Holy Week Timeline

This will probably get moved, but...

Here is a timeline of the events of Holy Week.

Comments

  • O dear - 'Page Not Found'.
    :confused:
  • Yes, that works! Thank you.
  • MamacitaMamacita Shipmate
    Is there something you wanted to discuss, Gramps49?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Like I said, I just wanted to point out the traditional timeline of Holy Week. Not much to discuss, just providing information.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    I am "doing it" religiously and would like to take the opportunity to thank you for posting it. Trying to make up for a very slack Lent you have saved me (as it were!)
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited April 20
    This is barely within this topic, but I didn't want to ask my question in a separate thread because the answer is probably well know to the rest of you:

    Where, and what exactly, is this scripture that Jesus is so often fulfilling? (I know some of it is in Isaiah.)

    Example, John 19:36 ESV:
    For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited April 20
    In the Passion narratives the gospel writers explain how the crucifixion of Christ is foretold in the scriptures. Because this is not what was really expected of the Messiah. The crucifixion is a minor theme of the OT scriptures in the prophets and the psalms. The Messiah is the suffering servant of Israel (Is 53: 3-5). He is silent behind His accusers (Is 53: 7; Mark 15: 5). The solders cast lots for His clothing (Ps 22: 17-18; John 19: 23). He is mocked upon the cross (Ps 22: 7-8; Matt 27: 41-44). His cry of dereliction in Matt 27: 46 is also a quotation from Psalm 22: 1: 'My God, my God why have you forsaken me?'

    The bones of the Passover lamb were not to be broken so the legs of Jesus were not broken like these of the two thieves (Numbers 9: 12; Ps 34: 20; John 19: 33). Instead His side is pierced in fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah (Zech 12: 10; John 19: 31-37). He is buried in a rich man's tomb (Is 53: 9; Matt 27: 59-60). And He will be raised up (Ps 110:1 is Jesus' favourite quotation).

    This may be what Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmeus (Luke 24: 25-27).
  • According to the footnotes in my NJB
    I am thirsty - John 19:28
    refers to Ps 69:21

    The verse you asked about, John 19:36
    Not one bone of his will be broken
    refers to Ex 12:46 and Ps 34:20

    And the other footnoted reference in that passage is John 19:37
    They will look to the one
    whom they have pierced
    refers to Zc 12:10
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Wow, Rublev and CK! Many thanks to both of you! It sure is handy to have this forum as a source of information.

    No, I'm not doing homework. ;)
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    Thanks for your question Twilight. It has crossed my mind in the past to wonder what Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmeus. But I hadn't taken the time to look up the OT texts which probably would have been familiar to the original readers of the gospels.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I've rather suspected what Jesus explained was the core of the Christian message, what it all meant, salvation etc. all the things they hadn't understood in the previous three years.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    It's interesting that even after the resurrection the apostles still don't quite get the message. At the Ascension they continue to ask Christ if He is going to conform to their expectations of the Messiah and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1: 6). It is only after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that they really seem to understand who Jesus was and why He was crucified (Acts 2: 22-36).
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Rublev: The bones of the Passover lamb were not to be broken so the legs of Jesus were not broken like these of the two thieves (Numbers 9: 12; Ps 34: 20; John 19: 33). Instead His side is pierced in fulfilment of the prophecy of Zechariah (Zech 12: 10; John 19: 31-37). He is buried in a rich man's tomb (Is 53: 9; Matt 27: 59-60). And He will be raised up (Ps 110:1 is Jesus' favourite quotation).

    I am intrigued by Isaiah 53:9 "He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth," because it is clearly associated with the humiliation of the Suffering Servant. ISTM, therefore, that the linking of that prophecy with the generosity of Joseph of Arimathea is somewhat inapt.

    What mostly interests me, however, is that Isaiah negatively associates 'being buried with..the rich." Can any shipmate enlighten me on the religio-cultural context of that observation?
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Ohhhhhhh. Worms. Can. Can-opener.

    The folks at NET Bible give this convoluted footnote:
    This line reads literally, “and with the rich in his death.” בְּמֹתָיו (bÿmotayv) combines a preposition, a plural form of the noun מוֹת (mot), and a third masculine singular suffix. The plural of the noun is problematic and the יו may be the result of virtual dittography. The form should probably be emended to בָּמָתוֹ (bamato, singular noun). The relationship between this line and the preceding one is uncertain. The parallelism appears to be synonymous (note “his grave” and “in his death”), but “criminals” and “the rich” hardly make a compatible pair in this context, for they would not be buried in the same kind of tomb. Some emend עָשִׁיר (’ashir, “rich”) to עָשֵׂי רָע (’ase ra’, “doers of evil”) but the absence of the ayin (ע) is not readily explained in this graphic environment. Others suggest an emendation to שְׂעִירִים (sÿ’irim, “he-goats, demons”), but the meaning in this case is not entirely transparent and the proposal assumes that the form suffered from both transposition and the inexplicable loss of a final mem. Still others relate עָשִׁיר (’ashir) to an alleged Arabic cognate meaning “mob.” See HALOT 896 s.v. עָשִׁיר. Perhaps the parallelism is antithetical, rather than synonymous. In this case, the point is made that the servant’s burial in a rich man’s tomb, in contrast to a criminal’s burial, was appropriate, for he had done nothing wrong.
    So they end up translating it more along the lines of "he was assigned a grave among the wicked, but he ended up in a rich man's tomb" or perhaps "even though he ended up in a rich man's tomb." But bottom line: there is a lot of uncertainty in the translation.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Thanks for your immediately above contribution, Hegehog. It might, perhaps, be worth comparing the NetBible translation of Isaiah 53 v 9&10 with a more conventional rendering in NIV:

    NetBible Bible:

    9 They intended to bury him with criminals,
    but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb,
    because he had committed no violent deeds,
    nor had he spoken deceitfully.

    10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
    once restitution is made,
    he will see descendants and enjoy long life,
    and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.

    NIV

    9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
        and with the rich in his death,
    though he had done no violence,
        nor was any deceit in his mouth.

    10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
        and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

    Clearly the Online's rendition of verse 9 is influenced by the substitution of 'intended' for 'assigned,'' and 'because' for 'though', thereby significantly changing the sense of the text. As a non-Hebrew scholar, I'm in no position to make a judgement and am open to improved renditions, though ISTM that the more traditional translations seem to
    flow better in terms of the sombre preceding context and leads better into the change of tone in verse 10 from unmerited (?) suffering to justification.

Sign In or Register to comment.