Allen Hansen, "Construction of the BYU Jerusalem Center as Reflected in Knesset Minutes and Other Israeli Archival Sources"

 

BYU Church History Symposium 2022 - Allen Hansen

Sacrae Theologiae Summa on Mary's Participation in the Work of Redemption and Role as Dispensatrix of All Graces in Roman Catholic Theology

Concerning the thesis that “The Bl. Virgin Mary participated in accomplishing the work of redemption principally by her virginal consent and by her maternal compassion”:

 

173. Doctrine of the Church. 1) Pius VII: “The Christian faithful really owe reverence to the Bl. Virgin Mary, as the sweet Parent of her Son, so that with careful zeal and benevolence they may cultivate the memory of the sorrows—those intense sufferings that She, while standing near the cross of Jesus, endured with singular and invincible fortitude and constancy and which She offered to the Eternal Father for their salvation” (In Bover, Soteriologia Mariana 453).

 

2) Leo XIII: “She took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and His torments. Moreover it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and brought up the Victim . . . There stood by the Cross of Jesus his Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow” (Encyclical “Iucunda semper”: ASS 27, 178).

 

3) St. Pius X: “When the extreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore. And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts of our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood” (Encyclical “Ad diem illum”: ASS 10 [1918] 182).

 

4) Benedict XV: “Thus with her suffering and dying Son she almost died, and she so abandoned her maternal rights to her Son for the salvation of mankind, and immolated her Son to placate the Divine Justice as much as she could, that it can rightly be said that She along with Christ redeemed the human race! (Apostolic Letter ”Inter Sodalicia”: ASS 10 [1918] 182).

 

5) Pius XI: “The sorrowful Virgin participated with Christ in the work of redemption . . . “ (Apostolic Letter “Explorata rest est”: AAS 15 [1921] 104) “O Mother of piety and mercy, who, as compassionate and corredemptrix stood by your sweet Son as he was accomplishing on the wood of the Cross the redemption of the human race . . . : preserve in us, we pray, and daily increase the precious fruits of redemption and of your compassion” (Prayer at the end of the Jubilee Year: L’Osservatore Romano, 29-30 April 1935)

 

6) Pius XII: “It was she . . ., always most intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother’s rights and mother’s love were included in the holocaust . . . “ (Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”: AAS 35 [1943] 247). (Iesu Solano and J. A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-A: 454-55)

 

On the thesis that “The Bl. Virgin Mary truly is the Dispensatrix of all graces”:

 

194. Doctrines of the Church. Leo XIII: We need to obtain the favor of “the great Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the guardian of our peace and the minister to us of heavenly grace, who is placed on the highest summit of power and glory in heaven, in order that she may bestow the help of her patronage on men who through so many labors and dangers are striving to read that eternal city” (Encyclical ”Supremi Apostolatus”: ASD 16,113). “God . . . listens to the prayers of her whom He wished to be the minister of his heavenly graces” (Encyclical “Superiore anno”: ASS 17,49). “With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God . . . Thus no man goes to the Father but by the Son, and no man goes to Christ but by His Mother” (Encyclical “Octobri mense”: ASS 24,195f.). “The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continually fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven . . . And later, without measure and without end will she be able to plead our cause, passing upon a day to life immortal . . . We turn out prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law is merciful mediation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena expressed: ‘Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order: for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passed to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us” (Encyclical “Iucunda semper”: ASS 27,178f.). “From her heavenly abode in she began, by God’s decree, to watch over the Church, to assist and befriend us as our Mother; so that she who was so intimately associated with the mystery of human salvation is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces which for all time will flow from the Redemption . . . She is the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts” (Encyclical “Adjutricem populi”: ASS 28,130f.). “From her, as from an abundant stream, are derived the streams of heavenly graces. In her hand are the treasures of the mercies of the Lord; God wished her to be the beginning of all good things” (Encyclical “Diuturni temporis”: ASS 31,146f.). “Thus the most powerful Virgin Mother, who formerly cooperated in charity that the faithful might be born in the Church, is also now the mediatrix of our salvation . . .” (Apostolic Letter “Parta humano”: ASS 34,195)

 

2) St. Pius X: “And from this communion of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts of Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by his blood . . . Jesus sits at the right hand of the majesty on high. Mary sits at the right hand of her Son—a refuge to secure and so a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection” (Encyclical “Ad diem illum”: ASS 36,453f.). The Virgin is “the Mediatrix of all graces” (Apostolic Letter ”Manilensium Archiepiscopus”: AAS 2 [1920] 901). For through her, who is the mirror of justice and seat of wisdom, the Omnipotent willed us to have all things” (Sermo ad PP Franciscales”: AAS 2 [1910] 909). This is the time of the feast and Mass for B.M.V. Mediatrix.

 

3) Benedict XV: “But if for this reason all of us have received these graces from the treasury of redemption, they are administered as it were by the hands of the Sorrowful Virgin herself” (Apostolic Letter “Inter Sodalicia”: AAS 10 [1918] 182). “Since the most holy Virgin Mary was chosen with so many and such great merits to be the Mother of God and at the same time was divinely constituted the mediatrix of graces for all mankind” (Apostolic Letter “Cum Sanctissima Virgo Maria”: AAS 9 [1917] 324). “She is the most blessed Mother of God and has the power of mediatrix of graces with the Lord” (Apostolic Letter “Locarni, intra fines”: AAS 11 [1919] 67). “Whatever graces he [Christ] confers on men, she has their distribution and appointment” (Encyclical “Fausto appetente die”: AAS 13 [1921] 334)

 

Pius XI: “Christ “since he is the one Mediator of God and men, wished to join his Mother to Himself as the advocate of sinners, the minister and mediatrix of grace” (Encyclical “Miserentissimus Redemptor”: AAS 20 [1928] 178) “We know that everything is given to us by the Excellent and Supreme God through the hands of the Mother of God” (Encyclical “Ingravescentibus malis”: AAS 29 [1937] 380)

 

“The Virgin Mother herself, the Mediatrix with God of all graces” (Apostolic Letter “Galliam Ecclesiae filiam”: AAS 14 [1922] 186). “The Virgin Mary . . ., the Mediatrix with God of all the charisms” (Apostolic Letter “Extat in civitate”: AAS 16 [1924] 152) “To the Virgin, the Mediatrix with God of all graces” (Apostolic Letter “Cognitum sane”: ASS 18 [1924] 213). “For she is the Mother of God, the administrator of heavenly graces . . .” (Letter “Sollemne semper”: AAS 24 [1932] 376)

 

Pius XII: “For the Bl. Virgin has so much grace with God, she enjoys such power with her Only-begotten Son, that whoever in need of help does not run to her, is attempting to fly without wings, as Dante sings” (Letter “Superiore anno”: AAS 32 [1940] 145). “May she never cease to beg from him that copious streams of grace may flow from its exalted Head into all the members of the Mystical Body (Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”: AAS 35 [1943] 248).

 

195. Please note concerning these texts: it is said in them: a) that in general we have grace through Mary, that graces come to us from Her, that graces are in Her hands; b) that in particular Mary procures graces for us from God, that she is the Mediatrix of graces; c) that the graces, about which we are concerned, are all graces of redemption, whatever Christ confers on men, or form a negative point of view that Christ grants us nothing except through Mary. (Ibid., 468-70)

 

Although the Roman Pontiffs in these texts speak mainly about the Bl. Virgin as she is now in heaven, still there are some texts in which tye speak about the graces granted by Christ through Mary while she was on the earth. Thus Leo III: “During His private life on earth He associated her with Himself in each of His first two miracles: the miracle of grace, when at the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in the womb of Elizabeth: the miracle of nature when He turned water into wine at the marriage-feast of Cana. And, at the supreme moment of His public life . . . “ (Encyclical “Augustissimae Virginis”: ASS 30,129). Thus Pius XII: “Furthermore, her only Son, condescending to His prayer at Cana of Galilee, performed the miracle by which His disciples believed in Him” (Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”: AAS 35,247). (Ibid., 470 n. 26)

 

Sacrae Theologiae Summa on the Marian Interpretation of Genesis 3:15 and John 19:27

  

On Gen 3:15:

 

N. B. On the Proto-gospel. The traditional opinion of Catholics, which, intended and expressed by the Holy Spirit as the true and genuine meaning of that text, is taught by the Supreme Pontiffs Pius IX and Pius XII and maintains the Mariological meaning of the Proto-Gospel, although not just in one way. For some find Mary in that text only in an eminent sense, some in a typical sense, some in a fuller sense, and others in a literal sense. To make a theological argument these views are accidental; for the meanings either typical or literal or fuller are truly biblical meanings. It is more probable that the typical meaning is excluded, and it concerns the meaning which the Holy Spirit wished to express with those words of the hagiographer and so expressed, whether it is found from the words alone, or from the work of tradition, of the Magisterium, of the analogy of faith. But it is possible to dispute whether this meaning should be called simply literal or a fuller sense.

 

It is also accidental to the argument whether Mary is included in “woman” or in “seed,” although the prior hypothesis seems to be more probable. (Iesu Solano and J. A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-A: 361-62)

 

On John 19:25-27 as a “proof-text” for Mary’s “spiritual maternity”:

 

The entire strength of this argument depends on the question whether in the text John acts only as his own private person, or he represents in person the whole human race, and this not in some accommodated sense, but in a true sense. Of course, there are many exegetes who hold for the accommodated sense only. However this often repeated teaching of the Holy Pontiffs seems to demand something more than a mere sense of accommodation. Moreover, because from Benedict XIV the Church accepts it as “instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit,” and from Leo XIII that “the Church has constantly taught” that John was designated the person of the human race . . . it is necessary to investigate how actually such a meaning is found in the text.

 

Surely after Rupert Tuitiensis (before Gregory of Nicomedia and perhaps also Origen), this interpretation was quite common. This interpretation, from an analysis of the context, whether the immediate context (because everything that immediately precedes or follows has a more universal meaning), or the mediate context (because the whole Gospel of John abounds in narrations, which, beside the historical sense, also have another symbolic meaning), seems to be much more probable.

 

However, these words of Christ do not formally constitute the spiritual maternity itself, but declare it as already fully constituted. (Ibid., 431-32)

 

Sacrae Theologiae Summa on the Veneration of Relics and Images

  

On the veneration of relics and images. Relics in the strict sense are what is left over from the bodies of the Saints. In the broad sense they are also things that they used during their lifetime and that their bodies, even dead bodies, have touched. The veneration which is given to relics, is a relative cult, since it is directed to them because of the connection they have with the person of the Saints. The solemn veneration of relics is found in the whole ecclesiastical tradition, as even the Acts of the Martyrs give abundant witness to. The magisterium of the Church has often approved of this. Thus the Council of Nicaea II condemned those who throw away the relics of the martyrs (D 603); the Council of Rome in 993 (D 675) approved the veneration of them; the Council of Constance (D 1269) did the same against the Wycliffites and the Hussites; and especially the Council of Trent in session 25 (d 1821) against the Protestants, and in its Profession of Faith (d 1867).

 

The cult of images is also relative. The defense of this cult against the iconoclasts was made principally by the Council of Nicaea II (d 600-601, 603). The Council of Constantinople IV (D 653-656) and the Council of Trent in session 25 (D 1823, 1867) proposed the same doctrine. (Iesu Solano and J. A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-A: 505)

 

Further Reading:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

Sacrae Theologiae Summa on the Ignorance of Jesus (e.g., Mark 13:32)

  

Scholium 2. On ignorance and error. The question here is about ignorance in the proper sense or denoting a privation, that is, of those things that according to his status the soul of Christ needed to know. For it is clear that the knowledge of Christ suffered some ignorance in the improper sense, in a negative way, or better, simply not knowing, since, as finite, he did not know everything that is contained in the power of God.  . . . There were not lacking important Fathers who attributed some ignorance to Christ the man, especially because of Mark 13:32 But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Some of these Fathers held only the progress of the human knowledge of Christ up to his resurrection. But many of the Fathers, especially after the Agnoetists, who following the leadership of Themistius attributed ignorance to Christ, strongly affirmed that it is unworthy of Christ to think that he was burdened with any ignorance.

 

358. Already at the beginning of scholastic theology the exclusion of all ignorance in Christ was almost unanimous. St. Thomas deduces from the fullness of Christ’s knowledge that there was no ignorance in him (III, q. 15, a 3 c)

 

The magisterium itself of the Church, both formerly and recently, has rejected the opinion that places some ignorance in Christ. See D 474-476, 3432-3434, 3645f..

 

359. Regarding a positive explanation of Mark 13:32: Christ said that he did not know the day and hour, because it was not part of his mission to reveal this. This saying of Christ agrees with not a few others in which Christ hides himself, so that the father may be more apparent.

 

Moreover, concerning the knowledge acquired by his own acts it can truly be said that Christ did not know the day of judgment . . . he truly asked questions and experienced true admiration. However since Christ did not know the day of judgment by his human knowledge both beatific and infused, it would be false to say that the Lord simply did not know it by his human knowledge. (Iesu Solano and J. A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-A: 164)

 

Sacrae Theologiae Summa on the Sadness of Christ and the Soul of Jesus Always Beholding the Beatific Vision

  

365. Scholium 4. An explanation of Christ’s sadness. There is a big difficulty from the beatific vision of the soul of Christ . . . Since it seems that joy necessarily follows from this vision, but it is not apparent how such joy can be together with sadness, there have not been lacking theologians who, because of Christ’s sadness, denied is blessed joy during the time of the passion. But if you make an exception for these few authors, the common opinion of theologians refuses to admit such a limitation of joy in Christ.

 

From the treatise on the last things it is certain that the impassibility of a glorified body is derived from the blessed soul, and in such a way that it is something intrinsic to the body, as the almost common opinion holds against Scotus and some others. Likewise, most theologians holds that the impassibility overflows into the body not physically and effectively from the beatific vision, but only morally or by a certain fitting ordination of God that in its own way is connatural to the beatific state.

 

366. The sensible sadness of Christ is explained more easily. For on the part of the object, the beatifying joy of the soul and the sensible sadness do not exclude each other, because they are not related to the same object; for the object of joy is the possession of the divine goodness, while the object of sadness is some injury, both one’s own and that of someone else. And there is no repugnance on the part of the overflowing: “That the glory of His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ’s conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that He might fulfill the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body.”

 

367. Spiritual sadness or sadness in the will itself is more difficult to understand, if indeed it is the will itself that is affected by beatifying joy. But it is possible to understand it from the difference of the formal object. For the same material object, v.gr., the partial frustration of his passion and death with the consequent damnation of many men, which Christ saw in God by his knowledge of vision, as permitted by God and therefore lovable, by his infused and acquired knowledge he could apprehend the same thing as something evil in itself.

 

368. The possibility of spiritual sadness is not excluded on the part of the subject or from the opposite way in which joy and sadness affect the subject, especially when the greatest joy affects some subject. Namely, it would seem that there is no place in a soul that is already totally beatified for a contrary affection, that is, sadness. A solution may be found in the fact that joy and sadness do not have their own contrariness, unless in a particular cause they are concerned with absolutely the same thing both materially and formally. However although they do not have a strict contrariety, still there is great diversity between them and a certain repugnance, so that without a miracle they could not coexist in the same subject. (Iesu Solano and J. A. de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-A: 166-68)

 

Further Reading:

"Jesus Wept": Obvious and Needs no Interpretation to Understand?

The Inconsistency of Evangelical Critics of the "Great Apostasy" and the Lack of "Proto-Protestants" in the First Christian Millennium

 I was asked by a missionary I am facebook friends with if I would have a discussion with a Protestant in Utah, James Hazleton. A friend, Travis Anderson had some interactions with him on Sola Scriptura, and it did not go well for Hazleton, proving himself to be, to be blunt, a disingenuous hack.

I suggested Sola Scriptura and shared my personal email address with the missionary to pass on to Hazleton. Here is the exchange. Note that he tried to chicken out of discussing Sola Scriptura, and when I said I would allow the topic to be changed if he would provide just one person in the first 1,000 years of Christianity who held to his theology of justification, baptism, ecclesiology, and the formal sufficiency of the Bible, I would discuss his tract (click to enlarge):

Here is my final response to his nonsense:

Here is the thing many Evangelical Protestant critics do not seem to get: Even if "Mormonism" is false, Protestantism is not, ipso facto, true. And simply saying, as one Protestant did, "but the early Christians had the Bible!" as evidence of there being proto-Protestants in the first Chrisitan millennium is sheer nonsense: they all believed in baptismal regeneration, for e.g., a heresy according to many Protestants who are not Lutherans or many Anglicans, and none held to the formal sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon.

Latter-day Saints are intellectually honest in our belief in a Great Apostasy; Protestants like that hack Hazleton may claim they do not believe in a Great Apostasy, but functionally act as if there was one when (or in the case of Hazleton, if--I seriously doubt he has read 1 Clement, the Ignatian Epistles, the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, or other early works such as those of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, for e.g.) they read the patristic literature. Speaking of patristic literature, for those wondering about deification in their writings, see:

Responding to Christina Darlington on Early Christians and Deification (see also the reference to the Jewish text Midrash Alpha beta diRabbi Akiba BhM 3:32):

Responding to Christina Darlington on Early Christians and Deification

Update:

Hazelton is misrepresenting our exchange. The guy is, as one bookstore owner in Utah would put it, a human mattress stain:

Verneil W. Simmons (RLDS) on Moroni's Travels from Mexico to New York

  

Moroni left the land of his birth some time after beginning to engrave these last chapters. His journey took him from central Mexico to the hill in New York where he was to bury the abridgement in a stone box near the top of a glacial mound. One would suppose that the Lord had shown him the need for placing the record in that particular place. We do not know how much time was spent in traveling that distance but we do know that he did not have to walk all the way, carrying the record. We should remember that shipping in the Gulf had been a way of life from long before Christ’s appearance. Certainly the people did not lose the art during the peaceful years of the kingdom period. It was undoubtedly still going on, with some possible disruptions due to the long-drawn-out war. Settlement up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers from Mesoamerica is attested to by archaeological evidence. In fact, travel by water was the one feasible way for Moroni to have reached the area where he buried the abridgment. (Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies: A Study of the Book of Mormon [rev ed.; Independence, Miss.: Zarahemla Research Foundation, Inc., 1986], 232-33)

 

“The south was much nearer to the Ohio-Scioto country three thousand years ago then it is now, . . . . because the Ohio River did not flow directly west and enter the Mississippi at its present entrance point, at Cairo, Illinois. It turned south much sooner—just before Louisville—and, using the bed of the present Yazoo River, entered the Mississippi in the present state of Mississippi, at the already mentioned Poverty Pont culture settlement at Jaketown. The north-south route was thus more direct, shorter and a more natural one to follow, an aqueous camino real. The circumstance is what makes Willey’s view of diffusion of traits out of Mexico into the Hopewell territory both attractive and convincing.”—Louis A. Brennan, No Stone Unturned, pp. 288, 289.

 

Moroni would have found settlements all the way up the Ohio, He could have traveled by water to within a very short distance of the hill in western New York. (Ibid., 281 n. 2)

 

Verneil W. Simmons (RLDS) on Thursday being the Day of the Crucifixion

  

CHRIST IS CRUCIFIED

 

Mormon takes note that if Nephi had made no mistake in keeping their calendar, then Christ’s crucifixion took place on the fourth day of the first month of the thirty-four year after the sign of His birth. If we can identify a date for the crucifixion, then we also know the date of His birth—four days earlier.

 

Catholic tradition has set the crucifixion on a Friday, and certain theologians have claimed the date to be April 7, in the year 30 A.D. Due to changes in our calendar, over the centuries, we are not sure of the date of our Lord’s birth, but we do know that the time of His death was the month Nisan, the equivalent of our modern April (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, “Calendars,” p. 486). The Christian world has long accepted the tradition that the crucifixion took place on the Jewish holy day of Passover.

 

Scholars have raised questions not only about the date, but as to the possibility that such a thing could have been done on the day of the Passover celebration. If Christ died on a Friday, then He made a statement which can not be applied to His death.

 

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.—Matthew 12:40.

 

The three days will fit if one accepts the early Hebrew dating practice of counting a part of a day as a full day. But there is no way to fit three nights into a Friday crucifixion, when the resurrection occurred early Sunday (“As is well known, a reign of three years in the earlier Hebrew antedating practice may mean only one full year and parts of two others. Three days may also imply one full day and parts of two others.”—William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 213, Note 17). Due to this discrepancy, scholars have usually ignored this scripture as pertaining to His death.

 

If we had been good students of our Book of Mormon, we would have shown the world long ago that the crucifixion had to have occurred on a Thursday and Christ’s statement did refer to His death and the time in the tomb. There is the prophecy of Samuel, given about 6 B.C.:

 

But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death, the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon, and the stars; And there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead;--Helaman 5:75, 76

 

If Jesus died on the cross at midafternoon in Jerusalem, as recorded in the Gospels, and we allow for the eight hours difference in time for this hemisphere, the hour of His death would have been 7:00 a.m. in Zarahemla. Samuel had said the darkness would last from the moment of His death until He arose three days later. This would require darkness for all of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, with light returning on Sunday morning.

 

The accounts given in Mark and Luke state that darkness covered Jerusalem from the sixth to the ninth hour—12:00 noon until 3:00 in the afternoon. The apocryphal gospel of Peter declares:

 

And it was noon and darkness came over all Judea; and they were troubled and distressed, lest the sun had set . . . And many went about with lamps, supposing it was night, and fell down. Then the sun arose and it was found the ninth hour . . .(“The Lost Gospel According to Peter,” pp. 283-284. Found in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden [World Publishing Co., New York])

 

The climax came at the ninth hour, when Christ gave up His life, for then the earth shook and the veil of the temple was rent. Recently some scientists have proposed that the darkening of the city in Jerusalem was due to an eclipse. This is not possible as there can not be a solar eclipse when the moon is full, and the 15th of Nisan is always the full moon. Note in the statement from Samuel that the “moon” would also refuse to give its light.

 

In Zarahemla, those three hours would correspond to 4:00 a.m.-7:00 a.m. During these hours the winds and earthquakes devastated the land. Cities were set on fire, which was quenched by the “mists of darkness” wherein no fire could be lit. Mormon gives us the times:

 

And it came to pass when the thunderings, and the lightning, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; Nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours; and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days, and there was no light seen; and there was great mourning, and howling, and weeping among all the people continually;--III Nephi 4:16, 17, 21

 

At the end of that period, Mormon records:

 

And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land . . . and the wailing of the people who were spared alive, did cease;--III Nephi 4:61-63.

 

The Book of Mormon demands a Thursday crucifixion. And when we know this, it is possible to find verification in the Gospels, even though the contradictions found there created the problems in the first place. The first question is whether Christ died on the day of the Passover of (the 15th of Nisan) or on the 14th, “the day of preparation.” The accounts given in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to place it on the Passover, although there are contradictory statements present, but the gospel of John states plainly that it was the day before. The Interpreter’s Bible makes this comment:

 

In this instance John is almost certainly correct . . . since the Passover was a sacred day, it is almost inconceivable that Jesus could have been arrested, examined before the Sanhedrin, tried before Pilate, crucified, and buried during the course of it.—Volume 8, p. 378.

 

John’s account of this event is quite different from the other Gospels and it appears to be more complete. We shall attempt a reconstruction of that last week as taken from the Gospels.

 

Let us begin by examining a statement made by Paul:

 

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.—1 Corinthians 5:7.

 

Paul is pointing out that Christ had fulfilled the role of the paschal lamb, as the sacrifice for the Passover. If Christ was the symbol of the Passover lamb, then He should have carried out all of the symbolism inherent in the celebration of the Passover. We find the instructions concerning the Passover in the twelfth chapter of Exodus.  The lamb was to be chosen on the 10th day of the first month (determined by the new moon), “kept up” until the 14th day, when it was to be killed, with no bones broken, and then cooked and eaten after sunset, which was the beginning of the 15th day of Nisan. As practiced by the Jews in the days of Christ, the lambs so chosen were taken to the Temple and were killed by the priests on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, between the hours of three and five. The meal was eaten shortly after sunset. Because the Jewish day began at sunset, the Passover meal would be eaten in the early hours of the 15th of Nisan (Passover). This was a holy day and was called a sabbath, although it could fall on any day of the week (4). The 14th of Nisan was the “day of preparation” when the homes were thoroughly cleansed and all leaven removed from the house. It was the beginning of the week of unleavened bread.

 

If Christ was to fulfill the symbolism, then He had to be “chosen” on the 10th day, “kept up” until the 14th, and killed between the ninth and eleventh hour of the 14th of Nisan—“the day of preparation.” A careful study of the four gospels clearly portrays Christ’s fulfillment of this role. Let’s outline the chronology:

 

Friday	Jesus arrived in Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1). A Friday arrival at the house of Lazarus is necessary as he was coming from Ephraim “near to the wilderness” and could not make no long journey on the Saturday sabbath.
Saturday	The sabbath probably spent quietly with the family in Bethany until evening. But then, after sunset, Martha prepared a supper for Him and friends came out from Jerusalem to visit with Him and with Lazarus (John 12:9).   The Book of Mormon account indicates that these were the early hours of His birthday—perhaps that is why Martha prepared a meal and invited friends.
Sunday	On this day, the 10th of Nisan, Christ entered Jerusalem and was acclaimed by the multitude. This would fulfill the “choosing” of the lamb on the tenth day. We call this Palm Sunday. It was four days to Passover.
Monday and Tuesday	Christ stayed in the environs of Bethany and Jerusalem, visiting the Temple, teaching the Twelve on the Mount of Olives and being confronted by the Pharisees who hoped to catch Him in a statement that would justify them in arresting Him. Both mark and Matthew record His activities on those two days and the plot to take Him and have Him killed. John indicates that the plot included the killing of Lazarus, but all three writers make it clear that the priests did not want it to happen on the feast day “lest there be an uproar of the people.” (Matthew. Chapters 21-25; Mark, Chapters 11-13; John 12:10, 11)
Wednesday	Mark (14:1-3) says it is still two days until the Passover when the chief priests and the scribes were still discussing how they could arrange for this Jesus to be killed. This is apparently the day when Judas went to them with the offer to betray Him. Obviously it was the intention that it should be done before the feast day—” in the absence of the multitude” as Luke writes (Luke 22:6).   If Christ was to die on the 14th, then this was the day He sent the two disciples to arrange for a place where He could have supper with the Twelve. Matthew, Mark, and Luke imply this was the Passover feast. John simply refers to it as “supper” and indicates it was before the feast of Passover (John 13:1-2)
Thursday	The meal was eaten after sunset, so this was the beginning of the 14th of Nisan. John’s description of that evening is much more complete than the other Gospels. Almost immediately be records Christ’s statement made when He gave the sop to Judas:   And after the stop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, that thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.  For some of them thought, because Judas had the beg, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of again the feast; or that he should give something to the poor.—John 13:27-29   If they thought he was being sent to buy necessary things for the feat, then they had not just eaten the Passover meal. There is no mention of the paschal lamb, the bitter herbs, or any of the ceremony observed during that meal. A blessing of bread and wine had no part in a “seder” meal.   Jesus ate the supper with the Twelve, sent Judas away, instructed the others following Judas’s departure, then went to the garden where Judas found Him and betrayed Him to the soldiers. From there He was taken to Annas, who had Him bound and sent to his son-in-law, Caiaphas, the high priest. From the Temple mount He was taken across the city to Herod’s palace, where Pilate met Him in the hall of judgment. Today we know that Herod’s palace was located against the present west call of the Old City.   It was now well into Thursday morning as the cock had crowed announcing the dawn while they were still at the court of Caiaphas. Mark says it was “in the morning” when they took Him to Pilate. John’s account confirms that it was not Nisan 15, the day of the Passover.   Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover.—John 18:28.   These were the chief priests, scribes, and the elders of the council who were His accusers—good Jews. They dared not defile themselves by entering the Roman tribunal, or they couldn’t neat the Passover Pilate had to go outside to find out what the charges were against this man.   Here in the hall of judgment when Christ was sentenced, scourged, crowned with thorns, mocked and then turned over to the Jews for crucifixion—Mark’s account says at about the third hour (9:00 a.m.). By the sixth hour (12:00 noon) He was on the cross and at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m.), He was dead (mark 15:25-34).   Christ has fulfilled all the symbolism of the paschal lamb, even dying at the hour set for the killing of the paschal lamb.

 

Again John assures us that the hasty burial by Joseph and Nicodemus was on the “day of preparation” (John 19:14, 38-42). Mark and Luke agree that it was on the “day of preparation” but they add an extra phrase, “the day before the sabbath” (Mark 15:22-27; Luke 23:50-56). From this came the idea that the death had to be on Friday, just before the weekly sabbath. However, the holy feat days were called sabbaths, as we have noted, and John tells us that this sabbath was such a “high day”:

 

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies would not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.—John 19:31.

 

The regular Saturday sabbath would not have been termed a “high day” and the phrase, “day of preparation,” applies only to the celebration of the Passover. It is not used in connection with the regular weekly sabbath. So the question is: On what day of the week was Nisan 14—“the day of preparation?”

 

Matthew is helpful on this point:

 

Now the next day [Passover], that followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third ay . . . –Matthew 27:62-64.

 

Obviously the Jewish leaders met with Pilate on the morning of the Passover. They wanted the tomb guarded for three days. Pilate tells them to take care of it themselves, so they go to the tomb, seal it and set a watch. This raises the question whether this would have been possible on the weekly sabbath when no work was to be done, activities were restricted, and they were to spend the day in worship. Too, a Friday crucifixion would mean this was a Saturday morning and yet they asked for a three day watch over the tomb. A Thursday burial would mean that they wanted the tomb watched from Friday morning through Sunday, to cover the three days of prophecy.

 

One more reference to the three days—we know that the Lord rose on the first day of the week, early in the morning—our Sunday. Luke records an event that happened later on that same day. He tells of the two disciples who walked to Emmaus and met the Lod on the way, but knew Him not. When asked, they told of the recent events and supplied a time—“today is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21). This was Sunday. Three days had passed since the action taken against Jesus of Nazareth. He had to have died on Thursday—the 14th of Nisan, the “day of preparation,” not the Passover. This fulfills all of the requirements for the paschal lamb and makes Paul’s statement have real meaning when he says that Christ was the sacrifice for us. It confirms Christ’s own prophecy about the three days and nights He would be in the tomb. And our Book of Mormon is vindicated.

 

If the crucifixion took place on Thursday, then it had to occur in a year when the Passover celebration was back-to-back with the weekly sabbath—two holy days in a row. Recent computer studies have given us tables of the exact times of all the new and full moons for centuries before and following the birth of Christ. In 1974 an article was published in Christianity Today by Roger Rusk, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Tennessee, in which he demonstrated that the moon tables indicate that such an event did occur in the year 30 A.D. He also proposed that the crucifixion took place on Thursday—without the extra knowledge given in our Book of Mormon. His charge gives this date: April 6, 30 A.D. if this year is accurate, then the Catholic church’s traditional date of April 7, 30 A.D. is only off the one day, due to their insistence on a Friday crucifixion. Also, if this year is correct, then we should place the beginning of the Christian era at 3 B.C. to accommodate the thirty-three years of his life which had been completed.

 

The date of April 6 has special meaning for the Restoration church. Joseph Smith was given a commandment to affect the organization of the new church on April 6, 1830 (Doctrine and Covenants 17:1). (Verneil W. Simmons, Peoples, Places and Prophecies: A Study of the Book of Mormon [rev ed.; Independence, Miss.: Zarahemla Research Foundation, Inc., 1986], 205-10; Book of Mormon and D&C references in the above follow the RLDS versification system)

 

Further Reading:

 

David Butler Cumming, "Three Days and Three Nights: Reassessing Jesus's Entombment," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16, no. 1 (2007): 56-63, 86