The Duration of the Master Yahusha’s Ministry
“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats:” (Exod. 12:5). The original Pesakh is most specific in the details necessary for the people of Yisra`el to carry out Yahuah’s plan of salvation and redemption from the land of Egypt.
“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is Yahuah’s Pesakh.” (Lev. 23:5). There was no need to reiterate all that was required to celebrate the Feast of Pesakh as this was still the generation that observed the original Pesakh and knew full well all its ordinances.
“Moreover, let the children of Yisra`el keep the Pesakh in its appointed season. On the fourteenth day of this month, at evening, you shall keep it in its appointed season, according to all its statutes, and according to all its ordinances, you shall keep it.” (Num. 9:2, 3). In commanding the Yisra`elites to observe the Pesakh, although the people knew what was required of them, Moshe reminded them not to miss out on any detail whatsoever.
“On the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb without blemish a year old for a burnt offering to Yahuah.” (Lev. 23:12). Only a male yearling was an acceptable sacrifice.
The Pesakh Lamb is a type of the Master Yahusha. Typology, as shown above, is an important aspect of Scripture, where a person, people, act or animal foretells of a future event, “which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Messiah’s.” (Col. 2:17). The type would be indicative of the person or work of the Anti-type, the Master Yahusha, the Messiah. It is only suggestive and so is not meant to be fully identical. Prophecy, on the other hand, is an accurate foretelling in all aspects of the future event, and may be fulfilled partially or fully at different times.
“Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Yerushalayim to the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…” (Dan. 9:25, 26a). Although the prophecy of Daniy`el was specific in its timing, the exact date of commencement and thus fulfilment must be taken in general terms (Dennett p. 143). This is a prophecy and not a type, so must be fulfilled in every detail.
It is only after the completion of the sixty-two weeks that the Messiah would be cut off. Also, after the sixty-two weeks, the city and Sanctuary would be destroyed. This latter event is well attributed to in historical documents as being in the second year of Caesar Vespasian’s reign or 3858 LhO / 70 C.E. (Josephus p. 359). There is no doubt that the sacking of Yerushalayim and the destruction of the Sanctuary did not take place in the same year as the Crucifixion.
-1-
“It happened about eight days after these sayings, that He took with Him Kefa, Yochanan, and Ya`akob, and went up onto the mountain to pray. As He was praying, the appearance of His face was altered, and His clothing became white and dazzling. Behold, two men were talking with Him, who were Moshe and Eliyahu, who appeared in glory, and spoke of His departure, which He was about to accomplish at Yerushalayim.” (Luke 9:28-31).This is a crucial passage in understanding the one-year ministry. Here, the Master Yahusha is discussing His coming death in Yerushalayim.
“A voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son. Listen (שְׁמַ֖ע sh`ma) to Him!’” (Luke 9:35). This brings instantly to mind, “Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” (Matt. 3:17). This verse in Mattityahu was uttered by Yahuah at the very beginning of the Master Yahusha’s itinerant ministry. Now the same Voice is bringing the ministry to an end. What lay before the Master was Yerushalayim, Peaskh and the Cross.
שְׁמַ֖ע sh`ma hear, obey and act accordingly.
“Let these words sink into your ears, for the Son of Man will be delivered up into the hands of men… It came to pass, when the days were near that He should be taken up, He intently set His face to go to Yerushalayim, and sent messengers before His face. They went, and entered into a village of the Shomroni, so as to prepare for Him. They did not receive Him, because He was traveling with His face set towards Yerushalayim.” (Luke 9:44, 51-53). This passage does not make sense, if the Master has three more years of ministry to complete. It makes absolute sense, if there are only a few weeks before the final Pesakh.
The true significance of the Mount of Transfiguration is lost if it takes place at some random time during the three and a half year ministry. However, it is of the most extreme significance when it is viewed at the point at which the Master Yahusha “the Author and Perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising shame…” (Heb. 12:2a).
The Master Yahusha then retraces His steps through Shomron “From that city many of the Shomroni…said to the woman, ‘Now we believe, not because of your speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.’” (John 4:39, 42).However, this time He was not received because He was on His way to celebrate Pesakh in Yerushalayim where, “You shall sacrifice the Pesakh to Yahuah your `Elohiym, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Yahuah shall choose, to cause His name to dwell there.” (Deut. 16:20), according to the Law.
-2-
The Hellenistic, Palestinian, ex-philosopher Eusebius, in 4th. Century C.E. constructed the three and a half year ministry of the Master Yahusha (p.428 uchicago.edu). This was a development of the de-Judaizing of Scripture, from a Hebraic perspective to a Hellenistic paradigm.
It has been often said that it does not really matter how long the Master Yahusha’s public ministry was, as it is the teachings etc. that is vital (p.430 uchicago.edu). If a three and a half year ministry is to be accepted, then the Master Yahusha could not be the Pesakh Lamb (nor the Burnt Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering and Trespass Offering – the Master being the sum of all the Offerings), as all these were yearling lambs. He could not have died sacrificially to take away our sins, and all of the horrors of Crucifixion were in vain. Sha`ul would be totally incorrect in saying “… for indeed the Messiah, our Pesakh, was sacrificed for us.” (1 Cor. 5:7b).
The duration of the Master Yahusha’s ministry has been the subject of debate for centuries. The cause of the confusion is found in, “Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.” (John 6:4 NKJV). The phrase ‘the Passover’ seems to be out of place, and the debate is whether this term should remain or be omitted. For the rest of this study, the term Pesakh will be used and not Passover.
(i) John 6:4 remains – the whole text of John remains untouched. The vast majority of translations, including the earliest extant Greek manuscripts all attest to this being the correct text.
In 2005, the editors of textual criticism Nestle-Alland compiled the Textwerk (T&T)on the Good News account of John, having John 6:4 as having the text along with 162 other MSS including P66 (P. Bodmer II) and P75 (P. Bodmer XIV-XV/Hanna Papyrus I) along with MS472. This confirms that as early as the 2nd. Century C.E. MSS were known to have John 6:4 added. However, the entry is annotated, showing that there are variants differing from this one.
In 1907, Von Soden, in compiling a similar work as the T&T states that MS472, found in Lambeth Palace, and MS850, the Vatican Barb. Gr. has John 6:4 added but with asterisk and obelisk. This annotation dates back to pre-Origen times in Alexandria, where secular, and later Biblical texts, were the obelisk denoted passages not found in the Greek, and the obelisk denoted passages found in other Greek passages but not the LXX. Origen warns the reader that these annotated passages are not trustworthy, but lets the reader to make their own decision (NehemiasWall.com Pt. 3).
However, this poses several problems:
a) The verse does not make grammatical nor comprehensive sense, in that the verses either side flow into one another, “A great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He did on those who were sick. Yahusha went up into the mountain, and He sat there with His disciples…Yahusha therefore lifting up His eyes, and seeing that a great multitude was coming to Him, said to Pilipos, ‘Where are we to buy bread, that these may eat’” (John 6:3, 5). V2 has the crowd following the Master, who then asks Pilipos in v5 how the crowd is to be fed. V4 does not fit into this scenario.
-3-
b) The scene is one that takes place in the Galil. There is no indication that the Master Yahusha left the region to attend the Pesakh in Yerushalayim. This is impossible, as it was a commandment that all males in the Land should go to the Temple for Khag Matzah including Pesakh (and the Khaggim HaKatzir of Shavu`ot and Sukkot) (Exod. 23:14-16; Deut. 16:16). To ignore this Feast of Yahuah would be to commit a sin, and this the Master never did. Similarly, the huge crowds would not en masse have ignored the Pesakh memorial in Yerushalayim. Not only would He have commited this sin, but led His disciples and encouraged the crowds to sin likewise. To have done so, would have given the authorities rightful reason to claim that, at the very least, He was a false prophet and deserves to be put to death (cf Deut. 13:1-5). No such accusation was levied against the Master.
c) This Pesakh would be the third mentioned in John, thus having the ministry at least two years long. This would ignore the explicit typology of “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old.” (Exod. 12:5a).
Origen (184-253 C.E.) is the earliest proponent of a ministry of three plus years. He was a teacher in the Alexandrian Biblical College, and is considered as the Father of Textual Criticism. In his allegorical interpretation of Dan. 9:27, he determined that Daniy`el’s week was in fact seventy years, of which the Master would have a ministry of approximately thirty-five years pre-Yochanan the Immerser ministry and thirty- five years post-Resurrection. However, in this determination, he could not reconcile John 6:4 as being a Pesakh, as the passing of time between John 5 Pesakh and John 7 Sukkot is far too cramped to allow an extra Pesakh in John 6:4 (NehemiasWall.com Pt. 3).
(ii) John 6:4 remains – chapter dislocation. There are some commentators that consider the order of the Johannine chapters as seen in the majority of manuscripts, to be incorrect. Bernard suggests that the proper order should be Ch. 4, Ch. 6, Ch. 5, Ch. 7:15:24, 7:1-9, 7: 10-14 and 7:25-52 (Bernard p. xvi). There are other commentators that suggest different orders. However, there are problems in accepting this theory.
(a) It is difficult to accept that whole chapters are dislocated and Ch. 7, in itself, contains dislocation, and yet a few words of John 6:4 are inviolate.
(b) Both (ia) and (ib) above also apply to this theory.
(iii) John 6:4 remains – scribal errors. An early copyist read the original John 6:4 text that did not contain the word Pesakh. A marginal note incorrectly ascribed the feast as Pesakh and all following copyists added Pesakh to the manuscripts extant today (revisedenglishversion.com).
The disadvantage of this theory is that of comprehension of (ia) above.
This theory does give rise to a couple of possibilities.
a) It allows for two Pesakh and thus a year-long ministry fulfilling typology.
b) It allows for an unnamed feast, not one of the Three Pilgrimage Feasts, and so, no commandment to be in Yerushalayim is contravened.
-4-
There have been commentators who have considered the text and suggested that the Pesakh was in fact the Pesakh Sheni of Num. 9:6-14 that allows the Pesakh to be eaten exactly as the regular Pesakh, except it is to be carried out on the 14th. day of the Second month. However, John 6:4 is placed more than a month after the regular Pesakh of John Chs. 2 & 3, so does not qualify for the exemption.
(iv) John 6:4 omitted. This conflicts with the vast majority of the earliest extant manuscripts, but does satisfy the typology and the grammatical comprehension difficulties. As the Feast of Pesakh is no longer an issue, there would be no requirement for the Master Yahusha to be in Yerushalayim.
This would also mean that the following chronology of John is correct:
John 2:13-3:21 describes the events of the first Pesakh; John 4:1-44, from Yehudah to Galil including the events during the Counting of the Omer; John 5:1-5:47 return to Yerushalayimand the events of Shavu`ot; John 6:1-7:13 the Galil ministry (ignoring the incorrect reference to Pesakh in John 6:4) ; 7:14-7:53 the events of Sukkot; John 8:1-12:50, the Yehudah ministry including the events during Khanukah and Purim, John 13:1-19:42 the second Pesakh and the Crucifixion (Boi Kallah/MacDonald), John 20:1-18 the Resurrection and John 20:19-21:25 the events post-Resurrection.
It is also stated that Clement of Alexandria of the Biblical College c.150-c.215 C.E. in Stromata, I, 21, 145, and Origen, Clements disciple and future Head of the College c.185-c.253 that the duration of the ministry was approximately a year (John 6:4 – He Walks With Us). Although these form part of their commentaries and that they had the ministry of much more than three years, neither acknowledged John 6:4 as a Pesakh, such early attestation cannot be ignored. Both would have access to a multitude of MSS and variants in the Alexandrian Library (NehemiasWall.com Pt. 2).
Origen’s verse by verse commentary of John’s Good News Account, does not have an extant MS of John 6:4, having been retrievably damaged. However, on commenting upon John 5 and John 7, states that the chronology is much too restricted to allow for a Pesakh thus ruling out any possibility of John 6:4 being another Pesakh.
Irenaeus of Lyons c. 130-202 C.E. was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of Yochanan and was a renowned heretic hunter. In his book, commonly known as Against All Heresies, the first states the heretical view and then proceeds to give proof destroying that view. He considered the Master’s ministry as probably twenty years and so sought to defeat the one-year view. In doing so, he cites Pesakh in John 2, John 5 and John 12. He does not mention John 6:4, although it would have given further proof of a ministry of more than one year (NehemiasWall.com Pt. 2).
The criteria for the determination of the correct text are complex and requires critical review of external (geographical, social, political, historical and genealogical) and internal (transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities) evidence. The abundance of texts for any one particular point of view must be weighed in the light of the possibility of a very early, but not original, copy having a scribal error, propagated by successive copyists (Metzger p. 12*).
-5-
It is fair to say that the older the MS (closer to the original MS), the less likely it is to have copying errors. A copy of a copy of a copy leaves room for scribal errors. A translation of a translation of a translation is even more likely to have errors, especially when the new language does not have a direct equivalent.
Nevertheless, it is by no means guaranteed that the older the MS, the more reliable the text. For example, Papyrus 115 (P. Oxy 4499) is the oldest known MS containing Rev. 13:18 dating from c. 225-275 C.E. notes that the number of the Beast is 616. Without other textual evidence, it would be assumed that this was correct. However, Irenaeus states that he knew people (Polycarp) who saw Yochanan, claims that the true number is 666 (NehemiasWall.com Pt. 4).
Zachary Pearce (1777) and Henry Brown (1844) both claim that John 6:4 cannot be found in any 1st. or 2nd. Century MSS, although they acknowledge that the current prevailing view was for a three and a half-year ministry. Gerhard Vossius (1643) stated that the prevailing view of his time was for a one-year ministry. He further states that to insert John 6:4, would break up the natural flow of the annual feasts, with the earliest understanding was that the ministry was slightly more than one year.
However, it is important to distinguish between the actual text and the expositor’s opinion. The opinion is the conclusion based upon the reading of the actual text variants available to the expositor. For example, in the text above, Clement’s, Irenaeus’ and Origen’s opinions all subscribe to a ministry in excess of one year, but all three attest to the variants before them as not having John 6:4. Their opinions for the duration of the ministry vary from seven to twenty to seventy years. Nevertheless, all three are in agreement as to each variant not mentioning John 6:4.
Therefore, as no textual evidence is conclusive, and can only be with the original manuscript, it is my opinion that the overarching consideration must be the typology.
Nevertheless, it can be considered that the duration is mentioned in the Tanakh, “Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Yerushalayim to the Messiah the prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end of it shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” (Dan. 9:24-26). In examining any passage of Scripture, unless it is expressly mentioned as a parable or type, the correct exegesis always determines that the literal meaning must be considered paramount. In this passage above, many try to understand Daniy`el’s prophecy purely in allegorical terms, completely ignoring the literal sense.
-6-
There is some consensus that considers the Master Yahusha’s ministry to start at His baptism by Yochanan the Immerser, a short while prior to the Pesakh of 27 C.E. The end of the ministry was at Shavuot following the Crucifixion and Resurrection in 28 C.E. The total duration being four hundred and ninety years (Yeshua’s Ministry « 70 Weeks)
This being so, I would suggest that the duration of the Master Yahusha’s ministry to be a little in excess of a year.
Yahuah bless you and keep you,
Yahuah make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you,
Yahuah lift up His face toward you and give you peace.
All glory be to Yahuah,
Ameyn.
References and Credits
In using these references, it is in no way agreeing to or condoning the theological viewpoint of the authors.
Bernard J.H. A Critical And Exegetical
Most Rev & Rt. Hon. Commentary On The Gospel
According To St. John Vol.I, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.
Dennett E. (1893) Daniel The Prophet, A.S. Rouse, London.
Josephus (2006) Jewish Antiquities, trans.
Whiston W., Wordsworth Classics, Herts.
Metzger B.M. A Textual Commentary On
(1994) The Greek New Testament, Second Ed., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.
Strong J. (1994) Strong’s New Exhaustive
(denoted by #H or #G) Concordance of the Bible,
World Bible Publishers Inc., Madison.
Strong J. (1996) The New Strong’s Complete
(denoted by #H or #G) Dictionary of Bible Words,
Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
BoiKallah/MacDonald – https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=8hlizyyouk
https://hewalkswith.us/2019/08/john-64
https://www.journal.uchicago.edu.doi/pdf/
10.1086/473674
NehemiasWall.com Pt. 1- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciwwqlwtge
NehemiasWall.com Pt. 2- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebmi9evu18&=58s
NehemiasWall.com Pt. 3- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mov8ryubzdq&t=2s
NehemiasWall.com Pt. 4- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guxc0jhz1w&t=814s
https://revisedenglishversion.com/john/chapter6/4
-7-
17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-8-
First Generation Assembly 