‘After three days’ – ‘on the 17th’
Cog,
Logos
apostolic
Answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Read article by Cog Logos apostolic
from the web-page given after my answers.
GE:
Matthew 28:1, “In
the Sabbath’s fullness in the mid-afternoon”, Jesus rose “the third day
according to the Scriptures”. He rose “On the Sabbath ....” on the
Seventh Day of the week, “towards the First Day of the week”. On the Sixth Day of the week, was He buried; on
the Fifth Day of the week was He crucified. Because Jesus rose from the dead on
“First Sheaf Wave Offering before the LORD”, I believe the Seventh Day
Sabbath of the LORD your God.
Cog:
“JESUS WAS
LITERALLY THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE GRAVE”
GE:
Untrue! No passage from the Bible even points in that
directions. If this is how ‘this study’ starts, I would
not like to see how it is going to develop further.
Jesus never said, “IN THE GRAVE”.
‘In the grave’ is literal language; “in the heart of the earth” – what
Jesus actually had said – is figurative language. Also, ‘In the earth’,
is literal; but “in the heart of the earth” is not literal; it is figurative
language.
When He said He
would be “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”, Jesus
spoke figuratively of his own experience of suffering substitutionally eternal
death for the sins of men; He spoke of his passover. What is literal language in Jesus’ words
should be understood literally; what is figurative should be understood figuratively
or ‘spiritually’. “In the heart of
the earth” was meant figuratively for Jesus’ suffering and humiliation— that
is, for his ‘descent into hell’. “Three
days and three nights” although a prophecy, was meant for just “three
days and three nights”— NOT just ANY three days and three nights, but the “three
days and three nights” of Jesus’
last passover. The “three days
and three nights” were the days of the passover of the Old Testament in the
New Testament in and through Jesus Christ fulfilled. (Compare for example Jonah’s experience and
The discussion
should stop here, because everything Cog further alleges is based on this first
erroneous presupposition of his that Jesus used the words “three days and
three nights in the GRAVE”.
Cog:
“This bible study
is about the timing of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and
is based rock solid on the word of God.”
GE:
We shall see.
Cog:
“Its purpose is
only to glorify the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you notice any errors you
may contact us.
Articles:
2.21 He was raised on the third day
2.21 He was raised in three days
2.23 He was raised during three days?
2.24 He was raised after three days
2.25 He was raised after three days and
three nights
2.26 Conclusion concerning the time of
the resurrection of Jesus”
GE:
“If you notice any
errors you may contact us.” I have already noticed one.
‘Error’ for me, means, not “according to the Scriptures”, and to say, “He was raised
after three days and three nights” definitely is not
“according to the Scriptures”.
Cog:
“2.21 He was raised
on the third day
MATTHEW 16:21 (Jesus)
21 From that time forth began Jesus to
show to his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again
the third day.
MATTHEW 17:22-23
22 And while they abode in
23 And they shall kill him, and the
third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.
MATTHEW 20:17-19
17 And Jesus going up to
18 Behold, we go up to
19 And shall deliver him to the
Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he
shall rise again.
MARK 9:30-31 (Jesus)
30 And they departed from there, and
passed through
31 For he taught his disciples, and
said to them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall
kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
MARK 10:32-34 (Jesus)
32 And they were in the way going up to
33 Saying, Behold, we go up to
Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests, and to
the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the
Gentiles: 34 And they shall mock him, and scourge him, and shall spit upon him,
and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
LUKE 9:21-22 (Jesus)
21 And he strictly warned them, and
commanded them to tell no man that thing; 22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer
many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and
be slain, and be raised the third day.
LUKE 18:31-33 (Jesus)
31 And he took to him the twelve, and
said to them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all thing that are written by
the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. 32 For he shall
be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated,
and spat on: 33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third
day he shall rise again.
LUKE 24:6-7 (An angel)
6 He is not here, but is risen:
remember how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee, 7 Saying, The Son of
man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the
third day rise again.
LUKE 24:46 (Jesus)
46 And said to them, Thus it is
written, and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer, and to rise from the
dead the third day:
ACTS 10:39-40 (Peter)
39 And we are witnesses of all things
which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in
40 Him God raised up the third day, and
showed him openly;
1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-4 (Paul)
3 For I delivered to you first of all
that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he
rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
GE:
In ‘parallel’ texts
the above would pair up as follows:
Mk9:31 “he shall
rise the third day”;
Mt17:23 “the
third day he shall be raised again”;
Mt16:21 “be
raised again the third day”;
Lk9:22 “be raised
the third day”;
Lk14:32 “the
third day I shall be perfected”;
Mk10:34 “the
third day he shall rise again”;
Mt20:19 “the
third day he shall rise again”;
Lk18:33 “the
third day he shall rise again”;
Lk24:7 “the
third day rise again”;
Lk24:46 “to rise
from the dead the third day”;
ACTS 10:40 “raised
up the third day”;
1Cor15:3 “he
rose again the third day according to the scriptures”;
Mt27:64 “till
the third day shall be over”.
Does it say ‘the
fourth day’, or, ‘on the fourth day’? It
does not. Therefore, “after three days” does not mean ‘the fourth day’,
or ‘on the fourth day’.
Cog:
“Note 1: In every
one of these scriptures except one (Luke 18:33) the expression “the third day”
is translated from the Greek words th hmera th trith (Gtr. te trite hemera),
which are the singular of the dative case, the adjective being in the “Attributive
Intermediate Position” (Ward Powers p85). In Greek the dative describes a point
in time when it is used in reference to time, and “te trite hemera” literally
means “on the third day” (D.F. Hudson p105; Ward Powers p112; H.P.V. Nunn p47),
that is, at some particular point in time on that day. That translated “the
third day” (Luke 18:33) is the Greek expression th hmera th trith (Gtr. te
hemera te trite), which mean exactly the same thing as “te trite hemera”, but
has the adjective in the “Attributive Post Position” (Ward Powers p85; H.P.V.
Nunn p60).”
GE:
The meaning of “the adjective
being in the “Attributive Intermediate Position””
and “the
adjective in the “Attributive Post Position”” you say, “mean(s) exactly the same
thing”. Have you another point to make then, than, “In Greek the
dative describes a point in time when it is used in reference to time, and “te
trite hemera” literally means “on the third day””? What
other meaning might be hidden in there then?
I suppose we shall have to wait and see.
Cog:
“Note 2: How then
do we understand this? Jesus died on the day of the Passover, which was the
14th of the month (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:5; Ezra 6:19), and the preparation
for the feast of unleavened bread (John 19:30-31).”
GE:
I would like to
know what “the
singular of the dative case” has to do with this
information or, what this information, with “the singular of the dative case”?
Does “the singular of the dative case”
mean “the
feast of unleavened bread” was not “the Passover”?
Does it mean that “the preparation” in “John 19:30-31”
was not “the
feast of unleavened bread” in “John 19:30-31”?
What would “the singular of the dative case”
have to do with these things? NOTHING. Were these impossibilities perhaps that which
we had to wait for and see?
If you not because
of the Dative have said these things, then on what grounds do you think “the Passover”
was not “feast”,
or “the
feast of unleavened bread” was not “the Passover”?
Was only “the day of the Passover, which was the 14th of the month”,
“the
Passover”, and not “the feast of unleavened bread”,
also? Wasn’t “the feast of unleavened bread”
also, “the
Passover”? See how subtly you introduce your fraud! Speaking in particular you confuse
‘Passover-day’ and ‘Feast-day’ which, speaking generally, are BOTH ‘passover’
AND BOTH, ‘feast’.
Cog:
“He died around the
ninth hour (Matthew 27:46-60; Luke 23:44-46), which would be around 3 p.m. in
the afternoon (See #2.16 Note 2), and was buried the same day (Luke 23:50-56).”
GE:
First you divide and separate the days of
passover. You view ‘passover-day’ as belonged it not to the feast; and
‘feast-day’ as belonged it not to the passover.
Then again you confuse and merge the days of
passover. “He died the ninth hour .... 3 p.m. in
the afternoon” ‘passover-day’ and “was buried the
same day” ‘feast-day’.
Jesus was not
buried the same day he was crucified,
Abib 14; He was buried on the ‘Feast-Day’, Abib 15.
“Matthew 27:46-60;
Luke 23:44-46” cover Crucifixion-day; NOT day of
Burial! And Cog also failed to divide
the Scriptures correctly here, because
Mt27:57, Mk15:42, Jn19:31 and Lk23:50 all indicate the beginning – “it
now had become evening” – “evening” of the day on which Joseph still had to bury Jesus.
Crucifixion-day had
stopped BEFORE “Matthew 27:46-60” because Burial-day had had started in Mt27:57, “already”. Did Cog miss this fact? Why would he treat “Matthew 27:46-60”
and “Luke
23:44-46” as included they the same time on the
same day?
“Matthew 27:46-60”,
spans across the end of the first
and the beginning of the next days because day of Crucifixion ends, sunset before the following “evening”
mentioned in 27:57, and the day of
Burial begins after sunset with the following
“evening” mentioned in 27:57.
“Matthew 27:46-60”
spans across the end of the first
and the beginning of the next days; “Luke 23:44-46” does not even reach to the end of the
first of these days. “Luke 23:44-46”
deals with Crucifixion-day, but the day’s end came after verses “44-46”;
the end of Crucifixion-day is recorded up to, and including verse 49.
Lk23:50 begins
the history of the following day and of Joseph’s
undertaking and therefore is the parallel text of Mk15:47, Mt27:57 and
Jn19:31/38.
Joseph had buried
Jesus “the
same day” according to “Luke 23:50-56”,
absolutely right! The day that began in “Luke 23:50-xx”,
Mk15:47, Mt27:57 and Jn19:31/38, in the end was “The day (that) was the Preparation”,
says Lk23:54a. “That day .... The Preparation .... was a
great day of sabbath”, says Jn19:31.
According to “Luke 23:50-56”
verse 54b — to be precise — from “by the time of the Jew’s
preparations” Jn19:42 and “mid-afternoon the Sabbath drawing near”
Lk23:54b, “that day” (Jn19:31), this “the same day”,
started nearing its end! It had not ended YET. Sunset, it would end.
In other words, “around 3 p.m. in
the afternoon”, “mid-afternoon”-‘epefohsken’
Lk23:54b, “by the time of the Jews’ preparations” Jn19:42, “the same day”
Lk23:54a, was beginning to come to an
end and “the Sabbath drew near” Lk23:54b.
Burial-day thus from its beginning in
Mt27:57, Mk15:42,
Jn19:31 and Lk23:50,
extended until its ending implied in
Mt27:62, Lk23:56b
and Jn19:42.
Mt27:62 looks back to Friday evening because it speaks
of “the following morning AFTER the Preparation”.
Lk23:54 looks forward to Friday evening because it
speaks of, and “was” indeed, “The Preparation and / while the Sabbath
Day was nearing” and the women the imminent Friday evening would begin to “rest
the Sabbath”, 56b.
Four Scriptures
have bearing on the evening-beginning of
the Sabbath Day (on Friday after sunset)—
four Scriptures in
terms of the time of the two days involved:
1) Lk23:54 prospectively, “mid-afternoon”
on the Sixth Day of the week when “the Sabbath drew near”;
2) Jn19:42 “the same day”
same time “by the time of the
Jew’s preparations”;
3) Lk23:56b by inference, evening on the Sabbath
(on Friday after sunset) when the women “began to rest the Sabbath”;
4) Mt27:62 retrospectively, “on the following
morning (of the Sabbath) after The Preparation”.
This ‘sabbath’ “after
The Preparation” — as must be deduced from these four Scriptures and the
Friday-evening involved or implied — indisputably was “The Sabbath according
to the (Fourth) Commandment”, and therefore, the day which preceded this ‘sabbath day’ undeniably was “The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”
or Friday.
This “same day”
the Sixth Day of the week, Friday, had had begun (on Thursday night), here: In Mt27:57, Mk15:42, Jn19:31, Lk23:50, “It
now having had become evening The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”.
Cog has said
NOTHING that may prove these conclusions wrong or only improbable. He simply did not see any of these many
implications although they are written in clear and plain words. That is why Cog had to resort to strange doctrines
to explain the “three days” and the Prepositions and Cases of its use,
as we shall see.
Cog:
“There are
different ways that we can interpret the phrase “the third day”. One way is to
count the days after his death on the 14th. The first day would be the 15th
....”
GE:
There is only one
way that we can interpret the phrase “the third day”, and that is, “the
third day according to the Scriptures”, the ONLY Scriptures according to
which shall be the passover-Scriptures, inevitably. No arbitrary ‘interpretation’
will do.
“.... to count the
days after his death on the 14th” as a ‘way that we can
interpret the phrase “the third day”’ is completely
illegitimate. For two reasons over
more. The first is, arbitrary
‘counting’; the second is, “to count the days after his death on the 14th”
so that the day of his death the fourteenth is left out of ‘count’.
1) Arbitrary ‘counting’
.... See study, ‘Friday Crucifixion
SDA’.
2) “To count the days after his death on the 14th”
.... in other words, make Abib 15 “the first day” of the “three days”
prophesied. No, Jesus foretold that his death would mark his entering in upon
the “three days”, not his burial!
Why, if you take
the Resurrection as mark of “the
third day” of the “three
days and three nights” “three days”, you surely must take Crucifixion and Death as mark of the first day of the “three days and
three nights” “three days”, and Burial
as mark of the second day of the “three
days and three nights” “three days”. You should ‘count’ THE day OF
his death, “the 14th”, day one!
While the rest of
your argument is based on your erroneous – in fact, FALSE – presupposition, “To count the days after his death on the 14th”,
this conversation – for the second time – should stop right now, because you
have no case on any presupposition that excludes day of Crucifixion and Death to
be counted the first day of passover.
For “the first
day” is the day of the killing of the sacrifice actually numbered and named
in both the Old and the New Testaments. Lv23:15b, “Even the first day ye
shall put away leaven out of your houses.”
“The first day without leaven
/ the first day of de-leaven WHEN they KILLED the passover” Mk14:12. Day of
Crucifixion Abib 14 was “the first day” “according to the Scriptures”
1Cor11:23 confirming, JUST LIKE the day He rose
from the dead was “the third
day according to the Scriptures” Abib 16. And just so was the day
in between – ‘sabbath’ of passover Lv23:11,15 – and day of Jesus’ entombment, Abib 15, the second day of
passover “according to the Scriptures”, 1Cor15:3-4 confirming.
Cog:
“The first day
would be the 15th, the Sabbath of the feast (See #2.14), the second day would
be the 16th ....”
GE:
“The first day”
of the passover as such cannot “be the 15th”. Abib 14 is called “the first day”
in both Old and New Testaments. How many
times are the first two days mentioned in the Old Testament of having been Abib
14 and Abib 15 in immediate succession, and is Abib 14 called “passover”
and Abib 15, “feast”! “They
departed from Rameses on the fifteenth day .... on the morning after the passover the children of
Now this was still
dated the fourteenth day in Exodus! The
one “first day” of Abib 14 –Exodus 12:15b– later became the two ‘first’
days, Abib 14 and Abib 15; both of which as a result properly were a “first day”
in own right. But the fourteenth logically as well as historically remained the
first “first day”.
For this reason is
it that Abib 15 is without exception when called “the first day”,
identified as having been “the first day of Unleavened Bread Feast”. It was to distinguish “the first day of
Unleavened Bread Feast” from “the first day that they removed leaven,
the first day that they always killed the passover”. Mk14:12, Mt26:17, Lk22:7. John distinguishes THIS “first day” of
passover – Abib 14 on which the Lamb
was slain –, “It was the Preparation
(Day) of the Passover” 19:14.
Abib 15 after it, was “a sabbath”,
because it was the first of “seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread”
and “holy convocation” was held.
Then Abib 16 — “the day after (this) sabbath”
of Abib 15 — it is said, “you shall bring the First Sheaf Wave Offering
before the LORD”, “On the day
after the sabbath, you shall bring the First Sheaf Wave Offering
before the LORD.” Lv23:11,15. Abib
16 was the third, ‘first day’ of passover; it was the first day counted until
Pentecost, Ex12:15b.
Cog:
“The first day
would be the 15th, the Sabbath of the feast (See #2.14), the second day would
be the 16th, and the third day would be the 17th. Thus, counting these as whole
days, according to every one of these scriptures, Jesus had to rise on the 17th
day of the month.”
GE:
First Sheaf Wave
Offering always was brought on Abib 16; it NEVER occurred on Abib 17!
Therefore “The first day” OF UNLEAVENED
BREAD YES, “would be the 15th, the Sabbath of the feast”,
and “the
second day” UNLEAVENED BREAD WAS EATEN, “ would be the 16th”
etc., until “the twenty first day of the month ye shall eat unleavened bread”
Ex12:18. It makes no difference to the fact Abib 14 and ONLY Abib 14 was “the first day that they removed leaven
and always had to kill the passover on.”
But you shall not
eat unleavened bread on Abib 22
still. First Sheaf fell on the day “after
the sabbath” which was the first day unleavened bread was eaten. First Sheaf therefore always, was the second day of unleavened bread. Now if
the second day of unleavened bread “would be the 17th”, the seventh day unleavened
bread was eaten would have been not “the twenty first day”, but the
twenty second.
Cog:
“Thus, counting
these as whole days, according to every one of these scriptures, Jesus had to
rise on the 17th day of the month.”
GE:
So here is why you
at the beginning told us about the Dative and stuff in “every one of these
scriptures”. But I am unable to see the
relevancy. “ON the 17th day of the month”
or just “the
17th day of the month”, it’s six of the one and half a dozen
of the other.
Cog:
“Another way would
be to understand “the third day” as meaning “the third day of the feast of
unleavened bread”, in which case it would still mean that Jesus would rise on
the 17th day of the month.”
GE:
That’s just what
you have said all the time so far; this is nothing different. The same
objections apply; you still would be in error; “the 17th day of the month”
would still be the day after “Jesus would rise”
and not the day ON which He would rise “according to the Scriptures the
third day” of passover “the first day” on which “they removed
leaven and killed the passover”, Abib 14!
Cog:
“2.22 He was raised
in three days
JOHN 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered and said to them,
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six
years was this temple in building, and will you rear it up in three days?
21 But he spoke of the temple of his
body.
Note: In both of these verses the words
translated “in three days” (Gr. en trisin hmeraij, Gtr. en trisin hemerais) are
the plural of the dative case. As the dative specifies a point in time (See
#2.21 Note 1), this phrase means “at some point in time during a three day
period”. In agreement with the previous section, we know that it was more
specifically at a point in time on the third day of that period, which was the
17th day of the month.
GE:
Again, this is pure
verbosity. No, its corrupt verbosity,
because this: “at a point in time on the third day of that period, which
was the 17th day of the month” is a
contradiction. It is a contradiction because “the 17th day of the month”
is one day after “that period”; it is not “on the third day”
that was one day in the “three days” concerned. “The 17th day of the month” is no “point in time”
that belongs to the 14th, 15th or 16th of the First Month; it falls not in or within or on “that period”
“in
three days” or of those “three days”.
And I know how you
got this, “He
was raised in three days .... on the third day of that period, which was the
17th day of the month”. You separate the seven days that
unleavened bread was eaten from the passover as though they were not the
passover, but ONLY “the 14th of the month .... was the day of the Passover”.
This is what you have said: “Jesus died on the day of the Passover, which was the 14th of
the month (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:5; Ezra 6:19), and the preparation for the
feast of unleavened bread (John 19:30-31).” You give a false reference in John. The true
one is Jn19:14, where it mentions the morning BEFORE Jesus was crucified and “It
was The Preparation OF THE PASSOVER”. “John 19:30-31” speaks of long
after the Crucifixion and AFTER “It had become The Preparation”. “The Preparation” spoken of in “John 19:30-31”
is the identical day Mk15:42 calls “The Preparation which is the
Fore-Sabbath”— Friday! “John 19:30-31” speaks of long
after the Crucifixion and AFTER “It had become The Preparation” because
Mk15:42 states that “It already had had been evening” and Jn19:38 states
that Joseph only “after these things” which the Jews had done before him
after “It had had become evening” which was after sunset and “already”
the start of the Preparation-Friday, went to ask Pilate for the body. Therefore “The Preparation of the passover”
on the Fifth Day of the week (Thursday) occurred the day before “The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” mentioned in BOTH Mk15:42 and “John 19:30-31”.
You have at no
point in time established that “the 17th day of the month” was the
day of First Sheaf. Not at all. In fact, you have with vacuous reasoning like this very one made false claims
that “the
17th day of the month” was the day of First Sheaf. Now you ‘prove’ your method with the fallacy
your method had proven.
The Dative-factor
in these Scriptures only means what it says and in any language would say, “within
in three days”. It means exactly the OPPOSITE of what you, Cog, pretend it
says, namely, that “In agreement with the previous section,”
it means “to
count the days after his death on the 14th”. No! “Jesus said, Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up.”
The ‘temple’s’, ‘destruction’,
is “in” or within the compass of the “three days” just as its
rebuilding or “raising up”, is “in” or within the space of the “three
days”. The dative determines nothing
like you say it does, that First Sheaf / Resurrection fell outside and “after three days”. You have only shoved Abib 14 “the first
day” of the “three days” out of the “three days” “according
to the Scriptures”. You had no right to. “In /with three days” – the
Dative – in this context means all “three days” ‘Instrumental’, with an
interest in, and in time locative – every of the basic meanings of the Dative!
But Cog the grammarian knows better and excludes, discards and denies Abib 14 “the
first day” of the “three days” means, interest and place in the “three
days” “according to the Scriptures”.
It is a shame. Cog displaces
each, but like of a horse with three disjointed legs still expects of it to
pull the cart.
“The first day”
IS, the day in which the temple is destroyed; “the third day” after “the
first day” both lie “within” the time-boundaries of the “three
days” within which the temple is both “destroyed” and “raised up”
again. ‘The second day’ was the day in
which ‘the
Abib 14, sacrifice
/ Crucifixion;
Abib 15, “eat”
and “that which remains” interred / Burial;
Abib 16, first sheaf
/ Resurrection.
Cog:
“He was raised
during three days?”
GE:
That’s not proper
speaking. He was raised instantaneously,
“in the twinkling of an eye”. The moment filled all day — “In
Sabbath’s fullness”. It filled all eternity; it marked the Sabbath of the LORD
your God. It made the Seventh Day the Day of, ‘the Lord’ – Lord Jesus Christ in
resurrection from the dead. “God appointed a day in which He would judge the
world.” It is the New Testament
meaning of the Sabbath Day.
No, you told us, “He was raised in
three days”. He was. He was raised in the end of
the three days – according to the immutable Council of God – “In the
Sabbath’s fullness in the mid-afternoon”.
Cog:
“He was raised
during three days?
MATTHEW 26:59-61
59 Now the chief priests, and elders,
and all the council, sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yes, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.
At the end came two false witnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able
to destroy the
MARK 14:55-58
55 And the chief priests and all the
council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bore false witness against him, but they agreed not together. 57
And there arose certain, and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 We
heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three
days I will build another made without hands.
Note: The words translated “in three
days” (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58) are the Greek words dia triwn hmerwn (Gtr.
dia trion hemeron) which are in the genitive case. In this case the preposition
“dia” literally means “through”, and as the genitive case stands for “time
during which” (D.F. Hudson p105; Ward Powers p108; H.P.V. Nunn p43), these
statements speak as if he would be building throughout the three days. This was
not what Jesus said, he used the dative case indicating a point in time during
three days (See #2.22 Note), and in accordance with the best principles of
interpreting the word of God (See RP 301 #4.16), as these are stated to be
false witnesses who made these statements (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:57), we can
safely ignore their testimony altogether.”
GE:
Yes, the chief
priests and elders understood Jesus to have said that he would rebuild the
literal temple ‘through three days’, “during” or “over”, three ordinary
days. They did not understand that Jesus
meant the three days of passover-season – or so they pretended. But see their
better knowing in Mt27:63; this much can we learn from ‘these statements’
of the “false
witnesses”. The question then is, does Cog
understand it where he ‘safely ignores’ Abib 14 and
starts ‘counting’
from Abib 15 to end up on Abib 17, viciously divorcing every one of ‘the’ “three
days” from its rightful allocation to passover-appointment? Is there much difference between the
misinterpretations of the Jews and Cog’s?
Cog:
“2.24 He was raised
after three days
MATTHEW 27:62-63
62 Now the next day, that followed the
day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together to
Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet
alive, After three days I will rise again.
MARK 8:31 (Jesus) 31 And he began to
teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the
elders and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three
days rise again.
Note 1: The words translated “after
three days” in both of these scriptures are the Greek words meta treij hmeraj
(Gtr. meta treis hemeras) which are in the accusative case. As far as time is
concerned, the accusative case deals with “duration over a whole period” (D.F.
Hudson p105; Ward Powers p106; H.P.V. Nunn p40), not “duration within a period”,
that would be genitive case (See #2.23 Note). As the preposition “meta”
literally means “after”, these statements make it clear that Jesus could not
rise within this three day period specified, it had to be some time after it.”
GE:
What rubbish!
For all practical
purposes there is no difference between “duration over a whole period”
and “duration
within a period”.
Even your English, Cog, taking “duration over a whole period”
for duration beyond a whole period, is pathetic.
This then after all
is your whole argument upon which you build your proposition, “As the preposition
“meta” literally means “after”, these statements make it clear that Jesus could
not rise within this three day period specified, it had to be some time after
it.” After all, it’s not
used “literally”
and like other words of any language, may be used idiomatically instead.
You must be aware
of the
best principles of interpreting the word of God
in a case such as this, but obviously safely ignore
them. Because you fully realise you
wrongly ‘interpret’
‘the
words translated “after three days”’, “literally”,
knowing full well when used IDIOMATICALLY AS IN THE PHRASE, “after three
days”, the
preposition “meta”-”after” — or better, the phrase intact
as a whole — means precisely the same as had the
Dative or Genitive been used.
Having in each case
of the Dative and Genitive argued it means “IN three days” / “ON the
third day”, you now only create contradictions and irreconcilabilities,
arguing, “As
the preposition “meta” literally means “after”, these statements make it clear
that Jesus could not rise within this three day period specified, it had to be
some time after it.”
Dana and Mantey, ‘A
Manual Grammar of the NT’ defines the
“ROOT meaning” of ‘meta’ as “in the midst of”!
“In composition: three clearly defined
meanings.
(1) With.
(2) After .... “Send after / for Simon”, ‘metapempsai
Simohna’ Acts 10:5.
(3) ....change....
Resultant meaning [as Preposition]
Mk1:13, “with the wild animals”, ‘meta tohn thehri-ohn’.
Lk5:27, “after these things”, ‘meta tauta’.”
The syntactical or
contextual meaning of the Preposition ‘meta’ is very simply when used for
relation it means ‘after’, when used for association it means ‘with’, and when
used idiomatically like in “after three days”-‘meta trehis hehmeras’
(Acc.) in Mt27:63b, it means “within three days”.
The idiomatic use
in Greek of ‘meta’ is just like the idiomatic use of ‘after’ in English, even
in the same phrase, ‘after three days’. ‘He set the trap and when he returned
after three days, he found the culprit ensnared.’ If the story were told with
the names of the days of the week, it would go, ‘He set the trap on Thursday
and when he returned on Saturday, he found the culprit ensnared.’
Cog:
“Note 2: We cannot
take this to be a period of three separate complete days, because that would
mean that he rose after the 17th day, at least on the 18th, and it would
contradict many other scriptures (See #2.21). So in accordance with the best
principles of translating scripture (See RP 301 #4.08 “Make Sense of the
Apparent Contradictions”), we can count this as a period of three whole days in
length, that is 72 hours. If we take it to start from the time of his death,
around 3 p.m. on the 14th day, then he must have risen at some time after 3
p.m. on the 17th day, but before 6 p.m. which would be the start of the 18th
day for the Jews.”
GE:
We cannot take the “three
days” to be a period of three separate complete days, because that would
mean that Jesus rose after the “three days”, on “the 17th day”, and it
would contradict all the Scriptures.
So in accordance
with the best principles of translating Scripture, we can count and must count the
“three days” and “the third day” and “after three days” as
the three days “according to the Scriptures”, the passover-days of the
fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth days of the First Month and respectively
the days of the Crucifixion, of the Burial, and of the Resurrection.
These will have
been three ordinary calendar days on the Hebrew calendar, together, 72 hours
long on anybody’s watch, yes. But that’s not the point; the point is they were
THESE days and NO other of passover!
If we take it to
start from the time of Jesus’ death, ‘3 p.m.’ or “the ninth hour” on the
14th day of the First Month, then he must have risen ‘3 p.m.’ or “mid-afternoon”
on the 16th day of the First Month, First Sheaf Wave Offering for the Jews on
passover, and three hours before 6 p.m. sunset which would be the start of the day
after, and no longer would be the “three days” or “the third day
according to the Scriptures” of passover.
Cog:
“2.25 He was raised
after three days and three nights
JONAH 1:17
17 Now the LORD had prepared a great
whale to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days
and three nights.
MATTHEW 12:40 (Jesus)
40 For as Jonah was three day 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.
Note 1: The sequence of events following
Jonah's three days and three nights in the belly of the fish are as follows:
(Jonah 2:1) “Then Jonah prayed to the
LORD his God”,
(Jonah 2:10) “And the Lord spoke to the
fish,”
(Jonah 2:10) “and it vomited out Jonah
upon the dry land.”
In each case here the underlined words “Then”,
“And”, and “and”, are the same conjunction (Hb. ?? , Htr. va) which can mean “and”,
or “but” or “or”, depending upon the context (J. Weingreen p40), and it can
also mean “then”. It doesn't mean “prior to this”, or “before this”, or “during
which time”. We can see that it is being used here to join a sequence of events
which follow one another, from which we can conclude that Jonah spent three
whole days and three whole nights in the belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17), that is,
at least 72 hours of time. After this the Lord spoke to the fish, and the fish
vomited Jonah out on the dry land.”
GE:
Now just say it was
not written that the fish spew Jonas out after three days, it would not have
been possible to deduce that Jonas was in the fish for three days, no matter
how many times the word or concept ‘when’ occurred in the narrative. Jonas did
these things as soon as he got into the fish; not day by day one thing at a
time. It’s silly; and so is your whole
argument.
Jonas prayed to the
LORD, and the Lord spoke to the fish, and the fish vomited Jonah out, but it’s
impossible to see that these things are here being used “to join a sequence
.... from which we can conclude that Jonah spent three whole days and three
whole nights in the belly of the fish”— it’s sheer speculation.
Even less is it possible that this could
show “at
least 72 hours of time”.
As soon as the fish
swallowed Jonas, Jonas prayed to the LORD. The fish didn’t swallow Jonas on day
one “then”
Jonas only on day two began to pray; “then” the Lord spoke
to the fish on day three; “then” the fish vomited Jonas out on
day four.... only to prove your stupid
lie, “at
least 72 hours of time .... the fish vomited Jonah out .... after”
the “literal”
‘third
day’! What absolute rubbish! Not the book of Jonah or
Jesus spoke of “72 hours of time” or of ““at least 72 hours
of time”. They both spoke of “three days and three nights”—
no single hour MORE, literally or figuratively.
You persistently
ignore that these “three days and three nights” indicated the “time during which”
Jonas as well as Jesus, experienced dying, death, and hell – the ‘breaking down
of the temple’ – ALIVE. You insistently deny that exactly the very day and event
of PRIMER importance — the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month and his Death on
the fourteenth day of the First Month —, are of the essence of the
prophecy. You deliberate mute the fact that
“that
period of time” throughout its whole, literal
duration of “three days and three nights” – and hence the Accusative –
was meant and destined unto this passover-end-and-purpose of Christ, and that “the
prophet Jonas” of THIS, was “given as a sign”. You make the entire case of “three days
and three nights” a grave-situation, which is utterly short-sighted, meaningless
and to the dead and bare bones as dry.
“The prophet
Jonas” — “that period of time” in its entirety
as well as Jonas’ entire experience —, was “a sign”, one “figure /
type / symbol” of Jesus’ LAST SUFFERING.
The symbolism and figure and sign and type, was of Jesus’ passover, of his
atoning DESCENT TO HELL. Not the “three
days and three nights”-aspect isolated merely, and not of Jesus having been
in the grave unconscious and dead exclusively, and least of all of the
in-the-grave-state of Christ on days each one day PAST the prophesied and
fulfilled days and dates of the Scriptures. You miss the whole point of Christ’s
referring to “the prophet Jonah (as) a sign given to you”; a miss by one
day and another one day and another one day is as bad as misconception could
get.
Cog:
“Note 2: In the New
Testament, the expression “three days and three nights” (Gr. treij hmeraj kai
treij nuktaj, Gtr. treis hemeras kai treis nuktas) (Matthew 12:40) is in the
accusative case, and as we have already seen (#2.24 Note 1), the accusative
case denotes a complete period of time. It does not normally mean “a time
during which”, that would be the genitive case, or “a point in that period of
time”, that would have to be the dative case. So we can take this period of
time to be at least 72 hours, counting 12 hours in each day (John 11:9), and 12
hours in each night. This was not the time between his death and resurrection,
but the time that he was “in the heart of the earth”, that is, the time between
his burial in the tomb, and his resurrection.”
GE:
“.... the
accusative case denotes a complete period of time”,
yes, “a
complete period”, in this case, “three days and
three nights” of the passover’s “three days” of 14, 15 and 16 Abib or
Crucifixion-day, Burial-day and Resurrection-day. Not something else (“72 hours”;
“the
17th day”), and not something beyond or before
(“at
least”), the “complete period” of “three days
and three nights”. And not something
instead, “The
first day would be the 15th” instead of Abib 14; “the second day
would be the 16th” instead of Abib
15; and “the
17th day” instead of Abib16.
“The accusative
case denotes a complete period of time” as little before
as little beyond or past THE “three days and three nights” of Jesus’ Jonas’–
or passover–experience! “So we can take
this period of time to be at least 72 hours, counting 12 hours in each day
(John 11:9), and 12 hours in each night”, not to be MORE
than “72
hours”. Because this was
the time between from and including his Suffering Death; including his Burial;
and to and including his resurrection, the VERY time that He VERILY was “in
the heart of the earth”, that is, the time SINCE AND between his entering
in consciously into the Passover of Yahweh through the Sufferings of his Obedience
in fullest of his Deity, and including his goings through the Tomb and out of death
and from among the dead into his Resurrection.
“The
accusative case denotes a complete period of time”
in its most absolute – that is, Divine completeness.
This Divine completeness was NOT “the time between his burial in the
tomb, and his resurrection.” This was the complete period of time
“that
he was “in the heart of the earth”” in its
completeness experienced Divinely, humanly incomprehensible, “in the heart
of the earth”.
Cog:
“2.26 Conclusion
concerning the time of the resurrection of Jesus
We have already shown that Jesus rose
at some point in time on the 17th of the month Nisan (See #2.21; #2.22)....”
GE:
And we have already
seen you have not.
Cog:
“2.26 Conclusion
concerning the time of the resurrection of Jesus
We have already shown that Jesus rose
at some point in time on the 17th of the month Nisan (See #2.21; #2.22) We have
already shown that Jesus rose at some point in time on the 17th of the month
Nisan (See #2.21; #2.22), and that for other scriptures to agree it must have
been between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. on that day (See #2.24). We can narrow the time
down even more when we see that Jesus had to be buried for three whole days
(See #2.25”
GE:
I can’t wait to
hear how you are going to do that.
Cog:
“Note 2). We do not
know the exact time of his burial, but we can estimate it from the following
facts....”
GE:
So how can you
assert for gospel “We can narrow the time down .... that Jesus had to be buried
for three whole days”, but you don’t even “know the exact
time of his burial”?
The Gospels can give you the exact time of his Burial! They can in fact!
Cog:
“He died around 3
p.m. in the afternoon (Matthew 27:46-50). The Jews sought Pilate to break the
legs of those on the cross, and the soldiers broke the legs of the two robbers,
and pierced the side of Jesus with a spear (John 19:31-37).....”
GE:
This still doesn’t
tell either that “We can narrow the time down .... that Jesus had to be buried
for three whole days”, or, that we “know the exact
time of his burial”.
But while you are at these Scriptures, why do you not give us the time
of the events you are talking about which the Scriptures actually give us?
Cog:
“.... After this,
Joseph of Arimathea went and asked for the body of Jesus at evening time
(Matthew 27:57-58; Mark 15:42-43; Luke 23:50-52; John 19:38a).
The centurion then had to go and check
if Jesus was dead, and report back to Pilate (Mark 15:44-45).
Joseph and Nicodemus then took the
body, wrapped it up with spices (John 19:39-40), and took it and laid it in the
tomb, and rolled a stone across the door (Matthew 27:59-60; Mark 15:46; John
19:41-42).
It was still the day of the Passover
when he was buried (Luke 23:54; John 19:42).”
GE:
There’s a million
flaws and just plain untruths in what you say. Careless! Is the best I can say
of you.
“.... After this,
Joseph of Arimathea went and asked ....” “After”
what, is “this”? What is “this”? “After”
“He
died around 3 p.m. in the afternoon”? Or “after” “the Jews sought
Pilate”? Or “after”
“the
soldiers broke the legs .... and pierced the side of Jesus”?
“After these
things Joseph .... besought Pilate ....”, Jn19:38. “These things”
were all those things from verse 31 until verse 31, its end. Because “Joseph
.... came therefore and took the body of Jesus.” What does “therefore” refer to? Joseph “therefore / necessarily”, had
to have arrived from his interview with Pilate at the scene at the crosses just
as “The soldiers THEN (‘oun’) came and brake the legs of the first and of
the other which was crucified with him; THEN (‘oun’) came to Jesus and saw that
He was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced his side and forthwith blood and water came out.”
So, “after this”
/ “after these things” cannot be “after” “the soldiers broke
the legs and pierced the side of Jesus”. “After this” / “After these
things” in verse 38 was “after these things” in verse 31 strictly, “The
Jews therefore because it was the Preparation .... besought Pilate”. “After these things” was just as – “then
when” – the soldiers broke the legs and pierced the side of Jesus. Joseph “after”
his interview with Pilate “after” the Jews’ interview with Pilate, “came
therefore”, just in time. “He came therefore and took the body of Jesus.”
(38-end)
WHEN was “then”?
WHEN was “after
this” / “after these things”? First it was after the Jews had asked; next
it was after Joseph had asked; then it was just as Joseph “therefore came”
just in time to “(take) the body of Jesus”. Now only, does the process
of Jesus’ burial BEGIN!
WHEN did the Jews
ask? WHY, did the Jews ask? “BECAUSE
IT WAS PREPARATION .... BECAUSE IT WAS THAT DAY”. “Therefore”,
tells, WHY the Jews asked! “Therefore”,
tells, WHEN the Jews asked! “They therefore
/ because / WHEN it was the Preparation and therefore / because / WHEN it was
That Day .... asked”. ‘WHEN’, WAS THE DAY THAT AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION,
HAD BEGUN!
The Preparation had had begun already WHEN the Jews “besought
Pilate”, and Joseph “after these things besought Pilate”. “.... Matthew 27:57-58; Mark 15:42-43 ....” Luke 23:50-52;
John 19:38a” .... it was NOT “at evening time”!
It was, ‘evening-time’ and AFTER ‘evening-time’— ‘evening-time’ in the
sense of AFTER SUNSET ‘evening-time’. ‘When’, was in the night.
“It already
having been evening now since it was the Preparation”, it was NOT “at evening time”
before the night in “Matthew 27:57-58; Mark 15:42-43”
OR, “Luke
23:50-52”; it was after “evening time”
and in the night. Note all the ‘night-prophecies’ in the end of the 19th
chapter.
“At evening time”
which is afternoon before the evening after sunset, is equivalent of the time
implied and stated in Lk23:54-56, not in “Luke 23:50-52”—
the time implied and stated in Jn19:42, not in Jn19:31/38. Jn19:31/38 and Jn19:42 are ‘parallel texts’;
“Luke
23:50-52” and “John 19:38a”
and 31, are ‘parallel texts’. “Luke 23:50-52”
and Lk23:54-56, and “John 19:38a” and Jn19:42, are
NOT parallel Scriptures; they are complementary, chronologically consecutive
texts indicating the beginning- and the ending-times of Burial-day, ‘Friday’
the Sixth Day of the week and “The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”.
The proper “evening”
after sunset (‘heh opsia’) is implied in “Luke 23:50-52”
and its night after, in verse 53a, the evening within which Joseph began his
undertaking and the night after it during which Joseph continued his
undertaking. Lk23:53 a and b implies both
the first and night-halve and the last and day-halve, of “the day” and “The
Preparation” referred to in 54a. None of which day-halves was a halve or
last part of the Crucifixion-day. In
Lk23a Joseph – in the night – “took (the body) down, and, wrapped it
in linen.” In Lk23b Joseph – in the day – “laid (the body) in a
sepulchre”, and, as verse 55 by way of parenthesis, recapping, adds, “the
women .... followed after and beheld the tomb and how his body was placed.”
In other words, “Matthew 27:57-58;
Mark 15:42-43; Luke 23:50-52”, and, Jn19:31 and
“John
19:38a” and further up to verse 40, all mention or imply the BEGINNING of the day that Joseph still WOULD bury Jesus on; and in “John 19:41-42 ....
It was still the day of the Passover when he was buried (Luke 23:54; John
19:42)” or HAD BEEN
buried on. In other words, it still was
“that day” ‘of the Passover when he was buried’
ENDING.
See these two
extremities of this day, and perceive the Burial that happened in between them
during this day— on “The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath....” AND
“.... That Day of great-day-sabbath” ONLY Abib 15.
Cog:
“After his burial
the women watched how he had been laid, and then went and prepared spices
before they rested on the Sabbath day (Luke 23:55-56).
GE:
It wasn’t “After his burial
the women watched ....”; it was the burial going on which
the women watched. It was “After his burial
the women .... then went and prepared spices before they rested on the Sabbath
day.”
“We can assume from
all of this that it was very late on the day ....”
No! It wasn’t “very late”. We need not “assume”
a thing! It is unambiguously stated that it was “while the Sabbath drew near”,
literally, “when it was mid-afternoon towards the Sabbath”, ‘epefoosken
sabbaton’. The women had THREE HOURS left over “on that day”
from “mid-afternoon” until sunset before evening of and before evening “on the Sabbath day”
to have “prepared
spices before they rested on the Sabbath day”.
Cog:
“We can assume from
all of this that it was very late on the day of the Passover (14th of Nisan)
when Jesus was buried, probably between 5 and 6 p.m.
GE:
No! It wasn’t “on the day of the Passover (14th of
Nisan) when Jesus was buried”; He was crucified
and died, “on
the day of the Passover (14th of Nisan)”. “14th of Nisan” was specifically
allocated for that purpose and glory.
“When Jesus was
buried” we have been debating all the time so far, and in my mind
the weight of evidence rests with the stated fact “It now having been
evening since it was The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”, it was the
day of Joseph’s undertaking, having had
just started. This day having been
the day AFTER Crucifixion day of
Abib 14, it is nothing but the laws of nature it was Abib 15 allocated for the
removal and disposing of “that which remains” of the sacrifice, God’s
Providence having determined it for His Chosen One by Burial, in the tomb of
the rich.
Cog:
“He had to be
buried for at least three days and three nights, that is, 72 hours (See #2.25
Note 2). We have already shown that he must have risen of the 17th of Nisan
(See #2.21; #2.22), so it was probably between 5 and 6 p.m. on that day.”
GE:
Three claims, nay,
four; three, nay, four, pretensions.
1) “He had to be buried for at least three days and three nights”;
2) “He had to be buried .... 72 hours”;
3) “he must have risen of (sic.) the 17th of Nisan”;
4) “it was probably between 5 and 6 p.m. on that day”.
1) “He had to be buried for at least three days and three nights”
.... We have disproved it.
2) “He had to be buried .... 72 hours”
.... We have dispelled it.
3) “he must have risen of (sic.) the 17th of Nisan”
.... God forbade it.
4) “it was probably between 5 and 6 p.m. on that day”
.... It was “In the Sabbath’s fullness, being mid-afternoon in the very
light of day towards the First Day of the week.”
Relevant correspondence:
From Cog
Roy Page, 23 October 2009,
Dear Gerhard,
Thank you for your message from our website on the 18th September. I am
sorry for the long delay in answering, but I have spent some time reading
through your document to try and understand your points, and I am overwhelmed
with the work here. I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into
this to try and correct us, as it is not many who would have bothered.
Therefore I would try to answer some points.
1. You do not seem to have realised that certain feast days were special
Sabbaths, and that the 15th of Nisan was always one. ......
This was not the seventh day Sabbath.
2. You wrote, When He said He would be “in the heart of
the earth three days and three nights”, Jesus spoke figuratively of his own
experience of suffering substitutionally eternal death for the sins of men; He
spoke of his passover. What is literal language in Jesus’ words should be
understood literally; what is figurative should be understood figuratively or
“spiritually”.
Figurative language does not always have a figurative meaning. For
example:
"You shall bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave."
(Gen 42:38). Literally means, "You shall cause me to die."
3. You wrote, ...... The syntactical or contextual meaning of
the Preposition “meta” is very simply when used for relation it means “after”,
when used for association it means “with”, and when used idiomatically like in
“after three days”-”meta trehis
hehmeras” (Acc.) in Mt27:63b, it means “within three days”.
Any reasonable
lexicon should tell you that the root meaning of "meta" is "the
midst of" or "amid".
With the
genitive case it is it means "in association with", and is translated
"with" or "among" many times. This does NOT MEAn WITHIN, AS
IF INSIDE SOMETHING, and so "after three days" does not mean
"within three days".
However, with
the accusative case it denotes following accompaniment, sequence, the order in
which one thing follows another.
In order of
place, "after or behind".
In order of
time, "after".
Thank you again
for writing to me, may God bless you indeed.
Pastor Roy Page,
Logos Apostolic
Attachment from RP, unable to copy or paste .....
To Cog RP, from GE, 24 October 2009-10-25
Dear Pastor Roy Page,
Thank you from my heart for your letter; and I
thank the Lord that you answered me. May God lead you on in this matter.
DV I shall pay nearer attention to your ideas.
In the meantime, kindly receive a conversational
study with information that will move your heart, if not your mind.
There is so much beauty hidden in the Word of God
unto our salvation, we can never stop to glorify our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ for it.
I attach the article, and also post it per e-mail.
I find the e-mail print small, but it contrasts the debatees nicely.
Attached ‘“That
Day” SDA Dilemma’
Cog
From
Roy Page 24 October 2009
Dear Gerhard,
Thank you fro the bible study you sent me. I obviously do not regard the
SDA inclusive time reckoning as truth, as I have come accross this before.
Friday night and Saturday night is not three nights, even by their
reckoning. Try these attachments, they might help. ......”
GE:
To RP from GE, 25
October 2009,
Thanks for the post, I'll have a closer look at it.
Meantime, find attached summary, page 53 from my book The Lord's Day in the
Covenant of Grace, 1/1
I notice a few things so far :
1) 'after three days' taken literally making it
clash with all the other ways of literally saying IN three days.
2) rejecting inclusive or
representing reckoning
3) arbitrarily inserting 'second day of feast'
4) excluding Abib 14 as 'passover'
5) LOOSING "BONE-OF-DAY"-day altogether
6) no Scriptures for every day starting or ending
or middle.
enough for now, 'll be back, DV
Attached p 53, 1/1
Cog:
“1. You do not seem
to have realised that certain feast days were special Sabbaths, and that the
15th of Nisan was always one. See here: ..... This was not the seventh day
Sabbath.”
GE:
You got the wrong
impression; I do realise and accept just what you say, ‘the 15th of Nisan
was always .... special Sabbaths .... not the seventh day Sabbath ’. In fact you may notice how
elaborately I stress this point in just about every discussion and article, and
with so much vigour since of late, see for example the study, ‘“That Day” SDA Dilemma’.
Cog:
“2. You wrote, When He said He would be “in the heart of the earth three days and three
nights”, Jesus spoke figuratively of his own experience of suffering
substitutionally eternal death for the sins of men; He spoke of his passover.
What is literal language in Jesus’ words should be understood literally; what
is figurative should be understood figuratively or “spiritually”.
Figurative language does not always have a figurative meaning. For
example:
"You shall bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave."
(Gen 42:38). Literally means, "You shall cause me to die."
3. You wrote, "Jesus was not buried the same day he was
crucified, Abib 14; He was buried on the “Feast-Day”, Abib 15."
The feast day was a special Sabbath, he
could not be buried on this day.”
GE:
I
cannot see that we disagree; I think we agree, and that therefore you will
realise that ‘in the earth’ is
‘literal’, but “in the heart of the earth”, is ‘figurative’ or
‘spiritual’. I do not try to sound learned; I try to be as common as possible.
‘In the earth’ is not what Jesus
said; Jesus said, “in the heart of the earth”, ‘spiritually’ /
‘figuratively’, and therefore He meant not to say He would be in the grave ‘in the earth’ literally three days and
three nights. He meant to say He would die through suffering death, death and
death’s hell, LITERALLY, “three days and three nights IN THE HEART of the earth”.
Now
that was Christ’s Divine and ‘spiritual’ AND LITERAL SUFFERING THE WORD OF GOD
THROUGH OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW: “the day you will eat thereof you will DIE”
/ “the wages of sin is death”. We mortal sinners cannot comprehend it IN
THE LEAST; we must believe it or don’t understand a THING of it. Christ’s
SUFFERING was as DIVINE and ‘spiritual’ as was it EARTHLY and ‘literal’—
simply, Christ’s SUFFERING was his SUFFERING DYING AND DEATH “according to
the Scriptures”, “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”.
Now
here is ‘my point’: It is this ALL INCLUSIVE Divine incomprehensible reality of
Christ’s suffering dying eternal death that INCLUDED his actually having been
‘in the GRAVE’ or ‘in the EARTH’ literally, and NOT VICE VERSA. In other words, Christ’s having been ‘in the
GRAVE’ and ‘in the EARTH’, does not INCLUDE his WHOLE, incomprehensible,
Divine, Passover-Suffering of eternal death for our sins;
does
not include, ALL “three days”-“three days and three nights”;
IS
NOT Abib 14, and, 15, and, 16 ‘sunset to sunset’ literally and all inclusively.
Having
been ‘in the GRAVE’ or ‘in the EARTH’ is but PART of the whole of Jesus’ work
of atonement “according to the Scriptures .... the prophet Jonah” of
having been “three days and three nights in THE HEART of the earth”.
Having
been ‘in the GRAVE’ or ‘in the EARTH’ is but PART of the whole of Jesus’ work
of atonement as He according to the Confession, “was buried” “according
to the Scriptures” “on the day after (Abib 14 that) ye (on
Abib 15) shall Feast / eat it (passover-sacrifice) with unleavened
bread.” Ex12:8.
Of
course we agree I am sure ....
Now
mark well, that I do NOT say, no matter how LONG also included his actually
having been ‘in the grave’ or ‘in the earth’! Because I am meticulously
particular (as I believe God was meticulously particular in his Eternal
Purpose) about “That Day” that Jesus was “shut in” BOTH ‘spiritually’
and ‘literally’ IN THE EARTH IN THE GRAVE, the WHOLE of it the “IN THE BONES
WHOLE” of it, all 24 hours of it, “SINCE EVENING IT HAD BECOME” in
Mk15:42, until “That Day” would have ENDED “mid-afternoon as it began
to dawn towards the Sabbath” ending UNTIL “the women began to rest the
Sabbath” Lk23:56b WHOLE OF IT!
Jesus’
having been in the earth in the grave was as much PART – as much “That Day”
– as was it SUBSTANCE of his SUFFERING for the atonement of sins. “Thus behoved it the Christ TO SUFFER”,
also and in part ‘in the earth’, ‘in the grave’. But ‘in the earth’ or ‘in the grave’, was not
the imperative WHOLE of reconciliating mercy— which the “three days” of
Prophecy and Promise indeed were. Jesus’
having been in the earth in the grave was no less part than substance of his
atoning-for-sins passover “three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth”.
“That
Day” was no meaningless or empty ancillary; even less, an insignificant
part of but a few minutes of Crucifixion-day.
Having
been in the grave in the earth was part and substance of Jesus’ having been “in
the heart of the earth three days and three nights”. Nevertheless, it in its entirety was neither
the “three days” referred to and implied by the words “three days and
three nights”, nor was it the full substance referred to and implied by the
words “in the heart of earth”.
Having been in the grave in the earth in whole, was part only in both
time and substance of depth and intensity and width and breadth and height of
Jesus’ suffering “three days darkness” of “the reward of sin”—
eternal death of Egypt’s Plague. Having
been in the grave was neither “THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS, in the heart of
the earth”, nor, “three days and three nights IN THE HEART of the earth”. The one without the other could not be the
will of God nor the obedience of the Son.
Jesus’
having been in the grave in the earth was but one day; yea, indeed was THE one
day, “That Day” of the “three days”, that He “was BURIED ....
according to the Scriptures” and Apostolic Confession of the Faith.
Jesus’
atonement-for-sins-passover literally and fully and all-inclusively –
particularly every and all days else exclusively – was,
the
“THREE days and THREE nights”-“according to the Scriptures”-“THREE
days” of the Passover of Yahweh; the “three days darkness” of
Egypt’s Plague,
which
three days were Abib 14, and, 15, and, 16, and
Jesus’
Crucifixion Abib 14;
and
his having been in the earth in the grave “shut in”, Abib 15 “That
Day”, “the sabbath” of the passover;
and
his Resurrection, Abib 16 First Sheaf Wave Offering,
Christ’s
resurrection
FROM,
the DEAD, as much as
from
the GRAVE, as much as
from
his SUFFERING of hell and “the second death”, “three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth”.
Good
old Protestant, Reformed, Faith.
Solution
to the ‘problem’:
Never
say only, ‘three days and three nights’
because that could be any three days and three nights – any three days BUT the
“three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”-“according to
the Scriptures”-“three days”;
Never
say ‘three days and three nights in the
earth’ because that could mean all ‘three
days and three nights in the earth’ ‘in the grave – which “according to
the Scriptures” –, is not the meaning OF, OR, WITH, “three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth”.
We
cannot add another day! Not before, like some have tried to do, and place the
Crucifixion on Abib 13;
We
cannot add another day! Not in between, like MOST have tried to do, and place
the Burial on Abib 14;
We
cannot add another day! Not after, like some try to do, and place the
Resurrection on the day ‘after the
Sabbath’, on Abib 17.
We cannot take out any day! Like just about
everybody is doing, and move the day of Burial back into the day of Crucifixion,
so fusing the fifteenth and fourteenth into one day, making Abib 16 ‘the-day-in-between’,
and SUNDAY, Abib 16 the day of Resurrection.
These,
pretending they honour God through their misdemeanour, left God’s Sabbath a
vacuous non-entity, and dishonoured it having given it the insulting name of
‘Still Saturday’! Yes! ‘Saturday-sabbatharians’ in this regard are the culprits
as much and worse, as Sunday-sabbatharians.
ONLY,
“THAT DAY”, was day of BURIAL; no other. “So behoved it the Christ”! It’s no theory merely; “THAT DAY” was
as much the Obedience of Christ as was his going to the slaughter or rising
from the dead. But all of Christianity
DENIES only “THAT DAY” in WHOLE was day of BURIAL, and so deny Jesus’
Obedience to the will of His Father.
Like
Paul –
Who
“declare(d) unto you the Gospel which ye also received and wherein ye also
stand” –,
so,
Jesus Christ
“received”
the Gospel He STOOD IN and STOOD BY –
the
Gospel wherein He Obeyed the Father’s Will –, and
“the
first day when they always had to kill the passover”
“died
for our sins according to the Scriptures”,
AND,
“That
Day great day of sabbath ye shall eat the Passover”
“was
BURIED .... according to the Scriptures ....
AND,
the THIRD day according to the Scriptures,
rose again”.
Christianity
denies
“THAT
DAY WAS”:
FROM:
Mk15:42/Mt27:57/Jn19:31/Lk23:50;
TO
and UNTIL:
Lk23:54-46/Jn19:41-42;
and
UNTIL BEFORE:
Mk16:1
“after the Sabbath”; Lk23:56b “the women began to rest the Sabbath”;
Jn20:1 “while early darkness still”; Mt29:62 “the day after The
Preparation”.
All
Christianity insists both Burial and Crucifixion were on Abib 14, and thus
dissects and destroys the God-given and
therefore imperative eschatological WHOLENESS of the “according to the
Scriptures” “three days and three nights”-“three days” of
the Passover of Yahweh.
ONLY,
“THAT DAY” ‘the 15th of Nisan
.... always .... special Sabbath ....’! It
is so true! Pay this day, due respect with respect to what its God-given
content must be, and in fact is, according to the passover-Scriptures
throughout the Bible: in the Gospels as in the Torah. ‘That Day’s’
content does NOT contain the slaughter of the passover sacrifice – NOWHERE in
the Scriptures. ‘That Day’s’ content includes and contains the ‘bringing
out’ and the interment of “that which remained” of the passover
sacrifice – THROUGHOUT, in the Scriptures.
In
the type the passover was slaughtered “in between the nights” – i.e., “during
the day”, “in the afternoon” BEFORE sunset. In the type the passover “in the evening”,
“the next day” and after sunset, “In That Night” was
re-assimilated with the earth through first, the EATING of the flesh and next,
by BURNING “that which remained of it” .... things which you are
perfectly familiar with.
In
the Antitype,
The
Passover Sacrifice
assimilated
with mortality
having
died,
was
“shut in”
in
the earth,
secured
and sealed
in
the grave,
having
been BURIED.
“My
FLESH shall rest in hope”,
“Therefore
That Day was great-day-of-sabbath” Jn19:31
for
the flesh of Jesus,
“the
sabbath” Lv23:11,15 of the passover Abib 15
NOT
YET “The Sabbath of the LORD your God”
“the
third I shall FINISH
the works of My Father”
and
“TRIUMPH
IN IT” Col2:12-15.
“He
HAVING ENTERED into His Own Rest,
as God
from His Own Works
rested” –
even
God in Christ
in
Resurrection from the dead
“In
the Sabbath before the First Day of the week” :
“First
Sheaf Wave Offering
Before the LORD
the day after the sabbath” .... of the passover.
Then
for what reason do you insert an imagined day in between “already /even the
first day ye shall put away leaven”—“the fourteenth day ye shall kill
the passover” Ex12:15b,6, and, “ye
shall EAT unleavened bread .... in the first day .... seven days .... (15a,
16a)”? Cf. Mk14:12, Mt26:17, Lk22:7.
Why
do you make Abib 15 a day of no event? Only to create an un-appointed,
unaccountable day to accommodate preparations of ointments and spices? Why not USE “That Day” created by God
in his omniscience FOR this very purpose in the dispensations of God in and
through Christ, “according to the USE of the Jews to BURY”? Jn19:40. Because preparations of precious myrrh might
desecrate its divine appointment and purpose?
Because holy BURIAL might profane SANCTITY of Burial or SANCTITY of
Burial might profane holy Burial? Because “holy convocation” and “Feast”
would transgress “memorial” or “memorial” would annul “holy
convocation” and “Feast”? 12:16,14. Because “my flesh” – in
obedience to “the Law of indestructible Life” – may “rest in HOPE”? Because TYPE meets Antitype in “That Day”? That preparations of spices and ointments and
burial of “The Holy One of God” ARE the obedience to and the
FULFILMENT of “That Day” “the sabbath always a sabbath” of the passover? (“The time of Jacob’s
trouble .... the land of their captivity .... but HE shall be saved out of it”
Jer30:7,10.) How do I understand you
now? The fulfilment is the obedience; the requirement and law of “That
Day” is what makes it “the sabbath .... that day great day of sabbath”
Lv23:11,15; Jn19:31 of the passover. WITHOUT IT, IT IS VOID OF MEANING OR
CONTENT.
We
have taken liberties, to ourselves define what, obedience and transgression of
the laws of God are, “Making the Word of God of none effect through (our)
traditions which (we) have delivered / required / commanded” Mk7:13 without
invitation from God. BURIAL ON “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath”, was the
OBEDIENCE of Joseph to its law and institution— in fact, BURIAL ON “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath”
of the passover was the obedience to and fulfilment of it, of Jesus Christ “Our
Passover” and “Lamb of God”!
Therefore
you may perhaps reconsider what you have stated, that “The feast day was a special Sabbath, he could not be buried on this day”, because the actuality of “That Day”,
according to both “The Scriptures” and the status quo, was that He had
to be buried BECAUSE the feast day was a special Sabbath— in fact, “was”, “That Day of great day sabbath”.
Cog:
“John 19 20 shows that the passover (14th Nisan) was called the
"preparation". He was still being tried on that day, but according to
your reasoning he would be tried on Thursday.”
GE:
Ja, let us just be
precise: John 19 20 DOES NOT, “show that the
passover (14th Nisan) was called the "preparation""” The words of Jn19:14, are, “And it was The Preparation OF THE PASSOVER, and
exactly the sixth hour: and (Pilate) said to the Jews, Behold, your King!”
WHY “was the passover (14th Nisan) called”, “The
Preparation of the passover”?
Because: “Even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your
houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day (that you
eat unleavened bread) until the seventh day (that you eat unleavened
bread), “the one and twentieth day of the month” 18), that soul shall
be cut off.”
“The passover (14th Nisan)” “even
the first day”, is characterised by TWO main ‘events’, first, the removal
of leaven; second, the slaughter of the sacrifice.
“The first day
you must eat unleavened bread” is characterised by two main ‘events’, first,
“Ye shall eat unleavened bread” Ex12:18; second, “That which remain
until the morning ye shall burn with fire.” 12:10.
You will have
noticed that 12:18 says “Ye shall eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth day
of the First Month”. It is because Exodus still reckoned the ‘ceremonial’
or ‘feast’ days, from sunrise to sunrise, the Egyptian way. After the Exodus
and throughout the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, eating unleavened
bread began in the night of Abib 15, which implies a sunset-reckoning of the
day the God-willed way; the Redeemed People way.
1) That is why even Exodus dates the seventh day
unleavened bread was eaten on “the one and twentieth day of the (First) Month”.
The twenty first day they were OUTSIDE
2) And that is why even Exodus already has some
kind of sunset to sunset distinction of days, and mentions “even the first
day” .... “the passover (14th Nisan)” .... as a day by itself and in distinction to “the first day you
must eat unleavened bread”.
Dating days as are
they reckoned sunrise to sunrise in Exodus is true to the nature of the Book
and of the exodus as such, keeping in mind the ‘passover’ out of the old
dispensation into the new dispensation, and the fact the first days of it
overlapped with the “three days darkness” of the ninth plague and the
death of the first born of the Egyptians in fulfilment of the tenth plague. “This
night I will pass through, this night I will smite all the first born .... This
Day shall be unto you for a memorial ....” 12,14.
I believe Paul got
his phrase “according to the Scriptures the third day” from the ‘Exodus’
or better, passover-Scriptures, specifically 10:22, Abib 13 the night and
ending halve of which became the beginning halve of the new dispensation and
the fourteenth day of Abib on which all the first born died and Israel the
morning after midnight on the fourteenth day still, “departed”: but in
all subsequent Scripture e.g. Nb33:3, is it said to have been the fifteenth day
of the month when they departed.
The Gospels
perfectly agree in that they specify, “the first day”— the exact words
obtained from Exodus 12:15!— “the first day of un- / de-leavening / removal
of / without leaven WHEN THEY HAD TO KILL / ALWAYS KILLED the passover”
.... “The passover (14th Nisan)” .... “The Preparation of the passover” .... “before the
Feast” Jn13:1.
The KJV INCORRECTLY
adds the words “feast” and, “bread” in Mk14:12, Mt26:17, and Lk22:7!
It is a serious mistake that has caused incessant misconceptions.
Therefore:
“The passover (14th Nisan) called” .... “The
Preparation of the passover”, BEGINS, HERE:
Mk14:12/17,
Mt26:17/20, and Lk22:7/14, Jn13:1/30.
“Now when the
even was come .... when the hour .... it was night.”
The middle – “six
o’clock in the morning” Roman time-indication or count of hours – of “The
Preparation of the passover”, is found, here:
Jn19:14, Lk23:24,
Mk15:15, Mt27:26. “Pilate delivered
Him over.”
The beginning of
the ENDING-hours of “The Preparation of the passover”, are stated, here:
Mk15:37-41, Mt27:50-56, Lk23:46-49, Jn19:30.
The BEGINNING of “The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”, is found directly after, here:
in Mk15:42 /
Mt27:57 / Jn19:31/38 / Lk23:50.
You, Roy Page,
confuse “The Preparation of the passover” with “The Preparation which
is the Fore-Sabbath”.
And therefore yes, John
19:14 shows that the passover (14th Nisan) was called “the "preparation"— “OF THE PASSOVER”— not, “the "preparation"— “which
is the Fore-Sabbath”! “He was still being tried on that day”, “the "preparation" “OF THE PASSOVER”, and, according to the ‘reasoning’ of the Gospels and Old Testament, “he would be tried on Thursday” inevitably
and undeniably. You have deduced
correctly.
Cog:
“This was the preparation for the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan,
not the preparation for the weekly Sabbath.”
GE:
What
do you mean with “This .... This was ....”? You
refer to John 19:14, “the passover (14th Nisan) .... He was still
being tried on that day”. So, I may read
you like this, “The passover (14th Nisan) .... that day He
was still being tried on .... was the preparation for the feast day Sabbath on
the 15th Nisan, not the preparation for the weekly Sabbath.” AND, YOU ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT! Nevertheless, that is not what you
actually mean, everybody can see. How is
it possible? You DIVIDE, or SEPARATE the ONE day “which is” BOTH: “the preparation for the weekly Sabbath” – “The
Preparation WHICH IS The Fore-Sabbath” AND: “the feast day
Sabbath on the 15th Nisan” – “since it
was The Preparation because the day was great That Day of sabbath”.
‘Epei paraskeueh
ehn .... en tohi sabbatohi .... ehn gar megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou
sabbatou’ : “Since it was The Preparation .... on the sabbath .... because
was great the day That Day of sabbath.”
Jn19:31
You make “That
Day” (Mark, Luke) / “that day” (Roy
Page), two days; or you thought you could.
What can be clearer
this was one and the same and the only day “the preparation for
the weekly Sabbath” “which was” ALSO “the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan”?
“This” – “the passover (14th
Nisan)” – was “the preparation _FOR_ the feast day Sabbath on the 15th
Nisan.” (Roy Page, emphasis GE.)
“The passover (14th Nisan)” was “The
Preparation _OF_ the
passover” Jn19:14, “_FOR_ the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan”.
In other words,
Abib 14 was ‘passover’, but passover “even the first day ye shall remove
leaven”; and
Abib 15 was ALSO
‘passover’, but passover “the first day ye shall EAT / FEAST unleavened
bread”.
“The passover (14th Nisan)” was “The
Preparation _FOR_
the feast day Sabbath on (or, ‘of’) the 15th Nisan!
“Since it was
The Preparation .... on the sabbath .... because was great the day That Day of
sabbath .... since it was The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” –
‘hehtis estin prosabbatton’ Jn19:31, Mk15:42.
“The preparation _OF_ the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan” or “the preparation _FOR_ the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan” was “the passover (14th Nisan) .... that day He
was still being tried on” – no difference;
no matter; it was the identical day.
But you make it
another day. You make it another day
against the meaning
of the words used in Jn19:31;
against the passover
days and their order and significance;
against EXISTING
indications in the Text of days and their beginnings and endings.
For only one reason: your own, that “The feast day was a special Sabbath, he could not be buried on this day.” It is no reason; you PRESUME BECAUSE “The feast day was a
special Sabbath, he could not be buried on this day”, “he could not be
buried on this day.” Yours is circular thinking.
Cog:
“Jesus was clearly buried on the preparation day (Luke 23:50-54, Mark
15:42).”
GE:
Absolutely! But:
1) “on the preparation day” found in “Luke 23:50-54, Mark 15:42”, not in Jn19:14! And
2) “clearly buried on”, NOT, “the preparation for the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan”; not which you have said yourself was “this .... called
.... the passover (14th Nisan)””. And
3) therefore “clearly BURIED”, not “crucified”.
Different
Scriptures; different events; different dates of the month; different days of
the passover; and different days of the week.
1) Scriptures:
“Luke 23:50-54, Mark 15:42” and not Jn19:14;
2) Events:
“buried”, not “crucified”.
3) Dates:
“the 15th Nisan” and not “14th Nisan”;
4) Passover-days: “the feast day Sabbath on the 15th Nisan
.... a special Sabbath,” and not “the preparation for the feast day Sabbath .... the passover (14th Nisan)”;
5) Days of the week: “the preparation for the weekly Sabbath” and not “The Preparation of the Passover” “the preparation for the feast day Sabbath”.
Cog:
“4. You wrote, "You must be aware of the best principles of
interpreting the word of God in a case such as this, but obviously safely
ignore them. Because you fully realise you wrongly “interpret” the words
translated “after three days”, “literally”, knowing full
well when used IDIOMATICALLY AS IN THE PHRASE, “after three days”, the preposition “meta”-”after” “or
better, the phrase intact as a whole means precisely the
same as had the Dative or Genitive been used."
You obviously do not know much Greek as any
basic grammar book will tell you of different meanings for different cases, and
meta is never used with the dative case.”
GE:
I
did not say ‘meta’ is used with the Dative. Where did I say that? You insinuate I said things I have not
said. It’s no use I quote myself, seeing
you have quoted me in the very sentence before you falsely allege things
against what I have said, never mind against me or my knowledge of Greek.
Cog:
“5. You wrote, “.... Any reasonable
lexicon should tell you that the root meaning of "meta" is "the
midst of" or "amid". With
the genitive case it is it means "in association with", and is
translated "with" or "among" many times.”
This does NOT
MEAN WITHIN, AS IF INSIDE SOMETHING, and so "after three days" does
not mean "within three days".
However, with
the accusative case it denotes following accompaniment, sequence, the order in
which one thing follows another.
In order of
place, "after or behind".
In order of
time, "after". ”
GE:
Again,
where did I say, “"after
three days" .... mean(s) "within three days"”, please?
Yes, alright; I have said it; but in context it should be clear to you I
have meant ‘after three days’ would mean Jesus resurrected “within three days” on the third day within the “three days”
“according to the Scriptures”. Yes!
Because “ON THE THIRD DAY” is the exact Scripture in another
place; and “IN THREE DAYS” is the exact Scripture in yet another
place. Now either you “interpret” “after three days” .... “within three days” or
force it to contradict the rest of the Scriptures concerning the “three days”,
“third day”, and “three days and three nights”.
But
while you so insist “after three
days" does not mean "within three days"” but “in order of
time, means "after"”, how are you
going to reconcile it with the Word, “After two days He will revive us: in
the third day He will raise us up”?
By saying it is no Word about Jesus Christ?
Do you remember how
this Scripture continues? “Then shall we know if we follow on to know the
LORD.” Isn’t it fitting!?
Cog:
“Many times in the bible figurative language has a literal
interpretation. Many prophecies e.g. Daniel 8, and all the parables. Also
phrases like "you would bring down my grey hair with sorrow to the
grave." (Genesis 42:38), simply means "you would cause me to die of
sorrow."
If you do not see
this my friend, then we are simply not going to agree.”
GE:
Even were this discussion leading to 1Peter 3:20, I
cannot see how it would change any of the chronology of the "three days
and three nights" or of the “three days” or of “the third
day” with which we are concerned, or which day of the week Jesus rose from
the dead on, for that matter.
I have had a look at the 'scheme' you sent me by
e-mail, and I saw there that you place the Resurrection just above but still
ABOVE, the line that indicates the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of the
First Day of the week. Now that shows agreement between us in that we both
place the Resurrection ON and IN the Sabbath. We only differ on WHEN, on
and in, the SABBATH! In ESSENCE we AGREE.
Now I also notice - if I'm not mistaken - that we
actually AGREE about the storm in the tea cup about what 'figurative' may mean.
Yes, I do agree with you, figurative language can have literal meaning; no
doubt! I have just used figurative language which cannot have literal, or,
'spiritual meaning'. Then what is it? It is IDIOMATIC language. Idiomatic
language or 'idiom', tells you, it is not ruled by ANY rule of grammar or
logic. It is peculiar to ITSELF. Idiom can be specific to a certain language; or
it could appear in more than one languages, because of human intelligent contact.
Such an idiom is the 'EXPRESSION', "after
three days". In my mother tongue, Afrikaans, this 'type' of speaking
is used a lot. We even speak of 'behind three days' - 'agter drie dae'
- to say EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS "IN / WITHIN three
days"!
Scripture does NOT contradict itself; and while it
is categorical in the Scriptures that Jesus would rise "ON" mark you,
"THE", "third day", it tells you that, absolutely LITERALLY
WITH REFERENCE TO 'the three days' OF WHICH, the Scriptures are
(figuratively) 'FULL', so that the ONLY instance of its equivalent, "after
three days", should subject itself to the often- and usually used
words and ways of expressing THESE "THREE DAYS": "according
to the Scriptures", the passover's Scriptures.
But please don't let us get stuck on this one
point, which although important, (because man shall live by EVERY Word of God),
is NOT, ALL important. There are a myriad of other things involved, including
things of far greater importance than this exception of an IDIOMATIC
expression FOR the “Three days”, “ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES".
“After three days” is no expression
FOR a fourth day; for a day after, the “three days” of the Scriptures
that INCLUDED “That Christ DIED for our sins according to the Scriptures, AND, that He was BURIED, AND, that he ROSE again THE THIRD DAY according to the
Scriptures.” That, is surely not “in order of time, "after"”— in order of time
"after" “the
third day” meaning on the fourth day “after three days”!
So here is where
your knowledge or rather awareness of your own language, English, has left you
in the lurch, dear Pastor Roy Page, that you MISREAD the idiomatic expression “after
THREE DAYS” for literal, as were it written, ‘after THE THIRD DAY’. Sorry that I had to say it.
Thank you very much for your patience in this
regard. I had to attend to your WHOLE animadversion, and just CANNOT return to
this issue of a literal fourth day after the literal “three days”, again
– I haven't got the time for it, and I think I have said everything I am able
to say about it --- or anyone else I guess.
You may also read further my earliest notes on this
'issue' in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace' and articles I honestly
cannot remember how many times. May I tell you that I have been found in
agreement with scholarship of many centuries and areas of thought.
Cog:
“If you have
benefited from reading this study, then please tell your friends about this
website.
If you have a web-site of your own,
consider linking to Logos Apostolic web-site.
......
GE:
If you benefited
from my answers to this study, then please tell your friends about this website,
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
or e-mail me at
biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
or write me a letter to
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
RSA
28 October 2009