Finch
Paul R., ‘Passover Papers’
Paul R Finch,
‘Passover Papers’ Published in March, 2009, B-F Enterprises (
“
An
investigation by Gerhard Ebersöhn into ‘Passover Papers’ by Paul R. Finch
First
Delivery
PRF ..... Paul
R Finch Cursive
GE
..... Gerhard Ebersöhn
PRF:
(The Day of the Crucifixion—Friday or
Wednesday?
206
Appendix 1 The Day of the Crucifixion—Friday or Wednesday?)
“The Christian Church down through the ages
has traditionally
held
that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and was resurrected on the third calendar
day thereafter, early on Sunday morning. A simple reading of the Gospel
accounts shows that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified.
Nevertheless, the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition has been recently
challenged by a modern theory based upon the statement that Jesus made in
Matthew 12:40, that he would be in the heart of the earth for “three days” and “three
nights.”“
GE:
First, I do not try to answer for or to people who
do not accept the Bible for the Word of God— the unfailing, Word of God. I answer from the standpoint of the believer
in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit— one who believes the Holy
Scriptures for the Written Word of God Tri-Une that it is.
I shall
therefore have to regard as irrelevant and of no consequence for either the
research of Paul R. Finch or mine, critical questions like the following by Norm Goldman of
bookpleasures.com, “.... what if you don’t accept
the teachings of the Gospel, the New and Old Testaments? Moreover, what if you
refuse to accept the Bible as absolute, true and without error and that many of
the characters in the Bible are fictitious and are inventions of the ancient
Hebrew scribes? ....”.
“What if”? Well, then we have no common ground to stand
on, and consequently do not have anything to say to one another.
I therefore also
must disregard even Paul R. Finch where he himself says, “the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition has been recently challenged by
a modern theory based upon the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40, that
he would be in the heart of the earth for “three days” and “three nights”“. That
is saying something no different than Goldman’s wisdom, because it makes of
what “the statement that Jesus made”,
a mere, “modern theory”,
ostentatiously, “based upon the statement
that Jesus made”, but is no better than what PRF concluded it really is— a “modern theory”, not the Word of God.
Whether Finch
has said this per accident or not, how could a person – who does believe that “the statement that Jesus made”, is the
Word of God since “it is Written” and since Jesus, who that person
believes is God, has made it – how could that person agree or accept the
statement “that Jesus made”, as
recorded, “in Matthew 12:40”, is “a modern theory” of “the Good Friday/Easter Sunday tradition”,
that “challenge(s)”, “the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40,
that he would be in the heart of the earth for “three days” and “three nights”“?
There is no way a believing Christian could accept it or support such a
statement. Because that is what we
have to deal with, as is, from Paul R Finch’s hand, that “the statement that Jesus made in Matthew 12:40, that he would be in the
heart of the earth for “three days” and “three nights”“, IS WHAT this “modern theory”, is “based upon”.
Whether it is
‘style’ (much like what I call ‘Samuele
Bacchiochhi style’) or inattentiveness, that, is what PRF actually, wrote
for the truth. Unfortunately this ‘Finch’s style’ crops up far too many
times. And each time it is employed, it
is in a situation or argument where one is supposed to believe Finch is telling
us the truth.
So then, re:
Paul
R. Finch:
“A simple reading of the Gospel accounts
shows that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified.”
GE:
Considered PRF
speaks of “The Christian Church down
through the ages”, it must be deduced he means “The Christian Church down through the ages ..... the Gospel accounts”;
“the Gospel accounts” actually “show” “..... that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified”.
See what I meant
above?
“That it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus
was crucified” is no more than the opinion of PRF. During whole the age of
the apostles no one has ever claimed or taught “that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified”. Not the simplest reading of the Gospel
accounts shows “that it was the day
before the Sabbath that He was crucified”.
It is PRF who says it. It is ‘tradition’
that says “that it was the day before the
Sabbath that Jesus was crucified”. It may even be the Christian Church that
claims so; but the Gospels, don’t say it, nor do they show it through “a simple reading”.
Nevertheless,
maybe I must give PRF credit, it is possible “A simple reading of the Gospel accounts shows that it was the day
before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified” ..... IF one is reading some ‘modern’, ‘Versions’ of the Gospels that
in truth are the ‘version’ of the quasi translators’ own and surprisingly
unanimous opinion. (Surprisingly
unanimous, obviously because by SECRET AGREEMENT which the translators hoped
the simplest of readers would never notice!)
This is the crux
of the issue which you, PRF, obviously have not noticed yet and never have paid
attention to, namely, that Jesus was crucified on the day BEFORE the day that
He was BURIED on.
You begin, PRF,
with taking for GRANTED “it was the day
before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified”, to in the end PROVE, “it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus
was crucified”. Not that I agree
with the Wednesday-crucifixion fiction; but I find no reason why I should
accept the most fabulous of all fiction – the Friday-crucifixion fiction – to
disprove another fiction – the Wednesday-crucifixion fiction. What would I have gained in the end? That a lie proved a lie a lie?
It is no “modern theory” that challenges the Good
Friday/Easter Sunday tradition, but the very statement of Jesus, made in
Matthew 12:40, that He would be “in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights”. Any common-sensed
human being can see that crucified on Friday rose on Sunday does not answer ANY
meaning of the expression, whether literal or figurative. And the same applies for the ‘Wednesday
crucifixion theory’.
Had Sunday
received fitting eschatological emphasis in the Old Testament like the Sabbath
did, crucified on Friday rose on Sunday might have answered some figurative
significance of the “three days and three nights” of “the PROPHET
Jonah”. But Sunday did not receive
such typological meaning in the Old Testament where so ever, and so the
crucified on Friday rose on Sunday figment fails
the God-given imperative of the eschatological wholeness of the “three days
and three nights”-”three days”.
Crucified on
Friday risen on Sunday also fails the God-given imperative of eschatological
wholeness attributed to the “three days and three nights” in both Old
and New Testaments LITERALLY. In other
words, Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection fails the test hermeneutically as
sadly as exegetically; historically as badly as liguistically.
Jesus also said,
“the sign of the PROPHET ..... shall be given them”. By inserting one’s
own word into Jesus’ statement, “the Son of man shall be in the heart of the
earth three days and three nights”, and make it read, “that he would be in the heart of the earth FOR “three days” and “three
nights”, one with the word “for”,
makes Jesus’ statement mean “for”
any, arbitrary, “three days” and “three
nights”— which not at all was what He had in mind. [There’s no word ‘kata’
in the Greek.]
That Jesus also
said, “the sign of the PROPHET ..... shall be given them” fixes the “three
days and three nights” to the only “three days” of Old Testament
Prophecy and Promise, the “three days” of the Passover of
Yahweh-calendar; its first three days, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth of
the First Moth, exclusively.
That is the very
first aspect or quality or distinctive of the “three days and three nights”
that “the Son of Man (would) be in the heart of the earth”, that they in
their God given and therefore eschatological imperative wholeness “according
to the SCRIPTURES” would be THESE, “three days” and no other days or
nights.
In other words,
Jesus without doubt connected ‘the’ “three days and three nights” with
the Scriptures, and with the Scriptures’ relevance with Him; ‘the’ “three
days and three nights” are the sure Word of Prophecy concerning the
Christ. These “three days and three
nights” were the “three days”
of the Passover of Yahweh, Exodus 10 to 15; it is the ONLY possibility and the
only CONTINGENCY.
Jesus would “be
in the heart of the earth”, ‘the’ “three days and three nights” of the
three first days of the passover calendar “because thus it behoved the
Christ”. ‘The’ “three days and
three nights” were Jesus’ obedience to the Father; they were the “three
days” on GOD’S calendar, sealed and “signed” for having been God’s
WILL which Jesus Christ obeyed as SON, to “fulfil” “that, which is
written of Me” on “the third day according to the Scriptures” and
the God-given and therefore imperative eschatological wholeness of the “three
days and three nights”-”three days” of Holy Writ.
Although the
Christian Church has made a mockery of it and the Friday-crucifixion
Sunday-resurrection fiction in every possible aspect of it belies and garbles
it, the Gospels maintain the God-given eschatological imperative of the “three
days and three nights”-”three days” in original coherence and
direction towards wholeness “on the third day according to the Scriptures”—
“In fullness of the Sabbath Day”.
It must next be
noticed without a doubt a simple reading of the Gospel accounts shows that it
was the day before “the Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment”
Lk23:56b that Jesus was BURIED, and that the God-given and therefore imperative
eschatological wholeness of the “three days and three nights”-”three
days” “according to the Scriptures” requires – yea, demands – the
God-given and therefore eschatologically imperative WHOLENESS
of
the SECOND DAY of the “three days and three nights”-”three days”
of the Passover of Yahweh.
Jesus was not buried on Abib 14 the day that He was crucified
on; He was buried on Abib 15, the “Feast-Day”.
Matthew
27:46-60; Luke 23:44-46 cover Crucifixion-day; they do NOT cover the day of the
Burial!
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.
Do not treat “Matthew 27:46-60” and “Luke 23:44-46” as included they the same
time on the same ONE day.
1) In “Matthew
27:46-60” Crucifixion-day had stopped BEFORE “Matthew 27:46-60” because Burial-day
only started in verse 57, “It now
having become evening already”. “Matthew 27:46-60” therefore stretches
over TWO days.
2) In “Luke 23:44-46” Crucifixion-day is ‘12 to
3 p.m. Roman time’— “the sixth hour until the ninth hour” BEFORE Jesus
died. The three ending-hours of
Crucifixion-day are implied from verse 44 up to and including verse 49.
3) In “Matthew
27:46-60” Crucifixion-day is ‘3 p.m. Roman time’— “the ninth hour”
AFTER Jesus had died. The three ending-hours
of Crucifixion-day are implied from verse 46 up to and including verse 56.
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, as also mentioned in Mk15:42 and implied in both Lk23:50 and Jn19:31/38; 28:8.
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.
The day that Joseph
buried Jesus on – the Sixth Day – ’Friday’ – in its BEGINNING –, began in
Lk23:50, Mk15:47, Mt27:57 and Jn19:31/38. “Since it was The Preparation ....
because That Day was a great day of sabbath” Jn19:31.
“And That Day
was the Preparation Day as it began to dawn towards the Sabbath” – Friday
ENDING – in Lk23:54 and Jn19:42.
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;
three hours later.
In other words,
3 p.m. in the afternoon, “mid-afternoon”, “by the time of the Jews’
preparations” ‘dia tehn paraskeuehn tohn Youdaiohn’ Jn19:42, the same day that
had begun in Lk23:50, Mk15:42, Jn19:31 – “It now having become evening
already” –, “was (now) beginning to come to an end / was (now) drawing
close / the Sabbath (now) drew near”
‘kai .... kai epefohsken sabbaton’ 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” – Imperfect, ‘epefohsken’ – and the women – after they had
done the preparations of their spices and ointments – the imminent Friday
evening would begin to “rest the Sabbath”, 56b.
Lk23:54 also
looks back and over the ENTIRE,
PAST, Sixth Day (Thursday night and Friday day) recapping “That Day”,
that “was”.
Four Scriptures
have bearing on the evening-beginning of
the weekly Sabbath Day (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 “had begun 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 ..... which ALSO was, “That Day great day of sabbath’s
(esteem)” having been the Feast-sabbath of passover, Abib 15.
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”.
There is NOTHING
that may prove these conclusions wrong or only improbable. Some simply do not see any of these many
implications although they are written in clear and plain words. That is why people resort to strange
doctrines to explain the “three days” and the “three days and three
nights”.
Jesus was not
buried on the day – Abib 14 – that he
was crucified on; He was buried on
the ‘Feast-Day’, Abib 15, “so that it might be fulfilled
which is written of Me”. It is written of
“That which remained”, that it should be carried out of Egypt and,
be “burned with fire on the following day”, “That Day great
day-sabbath” of the passover Abib 15, Ex12:10,37,39,47,51; 13:4,10;
Dt33:3-5, as a typical reference to the Burial of Jesus our Passover and Lamb
of God. The Scriptures knew and indicated this day Abib 15 and “Feast of Unleavened Bread” – the
day-of-interment – with the words or even titles of,
Old Testament:
“the sabbath”,
and
“That Day”,
and
“(That Day)
great day”, and
“That-Day-in-the-bone-of-day
day”, and,
New Testament:
“That Day”, and
“That Day
great day-of-sabbath”, similar to the
“in-between-sabbath”
in Acts 13:42.
The Scriptures
thus describe and point out this unique day in its God-given and therefore
demanded eschatological wholeness. No
other day of the passover’s calendar and no other day whatsoever thus, has
received identification in the Scriptures as the fifteenth day of the First
Month did for its mandatory PURPOSE. But is it thus recognised and respected in
Christianity? It is disregarded as such,
and altogether caused to disappear into “the passover” on the fourteenth
day of the month, despite, “Moses
wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the
the LORD”, that “they departed .... on the fifteenth day of the First
Month with an High Hand .... while the Egyptians buried their firstborn”.
Paul
R. Finch:
FN389
One can find this explanation in the popular Companion Bible, appendix 144,
wherein Dr. Bullinger writes:
“The
fact that ‘three days’ is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of
three
days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the
common
way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of
years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the
reckoning of reigns of any of the kings of
GE:
Is there
anything wrong with Bullinger’s conclusion?
I don’t think so— in any case not as it stands in this isolated
quotation. “..... (T)he expression (“three days and three nights”) ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal
statement of fact.” Mark you, “.....
of fact”— which ‘undisputed fact’ in the relevant Scriptures was the SINGLE reality
of
1) Abib 15 as
2) second day of “the passover” and as
3) first day of “seven days” of passover
and
4) “Feast of Unleavened Bread”,
5) “That Day and .....”
6) “..... great day”
7) “of sabbath”— “the sabbath” of
the passover Lv23:11,15 .....
8) “day”, AND, “night” (Mt12:40)
.....
and not only the
last few minutes of Crucifixion-day Abib 14!
So yes, either the ‘Good Friday-Easter Sunday
tradition is a fable— or the Gospels and the passover Scriptures are a
waste of words and filled with meaningless typological references.
Paul
R. Finch:
Thus
speaketh the masters of shock evangelism.
...... (T)raditional Christianity congregates
on Sunday in
recognition
over the fact of the Resurrection ..... The
approach worked, for multiple thousands bought into it and cling to it as a
result, despite the fact that no one in the early Christian Church ever made a
point of the time element of the Resurrection .....
GE:
Now
this, is “shock evangelism” by
subtlety, Paul R. Finch stating a
totally baseless assumption for Gospel Truth, “fact”, “traditional Christianity congregates on
Sunday in recognition over THE FACT OF the Resurrection ..... on Sunday”. What
better way to prop up the entirely baseless tradition of one of Christianity’s
key doctrines, the FALLACY “of the
Resurrection on Sunday”? Please remember I speak as a believing
Christian; not as an unbelieving bystander.
Paul
R. Finch
reverts to his introductory methods. He begins by taking for GRANTED “on
Sunday ..... the Resurrection”, to in the end PROVE, “the
Resurrection ..... on Sunday”.
Not that I agree with the after 72 hours in the grave resurrection
fiction. But I find no reason why I should accept the most fantastic of all fiction
– the Sunday resurrection fiction – to disprove another fiction, the after 72
hours in the grave resurrection fiction.
What would I have gained in the end?
That a lie proved a lie a lie?
What more
rejectable way than of ‘traditional Christianity’ to undermine the entire basis
of Scriptural Christianity’s key doctrines, than to offer arsenic for pure
glass of water. ‘The approach worked’,
for how many ‘multiple thousands’
have ‘bought into’ the
Sunday-resurrection cauldron of doctrines and have ‘clung to it despite the fact that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the alleged time element of the Resurrection’ ...... “on Sunday”!
Paul R. Finch:
No one in the early Christian Church ever
made a point of the time element of the Resurrection ..... especially the Apostles! Therefore,
this subject deserves an investigation due to the importance that is placed on
this aspect.
GE:
It seems also
the ‘approach’ of Paul R. Finch, ‘works’. For the third time
so far, PRF with the same effectiveness is employing the selfsame tactics of
calling his ASSUMPTION “the fact”, in order to
take for granted fiction “that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection”, so
that he in the end has PROVED, “that no one in the early Christian Church
ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection”. Not that I agree with the fiction “that no
one in the early Christian Church ever made a point of the time element of the
Resurrection”, but I find no reason why I should accept of all
taken for granted ‘facts’ the most
fictitious of all, “that the early Christian Church made a
point of the time element of the Resurrection”, “on Sunday”. What would I have gained in the end? That a lie proved a lie a lie?
For
certain then, yes, “this subject deserves
an investigation due to the importance that is placed on this aspect ..... of
the time element of the Resurrection”— “according to the SCRIPTURES THE
THIRD DAY.”
My
first question therefore is,
Is
it true, “No one in the early Christian Church ever made a point of the time
element of the Resurrection”?
It
is a premature, unproved and improvable, wild, assumption.
There
literally are tens of factors and indicators, and implications and
straight-forward statements, “of the time
element of the Resurrection”,
The
very words like “three days” and “the third day” and
Prepositions
of time like “in”, “on”, “before”, etc.;
not to mention
Adverbs
and Adjectives like “late” and “great (day)” and
Praenomen
like “sabbath” and “First Day”; and, yes,
Numerals,
like “first”, “six (days)”.
Not
to mention, further,
Prophetic
statements of Messianic Fulfilment?
Eschatological
symbolism and typology? .....
No,
ridiculous, is the justified word .....
But,
on the other hand, show, demonstrate, quote, refer, imply – whatever – JUST ONE
such case as these, “due to the importance that is placed on
th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection ..... ON SUNDAY”?!
No chance .....
This statement
PRF has made is going to reach the point of irony once we shall get to his OWN
deliberations on “the time element of the
Resurrection”. Then, for certain, “Therefore, this subject deserves an
investigation due to the importance that is placed on this aspect” ..... the ‘aspect’ of the
TIME-factor!
(See, there you can already see how PRF himself, denies himself
that “No one in the early Christian
Church ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection”.
No?
Read: “No one in the early
Christian Church ever made a point of the time element of the Resurrection.”
Now read on, “the importance
that is placed on th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection”.
Where is this “importance
that is placed on th(e) aspect of the time element of the Resurrection”, found?
In “the Gospels”; and, “especially”, in “the Apostles”, naturally.
Before I step off this quibbling; I wonder, has PRF not read
these sentences in other authors? Has he
not heard them used before? Why are they
sounding so familiar to me, then?
Paul R. Finch:
It
certainly is impossible to fit three full day periods and three full night
periods between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. And the sign of Jonah argument
concerning Jesus’ Messiahship turns the entire issue around from just an
interesting, secondary fact of history into a primary doctrinal point of one’s
Christian beliefs.
GE:
Which ‘fact’ in fact, certainly PRF has phrased
so well it is impossible not to accept and underwrite. It is what I have tried
to do when I spoke of the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative
wholeness of the “three days and three nights”-”three days”.
[[I borrowed the
‘expression’, “the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative wholeness”
from E. Lohmeyer in P.F. Theron, ‘The Ecclesia as Cosmic Eschatological Sign’.
Lohmeyer used it in connection with the twelve tribes of
Paul R. Finch:
This
new theory claims that Jesus was already risen the evening before the women
arrived in the morning. Therefore, by this line of reasoning it is possible to
count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to Sabbath evening.
GE:
I also believe
it; but I would have liked to use plainer and more precise and Biblical terms
to make my position unambiguously clear.
I would therefore word your statement as follows: Christ rose from the dead “On the Sabbath
Day, in Sabbath’s fullness mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First
Day of the week” Mt28:1, three hours before sunset— before the evening in
which “Mary while yet early darkness comes and sees the stone removed from
the sepulchre”; and at least another six hours “before the women arrived in the morning” “deep darkness” of
night just after midnight “carrying their spices prepared and ready”
Lk24:1, they, thinking the body was still in the tomb. Therefore, by this sequence of events
(‘Inclusive reckoning’ and therefore no talking about ‘seconds’ or minutes’ and
stuff.) it is inevitable to count three solid days from Wednesday evening
beginning of the Fifth Day of the week to “Sabbath’s mid-afternoon” and
the end of “the third day according to the Scriptures” sunset, when “the
women” would have “started to rest the Sabbath Day according to the
(Fourth) Commandment” Lk23:56b.
Nevertheless, ‘I
reserve my rights’ as to “this line of reasoning”
of the ‘newness’ of “this theory” that “claims that Jesus was already risen before the women arrived in the
morning.”
First, ‘by
rights’ PRF should not have set the trap for the unawares, when he stated, as
in full, “that Jesus was already risen
the evening before the women arrived in the morning” ..... “risen the evening”, implying an ‘evening’-resurrection?
Or even, “evening before the women
arrived”? So, better leave out the
words, “the evening”, first.
Then read: “that Jesus was already risen .... BEFORE the
women arrived in the morning.” Because then there is NO doubt left, “Jesus was ALREADY RISEN BEFORE the women
arrived in the morning”. Then all
left to do is to further find out:
‘WHEN BEFORE
(ON THE SABBATH) Jesus rose?’ And,
‘WHEN in the morning (on the First Day AFTER
the Sabbath) the women arrived?’—
Now, PRF’s
words, “the evening”, must come into
play, because the questions now have become:
‘WHEN (ON THE SABBATH) BEFORE THE EVENING Jesus rose?’ And,
‘WHEN AFTER THE EVENING the women arrived”?
“Therefore, by this line of reasoning it is
possible to count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to .....”
Saturday “evening” excluded now.
It is NOT
possible though, to count three full, 24
hour days from Wednesday evening to, “Sabbath
evening”, ‘inclusive reckoning’, because the Sabbath’s ‘evening’, already
had been on what we now call Friday evening.
Paul R. Finch:
But
this would seem to do violence to the fact that Jesus died the day before the
Sabbath, as the Gospel accounts record. .....
GE:
No, it does
not. Your “fact”, “that Jesus died the
day before the Sabbath, as the Gospel accounts record”, is NO “fact”.
You record for me the Gospel accounts that record, “Jesus died the day before the Sabbath”! You cannot; there’s no
such ‘account’ or ‘record’.
Forget to find it, I guarantee you; UNLESS you use ADAPTED, ‘corrected’
/ ‘improved’ ‘versions’; in other words, BOGUS ‘translations’; unfaithful,
unchristian, antichrist, corruptions!
Paul R. Finch:
This
– to count three full, 24 hour days from Wednesday evening to Sabbath evening –
is resolved, so we are told, by realizing that the Sabbath mentioned in John
19:31 is not just a simple, weekly Sabbath day, but was an “annual” Sabbath
known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land on any
day of the week, and in the year of the Crucifixion fell on a Thursday.
GE:
Yes, the
Wednesday-crucifixionists argue thus. But they also argue of course, precisely
as you pointed out, this “Sabbath mentioned
in John 19:31” – the ““annual”
Sabbath known as the First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land
on any day of the week” – “in the
year of the Crucifixion fell on a THURSDAY”.
By having argued
“the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31
..... fell on a THURSDAY”, the Wednesday-crucifixionists have done two things
(which the Friday-crucifixionists also do):
1) They moved the Burial back from day-of-Burial
Abib 15 onto Abib 14 day-of-Crucifixion;
2) They leave a vacuum where the Burial should
have filled the day, and so remove the moment of Jesus’ death four days away
from his resurrection.
Then, by arguing
a full 72-hours period ‘in the grave in the earth’, they actually push the
resurrection onto the FIFTH day after the crucifixion! And I have had to do with proponents of the
Wednesday crucifixion theory who for support go so far as to interpret the
expression “after three days” literally!
The Friday crucifixionists
do not go to these lengths, but they also create a vacuous day by having moved
the Burial back from day-of-Burial Abib 15 onto Abib 14 day-of-Crucifixion
(Friday), and called their feat, ‘Still Saturday’. The joke is though, they
more often than otherwise place the Crucifixion on Abib 15, or they sometimes –
more often than otherwise – place the Resurrection on Abib 17. It goes to show what happens if the plain
Scriptures ARE SUPPOSED TO CONTRADICT OR THEY ARE ‘FALSE WITNESSES’!
Yes, the Wednesday-crucifixionists
argue thus. But they are completely
wrong and invent their own, artificial, ‘resolve’,
just because they refuse to allow the Feast or Sabbath or Great Day of the
passover – Abib 15 – its prophetic nature and purpose, and meaning and intent,
and factual content of HAVING BEEN DAY OF AND DAY FOR BURIAL – because that,
according to them – would be ‘unlawful work’ on a ‘sabbath day’— which is utter
nonsense and is nowhere to be found in all of Scripture. They simply ignore and wave the specific,
many and intentional, ‘passover-Scriptures’ of exact time and day and date
there are in every Gospel for everyone with eyes willing to see.
It
is not “the Gospel accounts” that “record” or “show that it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified”, because there is only the one account in the
one Gospel of a ‘sabbath’ before the Sabbath, Jn19:31 “SINCE IT WAS THE
PREPARATION AND THAT DAY OF GREAT DAY SABBATH’S (status)” ..... “WHICH
IS THE FORE-SABBATH” Mk15:42. [[Yes, there is one account in two Gospels of
a ‘sabbath’ before the ‘Sabbath’, IF, in Lk23:54b “Sabbath” is
understood to be the current “day” – from 54a – “mid-afternoon
(declining)”.]]
How does it “seem to do violence”?
Here you are
employing now for the third (or is it the fourth time?) your ‘logic’ of false
assumption for false proof— ‘circular thinking’. It is the same ‘fact’ again so assumed for
fact while it is no fact but supposition – faulty, supposition. Your supposition is faulty, yes, because you
do not distinguish between .....
A) “the Sabbath”, “according to the
Commandment” the Seventh Day Sabbath from the Ten Commandments (Abib 16 referred to
in Lk23:56b beginning,
in Mt27:62 in
its morning,
in Mt28:1-4 “in
bright day of” it,
and in Mk16:2 as
“having gone through / ended” ......
and ......
B) “That Day (that) was great
day-sabbath” of the passover, and
“THAT DAY”
Lk23:54a specially allocated for
“that which
remained” of the Passover Sacrifice;
“The Feast”
of Passover, Abib 15
in
Jn13:1;19:31, Mk15:42/Mt27:57/Lk23:50
BEGINNING TO BE; on which
Joseph – “after
these things” the Jews did (and later on, “also Nicodemus” – UNDERTOOK
TO, do, namely,
“to bury the
body to custom / law of the Jews” (Jn19:40);
“The Feast”
of Passover, Abib 15
in
Jn19:42 and Lk23:54-56a
BEGINNING TO END,
and in between
these texts,
(–”the in
between sabbath” cf. Acts
13:42–)
in its
proceedings
(–”the in-the-bone-of-day
day”–)
— until
“Joseph
rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre” Mk15:46
“and departed”
Mt27:60
“and they (Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary (of Joses)) returned
and prepared
spices and ointments” Lk23:56a(Mt27:61/Mk15:47)—
BEFORE “the
Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment” in Lk23:56b, had begun or would have begun.
So, yes, this
having been ‘resolved’, Jesus DID
DIE, ‘the day before the sabbath’—
but the day before the PASSOVER’S “sabbath” (Abib 15), i.e., on “The Preparation of the Passover’s”, ‘sabbath’ as
the Gospel accounts – Jn19:14, like the Law (Lv23:11,15) –, record. Of course! Because He DIED, “on the day that they
always had to kill the passover” Lk22:7/Mk14:12, which was “passover”
on Abib 14 (Nmb33:3-4) which John described, “was The PREPARATION of
the PASSOVER”, Jn19:14, “BEFORE THE FEAST” Jn13:1.
This has been
resolved by having realized that the ‘sabbath’ mentioned in John 19:31 “is not
just a simple, weekly Sabbath day, but was an “annual” Sabbath known as the
First Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which could land on any day of the
week, and in the year of the Crucifixion .....”, clearly and indisputably fell on the SIXTH
Day of the week, ‘Friday’.
“Because it
was The Preparation ..... AND ..... That Day
was, great day
of sabbath’s (esteem) ..... which “Preparation” AND
“great day of
sabbath’s esteem”) was ....”
“the
Fore-Sabbath” of the ‘weekly Sabbath
day’..... simultaneously.
He was “Killed”,
“our Passover” “for our sins” on Abib 14;
He was “Buried”,
“for our sins”, on Abib 15—
“killed”
and “buried” on two, separate, each in its own right, ‘passover-days’
(Nmb33:3).
It is clear, it
was ‘FRIDAY’, and
“Since it was
the Preparation ..... That Day great day of sabbath’s (esteem) was .....”
(Jn19:31)
both
“The
Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath” (Mk15:42)
and
“That Day
great day of sabbath’s (esteem)”.
It “could land on any day of the week”;
it could land on
“The
Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath” (Mk15:42)
which is the
Sixth Day, ‘Friday’.
Abib 15 by the
dispensations and Providence of God accordingly
landed on the
Friday,
“since it was
The Preparation and That Day was
great day of
sabbath’s (esteem).”
(Jn19:31)
“THE THIRD
DAY according to the Scriptures He rose” (1Cor15:4),
“First Sheaf
Wave Offering before the LORD” Lv23:11,15 .....
“and God THE
SEVENTH DAY
from ALL his
works, rested .....
“in this wise”
Hb4:4 —
“When He had
by Himself purged our sins
SAT DOWN ON the
Right Hand of the Majesty on High” Hb1:3:
“God .... raised
Him up from the dead
and gave Him
Glory”
1Pt1:21;
“Buried ....
into death .... in newness of life ....
as Christ was
raised by the Glory of the Father” Ro6:4;
“Obedient
unto death wherefore God highly exalted Him” Php2:9;
“WHEN He
raised Him from the dead God
SET Him at his OWN
RIGHT HAND
in heavenly
EXCELLENCE far above all principality.” Eph1:19-21
Paul
R Finch:
A
serious quest for the truth first must analyze not only the
structure
of Jesus’ wording in the light of the rest of the Bible, but also must weigh
the implications imposed by a literal reading.
GE:
“The implications imposed by a literal
reading” ‘analyzed’ “in the light of the Bible” are .....
It
took the “THREE”, “first” WHOLE “days” of PASSOVER, in
WHOLE—
It was the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month:
“Even the FIRST day ye shall PUT AWAY LEAVEN.” Ex12:15b.
“The first
day without leaven when they KILLED
the passover.”
Lk22:7/Mk14:12/Mt26:17
(1Cor5:7-8).
Christ: IN HIS SUFFERING:
It was the NIGHT of the fourteenth day of
the First Month .....
CHRIST: ENTERING IN into the Kingdom of His
Suffering;
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
“A NIGHT to
be solemnly observed.”
CHRIST: “in the Kingdom of My Father”;
CHRIST: suffering dying death;
“death is the
wages of sins”;
CHRIST: “under the curse of the Law” –
“The Law is
the strength of sin” –
CHRIST: “bearing our sins”;
CHRIST: “for our sins”;
CHRIST: “made sin for us”;
CHRIST: “in the heart of the earth”;
CHRIST: “thereby having OBTAINED”;
CHRIST: “IN IT TRIUMPHED”.
..... and it was
the DAY of the fourteenth day of the First Month .....
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: IN HIS SUFFERING GOING THROUGH;
CHRIST: “for three days: thick darkness”;
CHRIST: IN HIS SUFFERING GOING OUT—
CHRIST: “in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights”-”three days”— this,
the FIRST of “..... thick darkness”.
It was the
FOURTEENTH day of the First Month IN WHOLE: ‘day’, and, ‘night’.
It was the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month;
It was the NIGHT of the fifteenth day of
the First Month .....
CHRIST: AFTER his GOING OUT in the Kingdom of His
Father;
CHRIST: his BODY, AFTER
“the death of death in the death of Christ”
(John Owen);
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: his BODY being
“awarded
Joseph”,
and it, being
“taken down”,
and
“away”,
and
“handled / treated”,
and
“prepared”
“as is the
Law / Custom of the Jews
TO, BURY”;
..... and it was
the DAY of the fifteenth day of the First Month .....
“There, by
the time of the Jews’ preparations,
laid they the
body of Jesus.”
“And there followed
after”
“Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary”;
“and they sat
over against the
grave”;
“they
looked on”; “they
saw (inside) the
grave
and how his body
was laid.”
“Since That
Day was
The Preparation
and
mid-afternoon
as it began to
dawn towards the Sabbath” .....
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: “BURIED” ....
“for our sins
..... according to the Scriptures”;
CHRIST: in “That Day”,
CHRIST: “in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights”— this, “THAT DAY”,
“WHOLE BETWIXT three days
thick darkness”.
It was the
FIFTEENTH day of the First Month IN
WHOLE: ‘day’, and, ‘night’.
It was the SIXTEENTH day of the First Month;
“It was NIGHT AND IT WAS DAY” .....
CHRIST: “in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights”-”three days”— this,
“the THIRD day according to the Scriptures” of “..... thick darkness”.
CHRIST: VICTORIOUS:
CHRIST: “in the SIXTEENTH day of the First Month
MADE AN END of
to cleanse The House of the LORD”;
CHRIST: “the Pillar of Cloud gave light by night”;
CHRIST: “First Sheaf Offering Waved Before the
LORD”;
CHRIST: “WHEN GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD”;
CHRIST: “ENTERED IN into His Own Rest as God”;
CHRIST: “His Name is Holy of Holies”, “God
in his Temple”;
CHRIST: “in the end and fullness of the Sabbath
.....
CHRIST: in the being bright daylight of the
Sabbath”;
CHRIST: “Crucified”, “Risen”;
CHRIST: “CROWNED THE SON OF THE KING”;
CHRIST: “as it began to dawn towards the First Day
of the week”;
CHRIST: “I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE”;
“JESUS ..... having
given them REST”.
It was the
sixteenth day of the First Month IN
WHOLE: ‘night’,
and,
‘DAY’ “THICK DARKNESS”—
“By the GLORY of the Father”
“in the heart
of daylight”
“God raised Christ
from the dead”.
“And God – IN CHRIST –
the Seventh Day
from all his
works,
RESTED.”
Paul R. Finch:
Was
Jesus really trying to define precisely the exact number of hours, minutes, and
seconds of the time he was going to be lying in the tomb?
GE:
That is the
Armstrongites’ dilemma. As for the Thursday-Crucifixion - ‘On the Sabbath-Resurrection
viewpoint’, it poses no problem, since “the three days and three nights”-”three
days” are regarded in their eschatological wholeness “according to the
Scriptures” one by one and all collectively in perfect agreement.
These “three
days” if they’re but these “three days” constitute the
“three days”
of every Prophetic Word of Scriptures;
They constitute “three
days” by ‘inclusive reckoning’ to the hour and minute and second;
They constitute “three
days” by “sign of Jonah the prophet”, “three days and three
nights”;
They constitute “three
days” by Word of the LORD and
by the raising
of hand of Moses “three days thick darkness”;
They constitute “three
days” by “month and day of the month” of
passover the
fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth days of
the First Month
Feast: “Observe the Month of Abib!”;
They constitute “three
days” by “declaration of the Gospel .....
first of all,
How that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
and (also)
How that He was
buried (for our sins according to the Scriptures),
and (finally)
How that He rose
again (for our sins) according to the Scriptures the third day.”
Seen from “the structure of Jesus’ wording in the light
of the rest of the Bible” the “three days and three nights” or “three
days and three nights”-”three days”, NEVER involved other or strange
or just any, or LESS, or MORE, or, parts only, of ‘days’ or ‘days and nights’
than THESE “three days” of the ESCHATOLOGICAL WHOLENESS of the “three
days and three nights”-”three days” of Jesus’ declaration regarding “the
PROPHET, Jonah”; or of Paul’s declaration regarding “the third day
according to the Scriptures”.
If you’re not
talking of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” the
passover Scriptures, you’re off the subject of the “three days” or of “the
third day” or of the “three days and three nights” altogether; you
will never be able to ‘resolve’
anything. You won’t be able to “weigh the implications imposed by a literal
reading”. You will and must
certainly FAIL before having won “quest
for the truth” of the fact – without hesitation or doubt – that Jesus “rose
from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures”: “In Sabbath Day’s fullness”.
First delivery
ends, 2 December 2009.
Gerhard Ebersöhn
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul R. Finch
To: gerhard
Sent: Friday,
December 04, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re:
Passover's Papers
Hi Gerhard,
First of all, the name of my book is not “Passover's Papers,” but “The Passover Papers.”
Second, I had written two different versions of this book. One in 1998, and a
revised version in 2009. You quoted from the 1998 version, but you referenced
the 2009 version, which was completely revised from that which you quoted.
Third, where did you get this title “Three days not calendar days?” Those are not my words, but you make it seem as if they were.
Fourth, since you have not read my book in its entirety, you are like the fool who answers a matter before he hears all the facts - it is a folly and a shame to him (Prov. 18:13).
Fifth, you state:
“That it was the day before the Sabbath that Jesus was crucified” is no more than the opinion of PRF. During whole the age of the apostles no one has ever claimed or taught “that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified”. Not the simplest reading of the Gospel accounts shows “that it was the day before the Sabbath that He was crucified”. It is PRF who says it.
Go back and read Luke 23:54-56.
Sixth, your writing style is so convoluted that I have no idea what you believe. You put a lot of effort and time into a complete circumlocution that is impossible to follow, nor fathom. Is there something you want to say, then say it! Get to the point! Any point! Is there some point that you are trying to make that is supposed to change my mind or my thinking? I haven't the slightest idea, nor would I expect anyone else would either.
Seventh,
I answer from the standpoint of the believer in God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit— one who believes the Holy Scriptures for the Written Word of God Tri-Une that it is.
“God Tri-Une”? And you tell me your not steeped in Catholic tradition? To put in your words, during the whole age of the apostles no one has ever claimed nor taught “God Tri-Une!” Those are GE's words, not the Bible's. Two can play at this stupid game.
Not impressed,
Paul R. Finch
_____________
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for having replied.
I come in peace, for the sake of the truth of the Scriptures, the Truth of the Gospel. Which I believe you also do. But I would come forward for the truth, even have you not believed; only then I would not have spoken to YOU, but to all others I come in contact with and believe. Therefore let us for the time being leave behind our OTHER differences, to concentrate on our present differences.
I apologise, 'first of all', for my typo, which I did rectify the moment after I had had your e-mail sent.
Next, I am trying to answer that which I have read and still am reading FROM your book, second edition. If I may be mistaken, it will be due to my misunderstanding of that which I have had read. Thank God it is a free world, and you are most welcome to shoot me down. I shall be thankful to you if you do; I do not want to make mistakes.
Allow me please, to tell you something. Be patient with me please, if for my sake only. I have been studying the Bible all my life and the Sabbath was the focus-point of my studies all my life. Now I have a brother two years my junior in years but my superior in intelligence, knowledge and experience by very far, who also loves God and his Written Word although he has spent the energies of his life on other studies than the Bible mostly. We have all our lives loved one another dearly, and have lived close friends. And only last night, he told me something most basic to my field of interest in the Faith that I never could IMAGINE he, also, believed, but have always thought he seriously differed about with me. So, whether I have read your book in whole or not, what difference would it make? I may still be totally mistaken about it on any number of points and perhaps even about the main focus of it ...... how much more, about the author of your book ......
But here is the punch-line. I and my brother have not OPENLY, REPEATEDLY, SPOKEN, ENOUGH, MAN TO MAN, ON SPECIFICS. That is the trouble, not only with modern technology; it is the trouble of our religious devotion _AS CHRISTIANS_ more than anything else.
Then about your fifth point in your mail to me, “Go back and read Luke 23:54-56.” I shall return the favour, dear Paul R. Finch. Let us do it together, NOW, OPENLY, REPEATEDLY, SPOKEN, ENOUGH, MAN TO MAN, ON SPECIFICS.
SPOKEN:
54
“And that day _was_” ['ehn', Constative, Factual, Aorist = “had been”] -
“That Day had been The Preparation and .....”
“..... and the Sabbath _drew on_ ['epefohsken', Imperfect, “while going on drawing near”:-
'epi'=“MID”; 'fohs'=“LIGHT”; 'k-en'=“having been” < simply, “mid-afternoon”] .....
“That Day had been The Preparation and mid-afternoon the Sabbath (still) drawing near .....”
“..... And (mid-afternoon the Sabbath still drawing near) .....
“..... the women also, following after [in the procession after Joseph and Nicodemus carrying the body] .....
“.....
who (having come with Him from
“..... beheld ['saw into'] the tomb and how his body was placed then ('etetheh' Punctiliar Aorist) .....
“..... and having returned [home] they BEGAN to prepare ('hehtoimasan' Ingressive Aorist) spices and ointments. .....
“..... Strictly when it was Sabbath ['kai to men sabbaton'] they began to rest ['ehsuchasan' Ingressive Aorist] .....
“..... according to the [Fourth] Commandment.”
End of pericope.
1) What have WE, read of the Crucifixion? Nothing.
2) This was Friday? I think we agree, it was.
3) Was this Friday, beginning? No.
4) Was this, Friday, ENDED? No.
5) Was this, Friday, ENDING? From verse 54 up to 54A, it was.
6) Where is Friday, ENDED? From 56B on.
What have WE, read of the Crucifixion? Nothing.
What have WE, read of the BURIAL? ONLY, that, and how, and, WHEN, it was being FINISHED.
So, how long has this been AFTER the Crucifixion? FROM Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Jn19:31/38 and Lk23:50.
Since WHEN has it been the BURIAL therefore? FROM “HAVING BEEN EVENING ALREADY” ['ehdeh opsias genomenehs']
For how long has it been the BURIAL? ONE FULL DAY of night and day; no more; no less; Abib 15, ‘inclusive’.
The Crucifixion in Lk23:54-65? Sorry, could not be found.
God bless
GE
PS
My second delivery, DV to follow soon; please be willing to receive it.
Paul R. Finch:
Here's the
chronological break down.
Day One,
Friday, Calendar date Nisan 14.
Jesus
Crucified:
“There they
crucified him” Luke 23:33
“And the day
was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on” Luke 23:54
Day Two,
Saturday, Calendar date Nisan 15
Women return
to their homes and rest on Sabbath day “according to the (fourth)
commandment” Luke 23:56.
Day Three,
Sunday, Calendar date Nisan 16
On first day
of the week, women bring spices and found the stone rolled away. Luke 24:1.
Jesus risen on
the third calendar day. Any other scenario different from this one is reading
personal theories into the text that are simply not there. Any other scenario
is simply anti-biblical. Enough said! End of story!
Dear Paul R.
Finch,
Your 'breakdown'
includes events of Crucifixion day and IGNORES its ending as well as the
beginning of Burial day in Lk23:50, the parallel text of Mk15:42/Mt27:57,
Jn1931/38
KJV,
Lk23:54a, ”And that day was ....”, is “That Day was great day of
sabbath's esteem” of Jn19:31, BUT, in Lk23:54 ending, whereas in Jn19:31 it
was beginning ..... The events that in between occurred filled those in-between-hours
from after that “Now already it had become evening .....” until “.....
mid-afternoon the Sabbath approaching”.
A conception of
the “three days” that does not recognise the “in-between-sabbath”
/ the “in-the-bone-of-day day” / “That Day”, “great day of
sabbath's-esteem” of Abib 15, is INCOMPLETE and does not - yes,
cannot - provide a thorough 'breakdown'
of the “three days and three nights”-”three days” eschatological
wholeness and INTEGRITY!
But the fact you
are taking things seriously is promising of an honest and teachable
spirit.
11 December 2009
Second
delivery
Eschatological
Wholeness the “three days and three nights”-”three days”-”sign
of the Prophet Jonah”
Paul
R Finch:
Are
we to believe that after making such a point of his exact time
in
the tomb that no one was there to witness that fact—that exactly one second
after 71 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds in the tomb Jesus suddenly opens his
eyes—yet no one was even remotely aware of this fact, nor was it ever mentioned
in any literature until now that this was the all important aspect of the
Resurrection?
GE:
No, we are not
to believe it like you described here it is supposed, or for the reason
mentioned, “making such a point of his
exact time”. No, certainly not.
Yet, taken in
its eschatological wholeness the “three days and three nights”-”three
days”-”sign of the Prophet Jonah” and the other Prophets like Moses
as seen from the perspective of FULFILLED Word of God (‘retrospectively’) it is a simple conclusion the prophetic “three
days” were usual solar days that in hours would count up to 72 hours. But surely that was not what Jesus meant as
any normal minded person will happily admit.
The Armstrongites went overboard, clearly; but now we must not follow
after them. .
Jesus with using
his illustration from Jonah, was referring to THE RELEVANT and SAME days so
OFTEN referred to in the Gospels as the “three days”— “on the third
day” OF WHICH, He would rise from the dead again.
There is NO WAY
of denying the three, “DAYS”; there is NO WAY of denying the “THREE”, days;
there is NO WAY of denying they were THESE “three days” of “the SIGN
of the PROPHET Jonah” and PROPHECY in general and in WHOLE. And there’s NO
WAY of the denying “the THIRD day” of these three days for having been
the Sabbath of Jesus’ Resurrection at last in fulfilment of the Will,
well-pleasing and rest of God. There is NO WAY of denying they were THE “three
days” of Jesus’ sin-atoning WOE, of his DESCENT into hell’s anguish of
Egypt’s ninth plague of “THICK DARKNESS THREE DAYS”, and --- here’s the
significance of the “in the heart of the earth three DAYS, AND, three NIGHTS”
--- it would “NIGHT AND DAY”, BE DARKNESS! And “on the third day”, it would
DARKNESS OF HELL be OVERCOME AND EXPELLED!
Even the
darkness midst of day in the NOON of day, “from the sixth to the ninth hour”
when Jesus died, was STILL, Prophecy of the darkness when, “Behold!” (‘kai idou’) Jesus
resurrected: “from the DEAD”
and from the DARKNESS of death “MIDST of day / in the NOON of day Sabbath’s”
(‘sabbatohn-en-tehi-epifohskousehi”). “I-AM—
The Light of the world” even in resurrection from the dead.
Mark! the
‘darkness’ that marked “the third day’s” “day”, was NO worse than
the darkness that marked “the first day’s” “day” which was a
darkness both visible and physical of “That night”, but also was the
darkness of CHRIST IN HIS SUFFERING.
Christ in the darkness of suffering “In the Kingdom of My Father”
dying the death of hell which no mortal eye could behold and live. It was Christ’s anguish in the ‘spiritual’
darkness of the wages of sin: the “IN
THE HEART OF THE EARTH three days and three nights”- “DARKNESS”: “That Night”, of “even the
first day” already. This was the darkness of
THESE “three
days” of “three days and three nights” are ESCHATOLOGICALLY
VINDICATED even in THEIR first “night” UNTIL in THEIR “third day”
as the “sign” .... “given” –
“SIGN” of the Eternal Covenant of Grace. (Not of “72 hours”.)
These “three
days” were God’s CHOSEN “three days”. They THEREFORE from of old with the view to
Jesus Christ Crucified, and, Buried, and, Risen “three days and three nights”
were instituted, and “in these last
days” “through the Son” through Resurrection from the dead were VINDICATED,
“BY”, “IN” [[Mt28:1 ‘sabbatohn’ Ablative
as well as Genitive]], “the THIRD day according to the Scriptures” of
THESE “three days”-”three days and three nights”:- “Sabbath’s”,
“So that God the Seventh Day, RESTED”.
Paul
R Finch:
This
is why this question is so important. It shades the entire
essence
of what Jesus was trying to convey. In other words, if the day/night formula
was merely an expression indicating calendar days, then the emphasis of what
Jesus said was not the amount of elapsed time but on the Resurrection itself.
GE:
Which ‘question’? I assume, this ‘question’, “Are we to believe
that after making such a point of his exact time in the tomb ..... that this
was the all important aspect of the Resurrection?” Paul R. Finch is right. Let me return to this ‘question’ of PRF
quickly. He answers the 72-hours theorists. He says, “Are we to believe ..... that no one was there to witness that fact
..... no one was aware of this fact?”
What does Finch mean was the “fact”? There is no possibility of a “fact” in the entire supposition; on
nobody’s part except Christ’s own— the fact of his Resurrection long before the
issue became one of “a point of his exact
time”. There existed no possibility
the text meant ‘in the earth’ or “in the
tomb” as such. The “three days and three nights” have bearing on
Jesus’ whole EXPERIENCING OF BEING “IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”—
figurative language for to human perception invisible, ‘spiritual’, yea,
DIVINE, anguish; the affliction of DEATH of the conscious and alive Anointed of
God. Christ Anointed with the pangs of
death; Christ crowned with the glory of overcoming sin and death and darkness;
Christ victorious IN BATTLE! It makes it
ONLY Christ’s and His UNIQUE suffering dying death and enduring hell’s
self-consuming desires, “EVEN, the first day” and, “That Day”-”in
the bone of day-day”, and, “the third day”-”First Sheaf Wave
Offering Before the LORD”-day.
“In the heart
of the earth” is figurative language; “three days and three nights”
is literal language. Christ’s last SUFFERING for the sins of many lasted three
literal days of each a night and a day, that there can be NO DOUBT as to WHICH “three
days and three nights”-”three days” He was referring. They were the “three
days” of
Which Jesus and
all the Prophets spoke about. Which
truth annihilates the Friday died Sunday rose lie ..... Which truth annihilates
the Wednesday crucifixion nonsense ..... and the novelty of the Thursday
crucifixion Sunday resurrection innovation.
Paul
R Finch:
But
if the expression (“in the earth three days and three nights”) was to indicate
that 3 day periods and 3 night periods, consisting of 12 hours each, must
transpire, then the emphasis is only secondarily on the Resurrection, but
primarily on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the earth. Simply
put, it changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life
into a stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of.
GE:
Absolutely
true! Then again, Absolutely, NO!
Because there will be NO difference if the
expression (“in the earth three days and three nights”) was to indicate that 3 NIGHT periods and 3 DAY periods, consisting of 12 hours each, must transpire”.
There will be no
difference because what is it that ACTUALLY places “the emphasis on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the
earth”?
That there are, “3 NIGHT periods and 3 DAY periods”? Well, is that not what Jesus said, having
said, “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”?
No, says PRF,
I’m talking of the SEQUENCE “in the earth
three days and three nights”.
So then is it
for nothing that you said, “consisting of
12 hours each, must transpire”? For
that, because Jesus did NOT SAY THAT, must be WHAT actually should have induced
the conclusion “then the emphasis is
..... primarily on the exact timing for Jesus to be in the heart of the earth”
and “only secondarily on the Resurrection”.
Paul
R. Finch:
Simply
put, it changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life
into a stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of.
GE:
Yes; put like
that, it’s absolutely so. But who but
the Armstrongites insist on such ‘stop-watch
timing’? Now PRF in principle does
the very same thing they did; he only places the emphasis on the literal
sequence of night then day, instead of on the literal hours and minutes of “three
days and three nights”— which in that sequence in any case are going to end sunrise
after 72 hours to the minute and even seconds!
So who is
placing “the emphasis only secondarily on
the Resurrection, (and) primarily on the exact timing”? Who, “simply,
changes the entire color of the event from the miracle of restored life into a
stop-watch event which nobody, it seems, took special note of”? WHO?
And what is the
party’s ‘formula’ for successfully
having avoided the fiasco? The ‘formula’ to turn – in the party’s own
words – ‘idiomatic usage’ or ‘idiomatic expression’ of days and
nights, into – in literal sequence – nights and days! It so depended on where
one would like to place the emphasis that makes all the difference ..... or
rather, it all depended on one’s motivation to choose where to put the
emphasis.
Now it is
interesting despite its total clarity, the real reason behind people’s choice
to place all the emphasis on the ‘time-element’
no matter where or how. The real reason
is no mystery or secret; it’s so obvious it passes scrutiny after scrutiny
after scrutiny ..... like it passed this instance of the closest inspection of
Paul R Finch himself UNDETECTED! The
reason being? This part of “the
expression” of “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”,
the “In the heart of the earth”
part. “In the heart of the
earth” is being confused for being “in the earth”; the figurative is
lost in the literal. Jesus’ live suffering dying death is reduced to his ‘stay
in the tomb’.
The real reason
behind people’s choice, “the fact of the
Resurrection ..... on Sunday” – and its supporting “fact”, “the fact that Jesus
died the day before the Sabbath” –, are the result purely of NOT seeing
..... no, of IGNORING or / and of DENYING
the ENTIRETY of “That Day great day of sabbath’s significance” in
“the Gospel accounts” which “ESSENTIALLY
WAS DAY” FOR AND OF BURIAL— which “in-the-bone-of-day-was-day” FOR
AND OF BURIAL..... on ‘Friday’, when NOTHING any longer had to do with the
Crucifixion! It is all to get out of
THIS dilemma, that EVERYBODY regardless get stuck on the PRESUPPOSED but in
reality non-issue of “the time element”
with regard to the “three days and three nights” utterance of Jesus in
Mt12:40.
In the very
first place the reason why an issue is made of the ‘time-element’ in Mt12:40 and other Scriptures like Mt28:1 and Mk15:42
and Jn19:42 (and each and every Sabbath- or First Day of the week related
texts), is to get away with their tainted tradition of Sunday veneration. For
which hope and desire Christians consciously will lose conscience and go to
such lengths as to manipulate the Scriptures in favour of their
affections.
Paul
R Finch:
Another
very important factor to keep in mind is that if the
expression
is to be understood in the sense of 72 hours, is that, unless you begin the
timing of the event exactly at the beginning of the day, the only way that you
can total 72 hours is to spread the balance of the remaining day or night
portion not used in the beginning period to be applied to the fourth calendar
day. This is a very, very important factor to keep in mind throughout this
study.
GE:
Absolutely! You may add another ‘dimension’. One cannot
place the death of Jesus on the day BEFORE the “three days” and count
only his SUPPOSED stay in the GRAVE for the whole of “three days” without
adding another day. Together with the inevitable fourth day as the result of
what you have explained, Jesus’ death by ‘inclusive reckoning’ three hours
before sunset adds up another and fifth day if the phrase “three days and
three nights” is regarded exclusively applicable to the three words He was “in
the earth” for meaning ‘in the grave’.
I think we still agree .....
Paul
R Finch:
Some
have maintained that since Jesus was entombed right at
sunset,
then there is no balance to be brought over to the fourth calendar day. This is
plausible.....
GE:
What
substantially is there “plausible” in
“this”? Nothing.
Not even the smallest of a fraction of a second, what some real extent
of time between two days that is neither the first nor the last. It’s nonsensical implausibility.
Paul
R Finch:
But
there is one thing that doesn’t sit right with this idea either. This would mean that Jesus was entombed in
reverse order of three nights and three days and not the other way around. Why
did Matthew get it backwards?
GE:
It
seems you backtracked. Now you are
saying “that this [“three days and three nights”] was
an expression for calendar days, rather than .....”. And before, you have
said, “..... if the day/night formula [“three
days and three nights”] was merely an
expression indicating calendar days, then the emphasis of what Jesus said was
not the amount of elapsed time but on the Resurrection itself.”
Why
did you say, “merely”? And how could
you scrape off Bullinger’s remark, “The
Christian Church ..... held .....
calendar day”, because “The
attention getting aspect [“three days and three nights”] certainly played right into the hands of
former soap advertising man turned “Apostle,” Herbert W. Armstrong”?
However
.....
Paul R
Finch:
This [“three days and three nights”] would
mean that Jesus was entombed in reverse order of three nights and three days
and not the other way around. Why did Matthew get it backwards?
GE:
No,
there is no “backwards” or “reverse order of three nights and three days”. It’s simply the way REFERENCE is being made
to the SAME group of calendar days on the Hebrew almanac— or rather, on GOD’S
calendar— of these, three, first, Passover of Yahweh days and their dates.
Jesus’
intention in Mt12:40 is retrospective; He spoke from the point of view of after
the events as they happened. The events
of the “three days”-in-full-”three days and three nights” ‘in
essence’-‘in the bone of’, were THREE only and —‘in essence’-‘in the bone of’— ONE only: “HE IN IT (ALL) TRIUMPHED ..... He
hath quickened you together with Him having forgiven you all trespasses
blotting out the document against you .... nailing it to the cross.”
There
is – in the end – NO distinction between Christ Triumphator “quickened”
and Christ Triumphator “nailed to the cross”. He is The Risen
Crucified. Christ, “according to the
Scriptures”, is Triumphator as much “IN-THE-BONE-OF-DAY DAY” and
DEATH, “THAT-DAY” of his BURIAL, as He is Christ Triumphator on the days
before and after— “even on the first day” as “on the third day—
according to the Scriptures”.
Sequence
disappears in the heat and “DARKNESS” of the battle. “DARKNESS THREE
DAYS THICK”— “three days and three nights” INDISTINGUISHABLE. “Three days”-IN-FULL-”three days
and three nights”, “DARKNESS”!
Christ’s
Lordship and Lord’s Day are won, “wrought”, and “obtained” in
VICTORY in the days of battle, AS, in the Last Day of Celebration and Rest.
Christ “even on the first day” as at the table of the Lord and
CRUCIFIED, is entered in into “the
Therefore
read, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly
– which is possible only after that Jonas had been in the whale’s belly and in
being redeemed from it – “SO, shall
the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”
which – like with Jonas – is possible only after Jesus had been in the heart of
the earth “three days and three nights”. Therefore the focus is from
AFTER that He had risen from the dead; from AFTER that Jesus had availed, and
from AFTER He had been crowned the Anointed of God.
“So
shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights IN THE HEART of the earth”
TRIUMPHANT— in Victory as in
The
order of “days” and “nights” is not “reversed”; it is seen in perspective— the perspective of Christ in
the Finished, Sanctified and Blessed and Perfected Works of His Father through
Resurrection from the dead and from darkness of hell; with “the last enemy,
death, DESTROYED” “In Sabbath’s being in bright daylight”!
(‘sabbatohn en tehi epiphohskousehi’)
Paul
R Finch:
For
sure, it seems that his (Matthew’s) order was the traditional order of the
Hebrew term for calendar days, which are counted from morning to morning.
Indeed, this fact alone lends more weight to the idea that this was an
expression for calendar days, rather than trying to be precise in mapping out
the timing of the Resurrection.
GE:
Another instance
of premature – and still born – “fact”. “It
seems”, says PRF at first; but no sooner, says he, “this fact alone lends more weight .....”.
That these “three
days” of “three days and three nights” were calendar days on the ‘Hebrew calendar’ is surely correct, but
the fact has no bearing on either the word-order of the passage or the order of
sequence of night and day as a way to reckon the day-cycle in the Bible.
After the book
of Exodus and with it only the (partial) exception, there is no single case in
all of Scripture upon which to base the assumption “Hebrew calendar days are counted from morning to morning”.
SCORES of plain
statements and clear inferences and implications lie scattered throughout
relevant Scriptures in both Old and New Testaments with regard to the ‘method’
or ‘tradition’ how ‘Hebrew calendar days are
counted’, showing and confirming and declaring it was from sunset to sunset
or from “evening to evening”, and not “from sunrise to sunrise” or “from
morning to morning”.
No matter which
way round days used to be “counted”,
it has no bearing on the meaning or the interpretation of Matthew’s use of
word-order in 12:40. This statement by
Jesus was never intended to show the order of how days ought to be ‘counted’ or
‘reckoned’.
That these “three
days” of “three days and three nights” Prophetic Significance were
calendar days on the ‘Hebrew calendar’ is surely correct, but the fact has no
bearing on either
1) the word-order of the passage, or
2) the sequence of day then night or vice versa
as the way to reckon the day-cycle in the Bible, or
3) the length in measured time of these “three
days” of “three days and three nights” together (or one by one)—
each of which
predispositions are abstract and arbitrary.
Actual ‘fact’ is, the expression “in the
heart of the earth three days and three nights” in Mt12:40 DOES lend weight
to BOTH ‘ideas’,
1) “that
this was an expression for calendar days” and, for
2) “precise
mapping out the timing of the Resurrection”.
Why should the
two ideas be mutually exclusive? They ‘rather’
are mutually supportive and complementary.
Paul
R Finch:
Another
theory that has been advanced to solve the problem is
that
of Charles Kimbrough and Mark Carr. They see the three days and three nights
being literal and explain .....
GE:
It is true, “the three days and three nights being
literal”; it is not true ‘literal’ means sequence first day then night.
‘Literal’ means – in Paul R Finch’s words – “calendar days”; in other words, days as dates and dates as days,
full-cycle earthly solar days determined scientifically by the Hebrews
astrometrically from vernal equinox and first after new moon.
It is true, “the three days and three nights being
literal”; but it is not true ‘literal’ demands day-night-order, or night-day-order. The religious ‘tradition’ – in our case the
‘Biblical tradition’ – independent of the atrometric science by which the first
day of each year is determined – is what indicates day-cycle-order; which I
believe in the whole Bible is first night then day (except in Exodus where both
the night-day and day-night orders are found).
Paul
R. Finch:
Charles
Kimbrough and Mark Carr ..... explain:
“The
three days and three nights, then, began from the time he was
HANDED
over to Pilate—which started AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN on Thursday morning the 14th
of Nisan, the DAY portion.…
GE:
Kimbrough
and Carr
don’t mention that Jesus Himself in so many words declared where and when HIS “three
days” of “three days and three nights”, had begun—
In Luke, ‘The three days and three nights in the
Life of Christ began from’ 22:7,
“Then came
(“began” – ‘ehlthen de’) the day of no-leaven / de-leaven when the
passover MUST be KILLED. And He sent Peter and John, commanding them: Go and
PREPARE US THE PASSOVER that WE may eat”.
“The Master
commands thee, Where is The Guest’s chamber WHERE I MUST EAT The Passover
(of Yahweh)? ..... And WHEN THE HOUR WAS COME HE SAT DOWN and the apostles
with him .....”— the beginnings of the Son of God in descent into hell as
an analogy of the beginning of His Victorious Goings-Through and Crowning as
Risen Christ “Set at the right hand of God”.
“And He said
unto them, WITH DESIRE I DESIRED THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME.”
(Infinitive of Noun-force.)
This certainly
is one of the most meaningful sayings of Christ.
Here the
Anointed of God comes to stand before THAT FOR WHICH He was anointed— his whole
LIFE’S PURPOSE.
This was “Mine
hour” of already in Jn2:4!
“Lo, TO DO
THY WILL o God!”
“THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
I DESIRED WITH DESIRE.” Christ set his heart on this end before and above
everything.
He “being in
the form of God” for “THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME”, “made
Himself of no reputation (and)
took upon Him
the form of SERVANT (of the LORD).”
For “THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME”
“He was made in the likeness of men”.
For “THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME”
“He humbled Himself”.
“FOR THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME”
Jesus Christ “BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH— even the death of the cross.”
“FOR THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
..... FOR THIS CAUSE UNTO THIS HOUR
..... CAME I”
(and, came I
into the world).
“THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME
..... THIS HOUR ..... WHEN Jesus knew that HIS HOUR WAS COME that He should
depart out of this world UNTO THE FATHER .....”
“THIS-TO-SUFFER-PASSOVER-BEFORE-ME” “is THIS your HOUR and the power of
darkness.”
“And He TOOK
THE CUP ..... and declared ..... THIS
..... I will drink no more ..... UNTIL THAT DAY that I drink it NEW IN THE
“THIS DAY
EVEN THIS NIGHT” verse 30
“My soul is
exceedingly sorrowful UNTO DEATH.” 34.
“In the
Therefore,
NOT
where or when or
“from the time he was HANDED over to
Pilate ..... AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN on Thursday morning the 14th of Nisan, the DAY
portion —”
BUT
on the Fifth Day
of the week “the 14th of Nisan’”
“Now BEFORE
the Feast of the Passover ..... SUPPER .....” Jn13:1,
“In the
evening” Mk14:17,
“Now when
even was come” Mt26:27,
“And the HOUR
was come” Lk22:14,
“and it was
NIGHT” Jn13:30b,
is when and from
where “The three days and three nights,
began”.
Kimbrough and
Carr:
The
time while He was being prepared for burial before the High Sabbath; all of Thursday
(day portion of 14th), Thursday night, Friday (15th), Friday night, Saturday
(16th), and Saturday night up to the earthquake WHILE IT WAS YET DARK (John
20:1) on Sunday (Nisan 17), ‘As it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week’ (Matt. 28:1). EXACTLY 2 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS!”
GE:
“The time while He was being prepared for
burial before the High Sabbath”—
“Being prepared for burial” can also be
interpreted for Christ’s suffering dying death and being crucified and
killed. That then, was – as I have tried
to show above – from the Last Supper the night and first part of the Fifth Day
of the week, that Night and its following day the whole day of Christ’s
Suffering “unto death” before and through his crucifixion. Christ’s
laying down his life by the Power invested in Himself as ‘preparation to be buried’ honourably, Victor by feat of ‘the death
of death in the death of Christ’ (Owen).
But I know the
intention is not “Being prepared for
burial” to be interpreted thus.
Therefore “the time ..... being
prepared for burial” is wrong; “the
time ..... being prepared for burial” cannot come before Crucifixion and
Death; it must follow Crucifixion and Death.
“The time while ..... before the High Sabbath”
was the day upon which Jesus was CRUCIFIED, “The Preparation of the Passover’s
(Feast Day)” Jn19:14, Abib 14.
“Even the
first day” of the passover “when they always killed the Passover”—
all of ‘the Fifth Day of the week’ (Wednesday-night and Thursday day), which
fell on Abib 14 in that year.
And here’s the
BIG difference:
“The time while He was being prepared for
burial .....” AFTER SUNSET DURING THE NIGHT “SINCE it was The
Preparation AND THAT DAY WAS High Sabbath”
Jn19:31, “now already having become evening ..... which is the Fore-Sabbath”
Mk15:42 and Sixth Day of the week ..... BEGINNING “when suddenly there was a
man named Joseph ..... he went unto Pilate” while “the body” still
hung on the cross.
Only HERE “the time while He was being prepared for
burial”, literally began. And this,
“That Day”
OF AND FOR BURIAL EXCLUSIVELY,
Abib
15
“in the bone of day-day”,
‘all of’ its night-‘portion’ Thursday night, AND,
‘all of’ its day-‘portion’ Friday day
STARTING TO END,
here: Lk23:54 and Jn19:42,
“MID-AFTERNOON
..... by the time of the Jews’ preparation”
‘epefohsken
sabbaton ..... dia tehn paraskeuehn tou Ioudaiohn’
beginning for
the weekly Sabbath day.
And therefore
THESE “three days and three nights”-”three days” of the passover,
the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sixteenth days ONLY (not “Nisan 17” also)— these which each of,
was ‘FIRST DAY’ of passover in own right “according to the Scriptures”:
1) the day “They always killed the passover
(and) removed leaven”;
2) the day “you must eat it together with
unleavened bread”;
3) “the day after the sabbath” of the
passover “you must wave the First Sheaf before the LORD.”
“...... and Saturday night”, does not feature
at all.
It cannot be
allowed to say that it was “Saturday
night up to the earthquake WHILE IT WAS YET DARK (John 20:1) on Sunday (Nisan
17)”.
“Saturday night up to the earthquake”
..... Where is that written? Where is
just the word, “night” written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, “Sabbath’s, full day, in the very light being of
Sabbath.” (‘opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi’)
“..... up to the earthquake” ..... Where
is that written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, “WHEN THERE WAS a great earthquake .... descended
the angel of the Lord .....”.
“..... on Sunday (Nisan 17)” ..... Where is
that written?
No; on the contrary,
it is written, “as it began to dawn TOWARDS the First Day of the week.” (‘eis mian sabbatohn’)
“..... WHILE IT
WAS YET DARK (John 20:1) .....” Where is that, written?
No; on the
contrary, it is written, “While it was still / yet EARLY darkness” – that is, after sunset; not
before sunrise.
“..... YET
DARK ..... As it began to dawn .....”
Where is that, written?
No; it nowhere
and in no manner, not even remotely in context, is written.
Paul
R Finch:
This
is a fascinating theory, but it is still based upon the
traditional
assumption that Matthew’s Hebrew expression was a stop watch event. In other
words, if Jesus was buried on Wednesday, Nisan 14, according to this new
theory, he was resurrected on the Sabbath, Nisan 17, the fourth calendar day
from the Crucifixion. The traditional view has Jesus arising on the third
calendar day, Nisan 16. Therefore, the entire subject boils down to whether
Jesus was trying to convey a stop watch event or merely used an expression
which was in vogue among the Jews.
GE:
“..... the traditional assumption that
Matthew’s Hebrew expression was a stop watch event.”
Ingenious! I have never before encountered either ‘the tradition’ or ‘the assumption’ the phrase, “three
days and three nights” in Mt12:40 is a “Hebrew
expression”, or, “was a stop watch
event”; nor have I seen another person who did.
“.....Matthew’s Hebrew expression .....” I
read Greek here.
“So SHALL (‘estai’)
the Son of Man .....”, the Future .....
The Future “used
in the expression of a command .... ‘the Imperative Future’”, Dana and Manty,
‘A Manual Grammar’, “..... be careful NOT to take this idiom as a Hebraism, for
it is of frequent occurrence in Attic Greek. ..... It is just another case
where parallel idioms appear in both languages [Jonas in both Hebrew OT, and
Greek LXX], it being therefore, the frequency, and not the fact of the idiom in
the New Testament which shows Septuagint influence.” Close quotation.
I would stick
out my ignorant neck and dare call this Future, a “‘Gnomic Future’. The
statement OF A FACT or performance.” D&M.
[“A fact” necessarily, is a PAST “performance.”]
‘Gnomic’,
Collins English Dictionary: “of or relating to a writer of aphorisms” (like
Jonas).
‘Aphorism’— a
maxim, definition, limit, boundary, expressed in a short, pithy, saying— like
having been “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”.
Examples given
by D&M, ‘ékastos gar to ídion fortíon bastásei’ - “each shall bear his own
burden” = “each shall HAVE BORNE his own burden” Gl6:5; “scarcely for a
righteous man will one die” = “scarcely for a righteous man will one have died”
Ro5:7; “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother” = “For this
cause shall a man have left his father and mother”. The action is seen from a
retrospective future viewpoint as past and ‘performed’, ‘fact’.
Quoting Paul R. Finch, ‘Passover
Papers’, Note 394, “..... There are many places in the Scriptures that
link the day and night in referring to a calendar day in a historical event.....
In the creation story..... the Flood story—[we’re all familiar with the “forty
days and forty nights”]..... Moses’ stay on
Indeed, “Jonah, who WAS in the great fish FOR A
PERIOD OF “three days and three nights.”.....” the “PERIOD” seen from ‘after’ to before ‘after’.
PRF makes
reference to the same source I have answered to in my my critique against the
view Thursday Morning “Delivered”,
Sunday Morning Resurrected, in
book 1/1, ‘Crucifixion’, pp 181, 183-185, Par. 5.1.1.6.5,
edition ISBN 978-0-620-41731-0; 978-0-620-41732-7.
Then yes, and in
each case, it is an instance of ‘re-lating / re-telling’— history; narrating
something ‘AS AFTER’ its actual occurrence and after that it HAD happened;
giving hindsight— making retrospection.
Not in one
instance is it a commandment, an instruction or prescription to set the norm
(except perhaps from the nature of the case ‘in the creation story’), or an institutionalisation about
observance or ‘reckoning’ or ‘counting’ of days. One does not make law with
idiom that may be ambiguous. One tells ‘stories’,
using the tool of idiom, to make it interesting.
Then – as soon
as these examples (of PRF) are analysed one by one, things begin to look quite
different.
For example, the
very first example, “In the creation story”.....
“Always these expressions are given in the precise
order of the demarcation of a calendar day .....”. That is Paul R Finch’s
observation, not mine! Now at the time
of the creation there haven’t been any days yet, not to mention calendars. Non the less, WHAT IS, “the precise order of the demarcation of ..... day(s)”, “In the creation story”? Was the light
before the darkness the First Day?
Enough said; it
is not now the time to go into these, or such, detail. It simply is not true
anywhere in the Bible a day-cycle must be regarded as from sunrise to sunrise—
EXCEPT in Moses’ Second Book— except, BEFORE the exodus. In other words, the
ONLY real observance of days from sunrise to sunrise ever – in the Bible –
occurred where the dominion of darkness – sun-worship – ruled the day and ruled
the world. Paganism is the environment of
“the superstitious and idolatrous veneration of days, months, seasons, years”
where the SUN is the “first principle of the world” around which days
revolved and TIME as such is regarded from that the sun-god rises and again and
again conquers days, seasons, years; days, seasons, years ..... (Gl4:10)
Where the sun is
the eternal, there “days” are “worshipped” (not simply
‘reckoned’, but ‘paratehrein’) sunrise to sunrise. Where Yahweh is The Mighty,
there, HE – “I-AM” The Eternal –
is worshipped “Sabbaths, from evening to evening”, “from
Sabbath to Sabbath”— and all other days are determined “according-to-Sabbath”,
the Hebrew idiom translated, ‘of the week’, even so that the days are NAMED “of
the Sabbath”: “First Day of the Sabbath”, “Second Day of Sabbath”
etcetera; in the New Testament, e.g.,
“First Day of the week” (eight times).
That is why the sunrise reckoning of the day is detectable in the life
of God’s People ONLY while they “SERVED-WORSHIPPED” UNDER EGYPTIAN
BONDAGE.
PRF:
The
Day of the Crucifixion—Friday or Wednesday? the exact number of hours, minutes
and seconds of a stop-watch event? Or is the “day/night” formula to be taken
simply as an ancient expression of how the Hebrew people designated a calendar
day? This is an entirely reasonable question to ask without any fear
that
we are trying to compromise the words of Scripture.
GE:
If necessity
means reasonableness, this is a rather superfluous question to ask. I have several times now shown that without “trying to compromise the words of Scripture”
the true meaning in every respect of Jesus’ words in Mt12:40, “so shall the
Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”, does
not require that the actual duration of these “three days and three nights”
should be ‘compromised’ in any way
whatever! Three days will be “the exact number of hours, minutes and
seconds” long, irrespective. Why
‘compromise’ plain reality? Whether “an ancient expression of how the Hebrew
people designated a calendar day” or not, the earth is not going to rotate
faster or slower because of it!
Here, is nothing
to choose between; PRF is trying to stir up a storm in a teacup.
It also is
baseless, and biased assumption, to go on about “the “day/night” formula to be taken simply as an ancient expression of
how the Hebrew people designated a calendar day” – in other words, to go on
calling the phrase “three days and three nights” a Hebraism, as if it
were Hebrew protocol. It is no “Hebrew
expression” of instruction— it is no “formula”
of the Old Testament’s or of the Hebrews of how days should be “designated (as) calendar day(s)”, whether “from
sunrise to sunrise” or from sunset to sunset. The notion “the Hebrew people designated a calendar day”
as such to be “designated .... sunrise to
sunrise” is completely foreign and strange to Jesus’ statement or the other
‘examples’ given above.
PRF has not
progressed one fraction of a second AWAY from ‘the Hebrew designated calendar day’ reckoned from sunset to sunset,
in whichever direction he aimed. I am
unable to see what Mr Finch is aiming at— only to show Bible-days were reckoned
from sunrise to sunrise as if that ‘alternative’ is necessary and conditional
to arrive at Jesus’ resurrection “On the Sabbath” or to start from the
Crucifixion on a Fifth Day of the week (Thursday)?
So, for now, What will PRF have reached, had he proven a
sunrise to sunrise Bible-day? All I
can say at this point in my study of his opinion, is, that Paul R. Finch is
going to have to explain very many Scriptures Old and New Testament which I
cannot see that he will be able to do, ever, if be his aim is to ‘prove’ a
standard “sunrise to sunrise” cycle
of days in the Bible.
PRF:
Modern interpreters appear to be the guilty
party in running wild with speculative thought based upon a lack of
understanding of Hebrew usage. After all, we know that an entire calendar day
does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour night portion? But if an
event occurs on a given calendar date, where is the justification to punch a
stop watch at that time and measure blocks of 24 hours when counting time from
that event, making sure that event only ends precisely at the same time of day
that it started? Is that what the writers were trying to convey in the above examples
when reporting these historical events? There are even further
examples
of this usage. Let us go on asking ourselves whether this is true as we go
along.
GE:
PRF found his
floor-space in horrible condition; so he starts painting it over; and painted
himself into a corner. No; his is all
talk and no more than talk. PRF has no real ‘point’ to make; he is only
blurring detail, painting over and invisible the distinction made between days
that annoys him so much for as yet no apparent reason.
Now – he, Paul
R. Finch – argues, “After all, we know
that an entire calendar day does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour
night portion?” Then – he – pleads, “But if an event occurs on a given calendar
date, where is the justification to punch a stop watch at that time [“at that time” is meant at sunset, I
assume] and measure blocks of 24 hours
when counting time from that event [sunset, it must be], making sure that event [sunset] only ends precisely at the same time of day that it started?”— at sunset
of course.
So, “merely assuming sunset”, Paul R. Finch
with many repetitions on paper of “an event”
“punch(es) a stop watch at that time and
measure blocks of 24 hours”. But by merely
assuming sunrise, Paul R. Finch with many repetitions on paper of “an event” is of the opinion no one can punch a stop watch at that time and measure
blocks of 24 hours.
As long as the “blocks of 24 hours” fall in sequence of
first day then night, preciseness is welcome and actually mandatory because, “after all, we know that an entire calendar
day does consist of a 12 hour day portion and a 12 hour night portion”. If the opposite sequence – first night then
day – is required, it’s “running wild
with speculative thought ..... punch(ing) a stop watch”.
Meanwhile .....
Who is it who is waving arms “running
wild with speculative thought”, punching,
Look! It is ..... ‘three > days > and > then > three > nights’
on my stop watch, can’t > you > see? Where is your justification to say it’s the other way around, and that I must
read from right to left: ‘three < days < and < then < three <
nights’? Who reads from right to left!? ..... forgetting he himself who is Paul
R. Finch, has called this phrase “of
Hebrew usage”.
If I may answer
and not get my head snapped off, may I ask,
But having read your examples, sir Finch, I have found, sir, that what
the writers were trying to convey in the above examples when reporting these historical events,
was, that when counting time, it was to make sure precisely the time of day. And, sir, if I may add, these writers, were
not prescribing or formulating protocol or formula
for dating calendar days.
Paul
R. Finch:
Further
examples of calendar days are found in the following
expressions.
In the case of Joseph’s brothers, “he put them all together in prison for three
days. On the third day Joseph said unto them…”
Obviously,
here calendar days are referred to and it is seen to be in an inclusive sense.
Rehoboam’s
controversy with his subjects about taxation says:
“he
said to them, `Come to me again in three days.’” “So Jeroboam and all the
people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had said.”
Again,
there is no question that calendar days are here referred to and measured
inclusively.
GE:
I am very sorry
to interrupt. But how am I to understand
you, dear Mr Finch? First you
consent: “Obviously, here calendar days are referred to and it is seen to be in
an inclusive sense.” Then you disagree: “Again, there is no question that calendar days are here referred to and
measured inclusively.”
...... Ah! Thank
you, sir; now I see ..... you are writing ‘rhetorically’! “Again,
there is no question” is negating while actually you are saying, yes! Yes! “Obviously, here calendar days are referred
to and it is seen to be in an inclusive sense.” Thank you very much. Sorry again, sir, that I
have interrupted.
Paul
R. Finch:
A
parallel account reads: “He [Rehoboam] said to them, `Go away for three days,
then come again to me,” “So Jeroboam and
all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had said, “‘Come to
me again the third day.’”
Also,
when Queen Esther was informed by her kinsman of the plan to exterminate every
Jew in Persia, she sent this message to him:
“Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my
behalf,
and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day.” Here again we have an
expression for a calendar day that includes the day and night formula. Yet in
chapter 5:1 it says that “ON THE THIRD DAY Esther put on her royal robes…” and
went to a banquet for the king in the hope of asking him to spare her people.
GE:
It is difficult
always to understand you, dear Paul R Finch.
Sometimes you write very ambiguously. Like here, “Here again we have an expression for a calendar day that includes the
day and night formula. Yet in chapter 5:1 it says .....”.
Why, “Yet”? This word, ‘yet’, to me, supposes
contradiction. Then what was contradictory, while you have said, “A parallel account reads.....”; “Also,
when.....”; “Here again .....”? Aren’t we supposed to understand similar,
agreeing, cases of time being demarcated for instances of practical
application? Yet you write “Yet”? Is it because you made distinction between “for three days” and “the third day” on the one hand, and on
the other hand, “ON THE THIRD DAY”? How would such a distinction make a
difference to whether ‘days’ are “calendar
days” or not?
Paul
R. Finch:
Once
again we are faced with a clear indication that the inclusion
of
the words “day” and “night” coupled to a time reference is
idiomatically
understood to refer to calendar days and not an indication to measure blocks of
24 hours of time from the event mentioned to the next.
GE:
Ah! I see
now! You do not make distinction; you equalise!
You are comparing the case “when Queen
Esther was informed” – a case of “a
calendar day that includes the day and night formula” – with “chapter 5:1” where “we have an expression for a calendar day that ..... says .....”ON THE THIRD DAY”“!
So actually you mean it makes no difference HOW it is expressed. DESPITE – “yet” – the reading does not “include the day and night formula” but
says “ON THE THIRD DAY” instead, one
is STILL – “yet” – being confronted
with “a calendar day” ..... and,
alleges PRF, with “the day and night
formula”. Therefore – alleges PRF –
it must be throughout the Bible, a day (– any day –) consists of the order
first day then night. One must ‘understand’ – according to PRF – the cycle-order of Bible-days is never “SUNSET beginning of days” because then
they are “merely assumed”. According to PRF (like in the given ‘examples’) “calendar days” – whether just days or religious calendar days –
shall always “include..... the day and night
formula”— actually, shall always include
the day THEN night, “formula”. And therefore in all the rest of Scriptures,
always, and especially in Mt12:40, the order or cycle-‘formula’ for ‘calendar days’
and ordinary Bible-days, always shall be “from
sunrise to sunrise”. Who is trying to punch a hole in the dam? .....
Whether days are
‘calendar days’, or just ordinary,
practical days without distinction – in the Bible, according to PRF – they are “calendar day(s) that include the day and night
formula”, “idiomatically”— i.e., “traditionally”. “(Matthew’s) order was the traditional order
of the Hebrew term for calendar days, which are counted from morning to morning”
BY RULE because it automatically, “INCLUDES
the (‘)day and night(‘) FORMULA” (..... written, or not
written). But concepts like “idiomatic” and “the precise”, ‘literal’, “order
of the demarcation of a calendar day” by the nature of language, are
incompatible and uncomplimentary. ‘Idiomatic’ means the ‘expression’ is not ‘formulated’ – by rule of grammar or syntax – but by pure and
natural, or rather inexplicable and unnatural, semantics— peculiar to a
specific language, OR, AND, peculiar to any more languages.
NO rule but the innate spontaneity of ‘language’ is
cause of the structure or meaning in ‘idiom’. NOTE: NOT that I agree “three
days and three nights” is an idiom; it is no ‘idiom’! Nevertheless, order of words in an ‘idiom’
least of all needs determine or reflect order in or of eventuality of “event”, and nevertheless if it were
‘Hebrew’ and even ‘Prophetic’ word-order of ‘idiom’— which should better be understood from behind to before,
like in the literal statement of Jesus, “As Jonah WAS in the belly of the fish three days and three nights,
SO, the Son of Man SHALL, in the heart of the
earth, three days and three nights.” (The word ‘estai’ translates “shall”;
the word ‘be’ is supplied to form more than anything else, an English
equivalent for ‘estai’.)
The difference
between Jonas and Jesus is not in the “three days and three nights”
length of time that is – or rather, was – precisely the same; the difference is
between Jonas “HAVING BEEN in the belly of the fish” LITERALLY and the
Son of Man “HAVING BEEN in the heart of the earth” FIGURATIVELY. Therefore the order of words or events is of
secondary importance.
Paul
R.Finch:
These
Scriptures interpret themselves......
GE:
Yes, by intrinsic essence and inner rhythm and
flow; by no outer varnish of form or “formula”.
So is ‘idiom’— ‘idiom’ which Paul R. Finch insists the phrase “three days and
three nights” should be.
Paul
R.Finch:
.....
These Scriptures interpret themselves. They are a clear record of inclusive
time reckoning and not exclusive which is demanded by the stop watch method.
The third day can only mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and
can not in any way be interpreted as the fourth.
GE:
Absolutely! Who is it who claimed “The third day” CANNOT, “mean
the third calendar day in an inclusive sense” and must in every “way be interpreted as the fourth”? Let us for this debate, please ignore them,
because nobody today present in this debate, avers such things.
But in this
debate, this, “These Scriptures interpret
themselves. They are a clear record of inclusive time reckoning and not
exclusive which is demanded by the stop watch method. The third day can only
mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and can not in any way be
interpreted as the fourth”, IS NOT
WHAT it was about in JUST the sentences above! Also, Paul R.Finch has ALL ALONG
been arguing for his alleged “from
sunrise to sunrise” Bible-days— in fact, under the audacious and “pugnacious pronouncement”, “Sunset beginning of days is merely assumed”.
NOW
suddenly, you, Paul R.Finch, come
CHANGE your tune – your ‘theme’, your ‘case’ –
FROM,
“from sunrise to sunrise” “day and night formula”, instead of the “merely assumed ..... sunset beginning of
days”,
TO,
“a clear record of inclusive time reckoning
and not exclusive” and “The third day
can only mean the third calendar day in an inclusive sense and can not in any
way be interpreted as the fourth.”
From sunrise
instead of sunset beginnings of days, to
“inclusive time reckoning and not
exclusive” reckoning of days in faster-than-light-time.
Paul
R.Finch:
Once
again we are faced with a clear indication that the inclusion
of
the words “day” and “night” coupled to a time reference is
idiomatically
understood to refer to calendar days and not an indication to measure blocks of
24 hours of time from the event mentioned to the next.
GE:
‘We are faced
with’ a NORMALITY of “the inclusion of
the words “day” and “night” coupled to a time reference .... from the event
mentioned to the next”, in the
APPARITION of, to the left, “calendar
days” and, to the right, in the APPARITION of “idiomatically understood reference”.
What can “the inclusion of the words “day” and “night”
coupled to a time reference” in instances like “forty days and forty nights”..... “seven days and seven nights” ..... “three days and three nights”.... have to do with the fact or not
they are “idiom” or “analogy” or ‘literal’? Only that “the inclusion of the words “day” and “night” coupled to a time
reference” have the very OPPOSITE meaning of “idiom” or “analogy”, so
that “the inclusion of the words “day”
and “night” coupled to a time reference” will mean NOTHING BUT, “a time reference”— a ‘literal’, “time reference”, NOT necessarily a ‘calendar day’-‘time reference’, but NECESSARILY an earthly, solar, ‘time-reference’ of a ‘day’ or more than
one, ‘day-cycles’— universally so, around the world, and not only or
necessarily in cases of ‘Hebrew’
days.
What can “the inclusion of the words “day” and “night”
coupled to a time reference” prove to prove “sunset beginning of days is merely assumed”?
What can it
prove to prove sunset begun days cannot be calendar or Biblical days?
Does “from sunrise to sunrise” days proven calendar
days, prove “from sunrise to sunrise”
days are the only Biblical ‘days’?
Are days when
proven Biblical and proven ‘calendar days’,
proven “from sunrise to sunrise”-days?
What can “the inclusion of the words “day” and “night”
coupled to a time reference” prove to prove SUNSET-begun days are “a stop watch event being indicated”?
What can “the inclusion of the words “day” and “night”
coupled to a time reference” prove to prove SUNRISE-begun days CANNOT BE “a stop watch event being indicated”?
Paul
R.Finch:
The
point is that in Hebrew usage the expressions “after three days,” “yet for
three days,” “the third day” “three days and three nights” were all idiomatic
expressions used to indicate “on the third day” only in a calendar sense and
never are we witnessing a stop watch event being indicated.
GE:
“Idiomatic expressions” if one has
available “a calendar sense” “usage” of literal every day vernacular,
are not necessary or a matter of course “to
indicate “on the third day”“— “in a
calendar sense” or not.
“The point”, PRF, that “in Hebrew usage the expressions “after three
days”“ is an “idiomatic expressions”
is your ‘point’. It is not to say it is
the ‘point’ in the Scriptures concerned, or in the whole of the
Scriptures. One thing is for sure, that
nowhere in the Bible are the beginning of days a case of “a stop watch event being indicated”. You do find that sort of thing
with the Wednesday-crucifixionists; but not in the Bible. [It is astonishing how easily persuaded some
are that such nonsense is in the Bible.]
Another thing is
for sure, and that is that “usage” of
“expressions” like “after three days”, “yet for three days”, “the
third day”, “three days and three
nights”, is NORMAL, ‘LITERAL’, and specific linguistic ‘usage’ in any language— not only in
Hebrew. There is nothing peculiarly ‘Hebrew’ or ‘idiomatic’ in the ‘usage’
in any of the “examples” here
tabled. That is why Jesus DISTINGUISHED
his ‘usage’ of the words, “three
days and three nights” as having been “signally of the PROPHET Jonas”;
and Paul his ‘usage’ of the words “the
third day”, as having been “the third day according to the SCRIPTURES”.
Another thing is
for sure, and that is that NO ‘example’
which PRF supplied, provides a case of “idiomatic
expression” only used to indicate ‘on
a day’ “in a calendar sense”. On the contrary, every ‘example’ of his (with the possible exception “in the creation story”) has been of practical, real life events and
situations, irrespective, no matter, were they ‘calendar days’ or not. They
still were three days “after three days”;
they still were three days “yet for three
days”; it still was the third day “the
third day”— no matter any calendar.
So, “three days and three nights” in
the “example”, Mt12:40, meant three days ANYHOW yet also, THE “three
days” of Prophecy, Promise and Law— the ‘God-given and therefore
eschatological IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS’ of the “three days and three nights”-”three
days” of Jesus’ declaration in Mt12:40; the “three days” of Egypt’s
ninth plague and passover’s “calendar
days” of 14, 15 and 16 Abib.
“Three days and three nights” IN
MATTHEW 12:40 MEANT, “the SIGN of the
PROPHET Jonas” which MEANT, the ‘sign’ or hall-mark of “the prophet”
and “THE SCRIPTURES” ..... meaning the “three days and three nights”, “ACCORDING TO, the
Scriptures”.
Paul R. Finch’s
has been arguing “the precise order of
the demarcation of a calendar day from sunrise to sunrise” proves its “idiomatic” nature, and that its “idiomatic” nature proves that “from sunrise to sunrise” is the only
legitimate “principle” for “interpreting chronological matters in the
Bible”. How that would be the most practical, I don’t know. He argued thus, ignoring the very intrinsic “idiomatic” quality which he supposed,
renders these “expressions”
UNSUITABLE for “the precise order of the
demarcation of a calendar day”. The concepts “idiomatic” and “the precise”
– that is, ‘literal’ – “order of the
demarcation of a calendar day” by the nature of things are incompatible and
uncomplimentary.
Paul
R Finch:
The Inclusive
Principle
The
inclusive principle must be understood and not violated in
interpreting
chronological matters in the Bible, especially the New
Testament
because, whether it makes sense to us in modern times or not, that is the
method that all authorities agree was in vogue in Biblical times.
GE:
By which lofty
remonstrance the gentlemen Paul R. Finch must needs insinuate that the
sunset-reckoning of days is the ‘violation’
of “The Inclusive Principle”— for
what else will he raise the topic of ‘Inclusive Reckoning’, now, and here?
As we have seen
above, how without flinching Paul R. Finch got from sunrise instead of sunset
beginnings of days, to “inclusive time reckoning and not exclusive”
reckoning of days.
Who has ever
argued against “The Inclusive Principle”? As far as I can remember, not even the
Armstrongites. And yes, I have made
mention of my one-time encounter with somebody who “rejects” – outright with so
many words, “rejects” – “The Inclusive
Principle”. But more or less all us ‘modern-timers’
realise well enough what “sense” “The Inclusive Principle” “makes”, when “interpreting chronological matters in the Bible”. I am convinced – as it seems also our brother
Paul R. Finch is convinced – that the people in Biblical times understood ‘The Inclusive Principle’ better than
even we do. Which is all that matters, really.
So that we can now skip a large portion in the current chapter of his
book wherein Mr Finch is underwriting the validity of “The Inclusive Principle”, and can pick up again where he continues
with making his inferences .....
Paul
R Finch:
...... They
simply do not understand that the time references were not that of a stop-watch
event which forces exclusive time reckoning methods. Notice this same kind of reasoning is still
appealed to by Charles Kimbrough and Mark Carr in their analysis of the
subject: .....”
GE:
No! notice your
own kind of reasoning improved on. Where before you have only said – how many
times I do not remember – “the time
references were not that of a stop-watch event”, you now added your real
objective! Here now, you exposed what
you always by stealth have been saying: That the ‘mere assumption of the sunset beginning of days’, “forces exclusive time reckoning methods”
which is not only the ultimate of nonsense but the ultimate of audacity and
PRETENCE! There is no connection, no
relation – by no logic whatever – between the two concepts. The dependence of
the one upon the other simply does not exist. It may just as well be alleged
that the mere assumption of the sun-RISE, beginning of days “forces exclusive time reckoning methods”.
You, Paul R. Finch, will be first to shout it’s absolute nonsense if I said the
mere assumption of the sun-RISE beginning of days “forces exclusive time reckoning methods”. But what better grounds did you have when you
claimed the mere assumption of the sunset
beginning of days ..... forces exclusive
time reckoning methods? By what
right do you claim that the ‘mere
assumption of the sun-SET beginning of days’, “forces exclusive time reckoning methods”? You have NO right. You have NO
Scripture.
Paul
R. Finch:
Notice
this same kind of reasoning is still appealed to by Charles Kimbrough and Mark
Carr in their analysis of the subject: .....”
“NOTE:
The HANDING into the hands of the Gentiles, the
CONDEMNING
to death, and the CRUCIFIXION all happened on the SAME DAY, THREE DAYS BEFORE.
When you count back from the first day of the week, Saturday would be ONE day
back, Friday would be TWO days back, and Thursday would be THREE days back.
Counting
FORWARD from Thursday, Friday would be one day,
Saturday
would be the 2nd day, and SUNDAY would be the THIRD
day.”
GE:
Why do you say
Kimbrough and Carr are not departing from an understanding of the ‘inclusive
principle’ of reckoning days? To me it looks like they wrote of normal
‘inclusive days’?
And why would
they be “way off in left field in trying
to make Matthew’s Hebrew expression of calendar days a literal stop watch
requirement”? To me it looks like
they wrote of normal-length, days— not of “literal
stop watch requirement”-days— whatever the difference in length in the end
between ‘inclusive days’ and ‘exclusive days’ or “literal stop watch requirement”-days and ‘not-literal stop watch
requirement-days’ Finch may have had in mind.
That Kimbrough
and Carr numbered these days in the correct way, is another question— not now
the subject. But again, what difference
would it make – IF they supposed the ‘exclusive reckoning’ – what difference
would it make if they used the ‘inclusive reckoning’? Would they not still have had to do with –
just – “days”?
Your argument that
Kimbrough and Carr are “trying to make
Matthew’s Hebrew expression of calendar days a literal stop watch requirement”
because they – according to you – are “trying
to make an exclusive case” for the reckoning of days, means nothing and
says nothing. You, PRF, are hopelessly entrenched in a futile effort of
erroneous reasoning trying to make a case Kimbrough and Carr are making an
exclusive case of time reckoning of “stop
watch requirement”. You; not they.
PRF:
It
seems that it is almost impossible to convince people that they
are
way off in left field in trying to make Matthew’s Hebrew expression of calendar
days a literal stop watch requirement. They therefore are hopelessly entrenched
in a futile effort of trying to make an exclusive case for their erroneous
reasoning. Of course, exclusive time reckoning just doesn’t fit. It is context
alone which must be our guide into when exclusive reckoning is to be used and
not some arbitrary rule that implies that exclusive reckoning was the normal
way of counting calendar dates when the fact is that it was just the opposite.
GE:
If you had some
real ideas they might have fitted; but now you don’t have any. But I’ll explain to you what is, “some arbitrary rule” or idea; it is “Trying to make Matthew’s expression” an “Hebrew
expression of calendar days”. In two
respects: In respect of making it “Matthew’s
Hebrew expression”; and, making
it an “expression of calendar days”
per se. Go read again what Bullinger had
to say about this issue which you have supplied us a quote of yourself. And, take some SOUND advice from me— take
Samuele Bacchiocchi’s booklet, ‘The Time of the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection’, and throw it into your rubbish bin. (That’s was he told me he did with my books
and ideas.) I have NEVER read anything
as dishonest like this book of Bacciocchi’s. Read my MANY references to
Bacchiocchi in several of my books and articles.
Then, of course,
yes, “exclusive time reckoning just
doesn’t fit”. And just so, does “from
sunrise to sunrise” reckoning of days, just not fit. “It is
context alone which must be our guide” into determining which ‘method’
applies – whether ‘exclusive’ or ‘inclusive time reckoning’ and whether
sunset or sunrise reckoning of Bible-days.
Because these are independent matters.
Maybe,
contextually, “Exclusive time reckoning
just doesn’t fit”; it doesn’t say days are reckoned sunset or sunrise.
And so, maybe
also sunrise to sunrise day reckoning does not fit; it depends on the context,
as you have said.
Therefore, if
sunset-reckoning it is, it is not to say it’s “a futile effort” of “erroneous
reasoning” and “arbitrary rule” “of
trying to make an exclusive case” of
“a stop-watch requirement”.
Neither is it
saying when one is using sunrise-reckoning it is NOT “a futile effort” of “erroneous
reasoning” and “arbitrary rule” “of
trying to make an exclusive case” of
“a stop-watch requirement”.
Anybody may make mistakes, you know.
When saying it
was “not some arbitrary rule that implies
that exclusive reckoning was the normal way of counting calendar dates when the
fact is that it was just the opposite”, it is JUST THE SAME AS saying it was
not some arbitrary rule that implies that inclusive reckoning was the normal
way of counting calendar dates when the fact is that it was just the opposite—
BECAUSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS and in
the end it “is CONTEXT ALONE, which
must be our guide into when” exclusive, OR, inclusive reckoning is to be used.
Conclusion:
When one may
have succeeded to disprove a case of inclusive or exclusive day-cycle reckoning
in the Bible, it is not to say one has proved a case of sunrise or sunset
day-cycle reckoning in the Bible any one way or the other, e.g., that when one
may have succeeded to disprove a case of sunrise or sunset day-cycle reckoning
in the Bible, one has proved a case of inclusive or exclusive day-cycle
reckoning in the Bible. 8 December
2009-12-08
Finch
Third Delivery first part
Paul
R. Finch:
After Three Days
Appeal again is
made forcefully by Mr. Armstrong that the expression “after three days” locks
in a 72 hour interpretation. After quoting Mark’s peculiar expression, he
states: “If Jesus was in the grave only from Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise,
then this text too, must be torn out of your Bible or else you must reject
Jesus Christ as your Saviour! If He rose AFTER THREE DAYS, it might have been
more than 72 hours, but it could not have been a second less!” The RESURRECTION was NOT on Sunday! (Pasadena:
Ambassador College Press, 1952), p. 6.
The implication
of this premise is that the resurrection occurred on the fourth calendar day.
Thus, the Wednesday/Sabbath theory would actually have the period of time
involved as falling upon four calendar
days to make up a 72 hour period. If Jesus, in fact, was laid to rest in the afternoon
of Wednesday, then we have the following scenario: [1] a part of Wednesday, [2]
all of Thursday, [3] all of Friday, and [4] a part of the Sabbath. This theory
never addresses the implication of the Resurrection occurring on the fourth
calendar day from the Crucifixion.
GE:
I
really appreciate it that Paul R Finch
and I agree on something. Nevertheless,
I feel compelled to ask a question or maybe two.
I
also totally disagree with the whole concept of Armstrong’s. Yet, PRF states, “The implication of this premise is that the resurrection occurred on
the fourth calendar day”, which of course is correct. And I always say, the Resurrection could not
occur in NO time, it must have fallen on one of two days, and while the
Armsrongites say He was the FULL 72 hours of the ‘three days and three nights’
in the grave, the Resurrection had to have occurred on the day AFTER those full
72 hours three days, which makes the Resurrection fall on the FIFTH day! But this, just by the buy.
PRF
said, “The implication of this premise is
that the resurrection occurred on the fourth calendar day.” My buy is this, What is the PREMISE ‘of this premise that the resurrection
occurred on the fourth calendar day?
The premise of Armstrong’s premise is that Christ was “IN THE EARTH” –
that is, BURIED – the FULL “three days and three nights”-”three days”.
Well, is to be buried not to be in the earth, and three days and three nights
not 72 hours? Who can argue it is
not? So where’s the catch? The catch is, the Scriptures do not say He
was or would be or would have been “in
the earth”, three days and three nights; it says, He would have been,
(‘would be’, ‘was’— doesn’t matter, it’s all the same) ...... He would have
been “in the HEART of the earth”, three days and three nights. To
be exact is what makes all the difference: “in
the EARTH” three days and three nights means to be in the grave literally
three days and three nights; “in the
HEART of the earth”
three days and three nights means FIGURATIVELY to be “under the foundations
of the mountains” or to ‘spiritually’ EXPERIENCE – LIVE – the “pains of
death”; it means, Jesus SUFFERED not like Jonah only physically and bodily,
but He suffered Divinely in and to the very HEART OF DIVINE LIFE. Jesus DIED, DYING death; Jesus DIED, DEATH;
Jesus alive and conscious, LIVED, DEATH and HELL, PASSED THROUGH the JUDGMENT
AND WRATH of GOD— “three days” of “three days and three nights”
to “Divine Imperative and therefore eschatological fullness / wholeness”. (I
without permission and in different relation use Lohmeyer’s words and
idea.) The Passover of Yahweh is the
Content of the “three days and three nights”-”three days” from “even
the first day”, “the first day when they had to kill the passover”
since its inception , “When the hour was come”, “Came evening”, “Now
when the even was come”, AND “DAY LEAVEN (life) WITHOUT”,
until “Suddenly there was a great earthquake” and “the last enemy,
DEATH, is destroyed” and “swallowed up in VICTORY”: “the third
day”. “Three days”
exclusively— NO others, ‘ALL-inclusively’ FULFILLED “according to the
Scriptures” (14, 15, 16 Abib)!
Paul R. Finch:
We should note
for those who would point out that the expression “after three days” can only mean after the completion of the third,
consecutive 24 hour period, the parallel accounts prove a different interpretation.
Indeed, this phrase is used by the same writers (Matthew and Luke) as being
equivalent to the “third day.” The Priests and the Pharisees had remembered
what Jesus had stated, that after three
days he would rise. Matt. 27:63. Based
upon this statement they urged Pilate to keep a guard over the tomb until the third day. This is
their interpretation of Jesus’ words.
“On the third
day” can only mean that the Resurrection took place on that particular calendar
day, otherwise we are obliged to believe that it took place on the fourth day.
But no account states that the Resurrection occurred on the fourth calendar
day. Since, in parallel passages and in different Gospel accounts, it is easily
seen that “after three days” was used interchangeably with “on the third day,” cf.
Mark 8:31 with Matt. 16:21 and Luke 9:22 with Mark 10:34. then we are obliged to adhere to the
testimony of the parallel accounts.
Also, since “on
the third day” can not mean the fourth day, and “after three days” can be used
as meaning “on the third day,” we must interpret the ambiguity of the “after
three days” expression in the light of the clarity of the “on the third day”
statement. And we certainly can not take one ambiguous expression (that can
have more than one meaning) and use it to interpret another ambiguous
expression like Matthew 12:40. But this is exactly what modern interpreters
have done. They reason in their own minds what “after three days” means to
them, and then back feed this guess into the interpretation of Matthew 12:40.
We can not
arbitrarily interpret an expression like “after three days” based upon our
modern understanding of how to count days. In the modern sense it means after
the third day has been completed and into the fourth calendar day. But the
ancients obviously used it in the sense of, not “after” the completion of the third day, but “after”
the start of the third
day. The expression “after three days” must not be interpreted based upon some
modern convention that implies a period into the fourth calendar day. It must
be interpreted in view of the parallel accounts that use this expression, and
that points to an inclusive reckoning and the
third calendar
day—not the fourth!
This principle
can easily be demonstrated even as far back as in
the Genesis
account. When God told Noah: “Yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon
the earth.” Gen. 7:4. We next read that “It
came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the
earth.” Gen. 7:4,10. The actual Hebrew wording
is “on the seventh day.” “Yet seven days” and “after seven days” can only make
sense when understood inclusively.
Notice further
what Jesus told His disciples after His ministry in
Caesarea
Philippi: “…that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third
day be raised.” Matt. 16:21.
Mark’s same
account of this says that he must “be killed, and after three days rise again.”
[Mark 8:31.] And Luke records yet another variant in his account by saying that
Jesus must “be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Luke 9:22. The Gospel
writers are only in agreement when we understand that they merely intended to
convey three calendar days, counted from and including the day of Crucifixion
and not under any circumstances four days. Obviously, after three days means
after the third day began, not after the third day was completed. This was
completely understood in a society that used inclusive time reckoning and is
completely lost on a society that only sees exclusive time reckoning as the
only method there ever was.
Pressing on,
there are more examples. In one account, not long
after Jesus’
Transfiguration, Jesus said to the disciples:
“The Son of Man
is going to be betrayed into human hands, and
they will kill
him, and on the third day he will be raised.” Matt. 17:22,23. Mark’s parallel
account words it differently by saying: “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into
human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will
rise again.” Mark 9:31. Harmonizing “on the third day” with “three days after”
can only be done when understanding that Christ would rise from the dead on the
third calendar day—not the fourth!—counted
from and including the day of the Crucifixion. This is proof that the Wednesday
Crucifixionists refuse to acknowledge, but is absolutely devastating to their
entire theory.
Again, we have
another account where Jesus foretold his own
Crucifixion: “See,
we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the
chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will
hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on
the third day he will be raised.” Matt. 20:18,19. Mark is consistent in his
record of this same account in saying: “after three days,” Mark 10:34. while
Luke says like Matthew “on the third day he will rise again.” Luke 18:33.
Mark’s peculiar method of stating “after” three days is explained by Luke, who
makes it very clear that this expression is “on the third day”—not the fourth!
It is only when
we read all the parallel accounts where Jesus himself foretold of his death in
phraseology that can only be interpreted as the third calendar day that Matthew
12:40 can be correctly understood. The “three days and three nights” is simply
a throw back to a Hebrewism, as we have seen, which only Matthew, who wrote in Aramaic/
Hebrew, used. The other Gospel writers, writing in Greek, did not state the
time interval using that Hebrew method.
The fact that
Matthew was consistently referring to calendar days
using this
Hebrew expression, while the other Gospel writers never did, is a fact that is never mentioned in Wednesday Crucifixion /
Saturday Resurrection papers! This fact can be seen in Jesus’ temptation
in the wilderness. Matt. 4:2. While Matthew uses the customary Hebrew usage of linking
the days and nights as he did in 12:40, the parallel passages in Mark 1:13 and
Luke 4:2 simply refer to it as a period of “forty days.”
72 Hours Span Four Calendar Days
An excellent
example of how the Jews counted time in the New Testament is found in the story
of Cornelius in Acts 10. Here we read that an angel appeared to Cornelius in
prayers [and his
vision] the messengers arrive and Peter lodges them. vv. 9-22. This is one full
day from the time that this is measured by the clock [exclusive reckoning] but
is day two on the calendar. Then, “the next day he got up and went with them.” v.23.
At three o’clock that day, 48 hours would have transpired but by the calendar
this is calendar day three.
“The following
day they came to Caesarea.” v. 24. And what does Cornelius explain to the
apostles? “Four days ago at this very hour, at three o’clock, I was praying…” v.
30. Exactly seventy-two
hours had
transpired since 3:00 PM on calendar day one to calendar day four and that
period of time was called by Luke “four days” and not “three days!” How obvious
it is that Luke is recording calendar days (inclusive reckoning) and not
elapsed time (exclusive reckoning).
This is the
difference in understanding that many people overlook in viewing time
references in the Bible. The above event involved four calendar days. Yet the
New Testament declares 13 times that the day on which Jesus rose was “the third
day.” Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21,
46; Acts 10:40; I Cor. 15:4. Not once do they ever say that He arose on the
fourth day from the one on which His death occurred. NOT ONCE!
GE:
The above is all fine and well done. I do have to make two observations, though.
First, as I understand PRF, this section of his
argument concerns “the expression
“after three days”“.
It shows no resemblance with, e.g., “Matt. 4:2. While Matthew uses the
customary Hebrew usage of linking the days and nights as he did in 12:40, the
parallel passages in Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2 simply refer to it as a period of “forty
days.”“
Why – besides – must Matthew’s “usage” be “Hebrew usage”? This type of thing happens in all languages; not
in Hebrew only; but a Hebraism – “Hebrew
usage” – means in Hebrew only.
But of importance now, is this:
Finch’s basic argument is, in the Bible “calendar
days” are “from sunrise to sunrise”. Here, for example, re “Acts 10.3,” Finch reasons, ““one
afternoon at about three o’clock” this would be day zero ..... in stop-watch
measurement of time”.
Why
say “..... in stop-watch measurement of
time”? Finch certainly means to
say, ‘by exclusive reckoning of days’.
“One afternoon at about three o’clock” this
would be day zero by exclusive reckoning of days ..... “but in calendar day reckoning this is
calendar day one......” meaning, Finch actually is saying, ‘by inclusive
reckoning’.
Therefore,
I have no doubt what Finch really wanted to say is this: ‘“One afternoon at about three o’clock” this would be day zero by exclusive reckoning of days; but by
inclusive reckoning, this is calendar
day number one’— which would be perfectly true.
But
the nub is, What does Paul R. Finch do here?
Is he not presupposing and taking for granted and arguing
SUNSET-DAYS? “One afternoon at about three o’clock” would be day zero by exclusive reckoning of days SUNSET TO
SUNSET; but by SUNSET TO SUNSET inclusive reckoning,
this is calendar day number one’.
And so on elsewhere throughout the above paragraphs, for example, “Then “about noon the next day” Peter went to
the housetop to pray. v.9. Upon finishing his prayers [and his vision] the
messengers arrive and Peter lodges them. vv. 9-22. This is one full day from
the time that this is measured by the clock [exclusive reckoning] but is day
two on the calendar. Then, “the next day he got up and went with them.” v.23.
At three o’clock that day, 48 hours would have transpired but by the calendar
this is calendar day three.”
Shall we go on?
Paul R. Finch:
New Testament Examples
New Testament
usage of chronological expressions is consistent with the “inclusive”
principle.
GE:
Not
at all denied! But what IS your point
though, PRF?
Paul R. Finch:
New Testament
usage of chronological expressions is consistent with the “inclusive”
principle. When some Pharisees intended to frighten Jesus to get out of town in
a hurry by telling him that Herod sought to kill him, Jesus answered and told
them: “Go and tell that fox for me,
`Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and
on the third day I finish my work.” Luke 13:31-2. Here “the third day” is
specifically defined by Jesus, the School Master himself, as meaning the same
as “the day following [tomorrow].” One just can not find clearer statements
than these of inclusive reckoning and that calendar days are merely referred
to.
GE:
Yes,
“.....referred to .....” when one
reads “after three days”; quite so ...... What has it got to do with
your real point?
Paul R. Finch:
Another example
is when Jesus was brought to trial later on,
false witnesses
brought forth this accusation: “This fellow said, `I am able to destroy the
The scoffers at
Jesus’ Crucifixion tied these comments to the
events then
happening by saying: “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three
days, save yourself ….’” Mark 15:29,30.
Again, we read
further that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and
said: “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, `After
three days I will rise again.’ Therefore command the tomb to be made secure UNTIL the third day…” Matt.
27:62-64.
In all of these
various expressions, i.e., “in three days,” “within three days [as the
KJV/NKJV, NAB supports],” “after three days,” and “until the third day,” harmony
can only be understood if the inclusive reckoning is used and the third day
means the third calendar day—not the fourth.
GE:
No
fine. I see. I have been of the same mind all my life; so what are we arguing
about? Not because idiom defies word
meaning and word order sometimes.
Surely, I admit, Paul R. Finch, “after three days” is a case of
idiom for literally “three calendar days”;
as you say; I admit! That it means days
were reckoned “from sunrise to sunrise”,
I do NOT admit! That “after three
days” in context implied – every time implied – SUNSET days involved, on
the contrary is absolutely certain. And I NEVER use the word ‘absolutely’
sommer net.
Finch
third delivery first part ends. 17
December
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
biblestudents@imaginet.co.za http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Finch third
delivery second part
Paul R. Finch:
What is an “Annual Sabbath?”
There are those
who choose to believe that the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 was solely the “annual
Sabbath” of Nisan 15 and that it fell during the week of the Crucifixion on a
Thursday and not on a Saturday, otherwise, this would be a formidable obstacle
to the Wednesday Crucifixion view. Therefore, by making the Sabbath of John 19:31
an “annual Sabbath” and making that “annual Sabbath” fall on a Thursday on
Passion week, then this allows Jesus to be in the heart of the earth for a
period of 72 hours, with no apparent discrepancy in the text.
GE:
Let
me emphasise,
First
of all,
To
argue against the Wednesday-crucifixion theory can never apply against the
Crucifixion regarded as having happened on a Thursday, the Fifth Day of the week. A vacant day between it and the Feast-sabbath
of passover or between the Feast-sabbath and the next day of passover on which
the first sheaf was waved, never features in the Scriptures, and therefore
cannot be an issue when it is understood the Crucifixion was on the day before
the Feast-sabbath of passover and the Resurrection on the day after it. If 1Cor15:3-4 – and in fact EVERY instance of
the SIMPLE mention of the “three days” and “the third day” – is
taken and believed to its every consequence literally, there can be NO denial
of the UNINTERRUPTED SEQUENCE of the ONLY “three days” of the Passover
of Yahweh.
Never
judge the ‘Thursday Crucifixion Sabbath Resurrection’-belief in the same way as
either the Wednesday- or Friday crucifixion fallacies. Take care not to confuse issues while the
Wednesday-crucifixion theory is legitimately criticised, that most if not all
arguments against it, are vainly raised against the understanding that Jesus
was crucified on the Fifth Day of the week, Abib 14 “The Preparation of the
passover” Jn19:14 and “even the first day ye shall put away leaven”
Ex12:15, Mk15:12/Mt26:17/Lk22:7, “when they always KILLED the passover”.
Next.
We see here Paul
R. Finch combating the concept of a day between passover-sabbath-holy day and
the weekly Sabbath holy day. Yet, Paul R. Finch pleads (In ‘Correspondence’), “Where in history do we ever see two
consecutive holy days back-to-back?”
Third,
— Paul
R. Finch claims “sabbath” in Jn19:31 was “the” ‘weekly’ “Sabbath”;
— The
WC-ists allege “sabbath” in Jn19:31 was Thursday.
— Nobody
gives it a thought John in Jn19:31 tells .....
WHEN “it
was”:
“The Jews
therefore: because it was The
Preparation (‘Friday’),
that the bodies – prospectively
– should not that day REMAIN
upon the cross
because was great the day
THAT
DAY
of (passover’s) SABBATH’S
(greatness),
besought Pilate
that their legs MIGHT
(still) BE broken.”—
Exactly when MARK, said, “it already was become
The Preparation
which was the Fore-Sabbath” (‘Friday’);
exactly when LUKE – in retrospection – said,
KJV:
“That day was
(had been) Preparation and the (weekly) Sabbath drew on.”
(A Nominative
reading amounts to the same time on Friday as a Passive Subject Accusative
reading may, “THAT DAY was
/ had been the Preparation and / as it (the passover’s) Sabbath was declining /
running out.”)
And nobody gives
it a thought
the REASON the Jews “asked”,
“SINCE THEREFORE IT WAS the
Preparation
(prospectively WOULD BE the Preparation)
and BECAUSE was great-day THAT DAY
of (passover’s) SABBATH’S (greatness)
that the BODIES should not remain upon
the CROSS
besought Pilate
that their legs might be broken
that they might
be
TAKEN AWAY!”
One needs
nothing more or better than the careful description of both TIME and REASON which
John himself supplies to ‘make’ the
Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31, solely the passover’s ‘sabbath’ of Nisan 15,
as well as to explain why during the
week of the Crucifixion that ‘sabbath’ fell on a Friday and not on the weekly
Sabbath.
Paul
R. Finch:
The question
that concerns us here that must be answered before this line of reasoning can
go forward is, can the unqualified term “Sabbath” ever be understood as or even
referred to as an “annual Sabbath?” The question is legitimate because the fact
of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible do we ever run across the terms “annual
Sabbath” or “yearly Sabbath” as a designation for an annual Holyday. Modern interpreters
throw out a term that is never explained, and many unquestionably follow them
like so many dumb, blind sheep. It is high time that we question the legitimacy
of this pseudo-term.
GE:
I
know of no “interpreters” ‘modern’ or of old times who “throw out a term that is never explained”.
Those I know of, try ‘legitimate’ ‘annual Holydays’ the ‘interpretation’ or ‘designating’ of “annual
Sabbath” or “yearly Sabbath”. They
don’t without questioning dumb and blind and unqualifiedly find ‘sabbaths’ then
refer to them as “the Sabbath” of
each week like in PRF’s line of reasoning.
Paul R. Finch:
One thing is
painfully obvious. Those who accept this theory (the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 was
solely the “annual Sabbath” of Nisan 15)
are forced to read John’s statement in
the following manner. First, John is writing his Gospel account and makes
mention of a Sabbath day. But then, suddenly, John, while writing his Gospel,
immediately realizes that his readership might misunderstand that he wasn’t
trying to record a weekly Sabbath that occurs on the seventh day of the week, but
an “annual Sabbath” that can occur on any day of the week. He therefore says to
himself, “oops,” better back up and clarify myself here, otherwise readers will
surely misunderstand that an unqualified Sabbath might normally be interpreted
as a weekly Sabbath.
GE:
Paul
R. Finch pretends John’s “readership
might misunderstand that he wasn’t trying to record a weekly Sabbath that
occurs on the seventh day of the week, but an “annual Sabbath” that can occur
on any day of the week”; but John doesn’t write to explain the differences
between “a weekly Sabbath” and “an “annual Sabbath”“. He wrote for posterity until the return of
Christ, EVENTS of WHEN and WHY “The Jews THEREFORE ..... asked Pilate”,
WHY the bodies should be “taken away”, and WHEN: “Because / Since it was Preparation ..... great day of
(passover’s) sabbath”; “That Day”— which tells it all to anyone at
that time an informed Christian.
Passover’s “sabbath” to the Jews was their “great day”— “That
Day” of passover-FEAST-sabbath, Abib 15, ‘holy’ and ‘Feast-day’.
The
crosses with their crucified criminals were an embarrassment and shame to the
Jews. Now “That Day” to their
horror has awaked in their conscience the implications of their OWN DESIRES of
and on the morning and day before when they begged Pilate to have Him
crucified. Now they sit with their
self-created predicament. What do they do?
They go crawl before their Egyptian lord Pharaoh on holiest of “great
day sabbaths” of the Jews. To crown
it all, “that day was (THEIR) Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath”—
even the holy Sabbath might get implicated.
What
MORE could John (and the other Gospel writers) have told their readers to make
them realise just which day and which time of day and of week and of the month
and of the year and of their cumulative history it was!? Anything than the TRUTH would at once have
been superfluous and insufficient. John
ALREADY and APTLY elaborated; he needed no overdoing.
John
never could have said “..... to himself, “oops,”
better back up and clarify myself here, otherwise readers will surely
misunderstand that an unqualified Sabbath might normally be interpreted as a
weekly Sabbath.” It would have been as good or as bad as told John the Holy
Spirit, “Oops,” what art Thou telling
me to write?
Paul R. Finch:
These modern
interpreters tell you that John is only clarifying himself and that no other
interpretation is acceptable, simply because any other explanation destroys
their theory. This is supposedly the reason why John tells us, “(for that
sabbath day was an high day).” In other words, apparently, John is not saying
that the High Day fell on a weekly Sabbath day, but only trying to qualify the
term Sabbath as being a “High Day,” which can occur on any day of the week. But
the reality is that this verse can be interpreted in one of two ways.
GE:
“The reality” you are busy denying?
Paul R. Finch:
Either John was
stating that the seventh day Sabbath was a High day, because the First Day of
Unleavened Bread coincided with it, or that this parenthetical explanation was
to clarify himself, i.e., that
this particular Sabbath was in distinction to the weekly Sabbath, better known as
an “annual Sabbath.” Let us understand the truth!
GE:
There
is no ‘either or’; and least is there
an ‘either or’ between the options
you propose. “John was stating”
nothing at all “that the seventh day
Sabbath was a High day”; “John
was stating” nothing like “ because
the First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided with it” – supposedly “the seventh day Sabbath”; “John
was stating” nothing of “that this particular
Sabbath was in distinction to the weekly Sabbath, better known as an “annual
Sabbath.”“ Ja, “Let us understand the truth!”— NOTHING!
Now
DID John “stat(e) that the seventh day
Sabbath was a High day, because the First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided
with it” or because the seventh day
Sabbath coincided with the First Day of Unleavened Bread? Or did he state: “Since (‘oun epei’) The
Preparation was ..... and because was (‘ehn gar’) that day great
day sabbath”? It is for no one to
‘choose’; it is for everyone to SEE. “Let us understand the truth!” (Paul R.
Finch.) So DID John “stat(e) ..... that this particular Sabbath
was in distinction to the weekly Sabbath, better known as an “annual Sabbath”“?
What else? Of course he did! We
might perhaps only read PRF’s sentence like this ..... ‘John stated that this
particular “sabbath” (of verse 19) – known as an ‘annual Sabbath’ (among
interpreters) – was a ‘sabbath’ in distinction to the weekly Sabbath.’
Paul R
Finch:
The Sabbath is a
term that is specifically applied to the seventh
day of the week,
but can it rightfully be applied to and interchanged with a Holyday? One thing
is for certain. It is modern usage that came up with the term “annual Sabbath”
and we need to be cautious in its usage here before interpreting what John
intended by this modern definition.
GE:
With
all due respect, Mr. Paul R. Finch, John
“intended” not to or “came up with” “this modern definition” or “modern
usage” or, “the term “annual Sabbath”“
One thing is for certain, this has
been Paul R. Finch who both “intended”
and “came up with” “this modern definition” or “modern usage” or, “the term “annual Sabbath”“.
No one else.
Your
question though, keeps standing, reasonableness considered. “The
Sabbath is a term that is specifically applied to the seventh
day of the week,
but can it rightfully be applied to and interchanged with a Holyday?” To answer your question (You did ask it, did
you not?), Go read and see for yourself if it is. If the term ‘sabbath’ is used in the Scriptures for days other than
the Seventh Day Sabbath, it (providing) is “rightfully
applied to and interchanged with a Holyday”.
Paul R. Finch:
In formulating
the “annual Sabbath” explanation, notice what Herbert W. Armstrong states: “Just
what is a “HIGH DAY”? Ask any Jew! He will tell you it is one of the annual
holydays, or feast days. The Israelites observed seven of these every
year—every one called SABBATHS! Annual Sabbaths, falling on certain annual
calendar dates, and on different days of the week in different years, just like
the Roman holidays now observed. These Sabbaths might fall on Monday, on
Thursday, or on Sunday. “If you will notice the following texts, you will see
these annual holydays were all called Sabbath days: Lev. 23:24; Lev. 16:31;
Lev.23:39; Lev. 23:15; Lev 23:26-32.” Herbert W. Armstrong, The RESURRECTION was NOT on Sunday!, (Pasadena:Ambassador
College Press, 1952), p. 11.
This last
statement is false. These verses are not justification for calling all Holydays
as an unqualified “Sabbath.” Only the Day of Atonement, like the weekly Sabbath
is described in this chapter [and Leviticus 16:31] as being a “Shabbath
shabbathon,” [which should rightly be interpreted as a “sabbath of solemn rest”
or simply “a rest of rests.]”
GE:
“These verses are not justification for calling
all Holydays as an unqualified “Sabbath.”“— True!
So
then, the ineluctable exceptions.
“Only the Day of Atonement, like the weekly
Sabbath is described in this chapter [and Leviticus 16:31] as being a “Shabbath
shabbathon,” [which should rightly be interpreted as a “sabbath of solemn rest”
or simply “a rest of rests.]”“ — True! – “in this chapter”!
That
is to say, “These verses are not ..... calling
all Holydays” “Sabbath”, but they DO call ‘sabbaths’ like Abib 15 a “sabbath”. PRF has stipulated one of the two texts where
the first day that unleavened bread was EATEN is ‘called’ a ‘sabbath’. He mentioned
“Lev. 23:15”; this ‘sabbath’ is also
mentioned in verse 11. It indeed is
called a ‘sabbath’ but not like the Seventh Day and Day of Atonement are called
‘Sabbaths’. John also used a unique
description for it, VERY different and very SPECIFICALLY different than he used
for the ‘weekly Sabbath’. Not for
nothing. It in so many words says “That-Day-sabbath”
in “that year”, COULD NOT BE the
Seventh Day Sabbath; but Paul R. Finch says it was the Seventh Day
Sabbath. Sounds rather off the note to
me ......
In
verse 39, “The fifteenth of the Seventh Month” is called a ‘sabbath’....
“a feast unto the Lord seven days: on the first day (of the
seven-days-feast) shall be a Sabbath; and on the eighth day (22nd day of
Seventh Month) shall be a sabbath.”
Never is it provided or conditional the Seventh Day Sabbath and the
‘annual sabbaths’ may not coincide. They
could and they did. They could and they
did because it was inevitable they would coincide.
Paul R. Finch:
Although the
term “shabbathon” in Leviticus 23:24 and 39 is applied to the Day of Trumpets
and to the first day of Succoth respectively, there should be no implication
that these days are given the generic, and universally understood term of “Sabbath.”
GE:
Most
certainly not! Why then do you want “the Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31” to
be “the generic, and universally
understood term of “Sabbath”? Is
that consistency?
Paul R. Finch:
In reference to
the expression “Sabbath Sabbathon” in verse 3
and verse 32 we should
note the following remark from a Jewish
commentary:
The Day of the Crucifixion—Friday or Wednesday?
“The reference
to the Sabbath in this connection is [i.e., ‘Sabbath Sabbathon’], according to
the Rabbis, to emphasize the fact that the seventh day of the week must always
be `a sabbath of solemn rest'— even when it coincides with a Festival, on which
day, otherwise, only manual labour is prohibited, but not such as is necessary
for the preparation of meals.” The
Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. J. H. Hertz, (London:Soncino Press, 1938),
p.520. Thus, when we read the specifics of the Day of Atonement in verse 28, “you
shall do NO manner of work in that same day” we see that the Day of Atonement
is specifically described, unlike the other Holy Days, where only servile work
was prohibited, but like the seventh day, as being a day just like the weekly
Sabbath in respect to doing no work at
all! The Day of Atonement only, of all the Holydays, is the only one singled
out as being a “Shabbath shabbathon.”
GE:
What
is the bearing on whether the passover’s ‘sabbath’ and the ‘generic sabbath’ coincided in Jn19:31?
It has nothing to do with the ‘issue’.
Actually the logic behind “the
weekly Sabbath” and “The Day of
Atonement” like PRF has described it here, is against the idea “that day
great day of sabbath” in Jn19:31 was the Seventh Day Sabbath although only
by coincidence.
Paul R Finch:
The Day of
Atonement only, of all the Holydays, is the only one singled out as being a “Shabbath
shabbathon.” This is hardly evidence
that the term “Sabbath” is an equivalent term for each and every Holyday,
especially the Feast days like the First Day of Unleavened Bread, Shavuoth, and
Succoth. Feast days actually require a lot of food preparation and serving.
GE:
I
thought Paul R. Finch was on his own side .....
Paul R. Finch:
Therefore, it is
only in this light that we are able to really understand the summary statement concerning
the Holydays in Leviticus 23:37: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord,
which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations…BESIDE the sabbaths of the
Lord”—which are the weekly Sabbath and
the Day of Atonement, which is also called a Sabbath, and the ONLY other
Holyday defined as such!
GE:
Not at all ..... not “ONLY” “the Day of
Atonement”; the first day unleavened bread was eaten is also called a
‘sabbath’ – a ‘sabbath’ “BESIDE
the sabbaths of the Lord” the Seventh
Day-Sabbaths— a ‘sabbath’ regardless— whether just ‘sabbath’ or “Shabbath shabbathon”.
PRF:
Those who point
to these verses as testimony that all Holydays are unqualified Sabbaths do so
to their ignorance, because they ignore the all important word “beside,” which
differentiates the Sabbaths from the other Holydays. Rather than being included
as a Sabbath day, these other Holydays are BESIDE the Sabbaths—a different
category.
GE:
Yes,
the word “beside” differentiates the Seventh Day Sabbaths from the other
‘holy day-sabbaths’. The ‘holy day-sabbaths’ are ‘sabbaths’, “BESIDES
The Sabbaths of the LORD” the
Seventh Day-Sabbath. Rather than being included as ‘the’, ‘Sabbath
Day’, the other ‘holy day-sabbaths’ are a different category of ‘sabbaths’
ALONGSIDE the ‘weekly’ Seventh Day Sabbath.
Paul R. Finch:
Indeed,
Leviticus 23 itself shows us that an unqualified reference to the Sabbath term
means the weekly Sabbath day in describing how to count the fifty days of
Shavuoth. In verses 11 and 15 it simply says “on the morrow after the Sabbath.”
Is this the weekly Sabbath or is it Nisan 15, the First Day of Unleavened
Bread? It is only the context that tells us. And the context of verse 15 tells
us to count seven of these “Sabbaths” and in verse 16 after the seventh “Sabbath”
is Shavuoth. Right in this chapter we can see that an unqualified “Sabbath” is
simply the weekly Sabbath.
GE:
“Leviticus 23 shows an unqualified reference
to the Sabbath term”— says PRF!—
“an unqualified reference to the ..... term”,
“Sabbath”— it should have no capital
first letter— it is “an unqualified
reference to the term”, “sabbath”—
meaning, “the term”, “sabbath”, is “UNQUALIFIED”, which means “the
term” ‘sabbath’ can refer to any “category” of ‘sabbaths’; it means it does NOT refer to the Seventh
Day-Sabbath SPECIFICALLY.
And
this again “means”: “in
describing how to count the fifty days of Shavuoth”, “in verses 11 and 15” “the term”
“sabbath” “simply says”, “on the morrow after the sabbath”-‘UNQUALIFIED’! “Is
this therefore the weekly Sabbath or is it Nisan 15, the First Day of Unleavened
Bread?” “IT IS
ONLY THE CONTEXT THAT TELLS US”— DECLARES Paul R Finch! WHAT IS THE
CONTEXT? The Seventh Day Sabbath? No! the context is about the PASSOVER! The context is about the passover from
Leviticus 23 the fifth verse, EXCLUSIVELY, UNTIL verse 22 where, in between,
both verses 11 and 15 are found.
What
does “the context tell us” about the “weekly” or Seventh Day “Sabbath day”? Not a word. The Seventh Day
Sabbath antecedently is excluded from “the
context”.
In
fact, 23:4 ALREADY WARNS: Propoundly “THESE, are the feasts of the LORD,
EVEN holy convocations WHICH (in distinction to the Seventh Day Sabbath),
YE (yourself) shall PROCLAIM (determine) in their SEASONS
(calculate to the movements of the heavenly bodies)”.
Paul R. Finch:
It is only the
context that tells us. And the context of verse 15 tells us to count seven of
these “Sabbaths” and in verse 16 after the seventh “Sabbath” is Shavuoth. Right
in this chapter we can see that an unqualified “Sabbath” is simply the weekly
Sabbath.
GE:
So
you want to say, it’s seven Seventh Day Sabbaths? But you before said, Abib 15 could every year
fall on a different day of the week? Now
you need Abib 15 every year to fall on the weekly Sabbath?
But
just say, Abib 15 was every year the Seventh Day Sabbath. Then the First Day of
the week becomes the Seventh Day Sabbath, because it reads, “From the day
after the sabbath ...... seven sabbaths shall be complete: even unto ..... the
seventh, sabbath” (15-16). From “unqualified
“Sabbath”“ to “simply the weekly
Sabbath” to Sunday a ‘sabbath’ ..... that’s the way it goes .....
Paul R. Finch:
At any rate, it
is a rather dubious interpretation of John 19:31
that he is
clarifying himself by backing up and adding a qualification to the term “Sabbath.”
Actually it is only those who are in desperate need of a justification for
their theory that interpret John 19:31 in this fashion. Most commentators
merely derive what the simple text tells us, and that is that John is
explaining that the weekly Sabbath was also a Holyday because it coincided with
it. This interpretation is cemented by the following powerful facts. Let us
continue our investigation......
GE:
“Most commentators”? Who counted them? PRF, you could bet!
“Most commentators derive what the simple
text tells us .....”. That is
credible enough ..... but, “what the
simple text tells us ..... is that John is explaining that the weekly Sabbath
was also a Holyday because it coincided with it”? Dear Mr Paul R Finch, I herewith publicly
renounce everything I have argued concerning your publication ‘Passover Papers’
if you supply us “the simple text” or
just this idea from “John 19:31 in this
fashion”, “what the simple text tells
us ..... is that John is explaining that the weekly Sabbath was also a Holyday because
it coincided with it”. Because I do
not find “the simple text” containing
any of these words or phrases or ideas: “that John is explaining that the weekly
Sabbath was also a Holyday because it coincided with it”.
PRF: “.....John is explaining.....”
John: “..... the JEWS besought .....”;
PRF: “.....
explaining that the weekly Sabbath was.....”
John: “..... since the PREPARATION WAS .....”;
PRF: “.....
the weekly Sabbath was.....”
John: “..... that DAY was .....”;
PRF: “.....
the weekly Sabbath was.....”
John: “..... was GREAT DAY-sabbath .....”;
PRF: “.....
Sabbath was also.....”
John: “..... the day THAT (VERY) day was .....”;
PRF: “.....
a Holyday.....”
John: “..... THAT DAY great day of sabbath’s
(uniqueness) .....”;
PRF: “.....because
it coincided with.....”
John: “..... since WAS .... THE (selfsame)
.....”;
PRF: “.....because
it (the weekly Sabbath) coincided with ..... a Holyday” / : “.....because
it (a Holyday) coincided with ..... the weekly Sabbath”.
John: “The Preparation ..... since it was ....
THE (VERY) day THAT day great day sabbath’s-day, was .....”; and therefore,
also (by analogy of the logic of Paul R. Finch), “The (VERY) day THAT day
great day sabbath’s-day since it was the
Preparation, was .....”.
John
is not “backing up” or “clarifying himself”. He is not “adding” “qualification” “to the term “Sabbath”“.
John “is explaining / clarifying”
nothing but the reason for the Jew’s
actions and how it contributed to Jesus’ body getting buried. John records the facts and events of that
night. These facts and events all implied the Jews’ anxieties and shame. Besides the fact John mentioned it in so many
words, these events and facts imply “That Day was great day of sabbath’s”
importance TO THE JEWS, but the
crosses were still standing there in public eye DESPITE, and tomorrow morning
the wretches will still be hanging there if we don’t go ask Pilate now to have
their legs broken so that they can die sooner so that they can “be taken
away” soon enough and we may save face when the sun shall rise over that
hill of the Skull.
The Jews would also have
thought about the Law of Deuteronomy 21:23 ..... that got them cornered in this
rather awkward situation. What is a little murder of a harmless idealist? We
must obey the Law! “His body shall
NOT REMAIN ALL NIGHT upon the tree but thou in any wise shalt bury Him THAT
DAY.” “And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree before sunset [ereb]: and as soon as the sun dawned, <shemesh> Joshua commanded they should take
his carcase down.” Jos8:29. (See study ‘Taken down before
sunrise’.)
Paul R. Finch:
Following the Chronology
There are
sufficient chronological benchmarks in the relationship
of Christ`s Crucifixion
and Resurrection to support the fact that Jesus died on a Friday (Nisan 14) and
rose on the third calendar day inclusively, Sunday (Nisan 16). First of all, “It
was the preparation of the passover” when Jesus was crucified. John 19:14. The
preparation of the Passover lamb by killing it, dressing it, and roasting it
for the Passover supper took place on Nisan 14 in the late afternoon of that
day. After sunset, that night, the Passover meal, consisting of the roasted
lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, was eaten. Ex. 12:6, 8, 12, 29-31,
37, 51; Nu. 33:3.
The fact that it
was the preparation of the Passover when Jesus
was crucified is
evidence that He, as the Lamb of God, died on Nisan 14. John 1:29, I Pet. 1:18,
19; I Cor. 5:7.
GE:
Nearly
perfect!
However,
hear the sunrise-day prophet helping himself to the sunset-day ‘formula’ and enjoying the best of both
worlds!
Paul R. Finch:
Further, the men
who took Jesus to Pilate for trial did not enter into the judgement hall “so as
to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.” John 18:28. This is consistent with the statement that
Christ met with His disciples in the upper chamber to wash their feet and to
eat His last supper with them, “before the feast of the passover.” John 13:1. The day of the week is specified as “the
preparation, …the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42; Like 23:54.
GE:
Here
is so apparent where you went off the road, PRF! Consider our previous discussions.
When
– what time of day – was it when “the men
who took Jesus to Pilate for trial did not enter into the judgement hall “so as
to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.” John 18:28”?
John says it was 6 a.m. – morning, sunrise.
When
– what time of day – was it when “Christ
met with His disciples in the upper chamber to wash their feet and to eat His last
supper with them, “before the feast of the passover.” John 13:1?
The synoptists are unanimous it was “in
the evening”; Luke says, “came the hour”, that is, one hour after
sunset. John says, after this meal, “it
was night”.
PRF
talks as if the occasions were simultaneous. His talking implies the Jews ate
their passover before it was slaughtered; and that Jesus after He died ate the
passover with his disciples.
“The day of the week is specified as “the
preparation, …the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42; Like 23:54”, PRF
affirms of both ‘meetings’.
But
PRF, please read to us the section “Mark
15:42; Luke 23:54”. How many times
will it be we have read it?
Nevertheless, please lead us in reading those passages and please keep
you fingers in their places .....
Alright
now; now we would like to read of where “the
men took Jesus to Pilate for trial” in Mark and Luke. Will you please page on and read for us?
O,
we should page back? O yes, of
course! Thank you ...... Haai! We are
oblivious to what we read, mind you! I
heard you reading of Joseph who came there ..... when “the men who took Jesus to Pilate for trial did not enter into the
judgement hall “so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the
Passover.” John 18:28”? I’m sorry ..... I thought it was when “Christ met with His disciples in the upper
chamber to wash their feet and to eat His last supper with them, “before the
feast of the passover.” John 13:1? But haven’t you said, “The day of the week is specified as “the
preparation, …the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42; Like 23:54”? It must be because we have dealt
with these text so many times before .....
Where
“the men who took Jesus to Pilate for
trial did not enter into the judgement hall “so as to avoid ritual defilement
and to be able to eat the Passover.” John 18:28”, therefore,
is not “consistent” with the
time of day on which “Christ met with His disciples in the upper
chamber .....”before the feast of the passover.” John 13:1.
“Christ met with His disciples in the upper
chamber .....”BEFORE the
feast of the passover.” John 13:1. “Before the FEAST of the passover”— that was, “On the Preparation of the passover”
(John 19:14) STILL the next morning when “the
men who took Jesus to Pilate for trial” the next morning STILL “did not enter into the judgement hall”
John 28:8. It was STILL “On the
Preparation of the passover” “the sixth hour” (Jn19:14) “early morning”
(Mk15:1).
PRF
makes disappear an entire NIGHT IN BETWEEN to make events 12 hours apart “consistent” or, in plain language, to
place them at the same time; and then, goes on, and makes disappear an entire
DAY and another 12 hours at least thereafter, to bring both events onto “The day of the week specified as “the
preparation, …the day before the Sabbath.” Mark 15:42; Like 23:54.
Paul R. Finch:
Any Jewish
person would read this and understand exactly what day was being referred to.
It is Friday, the sixth day of the week, the day before the weekly Sabbath.
GE:
Does
a man need to be a Jew to understand
the Scriptures? A man needs to be a
Christian to understand the Scriptures.
But a man need be neither to
understand where “The day of the week
is specified as “the preparation, …the day before the Sabbath” ..... Friday,
the sixth day of the week, the day before the weekly Sabbath” is the day “being referred to”.
And
a person does not need to be a believer or a Jew – only have a bit of grey
matter – to understand where “the
men who took Jesus to Pilate for trial did not enter into the judgement hall”
was at least twelve hours before, earlier, and that at that stage, it was the
PREVIOUS day— presupposing – of course – a sunset reckoning of a
day-cycle.
Re: “......
read this and understand exactly what day was being referred to. It is Friday,
the sixth day of the week, the day before the weekly Sabbath.”
What
does PRF have in mind – what is he
referring BACK to – with saying, “read
THIS”? ......
1) “the
men who took Jesus to Pilate for trial did not enter into the judgement hall .....”
John 18:28.”
2) “Christ
met with His disciples in the upper chamber ..... “before the feast of the
passover.” John 13:1.”
3) “The
day of the week ..... “the preparation, …the day before the Sabbath.” Mark
15:42; Like 23:54” ......
Now “understand
exactly what day was being referred to. It is Friday, the sixth day of the
week, the day before the weekly Sabbath.
In other words, 1 = 2 = 3 according to Paul R. Finch.
1, was the Last Supper before Jesus was betrayed
or delivered to be crucified;
2, was just about when Jesus was delivered over
to be crucified but was not crucified yet nor died yet;
3, was after Jesus had been crucified and after
He had died, and had been forsaken and left forlorn on the cross after that he
had died when everybody had left and had gone home and after that “It had
become evening already and the Preparation which is the fore-Sabbath” and
after “The Jews therefore it being the Preparation and because that day was
great day of sabbath (to the Jews) , the Jews asked Pilate ...... JOSEPH SUDDENLY came there .....” and BEFORE Joseph had
done a thing to obtain the body that was still hanging on the cross. “What
day was being referred to .... is Friday, the sixth day of the week, the day
before the weekly Sabbath”— for 3, yes, but – alleges PRF – for 2 .....
AND: for 1!
Paul R. Finch:
It is Friday,
the sixth day of the week, the day before the weekly Sabbath. Ex. 16:22-26. This would make Nisan 14
occurring on Friday and Nisan 15, the annual Holyday of the First Day of
Unleavened Bread, coinciding with the weekly Sabbath. And John tells us
specifically that this was the case when he explains:
“therefore,
because it was the Preparation [day], that the bodies should not remain on the
cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was [also] a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might
be broken, and that they might be taken away.” John 19:31, NKJV.
The
parenthetical statement by John shows that he was
explaining very
clearly that this particular weekly Sabbath day was “a day of great solemnity
(NRSV)” because the annual Holyday of Nisan 15 happened to fall on the weekly
Sabbath making that day doubly holy, as it were.
GE:
Yes,
“The day of the week ..... “the
preparation, …the day before the Sabbath” Mark 15:42; Like 23:54”, “was”,
“Friday, the sixth day of the week, the
day before the weekly Sabbath”. Say
it which way around, it “WAS”. “Mark
15:42” says it; Jn19:31 says it; Mt27:57 says it. And yes, “Luke 23:54” also says it.
BUT, Mark 15:42, Jn19:31 and Mt27:57 say, “It
was EVENING ..... SINCE ..... BEING ..... the Preparation” and BEFORE Joseph had done a THING. The parallel text
for these Scriptures MUST be Luke23:50—
NOT, “Luke 23:54”! Because Lk23:54-56 is the CLOSING events –
AFTER BURIAL, Joseph closing the grave – the closing events os the BURIAL
on, and of, “the day before the weekly
Sabbath, Friday”, WHEREAS Lk23:50,
Mk15:42/Mt27:57 and Jn13:1 have to do with the
BEGINNING events BEFORE BURIAL – even before PREPARATION of the body FOR
burial – on, and of, “the day before the
weekly Sabbath, Friday”— Joseph not
even having received leave to have the body of Jesus.
Finch
third delivery second part ends.
19
December
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Finch
Third delivery Third part
Paul R. Finch:
The Chronology of Mark
It is necessary
to ask whether Mark had in mind an “annual Sabbath” and not the weekly Sabbath
and its day of preparation when he records:
“When evening
had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the
Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea…went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of
Jesus.” Mark 15:42,43.
GE:
Mark
does not have “in mind an “annual Sabbath”“,
nor does he have “in mind the weekly Sabbath and its day of
preparation”; he had in mind precisely what he mentioned, namely, “the
Preparation (Day)” (for ‘the weekly
Sabbath’ naturally), “that is, the Before-Sabbath”, naturally. Mark
did not have the Sabbath as such in mind.
From the context of Mark alone, it is also impossible to say he “had in mind an “annual Sabbath”“. Mark’s story of the Burial extends from verse
42 until verse 47. He has no word of the
Sabbath’s Event or events like Matthew has.
Mark skips the story of the Resurrection altogether; what would he care
about ‘annual sabbaths? For Mark, what
was of importance was what he emphasised with careful repetition and
explanation, the double-description of that day that had begun when Joseph
started undertaking to obtain and bury the body. “His body shall NOT REMAIN ALL NIGHT upon
the tree but thou in any wise shalt bury Him THAT DAY.” With this Prophetic Word obeyed and
fulfilled, the story of the man of
Paul R. Finch:
Mark gives no
qualification to the term Sabbath here as did John.
GE:
Exactly.
It is very good you observed, “as did
John ..... here”; we know we are talking about the same events and the same
day and time.
However,
Mark does not use “the term Sabbath here
as did John”. As I said, as you can
read and anybody else could read, it is clear Mark wrote no word about the
Sabbath or its events. Mark, “here”, speaks of “The
Fore-Sabbath-Preparation Day” (‘paraskeueh ho estin prosabbaton’)— NOT the “Sabbath” or, an “annual sabbath”.
Paul R.
Finch:
Following the
chronology, on that day of preparation “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of
Joses saw where the body was laid.” Mark 15:47. Then, when the Sabbath was over
the women bought spices. Mark 16:1. “And very early on the first day of the
week, when the sun had risen they went to the tomb.” v.2.
GE:
Perfect!
“Following the chronology, on that day of
preparation” which is “The Chronology of Mark”.
In
Mark 15:42,43 ..... and “that day
of preparation” had begun “it having been evening already”, it was “Joseph”,
who “came; and went in unto Pilate .....” BEFORE he could have done anything to bury
the body.
NOW,
in “Mark 15:47”, it was “Mary
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses (who) saw where the body was laid. .... and Joseph rolled a stone unto the
door of the sepulchre”, and – as Matthew (27:60c) tells –, “departed”,
and – as Luke (23:56a) tells –, “the
women also .... returned home .....”.
“Then, when the Sabbath was over” – Paul R Finch quoting – “the women bought spices. Mark 16:1. “And
very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen they went to
the tomb.” v.2.”
Can
“The Chronology of Mark”
be clearer the day of the BURIAL was a ‘calendar
day’ in its OWN RIGHT, “The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”
FROM “evening already” in 15:42, TO “Mark
15:47..... “Mary Magdalene
and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid. .... and Joseph
rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.”?
Paul R. Finch:
Now in the
so-called longer ending of Mark, chapter 16, verses 9-20, (missing in the
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, although nearly all other manuscripts of
Mark contain them) it says specifically “Now when [He] rose early on the first
[day] of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” v. 9. This witness
says that it was indeed the first day of the week that Jesus rose from the
dead.
GE:
So
they – THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH – always allege; but so they always supply
their own corruption of Mark’s true words ..... See many studies, discourses,
and paragraphs from ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’; over many years;
with many people; and, surprisingly?— from never differing viewpoints. Because do they not form a united front in
the only ‘case’ of the time definitely given that Jesus assumedly rose, they
have NOTHING in all of Scripture to support their fiction that He rose on the
First Day of the week.
Therefore,
I hereby DENY “it says specifically “Now
when [He] rose early on the first [day] of the week”. It’s a blatant,
scandalous LIE. It is a SHAME on the
character of everyone who thus ABUSES the Word of God. It is the rape of the name of Christian. OF THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH retribution for
the misleading of those they have misled shall be required.
Paul R. Finch:
However, the
main point is that the simple reading of Mark does not support a theory of a
Wednesday “day of preparation” in which Christ was crucified, a Thursday “annual
Sabbath,” a Friday day of preparation, a weekly Sabbath at the end of which
Christ is resurrected, and then the Sunday morning visit by the women. If all
we had was Mark’s account, no one would ever have dreamed of such a scenario.
GE:
Quite
true. If all we had was Mark’s PURE account, no one would ever have dreamed of
a Friday Crucifixion Sunday Resurrection scenario either.
Is
this to say PRF agrees “Sabbath at the
end of which Christ is resurrected” supposes a sunset reckoning of the
day-cycle?
However,
the main point is that the simple reading of Mark does not support a theory of
a
Wednesday or a Friday in which Christ was crucified;
a
Thursday “annual Sabbath” or a Sabbath “annual Sabbath”;
a
weekly Sabbath at the end of which Christ is resurrected or a Sunday morning
after the sunrise of which Christ is resurrected; and then does not support a
theory of
only
the one Sunday morning visit by the women when supposedly the Resurrection
occurred.
If
all we had was Mark’s pure account, no one would ever have dreamed of either
scenario. If all we had was Mark’s pure account,
everyone would have known
Abib 14 ..... “The
first day they removed leaven on when they KILLED the passover (12) .....
in the evening He cometh with the twelve (17) ..... and He explained
(20) ..... the Son of Man indeed goeth as it is written of Him (21) .....
and straightway in the morning (15:1) ..... When they had crucified Him
it was the third hour (24-25) ..... When the sixth hour was come there
came darkness until the ninth hour; and at the ninth hour Jesus (33-34) .....
cried with a loud voice and gave up the spirit. (37) .....
Abib 15 ..... AND
NOW WHEN EVEN WAS COME SINCE IT WAS THE PREPARATION WHICH IS the Fore-Sabbath
(42) ..... Joseph came and went in unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus (43)
..... Then Joseph bought fine linen and took him down and wrapped Him in the
linen; THEN laid Him in a sepulchre ..... THEN rolled a stone in the door of
the sepulchre. (46) .....
Abib 16
........................... RESURRECTION ............................
..........................................
UNMENTIONED .............................
Abib 17 ..... And
when the Sabbath was past .....
the (3 women) bought spices
(16:1)
..... And very early in the morning the First Day of
the week
(all
the women) came unto the sepulchre (2)
.... A young man saith unto them (5)
.... He is not here; He IS, RISEN (6)—
leaving
no possibility BUT that He had had risen
on
the Sabbath Day BEFORE—
“Thus,
RISEN, He early on the
First Day of the week, APPEARED
to Mary Magdalene ..... first.” (16:9)
Paul R Finch:
The Chronology of Luke
The account of
Luke is appealed to as evidence that there is a
discrepancy
between Mark’s account and his own in regard to when the women prepared the
spices. As we have seen in Mark, the women bought the spices just after the
Sabbath. Mark 16:1 Luke, on the other hand, says that: “It was the day of
Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning…and the women who had come with him
[Joseph of Arimathea] from
The explanation
given is that the women bought the spices after the “annual Sabbath” of Nisan
15 that was supposed to occur on Thursday, making it now Friday, the day of
preparation of the weekly Sabbath mentioned in Luke. Yet, Luke’s narration is
quite clear that Joseph of Arimathea received permission to take the body of
Jesus, took it down from the cross, wrapped it in linen and laid it in the tomb
all on the day of preparation and the women came with him and saw how the body
was laid. It makes no sense to say that Jesus was buried on Wednesday afternoon,
then a whole day went by unrecorded, and then on Friday the women went to the
tomb with Joseph of Arimithea to see how the body was laid and then prepare the
spices, and then another Sabbath go by, and
then the Sunday
morning visit.
GE:
Certainly
these are legitimate arguments against the Wednesday-crucifixion
theory. But they are useless against the truth of the Thursday Crucifixion and
Sabbath’s Resurrection.
There
is no discrepancy between Mark’s account and that of Luke “in regard to when the women prepared the spices. As we have seen in
Mark, the women bought the spices just after the Sabbath. Mark 16:1 Luke, on
the other hand, says that: “It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning…and
the women who had come with him [Joseph of Arimathea] from
Unfortunately
here is a petulant error, otherwise this remark would have been 100% valid. It
is NOT CORRECT that “the sabbath was beginning”.
Luke does not say that! Luke says just what the KJV says, “The Sabbath drew
on.” The KJV is 100% correct and the
version you have used, PRF, is 100% false.
The women would not prepare spices when “the sabbath was beginning”; they prepared spices BEFORE “the sabbath was beginning”— BEFORE the
Sabbath would have begun.
Translators
corrupt this Scripture, Lk23:54, like they corrupt Jn19:42, into: “It was the day of Preparation, and the
sabbath was beginning” in order to CREATE the impression after the
Crucifixion there was scarcely time left to have the body buried. Translators
and “interpreters” manipulate these
Scriptures in order to create the DOUBLE FALSITY: One, that it was after the
Crucifixion on FRIDAY; and, Two, it was JUST before sunset after the
Crucifixion, so that there was no APPOINTED time left— what the full following
day, to have the body of Jesus buried “according
to the custom (or Law) of the Jews to bury”— the Law “according
to the Scriptures” the passover-Scriptures.
The
text is corrupted in order to AVOID and CIRCUMVENT the fact Joseph the evening
BEFORE Friday just before sunset – 24 hours before the Sabbath would have begun
– already had had begun his undertaking in obedience to God’s Word in this
regard, to have the Law of the Passover of Yahweh fulfilled. The Word of God is
perverted to make it look it took Joseph – no, the Word of God is perverted in
this text to restrict God to – a few disrespectful minutes to get the body
covered in the earth. The forces of hell
won’t have it “That Day” belonged to God in Victory all 24 hours of it
and no minute of it to neglect a few minutes before its end. Creation shall not be reversed to chaos or
void this day! God Rules in death – not
the devil; Christ is King over darkness because He is the Light of the world
even in its hour of Divine Judgment.
That Day won’t surrender one second of it to evil’s indecision. But Joseph FINISHED to bury the body of Jesus
on “That Day great day of sabbath” (John) “mid-afternoon towards the
Sabbath” (Luke) when he closed the grave and left for home.
Men
in high places twist the text to say there was virtually no time left for the
women to prepare their spices while in fact they had FROM Lk23:54, “mid-afternoon
as it began to dawn towards the Sabbath” or “as the Sabbath began to
draw near” (‘epefohsken sabbaton’) UNTIL sunset at least three hours later
:56b— after which they “began to rest the Sabbath according to the
(Fourth) Commandment”.
Now
once again – as time after time – the ingenious Mr Paul R. Finch finds the
sunset reckoning of days expedient for his intentions, while his original
purpose with his ‘Passover Papers’ was to demolish even the notion sunset was
the beginning for Bible-days.
Paul R Finch:
As we have seen
in Mark, the women bought the spices just after the Sabbath, Mark 16:1......
GE:
“..... just after the Sabbath .....” When
would the days have changed from the Sabbath to the First Day of the week, Mr
Finch? When?
At
sunrise?
Paul R Finch:
As we have seen
in Mark, the women bought the spices just after the Sabbath, Mark 16:1. Luke, on the other hand, says: “It was the
day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning…and the women who had come
with him [Joseph of Arimathea] from
GE:
“Mark 16:1” is the recording of the time
of day “the women bought the spices just
after the Sabbath,”— “after the
Sabbath” the Seventh Day Sabbath which Mark supposed fell BETWEEN, the BEGINNING of the First Day of the week supposed
in 16:1 in the expression “after the Sabbath had gone through”
‘diagenomenou tou sabbatou’, and the ENDING THREE HOURS of Friday supposed in
Mk15:46b,47 described by Luke in 23:54, “It
was the day of Preparation” – FRIDAY. It was NOT “the sabbath was beginning…”; it was Friday beginning TO END, AS— in
Luke’s REAL words, “the Sabbath was beginning to DRAW NEAR / the Sabbath was
beginning to DAWN / the Sabbath was MID-AFTERNOON”.
—
WHICH WAS 24 PLUS 3 (27) hours BEFORE the time spoken of in Mk16:1! The time spoken of in Mk16:1 was AFTER the
Sabbath the Seventh Day of the week the First Day of the week BEGINNING! The time of day spoken of in Luke 23:54, was
on FRIDAY “mid-afternoon” at least three hours BEFORE the Seventh Day Sabbath, busy ENDING.
Luke
writes of the two women who BEFORE the Sabbath prepared spices. Mark writes of
the three women who “after the Sabbath bought spices”; different women;
different actions; different days; different times on the days. Yes, in fact,
the Armstrongites see none of these differences; and the
Sunday-resurrectionists ignore them when they don’t suite their hoax of a
Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection.
Paul R. Finch:
...... Then they returned, and prepared spices
and ointments [still on the day of preparation]. …on the sabbath they rested
according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they
came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the
stone rolled away from the tomb.” Luke 23:54-56; 24:1-2.
GE:
Yes,
in fact ......
Paul R. Finch:
The explanation
given is that the women bought the spices after
the “annual
Sabbath” of Nisan 15 that was supposed to occur on Thursday, making it now
Friday, the day of preparation of the weekly Sabbath mentioned in Luke. Yet,
Luke’s narration is quite clear that Joseph of Arimathea received permission to
take the body of Jesus, took it down from the cross, wrapped it in linen and
laid it in the tomb all on the day of preparation and the women came with him
and saw how the body was laid. It makes no sense to say that Jesus was buried
on Wednesday afternoon, then a whole day went by unrecorded, and then on Friday
the women went to the tomb with Joseph of Arimithea to see how the body was
laid and then prepare the spices, and then another Sabbath go by, and
then the Sunday
morning visit.
GE:
Sure;
they mix error and truth; we should not do it also. The women bought the spices after the “annual
Sabbath” of Nisan 15— Correct! But
that’s not all; so it’s not correct but in fact is a corruption. The FULL truth is the women bought the spices
after the “annual Sabbath” of Nisan 15 and then also after the Sabbath after the
“annual Sabbath” of Nisan 15 and that was the weekly Sabbath Day and the
sixteenth day of the First Month. Because, the
“annual Sabbath” of Nisan 15 did not occur on Thursday, but on Friday, the
Day of Preparation of the weekly Sabbath, and was simultaneously “The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” Mk15:42 and “that day great day
of sabbath’s esteem” Jn19:31, “Nisan
15”.
The
“annual Sabbath” is not “mentioned in Luke” as directly as it is
mentioned in John – 19:31. Lk23:54 only refers to it as “That day”— “That
day” or “The day (which) was the Preparation”.
All
four Gospels are clear, that Joseph of Arimathea received permission to take
the body of Jesus “When it had become evening already it being The
Preparation now”, Mk15:42 AND John 19:31.
They are all clear Joseph took the body down from the cross, and wrapped
it in linen, but only after he had received the body by “command” of
Pilate, had “taken it away” and had it “delivered” at his own
place; then had “bought new linen”; and after that “Nicodemus had
also come there” with hundred pounds of myrrh, Joseph and he “handled /
treated the body” and prepared it “to bury as the custom / Law of the
Jews”, required. It was only after
the women “had followed after” in the procession to the grave from where Joseph
had the body prepared for burial, that “they by the time of the Jew’s
preparations laid the body of Jesus” in Joseph’s own and new grave “ready
at hand”. They “laid it in the tomb all on the day of preparation and the women came
with him and saw how the body was laid.”
I
repeat, to quote Paul R. Finch, They “laid
it in the tomb all on the day of preparation and the women came with him and
saw how the body was laid.”
It
makes no sense to say that Jesus was buried in a hurry just before sunset,
because Joseph’s preparation of the mangled body and the actual interment took
almost all of The Preparation from its inception “evening” until “mid-afternoon”
“the same day” that He was taken from the pole. So that NO “day went by unrecorded”. But “on
Friday the women went to the tomb with Joseph of Arimathea”, and “saw
how the body was laid”, and then “went home and prepared spices and
ointment”. And then ANOTHER Sabbath broke on – Lk23:56a, and, “went
through” Mk16:1 “then the Sunday
morning visit”, “earliest morning of the night”, Lk24:1.
Paul R. Finch:
The plain
reading in Luke’s order is simply: day one—day of Preparation; day two—the
Sabbath; day three—the first day of the week. And Luke continues his account
with the angel who tells the women: “Remember how he told you, while he was still
in
GE:
Yes,
“Luke’s order” is as ‘simple’ as any other of the
Gospels’. But what PRF pretends is “Luke’s order”, is his PRF’s garbled
version of his own concocted ‘order’.
In
Luke’s order:
day
one— 22:7/14, “Then came the day leaven must be removed on which the
passover must be killed ..... and when the hour was come .....” (“day of
Preparation of the passover” in Jn19:14, “before the Feast” in
Jn13:1, “the first day leaven had to be removed when they always killed the
passover ..... in the evening” in Mk14:12/17, “Now the first day without
leaven ..... when the even was come” in Mt26:17/20);
day
two— BEGINNING, Lk23:50, “And behold, a man named Joseph ..... this man went
to Pilate”, “And now when the even was come, because it was the
Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph ..... came, and went
in unto Pilate” in Mk15:42, “When the even was come there came .....
Joseph” in Mt27:57, “The Jews therefore because it was the Preparation
..... and after this, Joseph” in Jn19:31a/38— “for was great day that
day of Sabbath” in Jn19:31b;
day
two— ENDING, Lk23:54, “And that day was the Preparation mid-afternoon while
the Sabbath drew on”, “by the time of the Jews’ preparations began”
in Jn19:42; “They returned and prepared spices and ointments”, Lk23:56a;
day
three— Lk23:56b “And the (women) began to rest the Sabbath according to the
Commandment”, “then the following morning after their preparations the
Jews” in Mt27:62, “And late in the Sabbath” in 28:1, “And when
the Sabbath was past” in Mk16:1;
“the first day of the week”— “And when the Sabbath was past” in
Mk16:1; “And Luke continues his account with the angel who tells the women: “Remember
how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be
handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” Luke 24:6,7.”
Paul R. Finch:
Luke knows of no
blank days in between the Crucifixion and the weekly Sabbath. His account alone
would never have spawned a Wednesday Crucifixion. This is especially true when
we read on in verse 13 about the two disciples who “went that same day to a
village called Emmaus.” These two men recounted to Jesus, whom they had not recognized,
“…how the chief priests and our rulers…crucified him. But we trusted that it
had been he which should have redeemed
GE:
Yes,
it is very true, “Luke knows of no blank
days in between the Crucifixion and the weekly Sabbath” when Jesus rose
from the dead “In the Sabbath’s fullness of day mid-afternoon as it began to
dawn towards the First Day of the week” Mt28:1; and your argument seals the
fact. So how can you claim Jesus rose on
the day after the Sabbath, on the First Day of the week?
But
Paul R. Finch – like in fact all Sunday-resurrectionists – has ‘spawned’ his own brand of a “blank day in between the Crucifixion and
.....” his and their day of the resurrection— even ‘Still Saturday’. All
‘three days’ of the Sunday-resurrectionists therefore have no basis in the
Scriptures – not as much as one text or thought. As fictitious ‘Still Saturday’ is, as
fictitious are both his and their days of the crucifixion and the resurrection—
while he and they have cleanly wiped out “That” whole “Day” of
the Burial despite it “That Day was great day of sabbath’s esteem” even
passover’s sabbath’s esteem he and they have abolished utterly, day and dignity
together.
Paul R. Finch:
But in an
amazing bit of double talk, Herbert Armstrong scrambles this simple and clear
picture into one of the most incredible dodges imaginable. Like watching a slight-of-hand
artist in a shell game, see if you can keep your eye on the shell with the pea:
The RESURRECTION
was NOT on Sunday!, (Pasadena:
Ambassador College Press, 1952), p. 12,
“Another passage
that might confuse, is Luke 24:21: ‘…and beside all this, today is the third
day SINCE THESE THINGS WERE DONE.’ ‘These things’ included all the events
pertaining to the resurrection— the seizing of Jesus, delivering Him to be
tried, the actual crucifixion, and, finally the setting of the seal and the
watch over the tomb the following day, or Thursday. Study verses 18-20, telling
of ‘these things’ and also Matt. 27:62-66. These
things’ were not completed until the watch was set, Thursday. And the text says
Sunday was the third day SINCE THESE THINGS were done. These things were not done
until Thursday, Sunday truly was the third day since Thursday. But it was not
the third day since Friday, so this text could not prove a Friday crucifixion.”
GE:
“..... SINCE THESE THINGS WERE DONE.’ ‘These
things’ included all the events
pertaining to the resurrection— the seizing of Jesus, delivering Him to be
tried, the actual crucifixion, and, finally the setting of the seal and the
watch over the tomb .....”
What
are “‘These things’”, “pertaining
to the resurrection”? “— the seizing
of Jesus, delivering Him to be tried, the actual crucifixion, and, finally the
setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb the following day, or Thursday.
Study verses 18-20, telling of ‘these things’ and also Matt. 27:62-66”? It is just too incredible; I am sure here is a
typo or something. Since it is stipulated “‘These
things’”, “pertaining to” the Crucifixion, I think it means “‘These things’ ..... pertaining to the .....
CRUCIFIXION”?
Is
this true? It is not true. This, is not the Gospels. One should quote IN
CONTEXT or one might quote FALSELY.
What
is falsely quoted here? That which is
quoted out of context; and it is obvious it is “..... and, finally the setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb
the following day, or Thursday. Study verses 18-20, telling of ‘these things’
and also Matt. 27:62-66.” This is
ADDED. Stuck one to what LUKE wrote in context, one would not make such false
claim. Because it is just not true the
disciples as much as KNEW of ANYTHING MENTIONED which they on the morning of
that Sunday
FOR
THE FIRST TIME LEARNED OF— viz.,
1) “certain women” (“astonished us”......
The disciples did not know about the women’s doings.);
2)
“who were early at the sepulchre”
( The disciples did not know the women went to the tomb; the women told
them that they did.)
3)
“the sepulchre” (The disciples
heard about “the sepulchre” the first time when the women told them that
they went to it; the disciples did not know it existed.);
4) that Jesus died. (Even the news of Jesus’ death on Sunday
morning “surprised” the disciples; they were far from sight when it
happened. They went hiding in the upper chamber it must be from when they had
forsaken Him before He was crucified and ventured out only this very Sunday
morning “early” after the women had arrived there and told them “these
things”. The news of his death was
no less news to them than that the women were at the grave earlier on that
morning.)
5) that He was buried. (The disciples did not know Jesus was buried
or that He was buried in a sepulchre. The disciples everyone of them deserted
Jesus even before He was crucified, and though they correctly might have
realised He was going to be crucified, they could not have expected He would be
buried because crucified dead were not buried. The news He got buried was news
to the disciples no less than the news He was buried in a sepulchre.)
6) that “they found not his body” (The
women obviously had to tell the disciples that.);
7) that “they had seen angels” (the “two
angels” of Luke’s own story);
8) that the angels told the women “that he
was alive”;
9) that Jesus had appeared (because by the time
the angel had told the women that He was alive He had not yet appeared to
anyone.)
10) that Jesus had risen (no one by then had seen
Him OR believed He really was alive.)
And
ALSO because it is just not true the disciples as much as knew of anything NOT
mentioned which they on the morning of that Sunday for the first time might
have begun thinking about or could NOT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT
KNOW ABOUT IT YET— viz., “finally the
setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb ......”.
Yes,
truth is, NOT EVEN THE WOMEN KNEW of “the
setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb”. “The
setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb” IN ANY CASE had no
connection with any of “the actual
crucifixion,” or, with the actual Burial. “The setting of the seal and the watch over the tomb” had nothing to
do with the women, with Joseph, with Nicodemus, with the disciples, with
Crucifixion-day, with Burial-day. It had
to do with “the resurrection”; it was
“event” of “the third day” of “after three days I shall rise again.” It was meant to PREVENT “the resurrection”; it was designed in “event” of “the third day” of “after
three days” to thwart Jesus “shall rise again”. The sealing of the tomb and the setting of
the watch came not as news to the disciples because the couriers of the news,
the women, knew no such news.
Paul R.
Finch:
The last
statement
[of Armstrong, above] is definitely false
because it is based on ignorance of the inclusive reckoning principle that Luke
is consistently using throughout his Gospel. As stated before, ignorance of the
inclusive principle is one of the chief culprits in why people can’t make sense
out of what the Gospel writers were unitedly saying with their seemingly different
expressions. Indeed, Armstrong’s unfamiliarity of this simple principle got
himself in deep trouble when counting the 50 days of Pentecost and this same faux pas is glaringly obvious in his
interpretation of Matthew 12:40.
GE:
All
..... AGAIN ..... I would like to understand is what has all this to do with “the inclusive principle”? Yes, that “the inclusive principle” will result in a resurrection on a fifth
day which is rubbish; but what has that to do with Lk24:20,21, or “these things” or with Luke who “knows of no blank days in between the
Crucifixion and the weekly Sabbath”?
And
..... AGAIN ..... how the sunset day-reckoning is constantly being the
presupposed legitimate method for reckoning of days WHILE PRF’ basic motive is
to disprove its legitimacy?
Paul R. Finch:
All of this
really shows what lengths people will go to try to squirm out of reality when
cornered by the truth and they refuse to believe their eyes. In spite of
Armstrong’s ingenious explanation, the fact of the matter remains that if Jesus
was crucified on a Wednesday, that would have been five days before his burial
measured in the inclusive method, not
three! That is certainly what Luke was talking about, and not trying to
say since the guard was set.
This is proven
by Jesus’ own words at the close of that first day of the week saying, “thus it
is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the
third day.” Luke 24:46. Certainly, Jesus wasn’t trying to refer only to when
the guard was set. He very clearly here said that His Resurrection took place
on “the third day”—not the fourth! Peter also declared years later that “God
raised [Jesus]
up the third day.” Acts 10:40. Paul, likewise, declared that “he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures.” I Cor. 15:4. These verses are powerful
testimony in how to interpret not only Luke 24:21, but more importantly,
Matthew 12:40.
GE:
Please
forgive me, dear Paul R. Finch, it is all very well you dismantle Armstrong’s
scaffolding; but can’t you see how you make the whole thing topple down over
your own head? Just hear yourself
declaring, “This is proven by Jesus’ own
words AT THE CLOSE OF
[Emphasis GE] that first day of the week
saying, “thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the
dead on the third day.” Luke 24:46. Certainly, Jesus wasn’t trying to refer
only to when the guard was set.” Yes
– according to you, PRF – “when the guard
was set” must have been when the day began its 24 course towards completion
“the following MORNING” WITH
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting
GE:
Abib
16 ........................... RESURRECTION ............................
..........................................
UNMENTIONED .............................
What?
Unmentioned? So what was Jesus supposed to be doing this entire unmentioned
day? You mean, he is walking around ON THE THIRD calendar day (by your
reckoning, 14, 15, 16), yet everyone else is sitting around at home twiddling
their thumbs waiting for the fourth day, after being told the third day? Are
you really on the level, or are you just pulling everyone’s chain and having a
good laugh at people trying to make sense out of your gobbledygook.
So
let’s see what you got?
Abib
14 ..... Thursday, day of preparation for the First Day of Unleavened Bread?
Abib
15 ..... Friday, The High Day of the First Day of Unleavened Bread? But is this
another day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath. A day of preparation on a
day when no work is to be performed. Nice work. A second day of preparation
when the scriptures mention only one. Kinda like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
Abib
16 ........................... RESURRECTION ............................
..........................................
UNMENTIONED .............................
Weekly Sabbath. Jesus is resurrected, but no one notices this fact, the
scriptures don’t, as you say, ”MENTION” this fact. So we are to
believe that everyone is at home waiting for the fourth calendar day, even
though Jesus said the third. So because no one believed Jesus when he said the
third day, Jesus is forced to hang out all by himself for another whole day AND
NIGHT, waiting for everyone to show up on the fourth calendar day. And
likewise, everyone else is oblivious to the fact that Jesus is resurrected, the
guards don’t report an empty tomb, and everyone else is just hanging out at
home, playing solitary, or whatever, playing this foolish waiting game and not
realizing that the joke’s on everyone, including Jesus. An entire day invented
and wasted for what? To support another ridiculous modern theory?
Abib
17 ..... He had had risen
on
the Sabbath Day BEFORE—
“Thus,
RISEN, He early on the First Day of the week, APPEARED to Mary Magdalene .....
first.” (16:9)
Let’s
see, 1, 2, 3, 4. Four Calendar days!!! Hmmm! Finally, I know where you stand.
It took all this time for anyone to make sense out of you convoluted gibberish.
And, voila! A total disregard for Scripture the likes I have not seen since
Satan twisted scripture to Jesus. So like Satan, you want the entire world to
bow down to you and worship your superior intellect in finally unraveling what
no one else before you has ever been gifted enough to see. You are the epitome
of the Emperor’s new cloths story. And where’s the proof? Well, its in this
magic cloth that Emperor Gerhard has fabricated. Can’t you see it? Look. Look
hard, and you will see it. But you have to squint real hard and you will see
this beautiful suit of clothes that covers the nakedness of the most stupidest
theories of all time. I guess I’m not gifted. I don’t see anything. The Emperor
is in fact naked! But what I do see is a clear violation of Scripture. Four
calendar days is a violation of what every one of the gospel writers carefully
chronicled.
So,
Eberhard, it’s time for you to pack it up, take your marbles and go home. You
have no business interpreting Scripture. You make up an “unmentioned” day to
support a theory that Luke would condemn. There it is for all to see. It never
ceases to amaze me how people hang themselves with their own made up nonsense.
You have the audacity to present a case with no facts. Run along, little man.
Your theory stands self-condemned!
And,
by the way, as for you snide little commentary. . .
Is
this to say PRF agrees “Sabbath at the end of which Christ is resurrected”
supposes a sunset reckoning of the day-cycle?
and
Paul
R Finch:
As
we have seen in Mark, the women bought the spices just after the Sabbath, Mark
16:1......
GE:
“.....
just after the Sabbath .....” When would the days have changed from the Sabbath
to the First Day of the week, Mr Finch? When?
At
sunrise?
The
Sabbath DAY begins at sunrise and ends at sunset. The Sabbath Day occupies no
portion of darkness. The calendar day occupies 24 hours until dawn, but the
Sabbath only exists in the light of day and does not extend into the darkness
of night. Only the Day of Atonement was explained to be a 24 hour period
extending over two different calendar days ---- from the evening of
calendar day nine to the evening of calendar day ten of the month of Tishri---
a full twenty-four hour period of time that extends over two different calendar
days. If calendar days began at sunset, then the day of Atonement would begin
on the 10th day and end on the 10th day because such a 24 hour period
would coincide with each other. Or do you honestly think that God wanted to
start the Day of Atonement during a sliver of time just before a new day began
and end the day of Atonement just before another new day began? What
nonsense! It is only later rabbinical Judaism that made the
Sabbath day a twenty-four hour period of time back to the night before as a
fringe around the Torah, which, unwittingly, created an artificial calendar day
that has no basis in Scripture. And modern interpreters think that this was
always the case and that’s why they are incapable of coming to anything
resembling a solution to the time element problem of Passover. You darkness
first people are incapable of ever seeing the truth. How fitting that you hold
up darkness above light to support your theory!
Go
see if you can peddle you stupid theories somewhere else. I’m sure you could
find some one out there who would buy into your nonsense, but they have no
place in legitimate exegetical discussion with me. Nothing that you have said
is proof of your assertions. A jury of your peers would not be able to convict
Jesus of lying to his disciples that he really meant the fourth calendar day
based upon your evidence. You are finished as a biblical exegete. Your
reputation shall go before you as an impostor and a fraud. The Emperor is
naked!
GE:
I
said,
Mark
16:1 .....
Abib 16 ........................... RESURRECTION .............................
.......................................... UNMENTIONED
.............................
Paul R Finch replied:
What? Unmentioned? So what was Jesus
supposed to be doing this entire unmentioned day? You mean, he is walking
around ON THE THIRD calendar day (by your reckoning, 14, 15, 16), yet everyone
else is sitting around at home twiddling their thumbs waiting for the fourth
day, after being told the third day? Are you really on the level, or are you
just pulling everyone’s chain and having a good laugh at people trying to make
sense out of your gobbledygook.
GE answers PRF:
Yes,
“Unmentioned”. Mark does not mention
the Resurrection— the EVENT or the immediate CIRCUMSTANCES of the Resurrection.
No Gospel but Matthew’s Gospel mentions the
CIRCUMSTANCES of the Resurrection.
Paul R. Finch:
So what was Jesus supposed to be doing this entire unmentioned
day?
GE:
“This entire unmentioned day?” ...... “unmentioned” in Mark, I said! Well, seven eighths of it, was darkness of “the
third day” of
Paul R. Finch:
You mean, he is walking around ON THE THIRD calendar day (by
your reckoning, 14, 15, 16).....
GE:
“THE THIRD calendar day” of the three
days of Egypt’s ninth plague, by anyone’s “reckoning”
actually was the sixteenth of “14, 15, 16”.
Yes, in fact, that’s what the Bible says.
“I
beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven; Behold, I give unto you POWER to
tread on serpents (“satan that old serpent”) and scorpions and
over ALL the POWER of the ENEMY!” “The
last enemy destroyed is DEATH” ..... annihilated by “the POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION”!
“I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne STOOD a Lamb as it had
been Slain”— “The Son who being the Brightness of the Father’s Glory
..... when he had by Himself purged our sins, SAT DOWN ON the Right Hand of the
Majesty on High.”
Paul R. Finch:
..... yet everyone else is sitting around at home twiddling
their thumbs waiting for the fourth day, after being told the third day?
GE:
No
one was “being told the third day”.
In fact, “everyone else” – unawares
of anything happening right inside the grave “in the earth” – “is sitting around at home”, “and
rested the Sabbath according to the Commandment ..... when suddenly there was a
great earthquake .....”.
However
though, three women were ‘waiting for the
fourth day, after being told the third day’. Because “In the end of the Sabbath set out
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go see the tomb, when suddenly there was a
great earthquake.” Have they heard, “Pilate
gave (the Jews) a watch ..... and they set the watch”?
The Marys – as they “set out to go look at the grave” – may they
also have heard, “they set a watch ..... lest his disciples come by night,
and steal Him away”? Would they have been informed “they set a
watch” because the Jews “remembered, that while He was yet alive, He
said, After three days I will rise again”?
Therefore,
yes most probably, these three women were ‘waiting
for the fourth day, after being told the third day’ would end as soon as
the watch would end— midnight, as it happened with a Roman guard. “Therefore then, when the Sabbath was past
(for these Jewish women), Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, had bought sweet spices, SO THAT, WHEN THEY GO, THEY MIGHT ANOINT HIM.”
Paul R. Finch:
So let’s see what you got? Quoting GE,
“Abib 14 ..... Thursday, day of preparation for the First Day of
Unleavened Bread”?
“Abib 15 ..... Friday, The High Day of the First Day of
Unleavened Bread”? But is this another day of preparation for the weekly
Sabbath. A day of preparation on a day when no work is to be performed. Nice
work. A second day of preparation when the scriptures mention only one. Kinda
like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
GE:
“But is this another day of preparation for
the weekly Sabbath?”..... No, Abib 15 in “that year”, “WAS”, BOTH “day
of preparation for the weekly Sabbath”, “AND, WAS That Day great day of
(passover’s) sabbath”— John saying in 19:31; not GE saying.
And,
if you get two Sabbaths “in tandem”,
you must get two ‘Preparations’, “in
tandem”. “The scriptures mention”
BOTH; not “only one”. The last one in
sequence was “day of preparation for the
weekly Sabbath”, Mk15:42, Jn19:31, ‘Friday’. And the day before it – ‘Thursday’ and the
first in sequence ‘preparation’ – was
what John called “The Preparation of the Passover and it was the sixth hour
in the morning.”
“A day of preparation on a day when no work
is to be performed.....”— “..... when no work is to be performed”? “The Preparation of the Passover” was “a day of” MANY and ARDUOUS TASKS
COMMANDED, most specifically the tasks to
“REMOVE
leaven”, or be removed from the People; to kill the passover or sacrifice
one’s first born.
“The
Preparation which was the Fore-Sabbath”, “..... since it was ..... that
day great day of sabbath” was “a day
of” MANY and ARDUOUS TASKS COMMANDED, most specifically the tasks to
Prepare
the sacrifice by FIRE and EAT it
ROASTED;
to
“MIDNIGHT DEPART OUT” or share the fate of the Egyptians; and “as is
the (passover)-CUSTOM of the Jews to BURY” “that which remains”
of the Passover Sacrifice.
Only
“menial work, you shall not do” on any of these “FIRST” days of
passover-season, either on “The Preparation of the Passover”, “on the
first day when they always KILLED the passover” (Abib 14); or, “on the
first day you must eat unleavened bread”— the passover’s, “sabbath”
(Abib 15), Lv23:11,15.
But,
“on the day after the (passover’s) sabbath” and the first day of “seven
times seven days plus one” (to Pentecost), “you must bring the First
Sheaf and wave it before the LORD.”
“Kinda like pulling a rabbit out of a hat”? No, kinda the FCT suffocates the rabbit in the hat.
Paul R Finch:
Jesus is resurrected, but no one notices this fact, the
scriptures don’t, as you say, “MENTION” this fact.
GE:
“Jesus is resurrected, but no one notices
this fact”— precisely! Do you know of anyone who saw Jesus being
resurrected? How could a mortal sinner
see God raise Christ and live? What did you think? That He was watched as He rose? That the women
‘noticed this fact’?
Paul R Finch:
Jesus is resurrected, but no one notices this fact, the
scriptures don’t, as you say, “MENTION” this fact.
GE:
Absolutely! Or do you have the text that says
otherwise? Which Scripture is that? NO Gospel except Matthew’s mentions the
CIRCUMSTANCE – not the event – of Jesus’ resurrection. That’s right, the Scriptures including and
especially Mark do not mention Jesus’ resurrection although it prophetically
had been foretold in the Scriptures for centuries before.
Paul R. Finch:
So we are to believe that everyone is at home waiting for the
fourth calendar day, even though Jesus said the third.
GE:
Who
said so except Paul R. Finch? But yes,
those three women actually were at home – before
and after they had gone and “bought sweet spices after the Sabbath had
passed” – “waiting for the fourth
calendar day”— “Now deep(est) morning (after midnight) they
came unto the sepulchre, bringing their spices which they had prepared .....
and they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.....”. But they did not give it a thought that “Jesus said the third day”; the angel on
the contrary, had to tell them, “Remember how He spake unto you while He was
yet in
It
was only after the angel had told the women that they must have remembered that
“Jesus said the third day”— then only
might they have thought, But it is the fourth day already! The women definitely must have realised it
already had been the third day, because they impossibly could have thought it
only had been the second day. Therefore, what is so impossible if we are to believe that while the Resurrection
occurred “everyone is at home waiting for
the fourth calendar day”, “even
though Jesus said the third” but no one gave it a thought?
Paul R. Finch:
So because no one believed Jesus when he said the third day,
Jesus is forced to hang out all by himself for another whole day AND NIGHT,
waiting for everyone to show up on the fourth calendar day.
GE:
True,
“no one believed Jesus when he said the
third day”.
Untrue,
Jesus “is forced”. He “is forced” to do nothing! Untrue, Jesus ‘waits’. He ‘waits’ for no
one! And he does not wait for “the fourth calendar day.” You are talking nonsense.
Paul R. Finch:
And likewise, everyone else is oblivious to the fact that Jesus
is resurrected, the guards don’t report an empty tomb, and everyone else is
just hanging out at home, playing solitary, or whatever, playing this foolish
waiting game and not realizing that the joke’s on everyone, including Jesus.
GE:
“Everyone” IS in fact “oblivious to the fact that Jesus is resurrected”. How did you think everyone was watching Him
as He rose?
And
of course “, the guards don’t report an
empty tomb” because they are lying prostrate “like dead”. It is written, “the keepers became as dead
men.” The Greek is Passive: they “WERE
shaken”; they “were CAST”— down, “like DEAD”.
WHEN,
and HOW? Not after, but “AS the
angel descending, approaching, hurled away the stone from the opening”
..... THEN “the keepers became as dead men.” They did not become “like dead” –
unconscious – from having beheld the Resurrection; but from the appearance and
appearing of the angel before the Resurrection.
How would the guard know or be able to “report an empty tomb”?
“This”, is no “foolish waiting game”, and no “joke”
on anyone, least, “on Jesus”. This is the God given and therefore
eschatological imperative WHOLENESS of the “three days and three nights”-”three
days” of the Passover of Yahweh by “the POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION”.
GE:
1.
Thank you, Mr Paul R.
Finch for coming to the Forum! You are most welcome. I respect you for
appearing here .....
Let us proceed on the Forum in the presence of impartial witnesses, if you
wouldn’t mind.
Your last writing to me was .....
Paul R. Finch:
I grow wearing of your machinations for
you obviously do not know what on earth you are talking about, especially the
difference between dawn and dusk.
(Quoting GE),
It was “the third day” and “the Sabbath” and the Resurrection coinciding “As
the Sabbath in its fullness began to draw to a close IN THE MID-AFTERNOON
towards the First Day of the week”- ‘opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis
mian sabbatohn’.
What a blatant disregard for the text. Epiphosko comes from epiphauo --- it
illuminate, to grow light, not to grow dark. You know, as in phosphorescent?
Who ever heard of a dawn that begins to grow dark? That’s not dawn, that’s
dusk. Get it through your head. No Greek scholar on this planet would ever
consent to your false reading of this text.
You have already demonstrated that your false theory is a four calendar day
scenario. So you have disqualified yourself from being eligible to discuss
anything pertinent to this topic. Your continued Scripture twisting only
confirms that. Is there anyone out there who believes your tripe? I may be right
and I may be wrong, but at least I have a ton of testimonials from people I
respect in the field.
GE:
Re: PRF, “Epiphosko comes from epiphauo --- it illuminate, to grow light, not to
grow dark. You know, as in phosphorescent? Who ever heard of a dawn that begins
to grow dark? That’s not dawn, that’s dusk. Get it through your head. No Greek
scholar on this planet would ever consent to your false reading of this text.”
Dear Mr Finch, I herewith invite you – say I dare you – to present actual incidences
– or only one – of the use of the group of words ‘epifohskoh’, ‘epifauskoh’, ‘epifauoh’,
‘epifaoh’ from ‘ancient Greek’, through ‘classic Greek’, ‘Attic Greek’, ‘Koineh
Greek’, ‘Hellenistic Greek’, and, ‘Late(r) Greek’ – it does not matter which
Greek – of up to and including the second or even third century AD, where the
meaning from the context is “, to grow
light” in the sense of ‘sunrise’.
(By the way, where have I said ‘epifohskoh’ means “to grow dark”? I cannot recall that I did? Have I said, ‘epifohskoh’
means “dusk”? I cannot recall that I
did?)
In case you are unable to find any incidences where the meaning of ‘epifohskoh’
from the context is “, to grow light”
in the sense of ‘sunrise’, read book 2, ‘Resurrection’ where you will find two
examples that MAY be of help to you, here: http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
But just take note also of their dating, Mr Finch, before you project your
missiles against my defenceless little raft.
My helpless little raft with SURE rudder of the Word of God wherein in the NT
alone at least three ‘examples’ are given as to the meaning of the word, ‘epifohskoh’,
e.g., Mt28:1 – which we shall leave for the time being, it being the case in
the controversy at the present time.
So let us hear Mr Paul R. Finch himself act expositor as to the meaning of the
word ‘epifohskoh’ in the Gospels. Quoting Mr Finch quoting “Luke, on the other hand, says that: “It was
the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning…and the women who had
come with him [Joseph of Arimathea] from Galilee followed, and they saw the
tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and
ointments [still on the day of preparation]. …on the sabbath they rested according
to the commandment.”
Regardless the wording of the ‘edition’
you used, Mr Finch, Was this, “Luke”
(in 23:54b) “to grow light” in the
sense of ‘sunrise’, or, was this, “dusk”, “still on the day of preparation”? Well Mr Finch, you have given the
answer yourself. No need for me to say anything further.
You have challenged me to present a “Greek
scholar on this planet” who “would
consent to” ‘my’ “false reading of
this text”. I present to you, Mr Paul R. Finch, the man, A.T. Robertson
..... the helmsman-relieve at the rudder of my home-made float .....
Quote begins:
Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week
(opse de sabbatwn, th epipwskoush eiί mian sabbatwn). This careful
chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that before the
sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women was made “to
see the sepulchre” (qeorhsai ton tapon). They had seen the place of burial on
Friday afternoon (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61; Luke 23:55). They had rested on
the sabbath after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke
23:56), a sabbath of unutterable sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices
after sundown when the new day has dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark 16:1).
Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke 23:54) use dawn (epipwskw) for the dawning of
the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the twelve-hour day
at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses. The so-called
Gospel of Peter has epipwskw in the same sense as Matthew and Luke as does a
late papyrus. Apparently the Jewish sense of “dawn” is here expressed by this
Greek verb. Allen thinks that Matthew misunderstands Mark at this point, but
clearly Mark is speaking of sunrise and Matthew of sunset. Why allow only one
visit for the anxious women?
Quote ends
I think I have the right, Mr Paul R. Finch, to protest – not against your
calling names so liberally (I revel in stuff like that) – but against you
falsely accusing me of holding to “a four
calendar day scenario” of this the Passover of Yahweh. I seriously take
exception because your false accusation shows with what contempt you regard my
true stance which is “according to the Scriptures the third day”,
strictly.
Paul R. Finch:
How cute! Nice try. Your
stupid straw-man arguments are just that. And I dare you to find anywhere in
the Bible that says the moon is made of Green Cheese. Prov. 26:4. Or how about,
I dare you to find any evidence that epiphosko means “dusk.”
Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 304:
“Epiphwskw . . . Shine forth, dawn, break; perhaps draw on.”
Let’s see here now, the first definition that is foremost is to “shine forth.”
Got it?
Secondly, it could mean to “dawn,” in any event, not to “dusk.”
Thirdly, to “break,” as in “day break?”
And way down on the list in last place is this vague notion of perhaps mean to “draw
on.”
GE:
My helpless little raft
with SURE rudder of the Word of God wherein in the NT alone at least three
‘examples’ are given as to the meaning of the word, ‘epifohskoh’, e.g.,
Mt28:1 – which we shall leave for the time being, it being the case in the
controversy at the present time.
So let us hear Mr Paul R.
Finch himself act expositor as to the meaning of the word ‘epifohskoh’ in the
Gospels. Quoting Mr Finch quoting “Luke, on the other hand, says that: “It
was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning…and the women who had
come with him [Joseph of Arimathea] from Galilee followed, and they saw the
tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and
ointments [still on the day of preparation]. …on the sabbath they rested
according to the commandment.”
Regardless the wording of
the ‘edition’ you used, Mr Finch, Was this, “Luke” (in 23:54b) “to grow light” in the sense of ‘sunrise’,
or, was this, “dusk”, “still
on the day of preparation”? Well Mr Finch, you
have given the answer yourself. No need
for me to say anything further. Except
...... again, please, where have I said ‘epifohskoh’ means ‘dusk’? It’s you have said it, Mr Finch, twice now.
Re: “Let's see here now, the
first definition that is foremost is to “shine forth.” Got it?” Mr Finch, please quote me where I, EVER, have
maintained differently? Read book 2,
‘Resurrection’, here, http://www.biblestudents.co.za
buttons ‘Edit’, ‘Find’ ‘epifohskoh’, and may be thousands of other times in
other articles and discussions on the same website.
Re: “Secondly, it could mean to
“dawn,” in any event, not to “dusk.”“ Mr Finch, check up your English meanings of
the word to ‘dawn’— like e.g. above, I referred A. T. Robertson. As one could
say the twenty first century ‘dawned’ in the 1980’s or even anytime after the
‘noon’ of the twentieth century, say, the twenty first century ‘dawned’ from
1951 on! Anything wrong with that, Mr
Finch? So why must it be wrong in the
case of the First Day that “dawned on the Sabbath mid-afternoon” in
Mt28:1, “By the time of the Jews’ preparations” Jn19:42? Exactly like you yourself explained above was
the case in Lk23:54b when it was the Sabbath that dawned on Friday afternoon! It’s the ONLY possibility here in Mt28:1—
the same ‘scenario’ as far as the time of day that it was is concerned! It is the ONLY possibility because every
phrase that makes up Mt28:1 should say the same thing as the others,
‘Opse’ Preposition with
Ablative “IN / BY late / slow / ripe” =
Adverb with Genitive “OF
/ ON late / full” =
Nomen Genitive of
belonging and kind ‘sabbatohn’ “Sabbath’s” =
Article Dative ‘tehi’ “in
the” =
‘epi’ Preposition “pinnacle
of / in / on / over centre” =
‘fohs’ Nomen “light / day”
=
‘ousehi’ Participle
Suffix Dative “in the / while / with / by being”.
“Not to “dusk.”“ Mr Finch; “not to “dusk.”“!
Now, Mr Finch, why don’t
you give us the full context from Bauer?
Because it does not serve your agenda?
I haven’t got “Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 304”, but I have the German
original, and here is what it says, for your information, re: your remark, “Thirdly, to “break,” as in
“day break?” And way down on the list in last place is this vague notion of
perhaps mean to “draw on”“ ..... ““
Mr Paul R. Finch, what
‘epifohskoh’ means in Lk23:54b, is, clearly and certainly, “to “draw on”“ = literally “MID-AFTERNOON”,
simply. And, Mr Paul R. Finch, what
‘epifohskoh’ means in Lk23:54b, is clearly and certainly what it means in
Mt28:1; and EVERYWHERE where found in all of Greek literature of all time up to
the third century AD.
And, Mr Finch, I have NOT
ONCE alleged differently!
You have challenged me to
present a “Greek scholar on
this planet who “would
consent to” ‘my’ “false reading of
this text”.
Walter Bauer.
Paul R. Finch:
The “edition” that I
quoted from was the NRSV. Instead, let us render this verse using Walter Bauer’s
fourth definition: “And it was [the] day of Preparation and [the] Sabbath drew on.” (This is how A. T.
Robertson translated it, Harmony of
the Gospels, 289).
So what exactly drew on? Sabbath night? Is there even such a thing as a Sabbath
night? The question is legitimate because no one even asks it. They just
assume, and like fools, rush in where angels fear to tread.
But in Luke’s day, the women returned and prepared spices and ointments as the
Sabbath “drew on.” I’m sure this process of preparing the spices carried right
into and throughout the night. And then “on the Sabbath [day] they rested
according to the commandment” (v. 56).
A. T. Robertson’s view was prejudiced in the fact that he never questioned the
possibility that his assumption that days began at sunset was wrong. Thus, his sunset beginning of days prejudice
forced him to concoct two different visits of the women, one the night before “to
view the sepulcher,” and then another entirely different visit in the morning
to anoint the body of Jesus. But if they went to the tomb the night before,
then they could see that the stone covering the tomb was sealed shut, with two
guards standing by, so why would they then assume that the next morning they
could somehow have the stone removed and go inside with the guards there to
keep everyone out? So the two visit theory falls flat on its face. So much for
A. T. Robertson’s scholarship.
Scholars of today, however, who have addressed the problem of when days
begin in the Bible now can see what Robertson’s prejudice would not allow him
to see, that “in the New Testament in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts the day
seems usually to be considered as beginning in the morning” (Jack
Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 8).
Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone reading this Post, I submit Gerhard’s own words.
Count the number of Calendar days and see if you do not come up with four
calendar days. You will agree with me, Gerhard is off his rocker.
Quoting GE:
Abib 14 ..... “The first day they removed leaven on when they KILLED the
passover (12) ..... in the evening He cometh with the twelve (17) ..... and He
explained (20) ..... the Son of Man indeed goeth as it is written of Him (21)
..... and straightway in the morning (15:1) ..... When they had crucified Him
it was the third hour (24-25) ..... When the sixth hour was come there came
darkness until the ninth hour; and at the ninth hour Jesus (33-34) ..... cried
with a loud voice and gave up the spirit. (37) .....
Abib 15 ..... AND NOW WHEN EVEN WAS COME SINCE IT WAS THE PREPARATION WHICH IS
the Fore-Sabbath (42) ..... Joseph came and went in unto Pilate and craved the
body of Jesus (43) ..... Then Joseph bought fine linen and took him down and
wrapped Him in the linen; THEN laid Him in a sepulchre ..... THEN rolled a
stone in the door of the sepulchre. (46) .....
Abib 16 ........................... RESURRECTION ............................
.......................................... UNMENTIONED
.............................
Abib 17 ..... And when the Sabbath was past .....
the (3 women) bought spices (16:1)
..... And very early in the morning the First Day of the week
(all the women) came unto the sepulchre (2)
.... A young man saith unto them (5)
.... He is not here; He IS, RISEN (6)—
leaving no possibility BUT that He had had risen on the Sabbath Day BEFORE— “Thus,
RISEN, He early on the First Day of the week, APPEARED to Mary Magdalene .....
first.” (16:9) Quote ends.
So we have here Abib 14, 15, 16 (“unmentioned,” by
the way), and 17, one, two, three, four calendar days. Can anyone tell me what
I am missing here?
You know, Gerhard, you should be called names. You deserve it! You are nothing
but a total fraud! You speak with for-ked tongue. Even your beloved A. T.
Robertson doesn’t agree with you: “At any rate, it remains clear that Matthew
agrees with the other Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday
morning” (Harmony, 289).
GE:
What I believe being a Christian, I believe on the sole grounds
of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead which is more than synonymous
with confessing on the sole grounds of “according to the Scriptures”.
That is why I believe, “the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God”,
and that it, the Seventh Day Sabbath, is “The Lord’s Day”. ‘The
Lord’s Day’ because the last enemy destroyed in the Triumph of His
Resurrection is death -- the death of death in the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead, “Sabbath’s”, “according to the Scriptures
the third day” of Egypt’s dark plague vanquished; in that God, “the
Seventh Day from ALL HIS WORKS, RESTED”: “in the Son”, “WHEN GOD
RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD”. I glory in the Glory of God’s Name: “The
Glory of the Father” --- the Son in resurrection from the dead; “O, That
I may know Him, and the POWER of HIS, RESURRECTION”. Yes, God even in the
beginning, exerted Himself so to speak -- “ENERGISED”, “WORKED”
towards the Blessing and the Sanctity and the Completion and the Rest of God on
the Seventh Day “BY the Glory of the Father” which is the SON. That is
why I believe the Sabbath is the Christian Day of worship-rest, “The Sabbath
of the LORD your God”.
Paul
R. Finch:
By your own words you are prejudiced to believe in the Sabbath
as the day of Jesus’ resurrection. Your arguments are strained in order to do
thus. That the plan of God revolves around the understanding of the seventh day
Sabbath is not justification to force Scripture to support a theory that is not
at all testified in the texts. That the plan of God revolves around the idea
that after six thousand years of human and demonic rule of this earth, a
millennial rest will occur. But what about the period thereafter, the eighth
millennial day? That is when supposedly Satan is released for a little time.
Does it not make sense that the new ruler of this world who supplanted Satan
will not now finally defeat him on this day? If the seventh day represents
perfection, then the millennial Sabbath represents that time of perfection for
those who live within that period, as well as those who preceded that were
called. But on the eigth day Satan is to released again, is he not? This gets
into another whole discussion, but the point is that it is not necessary to
strain scripture to support a personal belief that is not supported by the
actual texts.
Quotong GE, “Mr Paul
R. Finch, what ‘epifohskoh’ means in Lk23:54b, is, clearly and certainly, “to “draw
on”“ = literally “MID-AFTERNOON”, simply. And, Mr Paul R. Finch, what ‘epifohskoh’
means in Lk23:54b, is clearly and certainly what it means in Mt28:1; and
EVERYWHERE where found in all of Greek literature of all time up to the third
century AD.”
It doesn’t matter if it was “mid-afternoon” or just before sunrise, the fact of
the matter is that days begin at dawn, not dusk.
GE:
No, the fact of the matter in these two cases and contexts is, that the days
– Friday in Lk23:54-56 and the Sabbath in Mt28:1 – “BEGAN TO dawn, TOWARDS” the
days after them. In other words, the
fact of the matter is these two days BEGAN TO END “mid-afternoon”. (And
again, in neither case was the time of day, ‘dusk’.)
And it DOES, “matter if it was “mid-afternoon”
or just before sunrise”, because ‘tehi epi-fohs-k-ous-ehi’ CAN mean NOTHING
BUT, WHAT it states, that it was .....
“in the”- ‘tehi’,
“mid”- ‘epi’,
“day / light / forth shining”- “fohs’,
“in the / while being / is”- ‘uosehi’.
Now the fact of the matter in the case and context of Matthew 28:1 is, that
the CONCEPT “to begin to dawn towards”, is not translated from the words
“in the mid-afternoon”, but from the words, ‘eis mian (hehmeran)
sabbatohn’, because “to begin to dawn towards the First Day” is exactly
what the Greek words ‘eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’ mean, say, and imply. One can check every case of the use of ‘eis’
in time-context in the NT; it indicates a FUTURE, NOT YET PRESENT BUT ‘DAWNING’
‘day’ or ‘time’ or ‘era’ or ‘condition’ or whatever. NO exception!
And lastly, as I have said before, every phrase in Mt28:1-4 must agree with
and confirm the others as pertaining the time of the SINGLE EVENT implied and
alluded to— the Resurrection; NO OTHER!
I answered the suggestion that the first phrases refer to the sealing of
the tomb and the last phrases to the resurrection; or, the first phrases to the
women’s visit and the last phrases to the resurrection, elsewhere. See my
current conversation with Graeme McChesney re the latter suggestion. Refer also above, where in this conversation
PRF and E. Martin referred to the setting of the guard “after the Sabbath”.
Every phrase must agree with and confirm the others as pertaining the time
of the SINGLE EVENT implied and alluded to— the Resurrection. Therefore, ‘opse’- “fullness” =
‘sabbatohn’- “Sabbath’s” = ‘tehi epifohskousehi’- “mid-afternoon”
= ‘eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’- “as it began to dawn towards the First
Day of the week” = “went Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the
grave” = “WHEN SUDDENLY THERE OCCURRED A GREAT EARTHQUAKE .....”.
Paul R. Finch:
That has nothing to do with the fact that
Sabbath DAWNED the next morning! I would translate this verse as “ the
enlightenment of the Sabbath [morning] was approaching.”
GE:
Sorry to object; how can you call that ‘translate’? And, would you do the same in Lk23:54-56, and
say Joseph had buried Jesus in the morning? ..... before the crucifixion?
But, say it is to ‘translate’;
then what are you telling us here, Mr. Paul R. Finch? Hear yourself declare: “.....
the fact that Sabbath DAWNED the next morning! I would translate this verse as “the
enlightenment of the Sabbath [morning] was approaching.”“ Now only fill in with what Matthew is telling
us, “..... Sabbath DAWNED the next
morning! ..... as “the enlightenment of the Sabbath [morning] was approaching.....
there suddenly was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descending from
heaven, approaching, hurled from the door the great stone and sat upon it.” That – to Mr. Finch’s own ‘translation’ if I am not dreaming – is
telling us the Resurrection occurred while “the
Sabbath [morning] was approaching”— ‘the
SABBATH morning’!
Paul R Finch:
As far as the Greek word “opse” as to
whether it means “late on the Sabbath” or “after the Sabbath” we have to
consider that it could go either way. If it is used prepositionally, then it
means after the Sabbath. But if it means late on the Sabbath, then it is used
in a genitive sense. So how are we to decide?
GE:
Allow me recommend we decide after we have got a few things corrected
first.
As far as the Greek word “opse” is concerned, “as to whether it means “late on the Sabbath” or “after the Sabbath”“—
it CANNOT “go either way” in the way
you mean it can; it cannot.
For one, “A. T. Robertson
admitted that it could go both ways”, is not so; you do not understand what
he actually is saying. Or perhaps you
do, because you quote him incorrectly which suggests you wanted to misquote him
to suit your own ideas. In his ‘A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,
1914, 645’, A. T. Robertson does not admit “it
could go either way”. I ask Mr. Finch to quote A. T. Robertson where he
made a statement that amounts to having, “admitted
that it could go both ways”. I think
Mr. Paul R. Finch depends on a secondary source for his conclusion, “A. T. Robertson admitted that it could go
both ways”, and I guess that source was Prof. Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi,
‘Times of the Crucifixion and Resurrection’ p. 62.
What Robertson did say, was, “31. Opse. This
word ..... occurs in the ancient Greek, both as an adverb and as a preposition
with the Genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of “late on”. But Philostratus
shows examples where opse with the
ablative has the sense of “after”, like opse toutohn = “after these things”. 3. Blass, Gr. of N.T. Gk., p.312.”
What Bacchiocchi did –
just like Paul R. Finch is doing – was to keep MUTE that Robertson had said “with the ablative”— which makes a world
of difference!
Mr. Finch in this
discussion has argued that the phrase “after three days” only means what
“in three days” would mean. Now
this – “after the Sabbath” in Mt28:1 – in the sense of an Ablative, is
kind of the same thing. It says ‘after’,
but means ‘within’, because it is an ‘Instrumental Ablative’. “BY late
Sabbath’s there was an earthquake ....” = “OF late Sabbath’s there was
an earthquake ....”.
But “BY far greater
importance” (= “OF far greater importance” ..... Ablative!) is the cold fact of
the stage in history of the Greek language to which Robertson refers or from
which he “shows examples where ‘opse’ with
the ablative has the sense of “after”“, namely from a single author of
‘LATER’ Greek, “Philostratus”. No ‘examples’ are ‘shown’ from ‘earlier’
Greek (as I have pointed out before.)
Robertson continues for
no moment relinquishing the idea of the Ablatival usage of ‘opse’ found in
Philostratus’ writings,
“Philostratus uses it also in the sense of “late on”. The papyri use it in the sense of “late on”
with the Genitive. 4. Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. So opse
tehs hohras. 37 (ii/B.C.)
Hence in Mt.28:1, opse sabbatohn may
be either late on the Sabbath or after the Sabbath. Either has good support.
Moulton is uncertain, 1. Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f while Blass 2.
Gr. Of N. T. Gk., p. 97 prefers “after”. It is a point for exegesis, not
for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has in mind just before sunset, “late on”
would be his idea; if he means after sunset, then “after” is correct. Cf. dis
tou sabbatou (Lk.18:12).” (Emphasis
CGE)
Robertson concludes the
meaning of opse in Matthew from Philostratus’
use. Going to two centuries after New
Testament times could not be accepted a legitimate method of interpretation.
Robertson in any case certainly does not take sides in favour of the meaning “after”
in Mt.28:1. Robertson being the great scholar he is, affirms the fact that
Philostratus “uses opse also in the sense of “late on”.” Had
other researchers but have the courage to also call attention to this.
Bacchiocchi either deliberately keeps silent of this statement of Robertson or
has never consulted A.T. Robertson first-hand.
NOW MARK WELL, ‘Just
before’ sunrise, or something like Paul R. Finch’s
“dawned the next
morning! ..... as “the enlightenment of the Sabbath [morning] was approaching”, NEVER entered the
mind of A.T. Robertson as it never entered the mind of Matthew! The
idea is Paul R. Finch’s as it was
Bacchiochi’s, altogether.
A.T. Robertson supplies
no example and no explanation himself, but refers to Blass and Debrunner, “Philostratus (and no other) shows examples where opse with the ABLATIVE has the sense of “after”“.
These scholars apply ‘opse’ to either the ‘late of day’, before sunset, or, to
the ‘late of day’ after sunset; but they never assumed ‘opse’ meant the early
morning of the day.
What does it mean if
‘opse’ is used as a ‘Preposition with the
Ablative’? Can it still maintain its
meaning as if used as an ‘Adverb with the
Genitive’? First, the scholars don’t
refer to the issue in these terms (in any case not those who know what they’re
talking). They would rather speak of ‘opse’ used as a (proper) ‘Adverb with the Genitive’ or of ‘opse’
used as an ‘IM-proper Preposition with the Ablative’.
Robertson does not –
like Bauer – describe opse as an “improper preposition”. Robertson says
that when “this word … occurs”, whether
“as an adverb (or) as a preposition” – it “occurs ..... with the Genitive”! Not
with the Ablative! Robertson simply supposes some instances of the use of opse within a case-function that
determines the Ablative! “Case is a
matter of function rather than form.” E.g.,
“In the simplest typical sentence the
noun is the subject, and therefore in the nominative case. It is absurd to
think of turning this statement around, and saying that the noun is in the
nominative case, and, therefore, the subject.” Therefore also, “may a noun be used to denote the point of
departure, in a thought of … (*) derivation,
for which the Ablative case is used” – as in Mt.28:1, sabbatohn.* I think Dana and
Mantey could have done better to omit the word “removal” because the idea of severance conveyed by this word is
exactly opposite the Ablative’s functional meaning. “Like father like son” is
Ablative – not “to differ like day by night”. Ablative indicates connection –
like “derivation” of effluent from
source. Not repelling “removal” –
like between the positives of magnets. Tyndale sensed this perfectly when he
translated Mt.28:1, opse sabbatohn, “In
the end of the Sabbath”! The Ablative “conceives
of the whole (“Sabbath’s”) as the
source from which the part (the “late-part” or “end-part”) is taken” or is derived.
The concept, or, “sense of “after” “, implies
disconnectedness, separation and unrelatedness. But in the Ablative, “That which is named in the noun is modified”
by it, and “owes its existence in some
way to that which is denoted in the Ablative” – in Mt.28:1 in the form
(declension) of the Genitive – “Sabbath’s”. That
which – the time, “late” - opse –
is
named in the noun modified by the Ablative; and it owes its existence to that which is denoted in the Ablative – the
Sabbath - Sabbatohn! It gives time in, on, during and of the Sabbath Day; not
the First Day after it!
Says Dana and Mantey’s Grammar, “To emphasize derivation or source the Ablative with a preposition
exactly serves the purpose; to emphasize definition or character would require
the use of the Genitive, since the Ablative has no such significance. Therefore
we had best regard the partitive construction without the preposition as a
Genitive.” In Mt.28:1 both the purposes of derivation or source and definition
or character interplay; therefore we
had best regard the partitive construction without the preposition in
Mt.28:1 as a Genitive.
According to the Collins
Dictionary, opse in Mt.28:1 should by
definition of the Ablative “indicate the
instrument, manner, or place of the action described by the verb”. (“Ablative of means”, Dana and Mantey) The
idea of “after” is quite irreconcilable with such a meaning in Matthew 28:1. On
the contrary, considered as an Ablative the word “Sabbath’s” functions as the “instrument” or “manner” in the sentence, “By
being Sabbath’s-time late being-after-noon(light) towards the First Day came
Mary … was there a great earthquake … descended an angel”. The “manner” and “place of the
action described by the verb” are implied and indicated by the Ablative, “Sabbath’s”. A locative though is hardly
the case in Mt.28:1.
Robertson is of the opinion that “either (of the meanings “after” and “late”) has good support”. He mentions “the ancient Greek”, “Philostratus also” and “the papyri” as sources that use opse “with the sense of “late on”.” Robertson says of Moulton that he is “uncertain” in the case of Mt.28:1 whether opse should mean “late” or “after”. That implies that Moulton, in