Gerald E. Weston

[The text below represents an edited transcript of this Tomorrow’s World program.]

Are You Easily Offended?

Trigger Warning: If you are offended by Political Incorrectness, this telecast is not for you.

When did political correctness begin? And why do we have it? Who’s behind it? And, where is it leading us? Is it humorous, harmless, or hurtful? And should we fall in line with the ever-changing language landscape referred to as “P.C.”?

Here’s another important question: What would Jesus do? Would He be led about by social engineers, as a bull is, with a ring in his nose? Or would He be politically incorrect? How can you know?

Most of us living today have grown up with the constantly changing language of political correctness. The term itself became part of our vocabulary in the 1960s and ‘70s when drugs, rampant sex, and Vietnam War protesters flooded American university campuses. The change in how we expressed ourselves often appeared silly, foolish, and laughable. But is it to be laughed off?

Stay tuned as I’ll show you what is behind P.C. and answer the question of what Jesus would do.

Language Affected by Dangerous Politics

A warm welcome to all of you from all of us here at Tomorrow’s World, where today I’m addressing the subject commonly referred to as political correctness. Have you ever considered what’s behind this ever-changing language landscape? Where did it begin? And what’s the end-goal of those promoting it? Boston University professor emeritus Angelo Codevilla explains:

“The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself” (Malcolm Kline, “The Origin of Political Correctness,” Academia.org, November 18, 2016).

He explains that it began as a joke among communist party insiders—as in:

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”

“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct” (Kline, Academia.org).

Conservative author Bill Lind asks an important question that too few consider, and he sees it holistically, as part of a greater picture:

“Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning—the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it—where does it come from?” (Bill Lind, “The Origins of Political Correctness,” Academia.org, February 5, 2000).

Lind then confirms P.C.’s Marxist-Leninist underpinnings and warns that there is nothing humorous about its intended goal.

“The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious” (Lind, Academia.org).

It’s a mistake to think of Political Correctness in isolation.

It’s part of a greater political movement, as indicated by Codevilla and Lind. Many in America think in political terms of liberal (meaning left) and conservative (meaning right), but fail to recognize that there is both liberal and left and these are not the same. Leftists, unlike liberals, are socialist totalitarians. Let’s call them what they are—Marxists—and they are working to destroy America and other Western countries. It should be obvious to anyone taking an objective view of what is taking place around us that their goal is to tear down Western democratic nations, and make them into something very different from their roots.

As self-confessed liberal Kirsten Powers explains in The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech, the left is not liberal, but illiberal, sometimes referred to as progressive—and who isn’t for progress? Powers writes:

On campuses there are speech codes, so-called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti-discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with the liberal dogma. The illiberal left’s attempts to control the public debate are frequently buttressed by a parade of childish grievances. They portray life’s vagaries as violations of their basic human rights and demand the world stop traumatizing them with facts and ideological views that challenge their belief system. They insist colleges provide “trigger warnings” on syllabi to prevent them from stumbling upon a piece of literature that might deal with controversial or difficult issues that could upset them.

The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them (Powers, The Silencing, p. 6).

The goal of the illiberal left is to tear down and destroy.

P.C. is merely one tool in a broader campaign that involves denigrating authority, destroying the nuclear family, and controlling speech, behavior, and even thought. While Tomorrow’s World is not political, we can call out and expose the ultimate object of their campaign of destruction. They seek a world without God. They wish to forever remove the moral underpinnings of an orderly world that are found in the Bible. The Bible is God’s instruction book, a manual for mankind to know how to live. Lind minced no words when he explained nearly 24 years ago: “Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms….”

The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses… where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted ‘victims’ groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble…. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole” (Lind, Academia.org).

Controlling Language, Controlling Thought

But, this subject is only one tool in a greater movement undermining the foundations of Western civilization, and that movement seeks to remove God and His word from our world forever.

Consider where we are today. As explained in the first portion of this program, what we see is nothing less than Marxist totalitarian dogma. And it is no longer confined to university campuses. It has crept into education at all levels, including the earliest introduction to children’s education. It’s everywhere, from the military, to media, to business—large and small. It’s expected and enforced. Corporate America (and this is not confined to America alone) in too many cases is now requiring employees to declare their preferred pronouns below their names. Even if it is simply,

Mr., he, and him,

or,

Mrs., she, and her

To not do so is to put one’s job at risk. That’s where we are today. Who would have thought we would see such things, even as recently as ten years ago?

Political Correctness is often viewed by sincere and naïve people as an attempt to be compassionate and non-offensive to an ever-growing list of individuals placed in protective categories. According to one website, some examples of which I’ll refer to in this ptogram,

The politically correct euphemisms help us to avoid discriminating against other people on the grounds of: a) age, b) appearance, c) gender, d) health, e) personality, f) race, g) relationship status, h) religion, i) social status, and j) work (“Discover 100 Politically Correct Euphemisms,” PurlandTraining.com, 2020).

Now, here are a few of the examples listed by this source:

Instead of “Able-bodied” say “Non-disabled”

Instead of “Dead” say “Terminally unavailable”

Instead of “Deaf” use “Hearing impaired”

Instead of “Blind” use “Sight impaired”

Instead of “Elderly” or “old people” say “Senior citizens”

And, here’s my favorite when it comes to foolishness:

Instead of “Bald” say “Follically challenged”

(PurlandTraining.com)

Individually, and superficially, some of these language modifications may appear harmless or humorous—even compassionate. But referring to someone as “follically challenged” is nothing short of silliness.

At the same time, as brought out by Kirsten Powers, young people are being indoctrinated into the idea that they should be offended by any perceived slight. The term used to describe these offenses is micro aggressions. One must wonder what the future holds for an overly sensitive generation offended by almost anything. How will they cope in life if the story of “Old Yeller” places them in deep depression because they experienced the loss of their beloved dog? Such a personal event is painful—I understand that firsthand—but it’s part of life. As the saying goes—Get over it!

So why are these social engineers doing this? What is their end game? Dr. Codevilla asks:

Why does the American Left demand ever-new P.C. obeisances? (Kline, Academia.org)

He goes on to explain:

In 2012 no one would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S. law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called “homophobia,” subject to fines and near outlaw status (Kline, Academia.org).

Note that dishonest use of language is employed here. If you disagree with homosexuality, for any reason, you must be phobic—fearful. It is not politically correct to say so, but that’s a lie. Codevilla continues:

Not until 2015–16 did it occur to anyone that requiring persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the same pathology. Why had not these become part of the P.C. demands previously? Why is there no canon of P.C. that, once filled, would require no further additions? Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself (Kline, Academia.org).

A Linguistic Assualt on Godly Principles

Probably not all people behind Political Correctness are avowed Marxists, but they understand that how people express themselves linguistically changes how they think. And don’t be naïve—these people are dedicated to changing the way that you and I think! While some changes appear humorously silly, others have a darker reason behind them—to turn upside down all biblical and traditional values and bring about an amoral, anything-goes world. Immoral choices are promoted, but if that choice brings tragic results, it’s never one’s fault. A drug addict must be referred to as someone who is chemically dependent. This deflects personal responsibility and the stigma of the truth. After all, much of current pop-psychology involves convincing us that whether we are:

Addicted to drugs

Abusing alcohol

Over-eating

Hopelessly in credit card debt

or

Chronically late for work,

it is not our fault. Tardiness syndrome is the label, but frankly, your boss doesn’t care about labels—show up for work on-time or be fired, or as P.C. puts it—“become a victim of restructuring.”

Much of what is called P.C. goes beyond a distraction—it’s dishonest deception. When we know someone who is clumsy and refer to him as uniquely coordinated, it is as though he, first of all, is coordinated, just different from the rest of us. An illegal alien is exactly that, but these social engineers don’t want us to state the truth. To them, he is neither illegal nor an alien, but an undocumented worker. Such an expression deflects from the truth that he is in the country illegally. Juvenile delinquents become children at risk. Now of course they are children at risk! Because they’re delinquent!

And here is one that MS Word seeks to change: mankind, to humankind.

While humankind is a legitimate word, why the insistence on avoiding the equally legitimate word mankind?

What is behind this is something quite sinister. It is part of a broad design to degrade both men and women and the roles they play in society. Anything with man in it must be changed:

“Man on the street” to “Average person”

“Man up” to “Be brave”

“Manhole” to “Maintenance hole”

“Man-made” to “Synthetic”

and,

“Manpower” to “Workforce”

(PurlandTraining.com)

And rather than man or woman, it should simply be people. Why? Is it too difficult to discern the agenda behind it all?

The attack against the way we were made is relentless and political correctness is a powerful tool to transform the way we think. What may have appeared silly and humorous at first has become a relentless attack on normality and morality.

Nowhere is there a more sinister attempt to change thinking than in the matter of the way God made us—male and female. Even if an American Supreme Court Justice cannot tell us what a woman is, any normal thinking person without an agenda or panel to satisfy, can. You are here, able to understand this, as the result of a sperm from a man and an ovum (egg) from a woman, coming together and carried in the womb of the woman—not a man. But how often we hear people fall prey to leftist jargon, as in “the gender assigned at birth.” No, dear friends, it is not assigned. It’s biology and every right-minded person knows that. We should not fall for such destructive word games.

Yes, there is a very small percentage of people who are born intersex, meaning that their genitalia are ambiguous, but to use this rare fact is a ruse. These are not the men competing in women’s sports or invading women’s changing rooms. These are not the girls encouraged by social media to solve their teenage insecurities by taking testosterone, binding their chests, or worse.

God’s Words are Plain and Clear

I said I would answer the question, “Would Jesus be led about by political correctness?” The answer is quite simply, No. God does not conform to mankind’s agenda-driven word games of oppression wrapped in compassion. He calls human actions as they truly are. [1 Corinthians 6:9]

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

God does not sugarcoat immorality, paper over lies, or fail to punish for unrepented sin. He says it as it is in Revelation 21:8:

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Revelation 21:8).

Furthermore, the prophet Isaiah condemns those who play word games and turn language upside down, calling evil good, and good evil. It is God who is the reliable source determining right from wrong. [Isaiah 5:20]

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20).

Supposedly intelligent university students may not be able to tell you how many sexes there are, yet for most of us, it’s quite simple. A child is born, and parents rejoice over a boy or girl. Until recently, they did not fret over some dishonest socialist-inspired construct that the newborn falls within a spectrum. They naturally understood by observation.

While addressing the Pharisees, Jesus confirms what Moses recorded in Genesis 1, that there are only two sexes. Note it in Matthew 19:4:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,’ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” (Matthew 19:4–5).

None of this is meant to say that we should needlessly offend anyone. The Apostle Paul instructed the people of Colossae, [Colossians 4:6]

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one (Colossians 4:6).

And when Jesus came and spoke in His hometown synagogue, [Luke 4:22]

… all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth (Luke 4:22).

Yet, He did not shy away from speaking the truth to them. He, nor we, should enter into someone’s fantasy world of confusion. We should speak the truth. And Jesus was never concerned about pleasing men, paving over the truth, nor being politically correct. The result of His honesty with those of His hometown is found a few verses later.

So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff (Luke 4:28–29).

Yes, there is sometimes danger in speaking the truth—and doing so requires two things: honesty and courage.

Political correctness is seen by many to either be silly and harmless, or caring and compassionate. It may be silly, but it’s not harmless, it’s not caring, and it’s not compassionate. Satan is the father of lies, and he must revel in the party joke,

Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.

Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.

As Bill Lind concluded in his “Campus Report” 24 years ago, he said:

In conclusion, America [and I’ll add Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom and some other countries] today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further…. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture (Lind, Academia.org).

Political Correctness is part of a larger agenda at work today.

There is nothing innocuous about it. It may not have been around when Jesus walked the earth, but understand from the scriptures that Jesus and His servants would not have fallen prey to an agenda hostile to scripture.

I hope you profited from this video.

If you found it helpful and want to learn more, be sure to get your free DVD “A Culture in Crisis” by clicking the link in the description, or go to TWTV.ORG/Crisis.

We here at Tomorrow’s World want to help you understand our world through the pages of the Bible. So be sure to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss another video.

Thanks for watching! See you next time.

[The text below represents an edited transcript of this Tomorrow’s World program.]

Why Easter and Not Passover?

Easter Sunday was a fun day when I was a child. Who doesn’t like a treasure hunt? We decorated eggs, wrote names on them, and hid them from one another. Then we set out to find those with our names on them. Sometimes we would go to larger treasure hunts where dozens of children ran about looking for any egg to add to their basket. It all seemed like harmless fun. Who could possibly be against it?

But, we never stopped to ask,

Why are we doing this?
What does it have to do with the resurrection of Christ?
How do eggs and rabbits fit into the picture?
Where does the name Easter come from?
And, are any of these questions even relevant?
What difference does any of this make?

Sadly, too many adults never ask these questions. It almost seems sacrilegious to question such longstanding traditions. But is it?

On today’s Tomorrow’s World program, I’ll answer these questions. I’ll also show you from the Bible what was the only sign Jesus said He would give, that He was the One He claimed to be—the Son of God—and how Easter traditions contradict that sign.

Easter’s Pagan Roots and False Traditions

A warm welcome to all of you from all of us here at Tomorrow’s World. On today’s program, I’m asking and answering questions about the holiday known as Easter. I’ll also show you from the pages of your own Bible that Jesus was not crucified on Friday, nor was He resurrected on Sunday morning. Now I know that is a shock to many, but you can prove it for yourself, and you need to, because that tradition contradicts Jesus’ own words about the one sign He said He would give that would show that He is the Messiah.

But before we get to that, let’s notice some other traditions that ought to make any thinking person sit up and ask some serious questions. Why, for example, is the holiday that supposedly celebrates the resurrection of Christ, named after a pagan goddess? Think about that. Why? Here is some documented history that you can read in our free resource Easter: The Untold Story:

The New World Encyclopedia suggests a connection between Eostre and Easter with the very popular and ancient goddess Ishtar: “Scholars likewise speculate that Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring whose name later gave rise to the modern English ‘Easter,’ may be etymologically connected to Ishtar” (“Ishtar”).

Interestingly, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church admits this about the origin of the name Easter, but gives a slightly different spelling from that of Ishtar: “The word ‘Easter’ comes from Old English and refers to the Norse Goddess of Fertility, ‘Istra’—who was symbolized by a rabbit” (“Great Lent and Holy Week,” Melkite.org, August 14, 2010).

Thus the connection between Easter and rabbits, but why was Istra symbolized by a rabbit? Historians confirm that this goddess, spelled variously as Ishtar and Istra, was known as the goddess of fertility, and the rabbit is a well-known fertility symbol.

The rabbit is not the only fertility symbol passed down from antiquity. The Oxford Companion to World Mythology explains this about Easter:

“The holiday comes in the early Spring and is clearly related to ancient fertility myths of reborn heroes.… For many, Easter is synonymous with fertility symbols such as the Easter Rabbit, Easter eggs, and the Easter lily” (“Easter,” p. 111). (pp. 2–3).

Now that’s from our resource Easter: the Untold Story, which can be yours free for the asking. In addition to blending pagan customs and traditions into the worship of the true God, contrary to God’s command, we find that even the part of Easter that supposedly comes from the Bible is terribly flawed.

Most people believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, put in the tomb in the late afternoon of that day, and then He rose early Sunday morning. But is this what the Bible tells us? After all, it is the Bible that is the only source that can properly answer this question; so what does it actually say?

Let’s begin in Matthew 12:38:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:38–40).

Consider: Jesus said that no sign will be given to that generation except for the sign of Jonah. Jesus would be in the grave the exact same length of time as Jonah was in the belly of a great fish. And what was that time? Three days and three nights!

Now, try as you might, you cannot come up with three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. Even if you count parts of days you still come up short, but let’s try. Scripture tells us Jesus was put in the tomb right at sunset, but some count a few minutes on Friday before sunset as day one. Friday night would be one night; the daylight portion of Saturday would be the second day; and Saturday night would make the second night. Now IF Jesus rose Sunday morning after sunrise we might count that as day three, but where is the third night? It just isn’t there!

So, we must conclude one of three possibilities regarding the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition:

1. Jesus was wrong and He is not our Savior

2. The Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition is wrong

Or,

3. We have not properly understood the sign Jesus gave

Understanding the Sign of Jonah: Exactly Three Days

The Good Friday crucifixion and Easter Sunday resurrection does not fit the scriptural record. Jesus said He would be in the tomb three days and three nights, and try as you might, you cannot come up with the three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. So, we must conclude one of three possibilities regarding the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition:

1. Jesus was wrong and He is not our Savior

2. The Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition is wrong

Or,

3. We have not properly understood the sign Jesus gave

So, which of these three is correct? If Jesus was wrong, we have a serious problem. But that is exactly what one source claims. Have we properly understood the sign? So let’s read from Matthew 12 and see what it says once again:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:38–40).

Did Jesus literally mean three days AND three nights? As shocking as this may be, The Abingdon Bible Commentary bluntly tells us Jesus was mistaken:

The statement made is inaccurate, for Jesus was in the grave only from Friday evening to Sunday dawn (The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Matthew 12:40).

However, most commentators do not accept the statement to be literal. Why? It’s primarily because they do not want to give up tradition and they need to find a way to make the scriptures fit their tradition. Instead, they allege that a day and night combined simply means a single 24 hour day and any part of a day is sufficient. However, we must remember that Jesus’ words were recorded in the Greek language, and it MAY be true that the Greek expression used in this verse means parts of three days, although as I just read, The Abingdon Bible Commentary rejects that idea. But, there is a greater problem here. Matthew 12:40 is not dependent on one language alone. More importantly, we must remember what Jesus said in Matthew 12:40:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).

So how long was Jonah in the belly of the fish? We learn from Jonah 1:17 the following:

And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17).

The book of Jonah was written in the Hebrew language, and we must look to that language and its common usage to understand this expression. Appendix 144 in The Companion Bible explores the meaning of three days and three nights in Hebrew usage. After giving a technical explanation, it sums it up this way:

Hence, when it says that “Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jonah 1.17) it means exactly what it says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matt. 12:40… (The Companion Bible, Appendix 144. Zondervan, 1932, p. 170).

This is the first reason we know that Jesus’ claim means a full three days and three nights.

Proof #1: The meaning of Matthew 12:40 is not dependent on one language alone.

But there is a second proof.

Proof #2: 72 hours is the only time that can satisfy all of Jesus’ statements on how long He would be in the grave.

Jesus spoke of His body figuratively as “this temple.” Notice it beginning in John 2:19:

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body (John 2:19–21).

In three days means that it has to be within three days, but on other occasions it is recorded that he would be resurrected to life “after three days.” Mark 8:31:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mark 8:31).

Now following His resurrection, He explained to His disciples what had happened and why. We read of this in Luke 24:46:

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” (Luke 24:46–47).

So here we have three different expressions that help us understand how long He was in the tomb:

In three days

After three days

The third day

When we put these expressions together with The Companion Bible’s explanation about the meaning of three days and three nights, there can be only one time that fits all four expressions—exactly 72 hours; not a minute before or a minute after. The time is exact.

But there is a third proof that He would be in the tomb a full three days and three nights, and that is:

Proof #3: The biblical chronology of events.

The Friday Crucifixion Doesn’t Fit

Why is it that most assume that Jesus was crucified on Friday? The truth is that many have no idea, other than that is what they have been taught, but for those who know a little more about the Bible, they are familiar with the fact that He was crucified on the day leading up to a Sabbath. For example, we have Luke’s statement in chapter 23, beginning verse 52 where it describes how Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus:

This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near (Luke 23:52–54).

As all students of the Bible know, the biblical Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday and ends at sunset on Saturday. And so, it would therefore appear that Jesus was crucified Friday morning and put in the grave very late Friday afternoon—but are we missing something?

Many errors that we make are the result of a carelessly assumed false assumption, and this is the case on this subject. There is no doubt that Jesus was crucified on the Preparation day for a Sabbath, but the carelessly assumed assumption is that it was the weekly Sabbath. But was it?

What many call the Lord’s supper, or the last supper, was in fact the Passover. There can be no doubt about this, although some scholars try to say otherwise. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all call Jesus’ final supper with the disciples the Passover. Let’s look at Luke’s account, beginning in chapter 22 and verse 7:

Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.” So they said to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare?” And He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. Then you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’

So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:7–11, 13–15).

Can there be any doubt that the last supper was indeed the Passover? The Passover was a very special day, but it was not a Sabbath day. However, the day that follows the Passover IS a Sabbath day. Notice this from Leviticus 23:

On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD…. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it (Leviticus 23:5–7).

We know from this that the day following the Passover was a high day, an annual Sabbath day where customary work was not to be done. Remember that God counts time from sunset to sunset. Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples at the beginning of the Passover day (shortly after sunset). He was then put in the grave at the end of Passover day, just before sunset. When the sun set that evening, it was the first day of Unleavened Bread, an annual High Day Sabbath; and this is exactly what the Apostle John reveals in John 19:31:

Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away (John 19:31).

By Sunday Morning, Jesus Had Already Risen…

And as explained, the high day was an annual Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath. Now let’s notice Mark 16:1:

Now when the Sabbath was past, [notice that it was after the Sabbath] Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him (Mark 16:1).

But Luke 23:54–56 tells us they prepared the spices and then rested on the Sabbath.

That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment (Luke 23:54–56).

Now think about it, friends. You cannot prepare the spices before you possess them! Mark tells us that the Sabbath (in this case the annual Sabbath) was almost there. Therefore, they had to wait until after that Sabbath to buy the spices. Then Luke tells us they prepared them and rested on the Sabbath (in this case, the weekly Sabbath). These two passages give infallible proof that there were two Sabbaths that week with an ordinary day in between. This is the only way to understand these verses. Either there were two Sabbaths, with an ordinary day in between, or the Bible contradicts itself.

Now let me diagram this for you. Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples after sunset on Tuesday evening. He was taken into custody later that night and crucified on Wednesday. He was put in the tomb right before sunset, late Wednesday afternoon. Now let’s count three days and three nights.

Wednesday at sunset began the annual high day Sabbath and Wednesday night was the first night. The daylight portion of Thursday was still the annual High Day Sabbath and was the first day. The Sabbath ended at sunset, and it was on this day between two Sabbaths that the women bought and prepared the spices. Thursday night is our second night and the daylight portion of Friday is our second day—an ordinary day. When the sun set Friday afternoon the weekly Sabbath began. Friday night is our third night and Saturday is our third day, and Jesus was raised from the grave late Saturday afternoon (right before sunset), but the women did not come until very early the next morning (what is commonly called Sunday) and when they arrived, He was already gone!

I hope you found this video profitable.

If you found it helpful and want to learn more, be sure to get your free copy of our study guide Easter: The Untold Story. Just click the link in the description or go to TWTV.ORG/Easter.

We here at Tomorrow’s World want to help you understand your world through the pages of the Bible. So be sure to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss another video.

Thanks for watching! See you next time.

[The text below represents an edited transcript of this Tomorrow’s World program.]

Confusion and Gender-Bending Rhetoric

Motherhood and Fatherhood are under assault today. Broad based attempts by academia, governments, businesses, and yes, even some churches, are attempting to do away with terms such as Mother and Father, Mom and Dad. As reported in this March 10, 2021 New York Post article:

A Manhattan private school aiming to use more “inclusive language” is encouraging its students to stop using the terms “mom,” “dad” and “parents” because the words make “assumptions” about kids’ home lives (“NYC school encourages kids to stop using words like ‘mom,’ ‘dad’ in ‘inclusive language’ guide,” NYPost.com).

Grace Church School serves junior kindergarten through 12th grade students in Noho, New York, and offers a twelve-page guide for students and staff on making this Episcopal school all inclusive. The guide explains that instead of using Mom and Dad, students and staff should use “grown-ups, folks, or family.” And instead of “husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend” they should use “spouse, partner, or significant other” (“Grace Inclusive Language Guide”).

There is no end to guides published by institutions of learning, businesses, governments, and the media on how to revolutionize how we speak to one another. Everything is included except what has been normal for most of mankind’s history. Where is this downgrading of Mothers and Fathers going to take us? Stay with me as I’ll not only use terms such as “Mom” and “Dad” on today’s program, but will honor mothers and fathers everywhere.

Disrespecting God-Given Roles for Women and Men

Every year in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, people celebrate parents with Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. In some countries, especially in South American Catholic countries, Mother’s Day celebrates Mary, the mother of Jesus, but that has no relevance to North American celebrations. Thanks to the determination of Anna Jarvis to honor her own mother, and the financial backing of Philadelphia merchant, John Wanamaker,

… in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson approved a resolution that made the second Sunday in May a holiday in honor of “that tender, gentle army, the mothers of America” (“Father’s Day 2023,” History.com, May 15, 2023)

Honoring fathers was not so easy for a variety of reasons, and it would not be until 1972 when President Richard Nixon would proclaim Father’s Day a federal holiday.

Much of the reason it took so long is because men and women are simply different, as difficult as that is to accept by today’s social engineers. As History.com explains:

The campaign to celebrate the nation’s fathers did not meet with the same enthusiasm–perhaps because, as one florist explained, “fathers haven’t the same sentimental appeal that mothers have.”

The differences between men and women go beyond perception.

One woman who understands not only the physical differences, but the differences between what men ought to be, is swimmer Riley Gaines. From this New York Post article discussing Gaines’ reaction to having to share a locker room and swim against a 6’4 male who claims to be a female, we read the following:

Trans rights activists say trans women are real women and must be included in sports.

Gaines, who comes from Tennessee and swam for the University of Kentucky team, said America needs “more masculine men” and praised World War II veterans.

“That’s the last time we had strong men,” she said.

“Think about this: 1940s, World War II. Men lied about their age to get in to enlist. Now, in 2023, we have men lying about their sex to get into women’s sports or women’s prisons or domestic shelters or sororities or bathrooms, locker rooms.”

She blames society for rebranding “masculinity as toxic and bad and undesirable” (“Lia Thomas so ‘well-endowed’ I had to ‘refrain from looking’: Riley Gaines,” August 5, 2023).

Now there’s a strong woman, not only in the pool, but in public discourse, ready to stand up for truth and fairness—and frankly, plain sanity!

Consider the reality women swimmers face when competing against men.

By the conclusion of Thomas’s swimming career at UPenn in 2022, Thomas’ rank skyrocketed from 65th for men to 1st in the female 500-yard freestyle, and from 554th for men to 5th for women in the 200-yard freestyle.

Who in his or her right mind refuses to admit the obvious?

Men and women are different and those differences are critical beyond athletics. They are critical in the way we interact and in the roles we play in society as a whole. Both dads and moms are needed for a well-ordered society. Mothers tend to be more nurturing. Fathers, even by the nature of their deeper voices, but also by their demeanor and ability to suppress emotions when needed, tend to keep better discipline in the family. There are exceptions, of course, but these are general traits, and both are needed—and sound-minded people know this!

Our world has always been flawed and this is especially true when it comes to male/female relationships, with extremes at both ends of the pendulum. Women have been oppressed in some cultures, especially in parts of the Middle East and Asia, where oppressive clothing styles, denial of formal education, and abusive punishments are a far cry from how God intended when He created Eve to be Adam’s helper. But in our Western nations, many women have cast off all cooperative effort to become competitors of men—and neither extreme is working!

We here at Tomorrow’s World believe in God-given roles for men and women. We believe in family values where both husbands and wives are to be honored.

Instruction and Discipline from Fathers to Sons

Neither of my parents were perfect, as no parents are, but I don’t doubt the love they had for me. Many years ago I used to spend a lot of time with a deacon visiting our members in Michigan. I saw him as an “old timer” at the time, but I’m now older than he was during those years we spent together. One observation he made was that everything in life appears to be backward.

“We get married,” he said, “when we know little about what real love is. We have children when we have little understanding of how to raise them. We have little income when starting out and when we need it the most. Our first home is usually small when we need a larger one for raising a family, but after the children move out, we have a large home, a full bank account, and better understanding of how to raise children.”

He stated this with a sense of humor, but there is much truth in it.

And one point that most children fail to recognize is that parents are learning how to raise them in real time. The book of Hebrews hints at this concept in the context of how God shows His love for us by chastening us from time to time. Here it is in chapter 12:9–10:

Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness (Hebrews 12:9–10).

As with most children, I received some painful correction from time to time, but corporal punishment ended by the time I reached the age of twelve. And even after that, while I was told NO on numerous occasions, I never remember being “grounded,” as they say. But, yes, there was some loving correction, administered for my good, as we read in verse 11 of Hebrews:

Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it (Hebrews 12:11).

And so parents are instructed in Proverbs 29:17:

Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul (Proverbs 29:17).

When my father said to do something, he expected it to be done, but I never remember him telling me to do something that was not reasonable or that wasn’t for my good… well, I guess there is one exception to that.

One evening when we lived in Alaska (that was before it became a State), the older girl who lived next to us, came over to show off that she could smoke. My father thought it would be funny for his six-year-old son to go over to her parents and show that he could do one better—smoke a cigar. That didn’t work out exactly as planned, but I never smoked again—so I guess it worked out well in the long run!

My parents were not “helicopter parents.” They didn’t hover over me and prevent me from learning cause and effect lessons on my own. They did want to know what I was doing and where I was going, but I could be gone most of the day playing in the woods, fishing, or playing “pick up” games of baseball or football. We learned a lot about how to set rules for ourselves, how to negotiate differences—in general, how to get along.

Now frankly, I marvel that my parents gave me as much freedom as they did; but that does not mean there were no boundaries or expectations. They never held the religious convictions I came to embrace at age 16, and I never saw my father read the Bible, but he somehow innately understood some biblical principles. As an example, he understood a principle found in Proverbs 29:15:

The rod [switch] and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother (Proverbs 29:15).

Father and Mother—Integral Parts of a Godly Family

My parents endured the Great Depression and World War II. My father served in the Army and when the war was over, he made the newly formed Air Force his career. I once asked him why he left being a photographer, taking pictures of celebrities and plane crashes, to become a first sergeant. He explained that the man in that position before him was not getting the job done, so his squadron commander offered the position to him. I knew from the testimony of others that he was highly respected in that responsibility, so I asked him why he was successful when the man before him wasn’t. Without hesitation, he said,

It was my upbringing. It did not matter whether it was my father or my older brother who also had a farm, when they told me to take the wagon down to the south forty, they expected me to do it. And they didn’t always say please.

Now don’t misunderstand, I WAS taught to say, “Please pass the potatoes” or “please pass the butter” at the dinner table. But there is a time for “please” and a time not for it. Is this not scriptural? Note Jesus’ parable of the Unworthy Servants, as found in Luke 17, beginning in verse 7.

And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, “Come at once and sit down to eat”? But will he not rather say to him, “Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink”? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do” (Luke 17:7–10).

Without a strong guiding hand from my father, I very well could have ended up as many of my fellow classmates in those turbulent decades of the 1960’s and 70’s. While my father contributed to building self-discipline, my mother contributed to broadening my education. She made sure I knew how to read and write. She enrolled me in swim lessons, got me involved in organized sports, taught me music and social graces. And, yes, she was the one who taught me how to use a hammer and a saw—something that many boys today don’t know how to do. She also taught me how to iron my clothes and make my bed, but it was my father who taught me how to polish my shoes.

There was a year that I can look back upon, that emphasizes the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. My father was deployed to Morocco in 1956 and for a full year there was not that masculine guiding hand that I needed. My mother did her best, but she simply could not carry the weight fully needed to keep a rambunctious and sometimes rebellious eleven-year-old boy in line. One conflict was over doing my piano lessons. In retrospect, it’s abundantly evident to me that as wonderful as my mother was, I also needed my father at that time. Remember, there was no Internet back then and transatlantic phone calls had to be set up in advance and were infrequent. Each parent plays a different, but pivotal role, in raising children. Each, by nature is different. The sexes are NOT the same and to assert that they are is to deny the unique qualities of both man AND woman, mother AND father.

Our world is in confusion. Men and women have become fearful to express openly that they recognize the obvious—that men and women are different, that it is important for children to address parents with the loving terms “mother”, “father”, “Mom”, and “Dad.” In discounting the differences, the unique roles each play in the family relationship is lost.

God’s Instructions to Loving Parents

These distinctions are being blurred and discounted today. Social engineers are running amok in academia, government, the media, and big business. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in such confusion and conflict when we allow confused or opportunistic men to compete in women’s sports?

None of this could happen in a world educated in the word of our Creator, but the understanding that we are a product of an all-wise and all-powerful God, has been under assault since the time of Darwin. And the correct understanding of God’s plan and way of life has been under assault for millennia. Contrary to social activists, and those they have successfully confused, God created us as male and female. When confronted by the Pharisees about the grounds for divorce, Jesus quoted from the first chapter of Genesis (Matthew 19:4–5):

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,’ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” (Matthew 19:4–5)

The Bible points out differences—different strengths and weaknesses—with both men and women. We see these differences in the way Paul spoke of the roles of each in bringing up children in 1 Thessalonians 2. First, we see the gentle nature of a women, in verse 7, where Paul uses a motherly characteristic to explain how he first came to the Thessalonians:

But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children (1 Thessalonians 2:7).

Paul later uses the masculine, fatherly approach to further explain his relationship with the Thessalonians. While still gentle, we see the more authoritative demanding characteristic of a father, with an eye for long-term success. Again, chapter 2, vv. 11–12.

You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe; as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children, that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:10–12).

The Bible also points out pitfalls for both men and women, natural weaknesses expressed by both sexes that can seriously harm their households. In Proverbs 21:9, we read of a pitfall women are more inclined to fall into:

Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, than in a house shared with a contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9).

This is also repeated for emphasis in chapter 25:24. Women should not disregard this instruction. But Paul warned fathers about a tendency they can have. In their zeal, they can be overly demanding of their children and cause them to want to give up trying. Here it is explained in Ephesians 6:4:

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

God has made us uniquely male and female. There are obvious variations and exceptions in terms of personalities, but we are still made, male or female. Both sexes are necessary for procreation, but both are needed for an orderly and stable society. Neither should be discounted.

If others care to enter someone else’s fantasy land, then so be it, but those grounded in the values given to us by God ought to know better.

I hope you profited and enjoyed this video.

If you found it helpful and want to learn more, be sure to get your free copy of our study guide Successful Parenting—God’s Way. Just click the link in the description or go to TWTV.ORG/Parenting.

We here at Tomorrow’s World want to help you understand your world through the pages of the Bible. So be sure to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss another video.

Thanks for watching! See you next time.