument that the Spirit is an “it.” Of course, there are some people who indeed understand Greek's grammatical use of gender but still repeat the argument with the intention of preying on the audience's ignorance of the subject.

First, this is a blatant example of special pleading because the same people who raise this argument don't apply this same standard everywhere. In Matthew 2:11, for example,  the Bible says the wise men, “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Greek word for child here (paidion, παιδίον, Strong’s word 3813) is neuter so, to be consistent, they should translate this verse as “they saw the young child with Mary its mother.” Of course they don't do that. Neither do they refer to the church as her or the book as him or “correctly” render the hundred other instances where Greek gender does not agree with English ideas of gender.

There's another subtle flaw in the above quote that might escape notice. The author seems unaware of the flaw and cites a source that commits the same mistake. See if you can spot it in this quote:

The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.' [bold in original]

Did you catch it? If not, don't feel bad because it's sort of a technicality and some might accuse me of splitting hairs. However, I feel it's an important consideration. This quote says, “most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'” The reality is that NO Greek manuscript contains the word, it! The word it is an English word which conveys a certain meaning in English. It is more precise to say that the Greek manuscripts use the neuter pronoun (auton) whenever the antecedent is a neuter noun. The original authors were not thinking “it” whenever they wrote "auton." Again, think, “class” instead of gender and it might help.  Class-N nouns use class-N pronouns.  

A language is more than its vocabulary; each language also has its own grammar as well as its own idioms. The goal of any translation is to express the same meaning in the target language that is conveyed in the original language. A good translation should obey the rules of the target language – not slavishly render a hyper-literal, word for word exchange of the original language. The pronouns used in our translations should follow the rules of English, not Greek! If the antecedent is an object, the English pronoun should be it. If the antecedent is a person, the English pronoun should be he or she.

If anyone wants to deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, he must make his case using Scripture. A weak appeal to the gender of a Greek word – especially an appeal made by someone who can't even read Greek – isn't even close.