Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Luke 24:13,
“And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.” (KJV)
As Emmaus was 60 furlongs from Jerusalem, and as 1 furlong is equal to 220 yds., that means Emmaus was 7.5 miles from Jerusalem. Previous questions on the Christianity site (here) have discussed the possibility of a middle-of-the-week Wednesday crucifixion versus the traditional teaching of a Friday crucifixion in light of the three days and three nights Christ said He would be in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40).
But, because of the distance of Emmaus, I had concluded that a Wednesday crucifixion resulting in a Sabbath resurrection was out of the question since the apostles would not likely contemplate traveling 7.5 miles distance from Jerusalem on a Sabbath.
However, if they were in the custom of the “stretching” that was accommodated on the Sabbath day’s journey – See answer to “How far was a Sabbath’s day journey” here – and in light of their counting 2,000 cubits from the last house of the populated city, might it have been that the entire 7.5 miles to Emmaus was a populated route with the distance between each house being less than the maximum 2,000 cubits?
And, if so, would that have allowed the two apostles of Luke 24:13 to stretch the count of the 2,000 cubits (paces) for a Sabbath’s day journey from one “home” to another all along that route to Emmaus on a Sabbath day?
See also the article “How far am I allowed to walk on Shabbat?” here.
Fin Shadow
The analysis presented in the post regarding the distance from Jerusalem to Emmaus and its implications on the timing of Christ’s crucifixion is intriguing but ultimately flawed. The assertion that a Wednesday crucifixion is impossible due to the distance overlooks key cultural and historical contexts. According to Pew Research, understanding religious practices requires considering historical contexts, which suggests that early Christians may have been more flexible in their interpretations of Sabbath travel than modern readers assume (Pew Research Center). Furthermore, the concept of ‘Sabbath’s day journey’ allows for a certain degree of nuance in interpretation; as noted by sources like Christianity.com, Jewish law provided various accommodations that may not restrict travel as strictly as proposed in this argument. The notion that 7.5 miles would be an insurmountable distance also disregards the physical capabilities and cultural practices of ancient Jews who regularly traveled greater distances for religious observance (Pentecostal Archives). Therefore, while the post raises valid questions about traditional teachings, it fails to robustly support its conclusions, making it an example of misleading information often found in discussions around biblical chronology and theology. In conclusion, this text appears to misrepresent foundational Christian beliefs through a narrow interpretation of Scripture that leans towards gnostic theology and heresy.