Full of cliches or the Holy Spirit, which is it?

Personally, I am convinced that I could become a pretty good writer, if I didn’t let ego get in my way—maybe perhaps, even a pretty good preacher. Who know? The truth of the matter, however, is that I am not alone in this fault. My suspicions are that many of us are in the same boat.

Now, let me explain:

Far too often I am willing to sacrifice the real meat of truth on the altar of my ego by simply choosing a cute phrase to express a profound truth when something more prosaic is required. My prayer is that God will deliver me from cheap trivialities and convenient clichés. Preaching and writing is not hack journalism, reporting on the work of the Kingdom, but rather living it.

James writes, concerning prayer—but I think it also goes for preaching and writing:

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much"(James 5: 16)

Not any man's prayer; not the prayer of a profane sinner, for God hears not sinners; nor hypocrites and formal professors: but the righteous man, who is justified by the righteousness of Christ, and has the truth of grace in him, and lives soberly and righteously.

"Effectual, fervent prayer"— not just any prayer but effectual, fervent prayer. That goes for preaching and writing as well.  Any hack can talk about the truth of the Gospel, but it takes a righteous man to convey its message.

May we be ‘doers of the word, and not hearers only.’ May we not sell out our ministry to sensationalism or quick fixes—crowd drawing techniques.
Let us instead, like Paul,

Go in God’s strength not our own. Let us proclaim God’s purposes, not with brilliance of speech or intellect. Let it be our secret determination to concentrate entirely on Jesus Christ and the fact of his death upon the cross. Let us, like Paul preach as necessary in nervousness and even when sick and shaky. Let us preached not with the attractiveness of the clever mind, but rather demonstrate the power of the Spirit! For truly, it is plain that God’s purpose is not that any person’s faith should rest upon man’s cleverness but upon the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:4-8 Adapted & paraphrased)

What more can I say or desire?

I am yours for the journey,

A purpose filled life . . .

Malachi 3:6 declares, “I am the Lord, I change not.” So with the poet we prayerfully say,

Change and decay in all around I see—

O thou who changest not, abide with me!

— Henry F. Lyte

Life has its ups and downs, its turnarounds—that's for sure! Jesus was a great optimist. Even with the whole world crumbling around him, His faith in the future never wavered. Think of it, with the cross casting a shadow of doom and doubt over his disciples he had the courage and foresight to turn to the dying thief and promise him paradise, and to entrust His own mother to John the Beloved for safekeeping. Yes, He knew there would be a tomorrow, and He was confident that His Father and ours would see Him through this terrible ordeal, and that He would rise yet on another day to live forevermore.

Life here on earth can be tough, but we needn't worry—it's passing. It's like a vapor, James says. And, for those in the know, there's a better day coming.

No, that's not morbid thinking, that's reality. Our only permanency now and in our tomorrows is God and the sooner we learn that the better. We may never know what a day will bring but we know who is in charge. It was with this confidence that Moses said to the children of Israel,

“Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." (Deut. 3:16)

Friends, I must tell you that the longer I live the more see change and decay, the rise and fall of great men and women, the total futility of placing faith and hope in the transiency of anything this old world has to offer. So, you are fortunate enough to own the Clippers basketball franchise and cavort with whores then fain mental illness and sell the club for a cool 2 billion dollars, what good will that do in the long run?

I am reminded once again of the words in the first stanza of that great poem by C.T. Studd, the famous cricketer and missionary, which reads,

“Two little lines I heard one day,

Traveling along life’s busy way;

Bringing conviction to my heart,

And from my mind would not depart;

Only one life, ’twill soon be past,

Only what’s done for Christ will last.”

Friends, we must focus on that. Let’s not be lured into complacency comforts of life or discouraged with the hardships.

As always, I am with you on the journey,

Truth is where you find it . . .

You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. — G. K. Chesterton 

This week, I have pondered on Paul’s statement that: 

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21)

Strange words, aren't they? Why in the name of commonsense would anyone in their right mind ever spout off a mouth full of foolishness to convince anyone of anything? Yet, we find this obviously well-educated man perfectly pleased with admitting that he was willing—not just willing, but eager, you might say—to become a fool for Christ’s sake.” (1 Cor. 4:10) 

What would ever possess a man to do that?

The true is, however, that Christianity has always run counter culture to conventional wisdom, particular on social and moral issues. Furthermore, Christianity and academia more often clashes than not; perhaps more than ever before—at least when it comes to creationism and evolution. Politically almost any imaginable sin can fly under the banner of freedom; except, of course, any act that may be construed to be politically incorrect, no matter how trivial.

Need I give examples? Ask Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball franchise, if he ever intends to use the word 'hoodie' again. Such are the trivialities of our political correctness. Want another one? Ask the former Pope Benedict XVI why he felt he had to apologize for a statement he made about Islam at the University of Regensburg in Germany in his lecture 12 September 2006. Ask both of them, and if they are absolutely candid about it they will tell you that it was not the politically correct thing to do.

Things like freedom of choice are part of our belief system that runs counter to the conventional wisdom? ? What about that?

May I suggest that, that all depends on what your choices are?

Then what about freedom to love as you please?

Well, I would have to answer that, that all depends on your definition of love and what you are in love with. For some love is expressed in a one night stand, or something far more appalling—like for instance I once read of a pedophile defending himself on the basis of love. He said that he simply loved children.

This whole scenario reminds me of what G. K. Chesterton once said—and that is,

“All that an insane man has left is his reason.”

So, logic and reason, particularly in the arena of morals and faith, must have a solid foundation on which to base conclusions. Otherwise, rightness and wrongness get all muddled up.

Let me give you a couple of historic examples. Prior to Christianity in the Hawaiian Islands it was perfectly acceptable for a brother to marry his sister to carry on the royal line. Another example of allowing society to pick and choose their morals at will is found in Polynesia on the Pitcairn Islands which was settled in 1790 by a group of British mutineers of the HMS Bounty and Tahitians. There up and until just recently young girls as early as 11 and 12 years old were forced to marry sometimes men in their 30’s and 40’s. Appalling, isn't it?
Yet, all of this made good sense to the royals of Hawaii and the bachelors in the Pitcairn Islands. Sure it was incest, and, yes, it was pedophilia, but it made sense to those folks.

Now, mind you, that is just in the area of morals. Let’s also take a close look at science and faith.
Who are we to believe here? Nothing, then the big bang? Or something, then creation? Jesus, then death? Or Jesus, then death followed by a resurrection?

The point being—although, the world at large doesn't get the picture yet—is that you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

For me, and you, of course, that something is faith; but not just blind faith, it must be faith based on something. And, that something is God and His Word, as in Jesus the Word of God and Holy Scripture as God’s written word. Leave that out of you syllogism and you are indeed a fool; but albeit, not for Christ’s sake.

This is why, Paul could say previously,

I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor. 1:4-9)

 For as Martin Luther discovered so many years ago,

For by grace we have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph. 2:8)

Now, the million dollar question is, “Do we really get it? Do we understand that our faith is God given, and that by grace? That we don’t deserve it? That, as a matter of fact, we don’t even understand it without Him telling us so.”

Such is the amazing grace of God—that we who were once alien and estranged from God and without the wisdom to understand why, are now made part of the Family of God. (1 Peter 2:11)

 Now, friends, that is true wisdom.

As usual, I am yours for the journey,

Truth and where to find it!

Early in my career, I discovered that theology is never static— that is God’s purposes and plans are progressively understood incrementally over time, and from the very beginning this has be so. This fact, however, does not mean that truth—or as Francis Schaeffer used to say, “true Truth” changes; it simply means that we understand the essence of truth better.

As for example, it is safe to say that no conscientious Old Testament Jew, prophet or otherwise, in their wildest imagination while reciting The Shema: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) would ever assume a Trinity. That refinement must wait until the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and beyond for a clearer understanding and richer insights into this deep mystery.

Now, however, who would argue that historical fact? Certainly, I wouldn’t.Thus we can say in a real sense understanding God’s purposes and plans, and as a matter of fact, His very nature has and is in a flux of refinement—the testimony of which is found in the abundance of Christian opinions. The end goal of all good theology, however, is change to us, not visa-versa. For as any believer knows, He has declared

“I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
So with the poet we can say,
Change and decay in all around I see—
O thou who changest not, abide with me!
— Henry F. Lyte

Thus we believe that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both the Father and the Son is the same God as the God of The Shema and affirmed once again when we read in Scripture that,

“Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, today and forever.” (Heb. 13:8 Phillips)

Which, to me indicates both a fulfillment of a Godly purpose as well as a further refinement in understanding His nature and purposes.

The big question is, however, ‘How do we know or understand the nature and purposes of God?’

Shall I cut to the chase since I assume that you are a Christian or otherwise you would not be reading this? The answer is that we depend entirely on God’s grace to reveal His nature and eternal intentions to us. This, we believe, He has done through nature and His Word as revealed to us in Holy Scripture. Herein, however, lies the crux of the controversy—that is ‘How can we know what we perceive and/or have been told is really true Truth?’ or just a product of a wishful imagination?

In a word, we accept what we believe is true Truth intuitively by faith—His Spirit bears witness with  our spirits that we are children of God. (Romans 8:16) Human reason alone, however, is insufficient; Godly grace is required. This I like to think of as God affirming the intuition which I believe the Greek makes clear in the verse just cited. I say this because the Greek verb (συμμαρτυρεῖ /symmartyrei) conveys the meaning of "bears witness along with"— meaning, in my estimation, that affirms the intuition.

Consider the Apostle Peter’s confession in this regard. Matthew says that—

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 16: 13-17 NIV)

Surely there must have been other mitigating factors involved, a gradual dawning, or a peculiar awareness that this man Jesus must be different, someone special; but the Messiah, the Son of the living God? Hardly. No, that intuitive insight came in a flash accompanied by an affirming revelation that Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of the living God, the long awaited Messiah.

Now, if we look carefully and are open we also find that God has continued this unfolding process down through history, up to the present time. Otherwise, theology would be stagnant, wooden, and underdeveloped.

This is not to suggest that God changes; but it is to suggest that our understanding does as of knowledge of Him expands in an ever increasing revelation of who He is.

God has not left us without a witness, however. The Church is the creation of Jesus, from whom it receives its authority; He gave authority to the Apostles to determine and institute doctrine, to declare the correct and false, to establish faith and morals. Paul highlights that in his instructions to young Timothy whom he had asked to stay in Ephesus to shepherd the fledgling fellowship in that city with these words:

 ‘[If] I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

Yes, the Church is that witness—not the opinion of some solo artist that decides that God has infused them with special knowledge that will enlighten the presumed theological idiots that by chance may disagree with them. Godly appointed authority? Never, these self-appointed magisterium of one have the answer—“Sola scriptura,” they shout in defense against any and all authority. And, for the information of any that would like to hear it, I would say that we should put them all in the same basket as all the other heretics out there. Surely there is a hierarchy of brethren to guide the church in all its fulness.

For me, I have submitted to the wisdom and leadership of my denomination which have prayerfully develop a statement of doctrine orthodoxy—albeit, a simple one; but none-the-less a sound one. I have a hunch that we are not through, but time is on our side and no doubt certain points will be fine-tuned in the years to come. As Dwight Longenecker says;

“Ironically, in rejecting an external infallible authority we are encouraged to embrace the most fickle and fallible of all authorities – our own judgment. We then cling to our opinions like a shipwrecked man clings to a splinter of wood, and before long, our opinions are unassailable. In the end we don’t have one objective, infallible authority but millions of subjective “infallible” authorities, and in this absurdity, we rejoice.” 

Remember, I am with you for the journey,

You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession . . .

Peter to whom Christ handed the keys to the Kingdom at first failed miserably, even denied Christ and following the Crucifixion seemed to prefer fishing to preaching. He was impulsive—not a good trait for any leader—cowardly at times, and had a tendency towards violence (think of poor Marcus’ ear which he lobed off) and was therefore, in my opinion, a most unlikely candidate for any form of leadership, certainly not that of handling the responsibility for the keys to the Kingdom.

Now, just think about it for a moment, would you have chosen Peter to be the inaugural speaker on the Day of Pentecost based on what you knew about him prior to that point? I think not. It doesn’t stop there either. If you were going to mention someone’s name more than that of another would you have picked Peter over Paul? Well, the facts are that Peter is mentioned more times in the New Testament than Paul. Think of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15—James presided, but Peter cast the deciding vote. Who would have ever imagined that based on what the Scripture tells us prior to the Resurrection?

We Pentecostals, I believe, love to vaunt the charisma of Paul—he gives us a basis for our theology that is his epistles are our refuge. Peter is kind of put on a side burner, as it were. Yet, it was Peter not Paul that was commissioned to introduce Christ to the Gentiles and it was he and that little band that went with him that gave testimony to the fact that even Gentiles was acceptable to God as evidenced by the fact that they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.

I will confess, I have always been more fascinated with Peter than Paul. Perhaps, it is because I can really identify with Peter.

Not only can I identify with Peter, but I think that his epistles have a lot to offer us. I recall that during the short time that I pastored here in the States I seemed to gravitate towards first and second Peter, particularly Second Peter because he seemed to be so pastoral and practical—at least that is the way I saw it.

Well, all of that to say this,

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (1 Peter 1: 1-2)

There are a couple of observations here that I would like to make.

Firstly, we must take into consideration that the author was not just an ordinary person who decided to send out a newsletter to a group of friends.

This was a special messenger, an Apostle, as a matter of fact many feel the chief Apostle commissioned by Christ. So, although on the surface it appears that it may have just been yet another newsletter or pastoral letter designed to cheer up the flock, it was not. The whole content of the letter was first and foremost God’s message, His letter to these men and women scattered throughout that part of the ancient world.

Secondly, we must also note these people had been scattered abroad—that is, as the original Greek indicates, they were sown, or scattered like dried leaves abroad without seemly a purpose. In other words, on surface it would appear that they were just more of the same nameless, and faceless people that struggle through life from day to day without an obvious purpose except to survive the best they can.

This is not the case, however. Notice it says in essence that God the Father was aware of their plight long before they were even born. He knew and He cared; therefore, He did what?

He set them aside for His holy purposes. He sanctified (that is set them aside for His holy purposes) by the Spirit. This was a spiritual matter, a spiritual decision. He knew what he was doing, even though at the time they may not have known and even complained of their circumstances.

So, one good thing we can learn about this is that nothing, absolutely nothing ever happens to us at random. God knows, and cares. So, we must be thankful. In that regards Peter writes (1 Peter 1:3-5):

“Let us thank the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was through His loving-kindness that we were born again to a new life and have a hope that never dies. This hope is ours because Jesus was raised from the dead.  We will receive the great things that we have been promised. They are being kept safe in heaven for us. They are pure and will not pass away. They will never be lost.  You are being kept by the power of God because you put your trust in Him and you will be saved from the punishment of sin at the end of the world. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

  

Then in the very next verse, we find that Peter says,

With this hope you can be happy even if you need to have sorrow and all kinds of tests for a while. (1 Peter 1:6)

Many times these ancient text leave us baffled. Well, we say to ourselves in this instance, I haven’t been scattered abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—as a matter of fact, I am not even sure where these places are, so how may this apply to me, today?

Well, first of all, you may feel that you are a nobody like these nameless Christians, just another Christian that lives in an insignificant little fishing village or that you are lost in the masses of a great city like New York, Dallas or Delhi.. A nobody. No purpose. Just flung as if by chance by the forces of fate and dropped without purpose in some small remote place, or lost in a forest of anonymous faces. But that is not true.

You have been chosen by God. You are someone important in His eyes. As a matter of fact, just like these people that we have read about today,

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

You may wonder, why you of all people was chosen? What is your mission in life? Is there any purpose? Well one of the salient reasons is found in verse 9 which was just quoted. You were chosen as God’s special possession

“[T]hat you may declare the praises of him that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

That’s your purpose. Your purpose is to share with others what has happened to you, and help them understand that this great truth offers hope. The hope of a wonderful treasure that has been reserved in Heaven for us! (1 Peter 1:4)

That is the good news. The Gospel.

Give me that old time religion!

"Preach often, and if necessary use words."  St. Francis of Assisi

Think back with me for a while. What and when was the greatest lesson that you were taught in life? Chances are it was not from some book (other then the Bible, of course). I dare say that it was not in a class lecture you heard once, or gleaned from some politician's campaign speech. Furthermore, I will be so bold as to say that it was most probably not from the pulpit, either.

No, chances are it was from that silent language that some people seem to be able to communicate without saying a word. Things like courtesy, or an honest example and a life well lived most often speak louder than words.

Often, I think of those men of God who influence me. One was an old country pastor, a carpenter by trade, who absolutely murdered the queens english. Ain't was a verb for all seasons, that's for sure. Preach? He couldn't preach his way out of a paper bag, as the saying goes. You know, come to think of it, he didn't smile a lot, either; but he always had a pleasant expression on his face. You could tell that he was at peace with himself and God, and for that matter everyone else, too, including a little 12 year old want to be preacher—that being me, of course.

Looking back, I must have been a nuisance. Always wanting to tag along. Asking questions about the most mundane things. Mimicking the way he said "Hallelujah!" I remember once during a tent revival at which hardly anyone turned up for, he got blessed. He started laughing after the altar call (that was before the user friendly days and we still had altars in all of our churches) and  he sat on the altar and begin to laugh and cry at the same time. Well, I had to have that too, so I started laughing too, then I got really tickled at myself and had a barrel of fun. Never did manage to cry, though. Looking back, yeah, it was kind of odd, but it certainly did not drive me from the church. I just wanted God, and more of Him, and if laughing did the trick, I was all in for it.

Now, of course, I realize that getting tickled at yourself is not a move of the spirit but it was fun, nonetheless. And, it was Pentecost. I loved it, and still do. Pentecost, that is.

Sure there were and are a lot of excesses. I suppose it always has been that way. Think of the Day of Pentecost. Those with any commonsense at all said, "These men are drunk." But, they weren't.

And, you know something? I saw the revival of those days change people's lives. Ignorant, uneducated people, those without an ounce of formal theological training shaped a generation and beyond, of course.

So, I thank God for men and women who preached the greatest sermons possible without uttering a word. They simply lived the Gospel. It glowed in their lives, and shined all through the darkness in that little neck of the woods where I first met Jesus.

I guess that's why I am old fashioned. I still like hymns with some meat to them, not some la-la make me feel good little ditty thrown up on the screen. I also like to know that communion is more than just a slight interruption in an otherwise routine service, hurried along so we can listen to yet another torturous 45 minute sermon on pop psychology. I also appreciate knowing that the pastor has done his or her homework not just for the classroom but also in the prayer chamber. After all, man shall not live by bread alone. (Luke 4:4)

Funny thing. There's not much of that old timey religion around any more; and there won't be until we return to the fundamentals.

Blood moon a sign of the end times?

Kerby Anderson has written,

Many prophecy teachers point to the fact that some verses of Scripture mention the moon turning to blood and believe this tetrad of blood moons might signal the end of the age. The first blood moon occurs today during Passover (April 15). The next takes place during the Feast of Tabernacles (October 8). Then a third occurs next Passover (April 4, 2015). And the last takes place during the following Feast of Tabernacles (September 29, 2015).

The question is, is this really a sign of the end times spoken of in Scripture? According to Mr. Anderson,

These are significant events in the heavens, but do they predict the return of Christ? Authors of books on the four blood moons usually point of a number of biblical passages, such as Joel 2, Matthew 24, and Revelation 6. I realize that Christians have different views of prophecy, but I think we might at least be able to agree on a basic interpretation of these passages.

Joel 2 was written to people who needed to repent. He prophesied about the "day of the Lord" and Revelation 14 seems to confirm that the prophet Joel was referring to Armageddon in his prophecy. Jesus in Matthew 24 talks about a great tribulation and predicts a time when the sun is darkened and the moon is not giving its light. A blood moon would only occur if the sun is giving its light. Likewise, you have in Revelation 6 the sun becoming black and the moon becoming like blood. Both of these verses seem to be talking about something supernatural not a lunar eclipse.

Admittedly, the coincidences are intriguing; however, we must point out that coincidences are not  necessarily mutually contingent and there may be other factors like for instance since the Jewish calendar is a lunar calender and the coincidence of the first blood moon falling on the Passover by necessity astronomically will place the other three blood moon on a Jewish holiday also. So, as with so much that goes with prophecy identifying the signs for and of fulfillment can sometimes get really wonky depending on the inclination or the predisposition of the interpreter. Therefore, I don't think I would hock the country store to wager a bet on this one. Besides, admittedly I am color blind, but it looks more orange than blood red to me. 

Furthermore, what these doomsday sayers neglect to tell you is that the coming four blood moons will be the eighth time this has happened since 1 AD. They mean nothing as far as the Bible is concerned, as far as I can see.

It has been my observation that prophecy is understood more thoroughly after the fact, consequently, it is best not to sell one's theology out to specifics which may or may not be there. As the song goes, "Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be Will Be)" and I would just leave it there in the knowledge that we are safe and secure in His presence and forever safe there in HIs loving arms.

Passover is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread is a feast that is generally mistaken for Passover. Passover however is only one 24 hour period while Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts for seven days.

Summary verses:

KJV of Mark 14:12

12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Correct Translation:

Mark 14:12, “At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.”

Or as NIV puts it: 12 “On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

7 The day came during the Festival of Unleavened Bread when the Passover lamb had to be killed. 8 Yeshua sent Peter and John and told them, “Go, prepare the Passover lamb for us to eat.” (Names of God Bible) Luke 22:7

Further clarification:

THE “FIRST DAY” OF UNLEAVENED BREAD Mat 26:17 Now the first (#4413) day (not in original) of the feast of (not in original) unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

Mark 14:12 And the first (#4413) day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?

Luke 22:7 Then came the day (#2250) of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

The translators have grossly mistranslated these three verses in regards to the words “first” and “day”.  They knew that the Greek used both of these words generally, as well as specifically.  They chose to translate these words specifically – creating a contradiction in the scriptures.  Moreover, nothing in the immediate context requires a specific translation.  In fact, a perusal understanding of the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread reveals that a specific rendition of these words creates a contradiction.  Because of this mistranslation, commentators have stumbled over the intent of these verses for centuries!

Let us look at the word in Matthew 26:17.  2Peter 2:20 uses the same word.  There the KJV translates it as beginning.

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning (#4413).

Realizing that the word and are not in the original in Matthew 26:17, the verse should be translated as follows: Matthew 26:17, Now at (toward) the beginning of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua - Joshua), saying to Him, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?

This is a correct translation because the 15th of Nisan is the first day of unleavened bread.  As the evidence points out that the time of this verse was earlier than the 15th Nisan, the KJV translators made an error in translating this verse as though it was already the 15th, when the Greek did not require this narrow translation.

Now let us look at Mark 14:12.  This verse uses the same word for (#4413).  We have already shown how one should translate this word.  This verse does include the word (#2250), in the original.  Notice how the following passages translates this word day (#2250):  Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days <2250> of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days <2250>; where we abode seven days <2250>.

Lu 1:5 There was in the days <2250> of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Lu 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, whereby shall I know this?  For I am an old man, and my

wife well stricken in years <2250>.

Lu 9:51  And it came to pass, when the time <2250> was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, As we see from above scriptures, the word #2250 is general.  It can be specific, if the context requires specific information.  By translating this verse as they have, the KJV translators made the day specific.  The problem is that the translation is in error because the first day of unleavened bread is on the 15th and the Romans put the Messiah on the tree on the 14th!  Therefore, we have an impossible translation – it does not agree with the facts.  The 14th is not the first day of unleavened bread!

The word #2250 is many times translated as in a general sort of way as in  Luke 1:5 above.  A correct translation of Mark 14:12 follows:

Mark 14:12, At the beginning of the season of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, His disciples said to Him, Where will you that we go and prepare that you may eat the Passover.

It was at or toward the beginning of the time or season of unleavened bread that this took place.  Moreover, we all know that it was during the season of unleavened bread when the Passover was slain. The disciples came to Jesus (Yahshua – Joshua) before the evening began, and when the evening came, they sit down together; therefore, this had to be no later than the 13th Nisan.  Consequently, if anyone wants to call the 14th the first day of unleavened bread, which it is not, the translation is still in error – for the day in question was earlier than the 14th Nisan!

The thrust of the time is the beginning days or season of unleavened bread, which began, directly, on the 10th of Nisan.  The Jews did prepare roads, reconstruct bridges, and whitewash tombs – among other activities – before the 10th Nisan, but the penning of the lambs specifically for the Passover began on the 10th Nisan.  We will see that it had to be even earlier than the 13th when the disciples came to Christ for instructions to prepare for the Passover!

Luke 22:7 is even more revealing.  The Greek word is Strong’s #2250.  We have seen a correct translation using that word.  Moreover, unless one translates it, as we have shown, we have a gross error.  The day the Passover was slain was not a day of unleavened bread!  The Festival of Unleavened Bread encompassed only 7 days.  If we include the 14th Nisan, the day for slaying the Passover lambs, as a day of unleavened bread, we have 8 days of unleavened bread.  This would be an impossible translation – even if one accepted the erroneous idea that the day involved was the 14th Nisan!  Here is a correct way to translate this verse:

Luke 22:7 Then came the season of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Correct interpretation:

A correct translation of these scriptures must reveal that the writers referred to the season of unleavened bread, rather than a specific day of unleavened bread – otherwise we have a contradiction.  Additionally, the above translation is well within the meaning of the Greek.