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 the other cases of opse’s occurrence with the meaning of “late”, is certain. “Blass prefers “after”“, says Robertson.
Blass’ preference applies for Mt.28:1
and for no other occurrence of the term. This appears to be a very uneven
weight of “evidences” in favour of
the meaning “late on” and Robertson’s discretion like Blass’ quite subjective
pertaining the only alleged exception, Mt.28:1!
For Robertson the
problem must be resolved on the basis of which method Matthew uses to reckon
the day – not on the basis of what the meaning of the word opse is. It is a point … not
for grammar”, says he. “If Matthew has in mind just before
sunset, “late on” would be his idea; if
he means after sunset, then “after”
is correct.” Robertson actually admits defeat and concludes, “It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to
decide”.
Approaching the question
then from the angle of exegesis, it must be determined whether Matthew “means after sunset” or “has in mind … before sunset” in Mt.28:1.
Whether or not Matthew means the dawn of the next day is irrelevant.
Bacchiocchi’s attempt at an overall investigation of Matthew to indicate his
use of the sunrise reckoning proved futile while the incidence of the sunset
reckoning in Matthew was shown to be abundant and convincing (Par. 5.3.2.1.).
Specific investigation of the terms opsia
and opse in Matthew and the whole New
Testament underscored the finding of a sunset reckoning in Matthew as well as
of opse’s meaning in Mark to be “late
on”. The present research as an exegetical attempt at solving the question of opse’s meaning in Mt.28:1 confirms that
the old scholars were correct. Translators and commentators like Tyndale and
Wycliffe, the committee for the translation of the Authorised Version, the
committee for the translation of the Revised Version, Lightfoot with his translation,
Young and Webster, are all in the same company. The “host of scholars” who favour a rendering of opse in Mt.28:1 with “late on” need not retreat one bit for
Bacchiocchi’s “host of scholars”
favouring the “after” meaning.
Paul R. Finch:
So, if it could both ways, then it can not
be presented in a court of law as evidence one way or the other. It has to be
dismissed as evidence. Sorry, but that is the way it goes with evidence. In
other words, we can not use evidence that can go either way to drive the
chronology, but use what we know of the chronology to drive the sense of this
usage. And I believe that Sabbatarians wish to believe that it means late on
the Sabbath in order to drive home their point, but they are disallowed to do
this simply because there is no assured grammatical conclusion of its usage.
Thus, the chronology must drive the usage, and not the other way around.
Therefore, based on the context, I am inclined to believe that “opse” is here
used to refer to “after the Sabbath” and certainly not “late on the Sabbath.” And as your acknowledged Greek Scholar A. T.
Robertson so apply put it: “At any rate, it remains clear that Matthew agrees
with the other Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning”
(Harmony of the Gospels, 289).
GE:
I have conclusively shown it CANNOT “go both
ways”. And A. T. Robertson saying “the
Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning” is A. T.
Robertson AT VARIANCE WITH HIMSELF as well as with the Gospels, who no one “put(s) the resurrection of Jesus Sunday
morning”, but everyone, indisputably with innumerable indications,
suggestions and implications, implies the resurrection BEFORE “on the First
Day of the week”.
“If it could both ways, then”,
why should “Sabbatarians” be “disallowed” to be “inclined to believe”, ‘that “opse”
is here used to refer to “late on the Sabbath “..... and ..... not to “after
the Sabbath” simply because there is
no assured grammatical conclusion of its usage’? What is good for the goose must be good for
the gander ..... And ‘certainly’— “simply because there is no assured
grammatical conclusion of its usage” the ‘usage’ of such words as ‘certainly’,
should be ‘disallowed’.
Re: “.....
we can not use evidence that can go either way to drive the chronology, but use
what we know of the chronology to drive the sense of this usage”
.....
What is “this
usage”?
“What we know of the chronology .....”—
how would we know it but by to “use evidence”?
And WHO, USED ‘the evidence’ while he thought it suited him?;
then – because
he doesn’t know what the grammatical implications were about – decided “we
can not use evidence that can go either way”?;
then decided –
despite according to himself “evidence that can go either way” – “Sabbatarians
..... are disallowed” to “use evidence”—
“simply because” Paul R. Finch
has decided “there is no assured
grammatical conclusion of its usage”? Actually, “simply because”
Paul R. Finch has a totally abstract ‘issue’ in mind.
Robertson’s LAST
finding was, ‘opse’ could mean “If
Matthew has in mind just before SUNSET,
“late on” would be his idea; if he means after SUNSET, then “after” is correct.”
Robertson NEVER said, implied, or hinted,
that “Matthew has in mind just before”
“
Not to say one
is forced to agree with Robertson. He is throughout arguing on assumption, “IF.....”. And in my mind there is no
allowance possible for assumptions or “IF’s.....”
in Mt28:1-4, 5a.
My own
interpretation lets ‘opse’ remain an Adverb under every circumstance. In other
words, seen as an Adverb, things are explained in the simplest possible
way. I always illustrate my idea of what
Matthew meant in Mt28:1-4, seen from the point of view of an Ablative ‘usage’ of the word ‘opse’, with the
following illustration ..... I
illustrate my idea which I believe was Matthew’s idea with having used ‘opse’—
if he (unconsciously of course) ‘had in
mind’, an ‘Ablatival usage’ .....
‘The children
partied virtually the whole day their friend’s birthday. After the party, the
friend opened his presents and thanked everyone for their best wishes and for
having come to his party. Then everyone went home after the party.’
‘Then everyone
went home after the party’, was ‘after the party’ literally, and requires an
Accusative!
‘After the
party’ was while it was still the party— Ablative! So, ‘After the party’ is the same as saying instead,
“In the end of the party .....”; which
is similar to Mt28:1, whether “After the Sabbath” or “In the end of
the Sabbath”.
‘In the end of
the party’ is ‘an Ablative used in the
sense of ‘after’ meaning ON THE SAME DAY AND OCCASION “OF THE PARTY”! “Case-
function” and “Form”, are
IDENTICAL in meaning and ‘usage’; not
contradicting!
Re, “.....
because there is no assured grammatical conclusion of its usage. Thus, the
chronology must drive the usage, and not the other way around. Therefore, based
on the context......”
There exist no discrepancies such as this statement presupposes between “chronology” and
“the usage” of the word ‘opse’; and A. T. Robertson did not
suppose the kind of “drive” in
opposite directions of “chronology”
and “usage” (assumed, of grammatical “usage” of the word ‘opse’).
Critics (like
Bacchiocchi and Finch) like to forget or ignore the Grammatical question which
Robertson specifically addressed, namely, whether Matthew used the word with
the Ablative and therefore with the meaning “late after the Sabbath” or, with the Genitive and therefore with
the meaning of “late in the Sabbath”—
BOTH ‘usages’ in fact placing the
events mentioned in the context ON THE SABBATH “before” or, “after”, “SUNSET”. A. T. Robertson with his ‘alternative’,
irrevocably places Mt28:1-4 WITHIN the perimeters of the “Sabbath” before or
after sunset; and before and OUTSIDE the perimeters of the First Day of the
week.
To say A. T.
Robertson with this paragraph of his in his Grammar, is saying what he
elsewhere states, that “At
any rate, it remains clear that Matthew agrees with the other Evangelists in
putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning” (Harmony of the Gospels, 289)”, is to MISQUOTE and DISCREDIT him. It in truth amounts to libel against A. T.
Robertson. The ‘issue’ in Mt28:1-4
according to Robertson with reference to the word ‘late’- ‘opse’, is NOT whether the women’s visit was on the
Sabbath or on the First Day; it is – according to Robertson – about whether the
women’s visit was ‘late BEFORE sunset
..... on the SABBATH’, or, ‘late
AFTER sunset ..... on the SABBATH’.
The whole question for Robertson revolved around “Why allow the women only one visit?”; in other words, why not allow
them more than one visit— THIS VISIT ON THE SABBATH as well as another visit on
the Sunday morning?
End
Finch Third delivery Third part, 8
January 2010
Posts
after .....
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?
Oops, you're right. Change “Sabbath” to “First Day of the Week.” That's what I
meant, obviously.
GE:
Paul R. Finch, you have got a hope if you thought I was going to BELIEVE YOU
here! Here is yet another PROOF of your DISHONESTY. You IMPOSSIBLY meant “First Day of the Week.” I shall give the
context of your statement, and then tell me still you meant “First Day of the Week”. You really think
I am such a fool?
Context of Paul R. Finch's statement, “By
your own words you are prejudiced ...... 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. [Paul R. Finch Post 11, all the way,
still, uninterrupted ...... after Posts 29, 30 of this thread above .....] 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. [COLOR=“Blue”][I]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.”
Paul
R. Finch:
Sorry, but your attempt to misquote
Robertson is a glaring attempt to squeeze out of what he said. You want
Robertson to be on your side, and he is not. So you try to pull a fast one and
convince everyone else that they are the ones who can't read plainly what he
said. You are outrageous. Robertson did say that it is “the resurrection of
Jesus Sunday morning” that Matthew agrees with! No one who didn't have an ax to
grind would say that Robertson's clear words meant something other than what he
clearly said. You are the one who is guilty of misquoting him if you say
anything different. And for what reason would you have other than to twist
Scripture to make it say what it does not?
GE:
The one here ‘misquoting
Robertson’ and ‘twisting Scripture’,
is you, Paul R Finch. You “misquote
Robertson” by plastering together his claim in “(Harmony of the Gospels, 289)”, with his statement in his Grammar,
‘A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,
1914, page 645’. YOU, lible Robertson, attributing to him having made the
claim, “At any rate, it remains clear that
Matthew agrees with the other Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus
Sunday morning” (Harmony of the Gospels, 289)”, IN HIS GRAMMAR. YOU, Paul
R. Finch FALSELY accuse Robertson for having written about the time of the
Resurrection while he was writing about – ACCORDING TO ROBERTSON HIMSELF – a
Sabbath’s VISIT at the tomb by the two Marys “on the Sabbath” on the day BEFORE
the First Day— the First Day which according to Robertson would be the day of
the Resurrection.
“Thorough with his
facts”, Joman? Who's the one here
with “reading problems”, Jehushuan? O
dear o dear! I won't speak of ethics or
moral values like the most basic of being a Christian -- honesty.
Yes, “Robertson did say that it is “the
resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning” that Matthew agrees with!” But
Robertson did not say this with reference to 28:1-4 and the term ‘opse’; he
said it with reference to Matthew's mention of THE OTHER VISIT which Robertson
alluded to in his Grammar when he asked, why give the women only one visit to
the tomb! I won't mention the most basic of human characteristics --
intelligence!
Besides, I said it straight: I am not forced to agree with Robertson; and I
said it straight, that Robertson FALTERED; and I stand by it regardless the
integrity and greatness of the man. I may be the naked king but I'm not the
town's fool here.
Paul
R. Finch:
The only English translations that I
could find that said “late on the sabbath” were the American Standard Version,
the Darby Version, and the English Revised Version. So that's your host of
scholars who need not retreat from those favouring “after?”
GE:
Now this statement – submission, one
should say – of yours, Paul R. Finch, just goes to show: 1) your reading
abilities or rather lack of reading abilities; 2) your thoroughness or rather
lack of thoroughness; 3) your IGNORANCE or rather redundancy of ignorance ----
and that after I SUPPLIED you with a virtually complete list of every English
Bible from the first to the last of the old school before these caricatures of
Mt28:1 began to appear around the beginning of he 20th century.
Finch
Third Delivery Fourth part
Paul R. Finch:
The Setting of the Guard
If there was an “annual”
Sabbath that occurred on Thursday of Passion Week and the Crucifixion was the
day before that “annual” Sabbath, then would it have not made sense that the
authorities would have wanted a guard set after that first Sabbath and not only
let Thursday pass, but a full Friday to pass, then a second Sabbath and only then
set the guard after both Sabbaths?
GE:
The
guard was not set because “the
authorities would have wanted a guard set”.
The JEWS pleaded with Pilate – who was “the authorities” – for a guard.
They were desperately afraid Jesus would rise again from the dead— it
was their sole motive for their request. They feared Jesus’ resurrection so
much they did not mind they transgressed their Sabbath-laws in their efforts to
prevent it happen. So there’s no sense in even asking these questions.
Paul R.
Finch:
Of course it
does and the context of Matthew 27 is very clear. Verses 59-61 show us that
Joseph of Arimathea buried the body of Jesus with the women watching. Then beginning
with verse 62:
“The next day,
that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests
and the
Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, `Sir, we remember what that impostor
said while he was alive, `After three days I will rise again.’ Therefore
command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples
may go and steal him away, and tell the people, `He has been raised from the
dead,’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as
secure as you can.’ So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by
sealing the stone.” Matt. 27:62-66, NRSV.
The context is
absolutely clear. It was the day after Jesus was
crucified that
the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate, urgently appealing to him to
have a guard set immediately after that Sabbath. They certainly would not have
waited an extra two days because they themselves asked to have the guard set “until
the third day.”
GE:
Why
say, “The context is absolutely clear. It
was the day after Jesus was crucified that the chief priests and Pharisees went
to Pilate, urgently appealing to him to have a guard set immediately AFTER that Sabbath”?
We
are told, “The Sabbath DAY begins at
sunrise and ends at sunset. The Sabbath Day occupies no portion of darkness.”
(PRF, in correspondence.) If so, the
Sabbath should end sunset. But what is
the “context” here? “So
they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.” Matt.
27:62-66, NRSV. The context is absolutely clear.” The ‘context’, is “Matt. 27:62-66”. Now where in this “absolutely clear context” are these words or this idea, “to have a guard set immediately AFTER that Sabbath”, “at sunset”? The context
calls for, and the text says, it was after the previous day, namely after “The
Preparation (of the Jews)”; but it also says, “I was in the MORNING after
sunrise after the Preparation” – ‘epaurion hehtis estin meta tehn
paraskeuehn’.
“They (the Jews) certainly would not have
waited an extra two days because they themselves asked to have the guard set “until
the third day.”“ Therefore, that the
Jews have “not waited” to ask to have
a guard prove beyond a doubt they did not know and that they were nowhere near when
Joseph buried Jesus. If they were aware or present when he buried the body, the
Jews would have done one of two things, they in the first place would have
prevented Joseph to bury the body; or, if they allowed him, they would without
waiting on the Preparation Day already have asked for a guard and seal. Which
neither they did. That the Jews do not
hesitate to desecrate their Sabbath “the morning after their preparations”
– preparations due to the Sabbath’s sacredness – can only mean they were taken
unawares by Joseph’s undertaking. Conclusion, The Jews did not know that Joseph
buried Jesus, and hurriedly after they had come to learn about it, on the last
day tried last measures to prevent Him to rise again because in their heart of
hearts they knew He would.
Now
for the major BLUNDER in the reasoning, “The
context is absolutely clear. It was the day after Jesus was crucified that the
chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate, urgently appealing to him to have a
guard set .....”. Blunder? I hear Paul R. Finch say. I answer, a blunder if ever there was! You should be able to see it; if not, I
don’t think it worth my while to mention it or explain it. But since others follow this conversation I
shall point it out.
“The context is absolutely clear” it was
the day that the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate, appealing to him
to have a guard set. That, no one can deny, because that is what the text
states. The claim here, is though, that “It was the day after Jesus was crucified
that the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate”— “the day after Jesus was crucified”.
It
was the Sabbath Day on which the Jews asked Pilate for the guard and on which
the guard was set. What does the text
say (in the first place)? It does not exactly
say, “The next day, that is, after the
day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate.”
It says exactly, “The FOLLOWING MORNING, that is, after the day of
Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees met with Pilate.” “The day
of Preparation” refers to Friday, especially its afternoon “by the time
of the Jews’ preparations” Jn19:42 as “the Sabbath drew near” Lk23:54b,
while the women “went home and prepared spices and ointments.”
It
was the Sabbath Day on which the Jews asked Pilate for the guard and on which
the guard was set. From Saturday
morning, one has to go back 7 verses in ‘context’
to 27:57 to reach the point in time when Joseph had begun his undertaking. Joseph “came”, and he “asked”,
says Matthew, “When the even was come.”
Mark explains, “Now when the even was come because it was the
Preparation that is the Fore-Sabbath”. John, “Because it was the Preparation
..... and that day was a great day sabbath the Jews asked ..... and after these
things Joseph .....”— OBVIOUSLY with the crucified individuals HOURS AGO
crucified and all for HOURS STILL
hanging on their crosses!
Any
word at this stage of “the Jews’ preparations”? Not a word! So, could this be the ‘evening’ before “after
their preparations”? No! Because this evening Joseph still had
not anything done, and the women had not even known that Joseph had asked for
the body or that he later on would bury it— how could they have had their
preparations finished not even knowing He would be buried?
So
we are forced by the context, by all available data, and by the bare fact Jesus
“the evening” with which “The Preparation” HAD HAD BEGUN, and
Joseph had not yet buried Jesus – to go look ELSEWHERE for the evening “after” which, “the following
morning”, “the chief priests and Pharasees came together unto Pilate”
to ask for a guard for the grave.
That
supposed ‘evening’ had to have been the evening of the starting hours of the
Sabbath Day, naturally, one day after the evening on which Joseph had begun
undertaking. The text mentions “the morning
following after The Preparation / after their preparations”— Sabbath
morning after Friday evening. Everything is perfect agreement with the other. It therefore was the day after the day Jesus
was BURIED on, that the chief
priests and Pharisees went to Pilate— NOT
“the day after Jesus was crucified”.
It took Joseph a FULL DAY between when he “came” and “asked” for
the body, until he “rolled a stone in the opening of the sepulchre”.
Paul R Finch (in
correspondence): “The
Sabbath DAY begins at sunrise and ends at sunset. The Sabbath Day occupies no
portion of darkness”.
GE:
You
say “The Sabbath DAY begins at sunrise
and ends at sunset. The Sabbath Day occupies no portion of darkness” because
you think day starts sunrise, then the Seventh Day ended with daylight, while
the night before it did not belong to it; but it also did not belong to the
Sixth Day? So every week has a surplus
half a day— a surplus, redundant, night. What happens to it? What has happened to it ever since creation
.....?
The
first half of the First Day of the creation week though, was its darkness-part,
and so the days rotated until the Seventh Day so that also the Seventh Day’s
first half was its darkness part. Thus all days have rotated until the Seventh
Day its first half according to the Bible having been its darkness or night and
its last half its daylight. That darkness first part of the Sabbath BEGINNING
can be seen in Gn3:8. Fact remains, “The
Seventh Day”, “the darkness, Night, and the light, Day”, “is the Sabbath of the LORD”, JUST
LIKE “the darkness, Night, and the light, Day ..... were the First Day”
etcetera.
Paul R. Finch:
Now notice this
important fact.
It must not be
considered that the authorities went to the tomb to seal the huge stone to the
rock escarpment with mortar without first looking inside to see if the body was
in fact still there. It would be ludicrous to believe that they were securing
the tomb from theft if they had not at least satisfied for themselves that
Jesus’ body wasn’t already stolen. Would not have Pilate and everyone else have
asked the authorities, “Did you not check to see if Jesus’ body still lay in
the tomb before sealing it?”
GE:
By
which perhaps even true speculation it is admitted the Jews and nobody but
Joseph, Nicodemus and the two Marys knew that Jesus’ body had been buried. Joseph acted 1) “After this / these things”
‘meta tauta’ the Jews’ request; 2) “Secretly because of the Jews”
Jn19:38— he didn’t want the Jews to know what he intended to do; 3) ALONE until “Nicodemus also came there”.
Paul R. Finch:
It is obvious
that the Jewish authorities were anxious in stopping the belief that Jesus
would arise by the third day. The only time that there was no watch and the
disciples could have stolen the body was up until the time they set the guard.
So they must have made sure that during this time the body wasn’t already
stolen, otherwise they would have been made fools and the whole intent of their
actions would have been for nothing. The Wednesday Crucifixion theory tells us
that Jesus arose late on Sabbath afternoon. If this is so, then at the very
time that the tomb Matt. 27:62-66, NRSV.
GE:
The
Wednesday Crucifixion theory tells Jesus arose first second after 72 hours
after its last moment which is on the First Day of the week. PRF himself has argued against the
WC-theorists they actually teach a fourth day resurrection. Now PRF goes against himself, saying “The Wednesday Crucifixion theory tells us
that Jesus arose late on Sabbath afternoon.”
However,
Matthew tells us the circumstances and events around Jesus’ resurrection occurred,
“Late in / on the Sabbath / In the Sabbath’s fullness, the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon
as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”. (Every word carefully exact!) If this is so – and it is so –, then at the
very time the sun was “mid-east” literally per Matt. 27:62-66 in the
Greek, the Jews “met with Pilate” and the tomb soon after was sealed, ‘epaurion’
< ‘epi’- “mid-after” + ‘aurion’- “morning / sunrise / east”—
the exact
equivalent
of ‘diafauskoh’ (in the LXX) and approximate opposite
of
“sunset”- ‘dunoh / dumi’ in Mk1:32, Lk4:40, and direct opposite
of
‘epifohskoh’- “mid-afternoon” in Lk23:54, Mt28:1—
‘epifohskousehi’
< ‘epi’- “mid-after” + ‘fohs’- “light / day” + ‘ousehi’ <
‘eimi’- “in being”. Therefore,
NOT “late on Sabbath afternoon” >
‘late afternoon’, BUT, “late IN the Sabbath and mid-afternoon”.
Get the difference? It’s the difference between lying and talking sense and
truth.
Paul R. Finch:
The Wednesday
Crucifixion theory tells us that Jesus arose late on Sabbath afternoon. If this
is so, then at the very time that the tomb
Matt. 27:62-66, NRSV. was being sealed the body of Jesus was already
gone. But by the above analysis, a Sabbath afternoon Resurrection would be
entirely impossible.
GE:
What
logic is this? It is first argued the
grave would be inspected first to see if the body was intact before it would be
sealed. Fine. Then it would be sealed. Fine; which means they must have found the
body intact before they would have sealed it.
Fine. So they sealed the
grave. Fine. Now PRF
continues with this wisdom: “If this is so, then at the very time that
the tomb Matt. 27:62-66, NRSV. was being
sealed the body of Jesus was already gone.”
“..... the body of Jesus was
already gone.....”? Yet they sealed the grave?
Paul R. Finch:
But by the above
analysis, a Sabbath afternoon Resurrection would be entirely impossible. And as the third calendar day since Christ’s
Crucifixion was beginning, it was necessary that the tomb be on careful watch
from the beginning of that “third day” on.
GE:
Yes,
in fact, “from the beginning of that “third
day” on” this its day of sunshine having begun since it was “after
sunrise” ‘epaurion’ on “that “third
day”“ already. It was necessary the
tomb be carefully watched UNTIL that “third day” was OVER! That was what the Jews met with Pilate for to
ask! “While He was yet alive He said,
After three days I will rise again. Command THEREFORE; command the sepulchre BE
MADE SURE UNTIL the third day (– Jesus, and they, spoke about: this day
today –) is over, lest his disciple come by night (after it) and
steal him away.”
“..... as the third calendar day since
Christ’s Crucifixion was beginning.....”?
Yes, beginning..... As the very word used, shows the time of day the
priests met with Pilate was ‘epaurion’- “the following morning of day” /
“the following daylight”. It implies the MIDDLE of “the third calendar day since Christ’s Crucifixion was beginning”— “the third calendar day since Christ’s Crucifixion” which HAD BEGUN with
its own ‘before-sunrise’ part; with its OWN night. Now daylight of that same third calendar day
since Christ’s Crucifixion was beginning “after sunrise”- ‘apaurion’. “The
after sunrise morning of day which is after the Preparation”, “was beginning”. It’s night-halve now was PAST and its “after-sunrise”
part has now just begun. But PRF is
saying, “the third calendar day since
Christ’s Crucifixion was beginning” ..... “after sunset”!
The third
calendar day since Christ’s Crucifixion was not “beginning”; it was right in its middle. “The third calendar day(‘s)” daylight, ‘was beginning’. The Jews were rudely
awakened by the news that Jesus’ body had been buried on The Preparation! It
called for DESPERATE MEASURES to be taken despite it was the Sabbath’s “morning”
now.
Paul R. Finch:
There is another
important clue that has been overlooked by the
Wednesday
crucifixion theorists that shows the crucifixion was not on the Sabbath
afternoon. It is in the report of the guard to the chief priests.
Notice:
“…some of the
guard went into the city and told the chief priests
everything that
had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a
plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, `You must say,
`His disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this
comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’
So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still
told among the Jews to this day.” Matt.
28:11-15, NRSV.
We should note
here that Dr. Ernest L. Martin believes that the expression in Matthew 28:1, “after
the Sabbath[s],” should be attached to the last verses of chapter 27 and refer
to the fact that it was after the Sabbath that the tomb was sealed and the
guard was set. Ernest L. Martin, The
Case for a Thursday Crucifixion, (The Foundation for Biblical
Research, Pasadena,:1983), p. 2 and 101
Bible Secrets that Christians Do Not Know, (ASK Publications, Portland, Oregon, 1993), pp. 60-1.
This idea, of course,
is based on days beginning and ending at sunset. Martin sees no other way to
harmonize Matthew 28:1 other than chopping it up so that the “after the
Sabbath[s]” expression is divorced from the women arriving at the tomb in the
early hours of the first day of the week at sunrise. It is possible that
Matthew did mean after the Sabbath DAY, but it is more likely that he was
referring to the day and night which just past.
The fact is that
the Jewish authorities were well aware that the body of Jesus was still there
just after the Sabbath day had ended. This is when they sealed the stone. The
body could only have been stolen during the night when the guards could have
fallen asleep, most likely in the early predawn hours. This is another powerful
indication that Jesus could not have arisen on the afternoon of the Sabbath. Ernest L. Martin, The Case for a Thursday Crucifixion, (The Foundation for
Biblical Research, Pasadena,:1983), p. 2 and 101 Bible Secrets that Christians Do Not Know, (ASK Publications, Portland,
Oregon, 1993), pp. 60-1. The Day of
the Crucifixion—Friday or Wednesday?)
GE:
Paul
R Finch should kindly explain to us just what he means by saying, “..... that shows the crucifixion was not on the
Sabbath afternoon. It is in the report ..... `You must say, `His disciples came
BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep.’” How does “the
report ..... `You must say, `His disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away
while we were asleep”, “show”, “the crucifixion was not on the Sabbath
afternoon”?
Alright;
PRF means, “the crucifixion was not on the.....”
PASSOVER’S “Sabbath afternoon”. But
that exactly would be to positively affirm that which Paul R. Finch from the
beginning set out to disprove!
Nevertheless,
how does “the report ..... `You must say,
`His disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep”, “show”, “the crucifixion was not on the Sabbath afternoon” even were that “Sabbath afternoon” the afternoon of ANY
‘sabbath’?
And
STILL, was that “Sabbath afternoon”
the afternoon of “that great day of sabbath’s”-importance of the
passover, how does “the report ..... `You
must say, `His disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep”,
“show”, “the crucifixion was.....” on FRIDAY?
Even
if PRF meant just what he wrote, “.....
that” – i.e., “in the report of the guard to the chief
priests ..... “the chief priests ..... telling the (guard) [say] , `You must say, `His disciples came BY
NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep’.....” how does THAT, show the crucifixion was not on the Sabbath
afternoon”? Because it is this, or, PRF made a MISTAKE,
and actually meant to say, “`His
disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were asleep’..... shows the”
..... RESURRECTION ..... “was not on the Sabbath afternoon.”
Then
Paul R Finch should especially,
kindly explain to us just what he means, HOW, the fact, “the chief priests ..... telling the guard” to say, “You must say, `His disciples came BY NIGHT and
stole him away while we were asleep”, shows the Resurrection was not on the Sabbath
afternoon?
Paul R. Finch:
The fact is that
the Jewish authorities were well aware that the body of Jesus was still there
just after the Sabbath day had ended.
GE:
Again
Paul R. Finch is arguing – by saying “The
fact is ....” – FOR the truth it was “the
Sabbath day” inevitably – which must have “had ended”, whether he is speaking of the passover’s ‘sabbath’ or
not; or of Friday or not. In other
words, PRF is arguing against his own will and own theory the ‘sabbath’ spoken
of in Jn19:31 was a case of a “double
sabbath” of the passover’s ‘High day’
“coinciding with the weekly Sabbath”.
He contradicts himself plainly.
Now
HOW would “the Jewish authorities”
have been “well aware that the body of
Jesus was still there just after the Sabbath day had ended”?
They obviously did not even know that Joseph had buried the Lord’s body
else they would not only now “the morning after The Preparation” have
turned up with a last minute emergency measure to propose! [And, they would not – like PRF supposes –first have wanted to
LOOK IF the body actually was in the tomb.] Why haven’t they made ‘preparation’ with this
urgent matter while it was their chance for ‘preparation’?
Only because
they did not know
Joseph
had buried Jesus!
They
were too busy
“rest(ing)
on the Sabbath
according to the Commandment”
one
might guess,
every
of the three crucified writhing
in
agony with broken legs
in
Gehenna still, not so?
like
Pilate already two nights ago
to
their wish
had
given order.
Who
was thinking about
“that
knave”, still,
anyway?
Mt27:63.
But
it all worked out according to the
Then, ‘Notice:’
PRF acknowledges Matthew here “by the
above analysis .... that Jesus arose ..... just after the Sabbath day had ended”.
It MUST refer to Mt28:1 (as falsely
rendered “after the Sabbath day had ended”).
PRF does not himself mention Mt28:1, but
gives “Matt. 27:62-66” AS THOUGH both
passages imply the SAME day and event. Says Paul R. Finch, “We should
note here that Dr. Ernest L. Martin believes that the expression in Matthew
28:1, “after the Sabbath[s],” should be attached to the last verses of chapter
27 and refer to the fact that it was after the Sabbath that the tomb was sealed
and the guard was set”— which amounts to Paul R. Finch admitting – regardless
he denounces Martin’s deducements – Matthew speaks of the Sabbath in both “Matt. 27:62-66” and Mt28:1.
(I
don’t know what Dr. Ernest L. Martin
would have thought or commented if he read Paul R. Finch’s referencing to him
in this regard. Most probably nothing of pure indignation. But mind you “the fact that it was after the Sabbath that the tomb was sealed and the
guard was set”, is NOT Dr Martin’s; it is another of those ‘facts’ typical of one Paul R. Finch’s! PRF apparently has not taken the trouble to
read “the last verses of chapter 27”
and Mt28:1 himself.)
Having
admitted Matthew – “in the report (in
“Matt. 27:62-66”) .....
`You must say, `His disciples came BY NIGHT and stole him away while we were
asleep’” – speaks of the Sabbath, PRF has admitted “the Jewish authorities” – “the chief priests and Pharisees”
– were having “the third day” in mind, because they asked Pilate, “Command
therefore that the sepulchre be made sure UNTO the third day” (64a), which
means, “FOR the third day”, “WITH the third day IN MIND”, “REALISING
IT IS the third day”, “BECAUSE THIS IS the third day”— ‘heohs tehs
tritehs hehmeras’. Throughout this passover, Yahweh has been one step ahead of
them chief priests and Pharisees!
(‘Heohs’-
Preposition with Genitive, (Robertson 643); Conjunction (BD 383, 455,3);
(Correlative) Adverb (BD 216,3; ); “unto x28 / even unto x2 / until x22 / till
x12 / while x6 / as far as (is concerned) x3”.)
Here
we have a word for word statement by “the
Jewish authorities” Jesus would rise “on the third day”- ‘tehs
tritehs hehmeras’. They reason being “the Jewish authorities” – not as minding
their P’s and Q’s; but as thinking of the PASSOVER’S “third day”— ‘the
Day of First Sheaf Offering Waved Before the LORD’, “the day after the
(passover’s) sabbath” Lv23:11,15! The Jews KNEW Jesus would “RISE AGAIN”
as “He had told while He was still
alive”; they BELIEVED it from the Scriptures; but they believed it like
the devil would.
Therefore,
here we have a word for word statement by “the
Jewish authorities” Jesus would rise “on the third day”- ‘tehs
tritehs hehmeras’ which was on the Sabbath Day having been “the morning
after their preparations / the morning after The Preparation-day”; the
‘Sabbath’ after ‘Friday’.
And
we have it without even having referred to Mt28:1 YET! It therefore surprises not to continue
reading in Mt27:62-64 through 28:1, “Now the next morning that is after
their preparations the chief priests and Pharisees ..... went and made the
sepulchre sure, they and the watch— BUT late in the Sabbath in the very being
of daylight as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week ..... there
suddenly was a great earthquake .....”.
To
confirm the impression so having read created, read the introduction to the
whole section of the angel’s explanation to the women in verse 5a, first, “Explained
/ Answered the angel the women ..... Now the next morning that is after their
preparations the chief priests and Pharisees ..... went and made the sepulchre
sure, they and the watch— BUT late in the Sabbath in the very being of daylight
as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week ..... there suddenly was
a great earthquake .....”.
Even
better, read from the real beginning of the angel’s explanation – from where
the angel “Answered the women, telling them. ..... Suddenly there came this man
Joseph .....” Read through everything this man Joseph had done, until “Now
the next morning that is after their preparations the chief priests and
Pharisees ..... went and made the sepulchre sure, they and the watch— BUT late
in the Sabbath in the very being of daylight as it began to dawn towards the
First Day of the week ..... there suddenly was a great earthquake .....”.
Get
the whole picture?
Paul R. Finch:
The fact is that
the Jewish authorities were well aware that the body of Jesus was still there
just after the Sabbath day had ended. This is when they sealed the stone.
GE:
You
are saying then, “they sealed the stone”,
“just after the Sabbath day had ended”. Matthew says, “The morning which is after
their preparations / after the Preparation”- ‘epaurion hehtis estin meta
tehn paraskeuehn’. It is the word of
Paul R. Finch against the word of the apostle Matthew.
Paul R. Finch:
This is when
they sealed the stone. The body could only have been stolen during the night
when the guards could have fallen asleep, most likely in the early predawn
hours. This is another powerful indication that Jesus could not have arisen on
the afternoon of the Sabbath.
GE:
In
other words, you think the guard fell asleep on duty? Do you say the body was stolen? Do you aver both things happened “in the early predawn hours”? Do you state these things for fact? So Jesus never rose; the body was stolen,
while the guard slept on duty, “most
likely in the early predawn hours”— no doubt. We are only not so sure about
what time of night “after the Sabbath”
it all happened.
PRF
protests, O no! I’m just imagining; I’m not stating for fact.
Alright
then, then the imagining (and the imagination) of Paul R. Finch “is another powerful indication that Jesus
could not have arisen on the afternoon of the Sabbath.”
Paul R. Finch:
This is when
they sealed the stone. The body could only have been stolen during the night
when the guards could have fallen asleep, most likely in the early predawn
hours. This is another powerful indication that Jesus could not have arisen on
the afternoon of the Sabbath. This
idea, of course, is based on days beginning and ending at sunset. Martin sees
no other way to harmonize Matthew 28:1 other than chopping it up so that the “after
the Sabbath[s]” expression is divorced from the women arriving at the tomb in
the early hours of the first day of the week at sunrise. It is possible that
Matthew did mean after the Sabbath DAY, but it is more likely that he was
referring to the day and night which just past.
GE:
Paul
R. Finch is right, this time, in certain respect. As he says, “Martin sees no other way to harmonize
Matthew 28:1 other than chopping it up so that the “after the Sabbath[s]”
expression is divorced from the women arriving at the tomb in the early hours
of the first day of the week at sunrise.”
May we please only use Matthew’s true words in 28:1a, and then join them
with his words going before, verses 62 to 66— by all means!
See
what differences it then makes! Indeed a great difference, “So they” –
the Jews, urgently and in a hurry “in the morning” 62a, AS SOON AS they
got Pilates’ permission and received the guard – “GOING, MADE FAST the
sepulchre, SEALING the stone together with the guard ..... BUT— in the end of
the Sabbath”, and despite the Jews’ precautions, “as it began to dawn
towards the First Day of the week MID-AFTERNOON (when) set out to go see
the tomb Mary Magdalene and the other Mary there SUDDENLY was a great
earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descending out of heaving and approaching,
rolled away the stone and sat upon it” ..... CONFIRMING JESUS ROSE FROM THE
DEAD “On the third day” as “He had said while He was still alive”! Alleluia!
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’.
This
truth not only depends on every implication of historicity; it solidly rests on
the words of the Scriptures.
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.
End
Finch Third delivery fourth part, 25
December 2009
Gerhard
Ebersöhn
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Private
Bag X43
Sunninghill
2157
Finch third delivery fifth part
Paul R. Finch:
The Plural Sabbaths of Matthew 28:1
Some have tried
to make a case of Matthew 28:1 as saying “after
the Sabbaths”—the
plural supposedly referring to Nisan 15 and the
weekly Sabbath. Herbert
W. Armstrong, The RESURRECTION was
NOT on Sunday!, (Pasadena:Ambassador
College Press, 1952), p. 13 and Herman L. Hoeh, The CRUCIFIXION was NOT on Friday!, (Pasadena:Ambassador
College Press, 1959), pp. 2-3.
Once again this
line of reasoning is based upon the assumption that all Holydays are also called
Sabbaths.
GE:
First,
let us get it straight “Matthew 28:1”
is not “saying “after
the Sabbaths”“. It says “ON”, or “IN”; it says, “Sabbath’s”—
Possessive Qualitative Genitive.
Next,
it isn’t everybody who reasons or assumes “all
Holydays are called Sabbaths”. Some, like me, accept the Bible fact only
the exceptions of ‘Holydays’ “are also called Sabbaths”— with the
emphasis on ‘exceptions’ and “also”. I think it is the natural thing for anyone to
do to generalise and set one exclusive rule to explain whatever. Principles of interpretation there are; but
they are always proven by their exceptions.
This
“case of Matthew 28:1 as saying” “IN
/ ON the Sabbaths”-‘sabbatohn’ is no exception to the rule though. Referring
to the singular “Sabbath” it conveys
the thought of the Plural of the Greek ‘sabbatohn’ perfectly by the COLLECTIVE
concept of “the weekly Sabbath”. Every ‘rule’ of translation has been OBEYED
in the translation with the Singular, “the Sabbath(’s)”. The translators
knew the Greek language; they knew what they were doing. Therefore this CORRECT
translation, while satisfying every demand of linguistics, Grammar and Syntax
of Plurals, EXCLUDES the word having bearing on every possible and impossible
OTHER case of ‘sabbaths’; so that to say it also refers to the passover’s
‘sabbath’ of Nisan 15 is contradictory because it is superfluous and loaded on
and added to non-related matter.
But
now this is exactly what Paul R. Finch while he blames the Wednesday
Crucifixionists that “this line of
reasoning is based upon assumption”— wrong assumption, is trying to do:
For is it not PRF who argues this Sabbath was a “double Sabbath”, a case of “the
weekly Sabbath” and “the High day
Sabbath”, “coinciding”? Is not “the
plural referring to Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath” if this Sabbath was a “double Sabbath”, “the weekly Sabbath” and “the
High day Sabbath”, “coinciding”? Of course it does— IT MUST!
Paul R. Finch:
Once again this
line of reasoning is based upon the assumption that all Holydays are also
called Sabbaths. They are not. But Matthew does use a plural here. Why? It was
common for Jews to use a plural of excellence when the singular was intended.
For instance, the word for “life” in Hebrew is in the plural, chayim. The face of the earth in
Genesis 1:29 is plural. There is no end of speculation about the word elohim being plural in form but singular
in meaning. The plural Sabbaths expression is also used several
times in Exodus
16:23-29 when the singular is intended. In the Gospel of Mark there are
examples where the Greek has plural Sabbaths but the context exhibits a single
Sabbath meaning. Mark 1:21; 2:23,24; 3:2. In Matthew 12:1-12, both the singular and the
plural are used in the same context. Such idiomatic usage hardly can be cited
for the precise meaning that is needed to support the idea that Matthew had in
mind two distinct Sabbaths occurring that week.
GE:
Well
done, Mr Finch! (Why not be consistent “about the word elohim being plural in form but singular in meaning”?)
Paul R. Finch:
Such idiomatic usage
hardly can be cited for the precise meaning that is needed to support the idea
that Matthew had in mind two distinct Sabbaths occurring that week. Thus, there
is no nuance in this verse that should alert us that there were two Sabbaths
that week. The Scriptures are clear. Jesus died on a Friday, calendar day one,
and rose on a Sunday, calendar day three. Again, this leads to the conclusion
that the expression three days and three nights was not a measure of hours,
minutes, seconds, but merely an idiomatic expression referring to calendar
days.
GE:
As
you have explained, “there is no nuance
in this verse that should alert us that .....” “a
plural” meaning “two Sabbaths” is
‘nuanced’ “in this verse”. But you
FALSIFY everything, and fabricate your BASELESS “assumption” and GENERALISATION, “Thus, there is no nuance in this verse that should alert us that there
were two Sabbaths that week”! The presence “in this verse”, “Matthew 28:1”
of “a plural” – ‘sabbatohn’ – is not
the presence or absence in “that week”
of “two Sabbaths”; don’t be
ridiculous! You greatly underestimate
the alertness of your readers! There is EVERY nuance in the greater CONTEXT of
all four Gospels that should alert us that there were in fact TWO ‘sabbaths’ in
“that week”. In ‘that
week’ there indeed WERE, TWO, SEPARATE, ‘sabbaths’; but the fact of it for
no moment rests on the Plural employed in Mt28:1! I have several times shown it; and am not
going to repeat it all again. The Scriptures are clear. Jesus DID NOT die on a Friday, and rose NOT on a Sunday. The Scriptures are clear. “Friday”, was NO calendar day on the
passover-calendar but “That Day great day of (passover’s) sabbath’s
esteem”. The Scriptures are clear. “Sunday” was day FOUR on the passover’s
calendar.
And
again, this leads to the conclusion that the expression “three days and
three nights” was NO “idiomatic
expression referring to calendar days” (which phraseology is a
contradiction in both terms and concepts) but represents
“the
God given and therefore
eschatological
imperative wholeness” (Lohmeyer) of the
“three
days and three nights”-”three days” of the
Passover
of Yahweh “on the third day” OF WHICH the
“First-Sheaf-”
Jesus Christ Crucified was
“Waved-Offer-Before-the-LORD”
Resurrected from the dead.
Paul R. Finch:
The Women and the Preparing of Spices
The women
prepared the spices on the day of Crucifixion, soon
after Jesus was
placed in the tomb, but before the sun went down which began the Sabbath. Luke
23:56.
GE:
What
happened to “The Sabbath DAY (that) begins at sunrise and ends at sunset”;
that “occupies no portion of darkness”;
“the Sabbath (that) only exists in the light of day and does not extend into the darkness
of night”;
that “later rabbinical Judaism made a
twenty-four hour period of time back to the night before”;
“which, unwittingly, created an artificial
calendar day that has no basis in Scripture”?
Is
this another ‘sabbath’ than the one Paul R. Finch here defines that “the sun
went down which began the Sabbath. Luke 23:56”?
Paul R. Finch:
The women
prepared the spices on the day of Crucifixion, soon
after Jesus was
placed in the tomb, but before the sun went down which began the Sabbath. Luke
23:56. Now if this preparation occurred on Wednesday, why would they have not
returned on Friday morning to anoint the Body of Christ? Why would they have
waited until the fifth calendar day to anoint the body of Jesus?
GE:
You
meant to say, ‘The Fifth Day of the week’, we believe ......
Paul R. Finch:
Are we to
believe that they postponed for over three and a half days the anointing? We
know that in the case of Lazarus, after four days his body began to stink. John
11:39.
GE:
Don’t
get me wrong, I agree with you on this; the Wednesday crucifixionists are mad
.....
Paul R. Finch:
We know that in
the case of Lazarus, after four days his body began to stink. John 11:39. What
causes the stink is the body decaying, obviously. Peter quoted Psalm 16:8-11
concerning Christ, “Because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you
let your Holy One see decay.” Acts 2:27, NIV. When Christ died most, if not all
his blood had been drained from his body. John 19:34. Also, John’s account says that there was an
initial anointing of Jesus at his burial with about 75-100 pounds of myrrh by
Nicodemus. John 19:39. Jesus’ body
would be entombed in the cool spring air that Sabbath night, then one full day
in of Spring time daylight, then another cool night until Sunday morning. This
would have been a reasonable time for the women to return for the final
anointing. But for them to wait until the fifth calendar day to return is
excessively too long.
GE:
All
fair and square except of course for your purely assuming “then another cool night until Sunday morning”. From my Bible (the Authorised Version) I
understand Jesus died 3 p.m. on Thursday; his body hung on the cross deep into
night until Joseph received it from Pilate, and began attending it; later also
Nicodemus helped treat his body; sometime during the ensuing day of Friday,
they finished preparing the body for the grave; brought it to the garden, and
laid it in the tomb; 3 p.m. Joseph closed the door-stone. 3 p.m. “Sabbath’s there was a great
earthquake”, which marked the moment of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead
and grave. To rephrase it: Jesus’ body would be prepared for burial that
sabbath night of the passover of 15 Nisan Jn19:31 / Mk15:42 / Lk23:50 / Mt27:57,
and “mid-afternoon” the following day “in full daylight” would be
entombed. (“This would have been a
reasonable time for the women to return” “..... home, to prepare spices
and ointments”.) Then the body would
remain in the grave one night and “Sabbath” the following day “in
full daylight” “mid-afternoon” Jesus would rise from the dead again.
Paul R. Finch:
Yet there are
those who insist that here is where it can be proven
that there were
two sabbath days during this week and the account of the anointing proves it.
Again, Mr. Armstrong writes:
“According to
Mark 16:1, Mary Magdalene and her companions
did not buy
their spices to anoint the body of Jesus until AFTER THE SABBATH WAS PAST. They
could not prepare them until after this— yet after preparing the spices THEY
RESTED THE SABBATH DAY ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT! (Luke 23:56).…”There is
only one possible explanation: After the annual high-day Sabbath, the feast day
of the days of unleavened bread—which was Thursday—these women purchased and
prepared their spices on FRIDAY, and then they rested on the weekly Sabbath,
Saturday, according to the Commandment! (Exodus 20:8-11).
“A comparison of
these two texts PROVES there were TWO
Sabbaths that
week, with a DAY IN BETWEEN. Otherwise, these texts contradict themselves.” Herbert
W. Armstrong, The RESURRECTION was
NOT on Sunday!, (Pasadena:Ambassador
College Press, 1952), p. 13.
If this
explanation is true, then it would seem to do violence to not only a Friday
Crucifixion but also a Thursday Crucifixion, which would be like one 48 hour
Sabbath.
GE:
There
are many weaknesses in Armstrong’s reasoning which precisely resemble the
weaknesses of the Friday-crucifixion theory, most important of which is that he
does not distinguish “That Day” of the Burial. As a result he places the
Burial on the same day as the Crucifixion.
Next
is that the differences between passover-sabbaths and the Seventh Day Sabbath
are ignored or diminished, and the main difference between them is that of rest
and duty. Only menial work was prohibited on passover’s sabbath; otherwise it
was filled with special passover-tasks— which with the first passover began
with moving out of
The
WCT tries to avoid the duties of
passover sabbath by inserting a non-existent day in between the two ‘sabbaths’
that occurred for it; the FCT tries to avoid the day of the passover-sabbath’s duties by placing the Burial on the
day of Crucifixion.
Therefore
the objection, “If this explanation is
true, then it would seem to do violence to not only a Friday Crucifixion but
also a Thursday Crucifixion, which would be like one 48 hour Sabbath”, does
as much violence to the “Thursday
Crucifixion” as truth could harm truth.
It was in fact 48 hours of ‘sabbath’, but it was 48 hours of TWO
‘sabbaths’, VERY different from one another; and work being the most important
differentiator. No; not work; but the
WORKER of our salvation, the Lamb of God and Our Passover even Jesus Christ. Therefore the Divine Imperative of Prophetic
Fulfilment to every detail of the “three days” of “three days and
three nights” eschatological wholeness, is the only and only true
explanation of both the sabbaths and the ‘48 hours of sabbaths’ that occurred
in “that week”.
Paul R. Finch:
Despite Mr.
Armstrong’s forceful remarks about his explanation being the only “possible explanation,”
two very good alternative explanations are here given by Anthony Buzzard of
“Some have
thought that two Sabbath days must have occurred in the crucifixion week. They
argue that the women bought spices after a Sabbath (Mark 16:1) and before a
Sabbath (Luke 23:56). This detail should not be permitted to overthrow the
strong evidence for a Friday crucifixion, the third day before Sunday. It may
well be that two groups of women are distinguished in the account (as also
after the resurrection—John 20:1; cp.
Luke 24:1). In Mat. 27:55 there are ‘many women,’ among whom Mary Magdalene,
Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee are
singled out. The larger group is the ‘many other women’ of Mark 15:41. They may
have prepared spices before the weekly Sabbath (Luke 23:49, 56), while the group
of three waited until after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1); or, alternatively, spices
may have been hastily bought before the Sabbath and supplemented by others
bought after the Sabbath. Mark 16:9 (as a very early witness to the facts)
places the Resurrection on Sunday: ‘Now after he had risen on the first day of
the week, he first appeared to may Magdalene…’” Sir Anthony Buzzard, The Law, The Sabbath and New Testament
Christianity, Published by Restoration Fellowship, Morrow, GA, 1992,
p. 21.
The point of the
matter here is that we are not compelled to envision two Sabbaths this week-end
by a forced interpretation of the women buying spices at two different times.
GE:
The
like of such a mess I haven’t seen yet. Sir
Anthony Buzzard and Paul R. Finch allege, “many women ..... in Mat. 27:55”, ARE THE SAME as the women who
bought spices after the Sabbath in Mark16:1.
NOT
TWO data are relating, and NOT ONE data is correct. It is a hotchpotch of falsehood. It is a disgrace to me to answer— but I am
obliged by its shameless manhandling of God’s Word, to answer despite. I hope
there won’t be much of the same to come, but I see another twenty pages of Paul
R. Finch’s still. So, let’s get on with
this wearisome task .....
Re: Sir Anthony Buzzard of
“Some have
thought that two Sabbath days must have occurred in the crucifixion week. They
argue that the women bought spices after a Sabbath (Mark 16:1)
......”
GE:
No
Sir! It is not “They” who “argue that the
women bought spices after a Sabbath”; it is Mark in 16:1 who states the two
Marys and Salome bought spices. And it
is you, sir, Sir Buzzard, who argue “that
the women bought spices after a Sabbath”, because Mark states that these
three women “Bought spices when THE Sabbath was past”— clearly, THE
Seventh Day Sabbath on which Jesus had risen from the dead AFTER the day of
Friday on which Joseph had buried the body. It was not “a sabbath” in Mk16:1 like “that day that was great day-sabbath”
in Jn19:31b.
What
is so unacceptable there were “two
Sabbath days” which “occurred in the
crucifixion week”? It would be
impossible two Sabbath days did not occur in the crucifixion week which was
the passover-week in which there ALWAYS, HAD TO occur TWO ‘sabbath days’ (and
even three) or it would not be the passover ‘week’! Did you not know it, Sir Anthony
Buzzard? Did you not know it, Mr Paul R.
Finch? But you deem yourselves
authorities on the passover enough to poke fun at de facto facts?
Re: Sir Anthony Buzzard,
“They argue that the women bought spices
after a Sabbath (Mark 16:1) and
before a Sabbath (Luke 23:56).”
Sir Anthony
Buzzard
knows better than the people who believe the women bought spices after the Sabbath
according to Mark 16:1; and tells them they actually believe the women bought
spices “before a Sabbath” as well. He
tells them what they did not know themselves, that they on strength of “Luke 23:56” believed the women bought
spices “before a Sabbath”! Sir Anthony Buzzard knows better than Luke
what Luke wrote, because Luke says no word about buying spices in 23:65. Luke must have forgotten either to mention
the women’s buying spices in “Luke 23:56”,
or Luke must have been too embarrassed to say it hard enough for would anyone
in his right senses not first have bought spices then prepared it? But now unfortunately Luke has got it the
wrong way round, according to the Sir and the sir. Poor Luke – say the sirs – says “the women before a Sabbath (Luke 23:56)
bought spices” AFTER the Burial while Mark – say the sirs – says “the women after a Sabbath (Mark 16:1) bought
spices” AFTER the Burial, so there was “a
Sabbath” between the Burial and the
Burial ..... Insane? ..... no; ingenious— not Luke or Mark, mark you!
Re: Sir Anthony Buzzard,
“They argue that the women bought spices
after a Sabbath (Mark 16:1) and
before a Sabbath (Luke 23:56). This
detail should not be permitted to overthrow the strong evidence for a Friday crucifixion,
the third day before Sunday.”
GE:
“.....
the strong evidence for a Friday crucifixion”
which you found WHERE? Which you presented, HOW? No, “strong evidence” because the Friday Crucifixion is inviolable; holy
tradition; untouchable and above profane criticism. Speaking against it is
speaking against God. And speaking
against its priests is cursing at the saints of God if not at God Himself.
The
saints of Roman Catholic austerity are the only ones who can count: Sunday the
day; the day before Sunday, Saturday; the second day before Sunday, Still
Saturday ( 1-1=0 no Saturday); “the third
day before Sunday ..... Friday”.
(With
no Saturday I thought Friday would be the second day before Sunday; with
Saturday the first day before Sunday, I thought Friday still would be the
second day before Sunday. Goes to show how stupid non-Catholics are.)
Re: Sir Anthony Buzzard, “It may well be that two groups of women are distinguished
in the account (as also after the resurrection—John 20:1; cp. Luke 24:1).”
GE:
“As also”? “It may well be” or it also may well not be .....?
The
Gospels “account” the Good News of
the Resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead one ‘account’ , each Gospel contributing his or its own “detail”, as can be seen in “Mark 16:1 .... Luke 23:56 .... John 20:1 .... Luke 24:1”. Each time it’s another part of the bigger
Story of Redemption. It is WRONG to
speak of the one ‘overthrowing the
evidence’ of the other; it is WRONG to speak of “It may well be” or it also may well not be; it is RIGHT to ‘distinguish’ between the one and the
other for sure and certain “detail”. It is FALSENESS “..... that two groups of women are distinguished in the” SAME “account (as also after the resurrection—John
20:1; cp. Luke 24:1).”
The
first “detail” to meet the eye is
that each Gospel has its own— and several own ‘accounts’ of different but never differing “detail”.
Therefore
“John 20:1; cp. (sic.) Luke 24:1”
are not one ‘account’; they are different,
‘accounts’.
Further,
e.g., there are not “women distinguished in the account” in “John 20:1”; there is only Mary Magdalene
‘distinguished’ in “John 20:1”.
The
most important ‘detail’ – considering
the subject of discussion – is carefully
kept quiet and in fact is wrested to create false impression. Buzzard pretends “that women are distinguished in the account
(as also after the resurrection—John 20:1; cp. Luke 24:1)”, wherein he uses the words “also after” as if the “women are distinguished” at the same
time as the Resurrection was ‘distinguished’.
Now besides no mortal ‘distinguished’
or saw the resurrection, in “John 20:1”
at least three hours have passed since the Resurrection before Mary Magdalene
is ‘distinguished’; and in “Luke 24:1” at least 9 hours since the
Resurrection have passed before the ‘group’
of several women (mentioned in verse 10) are ‘distinguished’— respectively, Mary Magdalene, for having seen the
door-stone removed from the sepulchre “while still early darkness (dusk)”;
and the ‘group’ of women, for having
seen the grave was empty “deep(est) morning” just after midnight.
Keep
to the simple ‘detail’ of EACH Gospel
and you will NEVER go wrong!
Re: Sir Anthony Buzzard, “In Mat. 27:55 there are ‘many women,’ among
whom Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee are singled out. The larger group is the ‘many other women’
of Mark 15:41.”
GE:
“In Mat. 27:55 there are” not different
groups; there is only one. The “singled
out” women was the smaller group IN, “the
larger group”, in fact who “stood afar off in the outer circle of the
throng”.
From
the alleged different groups, Sir Anthony Buzzard argues one “account” accounted in “Mark
16:1 .... Luke 23:56 .... John 20:1
.... Luke 24:1”. “They [the
Armstrongites— wrongly] argue that the
women bought spices after a Sabbath (Mark
16:1 [supposedly Thursday night])
and before a Sabbath (Luke 23:56 [Saturday]).
This detail should not be permitted to overthrow the strong evidence for
a Friday crucifixion, the third day before Sunday.”
Here
Martin begins to ‘argue’ HIS case for
a FRIDAY Crucifixion .....
“It may well be [according to Buzzard and
Finch] that [in the account] two groups of
women are distinguished in the account (as also after the resurrection—John 20:1 [after sundown Saturday
night; or, according to the FCT, before sunrise Sunday morning]; cp.
[sic.] Luke 24:1 [after midnight
Saturday night]). In Mat. 27:55 [after the Crucifixion, 3. p.m. on Friday and BEFORE “having become
evening” according to them] there
are ‘many women,’ among whom Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and
Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee are singled out. The larger group
is the ‘many other women’ of Mark 15:41”— making the women at the Crucifixion the SAME women who were at the
Burial!
See
how CAREFULLY Mk15:42/Jn19:31 is ASSAILED!
Buzzard
now PRETENDS
it
all is the Resurrection Sunday morning of Saturday night;
he
then PRETENDS
it
all is the Crucifixion Friday before sunset;
he
then PRETENDS
it
never is the BURIAL Thursday night and Friday daylight!;
he
PRETENDS
it
never is the VISITS or one of the visits which the women paid the grave Saturday
night;
he
PRETENDS
it
never is the RESURRECTION “SABBATH’S DAYLIGHT” Buzzard PRETENDS like
above, where
he
PRETENDS
the
women were ‘distinguished’ at the
time the Resurrection happened. And again,
he
PRETENDS
the
Burial was finished ‘ALSO AFTER’ the
Crucifixion as if immediately, thereafter and before sunset;
he
PRETENDS
no
“evening now came” after the day of the crucifixion and
three
hours and more after Jesus had died;
he
PRETENDS
no
“night” went by wherein Joseph “after these things” of the Jews
and
later “Nicodemus (who) came there also” (“by night”)
had
the body prepared for Burial
“as
the custom (or Law, the Scriptures) of the Jews is to bury”—
“to
bury” THE PASSOVER-REMAINS; and
he
PRETENDS
the
two Marys NEVER
after
the men’s preparations were done,
the
day after,
“followed”
in the procession to the tomb, and
“sat
over against the grave”, and
“saw
how the body was laid”, and how
“Joseph
rolled the stone in the opening of the grave, and
left”; “And how,
the women returned home, and
prepared spices and ointments”,
“while
the Sabbath drew near”.
THIS
ALL IGNORING, PRETENDING IT NEVER HAPPENED,
Sir Anthony
Buzzard
and Paul R. Finch allege, “many women
..... in Mat. 27:55”, ARE THE SAME as the women who bought spices after the
Sabbath in Mark16:1.
TRUTH
is “Mat. 27:55” and “Mark 15:41” are demarcated contextually
and chronologically and historically and logically as belonging to the day of
the CRUCIFIXION EVEN BEFORE the Burial was done. But Sir Anthony Buzzard and Paul R. Finch refer to these verses, “Mat. 27:55” and “Mark 15:41”, “AS ALSO IN THE ACCOUNT” of the events
and personae as ‘distinguished’ AFTER
the Burial when the women prepared their spices and ointments— as though they ‘distinguished’ AFTER THE DAY AFTER the
women prepared their spices and ointments. Sir
Anthony Buzzard and Paul R. Finch refer to “Mat. 27:55” “Mark 15:41”
and events as having occurred “after the Sabbath” when the Marys and
Salome went to buy spices, by not distinguishing either Mk16:1 or Mt28:1 ot
Mk15:42 or Jn 19:31.
For
Sir Anthony Buzzard and Paul R. Finch
it is
one
giant leap
FROM
the
‘group’ of women
directly after
the Crucifixion at the cross
in
“Mat.
27:55” and “Mark 15:41”—
ACROSS
“Now
having become evening”, Mk15:42a (Mt27:57a);
ACROSS
“since
it was The Preparation”, Jn19:31a
BEGINNING;
ACROSS
“so
that MIGHT BE broken the legs .....” STILL
ACROSS
“.....
BECAUSE it was THAT .....” would be
ACROSS
“day
of great day sabbath” (future), Jn19:31b;
ACROSS
“After
these things Joseph secretly BESOUGHT Pilate .....”,
Jn19:38a
/ Lk23:50 / Mk15:42c / Mt27:57b;
ACROSS
“.....
THAT he MIGHT take AWAY the body” YET, Jn19:38b;
ACROSS
“Pilate
WHEN he KNEW of the centurion only,
“gave
(permission to .....)” Mk15:45;
ACROSS
“Pilate
THEN commanded the body BE, delivered ....”, Mt27:58b;
ACROSS
“(Joseph)
THEN THEREFORE came and
RECEIVED the body”, Jn19:38d;
ACROSS
“and
THERE, came ALSO (who was not “there”, ‘at the first’),
Nicodemus, and brought myrrh an hundred pounds”,
Jn19:39;
ACROSS
“(Joseph)
then BOUGHT LINEN”, Mk15:46a;
ACROSS
“THEN,
TREATED they the body and
WOUND it in linen clothes
WITH the spices .....
..... as is the custom of the Jews to bury”,
Jn19:40;
ACROSS
“THEN
the women ALSO, ACCORDINGLY followed after (in the procession) .....”,
Lk23:55a;
ACROSS
“THEN
IN THE ..... GARDEN .....”, Jn19:41;
ACROSS
“.....
there was a grave READY AT HAND”, Jn19:42c
ACROSS
“THERE
were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary .....”
ACROSS
“.....
SITTING over against the sepulchre .....”, Mt27:61;
ACROSS
“And
they beheld the sepulchre .....”;
ACROSS
“there
laid they the body of Jesus”, Jn19:42a;
ACROSS
“.....
and (the women) beheld how his body was laid”, Lk23:55b;
ACROSS
“And they saw (the place) WHERE He
was laid”, Mk15:47;
ACROSS
“(Joseph)
rolled a great stone to the sepulchre .....
..... and departed”,
Mt27:60c;
ACROSS
“.....
by the time of the Jews’ preparations”, Jn19:42b;
“mid-afternoon
the Sabbath drawing near”, Lk23:54b;
ACROSS
“and
(the women) returned home .....”;
ACROSS
“.....
and prepared spices and ointments”, Lk23:56a;
EVEN ACROSS
“They
rested the Sabbath according to the Commandment”, 56b—
TO .....
“When
the Sabbath WAS PAST Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome had
bought sweet spices”, Mk16:1.
A
giant leap ACROSS ONE WHOLE DAY— “That
Day” of the Burial between Crucifixion and Resurrection IGNORED, to
IDENTIFY instead of ‘distinguish’ the
‘group’ of women directly after the Crucifixion at the cross in “Mat. 27:55” and “Mark 15:41” and the ‘group’
of women directly after the Sabbath at
the traders in “Mark 16:1”; a giant leap FROM after the Crucifixion right
OVER the Burial TO the two Marys 24 hours later on Friday “mid-afternoon”
in Lk23:54-56a; and further, right over their heads, TO another 3 plus 24 hours
later on Saturday night after sunset and the two Marys and Salome who “had bought
spices”.
Sir Anthony
Buzzard:
“They may have prepared spices before the
weekly Sabbath (Luke 23:49, 56),.....
GE:
The
power of the misinformed and confused to persuade lies in their ability to
confuse the less informed even more than themselves ..... here, by associating “Luke 23:49, 56” as if one .....
But
“Luke 23:49.....” is after the CRUCIFIXION
and before “evening”; before “The Preparation”; before “That
Day great day-sabbath”; before “Joseph”— BEFORE the BURIAL.
“Luke 23:.....56”, “(t)hey prepared spices” is AFTER “Joseph”, after he “departed”
and after the women “returned home”— AFTER the BURIAL! “Luke
23:.....56”, “(t)hey prepared spices”,
is before the NEXT “evening” and “Sabbath”; at the END of “The
Preparation” and “That Day” Lk23:54a, ‘which had been’ the PAST, “great
day of sabbath” Jn19:31b.
Sir Anthony
Buzzard:
“They may have prepared spices before the
weekly Sabbath (Luke 23:49, 56) while the group of three waited until after the
Sabbath (Mark 16:1); or, alternatively, spices may have been hastily bought
before the Sabbath and supplemented by others bought after the Sabbath......”
GE:
Why
“They may have” this “They may have” that? It is so unnecessary! We are informed EVERYTHING that happened, in
the Gospels! Not as ‘alternatives’, but as DISTINCT events
with DISTINCT actors with DISTINCT days and DISTINCT times of day with DISTINCT
places of occurrence with eventually the same objective, “so that when they
go, they might anoint Him”, and both the women’s actions clearly aimed at “after
the Sabbath”— after the Sabbath upon which they – in Luke 23:54-65 – still
would have “rested according to the (Fourth) Command”, and in
Mk16:1 already had ‘rested according to the Fourth Command’— which obvious implication
implies, first, that “That Day” of Jn19:31-42,
Mk15:42-47 / Mt27:57-61 and Lk23:50-56a, had had been the passover’s
‘sabbath-of-burial’, which fact consequently renders the idea that the
forthcoming Sabbath was the passover’s sabbath, impossible, and therefore
renders BOTH the WCT with its passover’s sabbath on Thursday, and the FCT with
its passover’s sabbath on ‘the weekly
Sabbath’, impossible.
The
most obvious feature of the story of the Burial – in Jn19:31-42, Mk15:42-47 / Mt27:57-61 and Lk23:50-56a throughout – is its peaceful atmosphere
in contrast with the day of Crucifixion.
Its circumstance is marked by the ABSENCE of ‘haste’, disquiet, unrest and disorder. The whole idea of “spices hastily bought before the Sabbath and
supplemented by others bought after the Sabbath” derives from inattentive,
lazy, and biased reading.
The
two Marys who were there when the body was laid, “prepared spices before the weekly Sabbath”, says Luke 23:56a; “Luke 23:49” does not say anything about
spices or its preparation or the Sabbath or time of day on or before or after
it.
Which
“group of” women were there – which “group of” women are mentioned – after
the Burial and when “the Sabbath was drawing near”? In Lk23:55b the women are implicated; they
are named in Mark 15:47 and Matthew 27:61, and they were TWO women— the two
Marys; not “the group of three”
within the larger ‘group’ that “assembled
to watch the sight” on the day of the Crucifixion, Lk23:48a / Mk15:40 /
Mt27:56— the three women of that ‘group’
who “after the Sabbath bought spices”.
Each
Scripture referred in this statement, “They
may have prepared spices before the weekly Sabbath (Luke 23:49, 56) while the group
of three waited until after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1);.....” is a Scripture
ABUSED!
Sir Anthony
Buzzard:
“Mark 16:9 (as a very early witness to the
facts) places the Resurrection on Sunday: ‘Now after he had risen on the first
day of the week, he first appeared to may Magdalene…’”
GE:
The
Verb of the sentence is one: the word “He appeared”; the Verb of the
sentence is NOT to have appeared “risen”! “Now on the first day of the week, after he had risen, he first appeared
to Mary Magdalene…”; OR, “Now after
he had risen, he on the first day of the week first appeared to Mary Magdalene…”;
or, BETTER, MORE CORRECT and MORE TRUTHFUL, “RISEN / AS THE RISEN ONE (Jesus) on the First Day of the week
early, APPEARED, first, to Mary Magdalene .....”.
The
text does NOT say Jesus ROSE from the dead on the First Day; it implies He had
had risen BEFORE the First Day; and thereafter – “BEING THE RISEN” – the
next day “He early on the First Day of the week, first APPEARED to Mary
Magdalene.”
Paul R. Finch:
Another Enigma
If Jesus arose
on the Sabbath afternoon, then what was He doing
all the time
from then until the morning? Was He sitting in the dark tomb all night until
dawn?
GE:
Imagine
“the group of three waited until after
the Sabbath.....” They “waited” AT
THE CROSS Buzzard alleges, from after the Crucifixion “until after the Sabbath”. No
enigma even under these circumstances ..... but if Jesus— according to Paul R.
Finch, Then it is “Another Enigma”. For “Then what was He doing all the time”?
“What was He doing all the time from”
when He “arose on the Sabbath afternoon
[“Sabbath’s mid-afternoon”] until
the morning? Was He sitting in the dark tomb all night until dawn?”
“God
raised Christ by the glory of the Father”; “God also hath highly exalted
Him ..... that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father” Phil2:9,11;
“God the Seventh Day RESTED from all his works” Hb4:4 is God in “the
EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER WORKING THE OMNIPOTENCE OF HIS STRENGTH WHICH
HE WROUGHT IN CHRIST WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD”— and Paul R Finch
asks questions like he asks.
Paul R. Finch:
Did He walk
through the tomb miraculously as He did when He went to the upper room? If so,
where did He go?
GE:
If so, where did
He go? No!
“Suddenly there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended
from heaven and approaching flung away from the sepulchre the stone .....”.
It was then, “WHEN GOD WROUGHT” and “RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”,
“Sabbath’s by mid-afternoon” Mt28:1.
It was THEN, that “God SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND IN HEAVENLY
EXALTATION”. That was “where He did
go”, “far above every name that is named”— “far above every Name”
“His Own”— “Christ the Lord” “Anointed Victor”.
“Did He walk through the tomb miraculously as
He did when He went to the upper room?”
God let Him “ride through the heavens above the earth because He called
the Sabbath of the LORD a delight, and honoured it”— ‘as He did’ when He “entered into His Own Rest as God”, and, “On
the Seventh Day Rested” ..... “as God” ..... “in His Own” .....
“as God” ..... “in the Son” ..... “as God” ..... “in
the last day” ..... because “GOD in these last days SPOKE” “and
it was .....”—— the only incidence
of the SINLESS and PERFECT observance and keeping of “the Sabbath of the
LORD YOUR GOD”, EVER! Because “The
all in all fulfilling Fullness” and “Rest of God”, is Jesus Christ
the Risen Crucified, “Sacrifice” of “the Passover of Yahweh”-”Killed”
and “First Sheaf Offering” of “the Passover of Yahweh”-”Before
the LORD Waved”— in Resurrection from the dead “In the fullness of the
Sabbath Day”.
Paul R. Finch:
Some will say
that since Jesus is the first fruit from the dead,
GE:
“..... the Wave Sheaf offering that occurs
after the weekly Sabbath of Passover week. Lev. 23:10-12” ..... Now we must
only still READ, “after the weekly
Sabbath of Passover week. Lev. 23:10-12”.
Does “Lev. 23:10-12” contain
the words – or the idea – of, “the weekly
Sabbath of Passover week”? ..... “the
weekly Sabbath”? What have we before
said – what had PRF himself to say – about “the
context” in Leviticus 23? Is “the context” in Leviticus 23:11,15, “the weekly
Sabbath” or, “the Sabbath of Passover (week)”? Paul R. Finch, are
you speaking the truth? In which case
are you speaking the truth? Where you
speak of “the context” of Leviticus
23, or, where you declare for the truth, “the
Wave Sheaf offering that occurs after the weekly Sabbath” but do not mind “the context”? For you cannot in both
cases, speak the truth.
Paul R. Finch:
The time for
this offering was during the daylight hours of Sunday along with an offering of
a lamb without blemish. Jesus told Mary Magdalene “do not hold on to me for I
have not yet ascended to my
father.” John
20:17. indicating that the offering of First Fruits hadn’t occurred yet.
GE:
Yes,
“this offering was during the daylight
hours of” DAY, the light of day; but saying, “this offering was during the daylight hours of Sunday” is Paul R.
Finch saying; not God’s Word; it is Paul R. Finch saying “this offering was during the daylight hours of Sunday” AGAINST
God’s Word.
And
declaring “Jesus told Mary Magdalene “do
not hold on to me for I have not yet ascended to my father.” John 20:17.
indicating that the offering of First Fruits hadn’t occurred yet”, is Paul
R. Finch parroting the Seventh-day Adventists in their blasphemous lying.
First,
the “First Fruits” is NOT the subject
of “the context” in Lv23:11-15. Paul
R. Finch ERRS, or he LIES. Then, HOW
could the First Sheaf “hadn’t occurred
yet”, but “Jesus told Mary Magdalene
.....” Jesus, Who, Himself, WAS, The First Sheaf of the Passover and
Pentecost of Yahweh “waved”, an “Offering Before the LORD” in
Resurrection from the dead?
Third,
nothing in John 20:11 and on has to do with Mary not having been allowed to
touch Jesus; it is utter nonsense. See
this matter many times considered in other studies. It is the touchstone though
of the SDA fallacy of a physical sanctuary and an ‘investigative judgment’ ‘in
heaven’.
Paul R. Finch:
If Jesus’
sacrifice occurred at the precise moment the priest offered the Pascal Lamb,
would not the offering of First Fruits coincide with the
GE:
Much
earlier ‘that day’ – a short while
after Jesus had told Mary not to stay by Him but to go immediately and tell the
others (John), Jesus allowed the other women to whom he appeared, to hold Him
fast by the feet (Matthew). PRF should remove “the event” to much earlier “that
day” than he first thought it “occurred”—
and still he would be mistaken.
Paul
R. Finch:
..............
A Thursday Crucifixion?
Before moving
on, we should ask whether there is a compromise
between
Wednesday and Friday, namely could the Crucifixion have
occurred on
Thursday?
GE:
The
truth the Crucifixion occurred on a Thursday is no “compromise between Wednesday and Friday”; and it is not the real
issue— which is on which day of the week Jesus rose from the dead— which was
not Sunday, but “according to the Scriptures” both Old and New
Testaments, “On the Sabbath”. For what we should first “ask” anything, is like the devil who in
the beginning placed questions where there should have been simple faith. We should do much better to just believe what
the Scriptures from the beginning of our creation promised, in that God from
the outset “on the Seventh Day rested; from the first week of days, blessed and
sanctified the Sabbath with the view to Jesus Christ the Only Blessing,
Sanctity, Completion and Rest of God.
Paul
R. Finch:
There are a few
of scholars who have advocated a Thursday Crucifixion, such as J. K. Aldrich “The
Crucifixion on Thursday---Not Friday,” Bibliotheca Sacra, xxvii, (JULY, 1870) pp. 401-429. and
elaborated by B. F. Westcott. An
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, (
GE:
What
did they say about the day on which Christ rose from the dead? That is what matters most; in fact that,
only. Because seen by faith, the day of
Jesus’ Crucifixion relies on the day He resurrected on; and not the other way
round. That Jesus was crucified on a Thursday
is of interest by the fact that that is what the Scriptures consistently from A
to Z proclaimed and because the lie has seemingly totally supplanted
truth.
Paul
R. Finch:
Harold Hoehner
addresses this theory also and rejects it as having too many problems to be
valid. Chronological Aspects of the
Life of Christ, (
GE:
Without
having read a word of his ‘address’,
I shall say Harold Hoehner addresses none than the already known ‘problems’, and no differently from
everybody’s else’s usual ‘address’ of them. And I guarantee his rejection of “this theory” is ‘invalid’ simply because “this theory” is the only validated and
propagated in, and by, the Scriptures.
I
can also guarantee the main flaws in Hoehner’s ‘address’ without having seen it, are TWO: the manipulation of the plain words of the
relevant Scriptures, and the ignoring of “That Day of great day-sabbath’s
significance” the “in-between-sabbath” and “in the bone of
day-day” of the BURIAL— in one
word, the KILLING of the God-given and therefore eschatological imperative
wholeness of the “three days and three nights”-”three days” “on
the third day” of which Christ rose from the dead.
I’ll
sum it up in another single word: The MURDER of the SIMPLICITY of the truth
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Sabbath Day and from the beginning was
PROPHESIED to rise on the Sabbath Day.
Paul
R. Finch:
Yet, as already
cited, Dr. Ernest L. Martin has reviewed this theory and finds that the case
for a Thursday Crucifixion is not all that problematic and does offer some
solutions to some Friday Crucifixion difficulties as well as being a good
compromise to the arguments for a Wednesday Crucifixion. Ernest L. Martin, The Case for a Thursday Crucifixion,
(The Foundation for Biblical Research, Pasadena,:1983), 6 pp. This was a revised
view of
his earlier
paper advocating a Friday Crucifixion, Was Christ Crucified on Wednesday? (Exposition No. 121, The
Foundation for Biblical Research, Pasadena,:1975), 12 pp.
GE:
Like
I said of Hoehner, I’ll say of Martin, that his ‘theory’ may be called a ‘compromise’ because without first hand
knowledge of it I can tell with certainty he won’t ‘offer’ the true ‘solution’
to the “Friday Crucifixion difficulties”
which is the Scripture’s ‘solution’
to all ‘dificulties’, namely the
according to the passover-Scriptures only alternative of the Seventh Day
Sabbath-Resurrection.
Paul
R. Finch:
Dr. Martin notes
that recently, Roger Rusk, Emeritus Professor
of Physics at
the
theory. Christianity Today, March 29,
1974. The Day of the
Crucifixion—Friday or Wednesday? He has provided new astronomical evidence that
shows that in AD 30, the New Moon crescent for the month Nisan would have been visible
a day earlier than had previously thought and would make Nisan 14 occur on a
Thursday. Of course, this assumes that AD 30 is the correct year for the event.
This is how the
scenario would run if a Thursday Crucifixion had
happened. Christ
dies at 3:00 pm Thursday, Nisan 14. At sundown commenced the so-called “annual”
Sabbath called the First Day of Unleavened Bread. This would be Friday, Nisan
15 (John 19:31). The next evening would be the beginning of the weekly Sabbath,
Nisan 16. This would make a double holyday, one in tandem with another. Such an
occurrence, in fact, occurred the year of 1994 with Nisan 15 occurring directly
on the heels of the weekly Sabbath. Then, after those two Sabbaths, or as
Matthew puts it, “at the end of the Sabbaths,” Matt 28:1. the Priests and Pharisees posted
the guard and put mortar around the stone, effectively sealing it to the rock
escarpment. Then, about 12 hours later, as it began to dawn on the first day of
the week, the stone was rolled away by angel and Christ emerged, now
resurrected from the dead.
GE:
Just
like I said ..... Here’s the manipulation of the Scriptures, the first feature
of Martin’s theory, “as Matthew puts it, “at
the end of the Sabbaths,” Matt 28:1.” Etc. everything a repeat of what we have
already dwelt on and dealt with ‘effectively’.
“..... “at the end of the Sabbaths,” Matt 28:1. the Priests and Pharisees posted
the guard and put mortar around the stone, effectively sealing it to the rock
escarpment” .....
The
“Priests and Pharisees” did not “post the guard”; the guard was posted at
Pilate’s command.
The
guard was not “posted” ““at the end of the Sabbaths,” Matt 28:1.” It was posted “On the
morning that is after The Preparation” Mt27:62 which is in the MORNING and
ON the Sabbath in its middle.
It
was not, first, “the end of the Sabbaths”,
then, “the guard .... posted”; it was
first, “the guard .... posted”, then,
“the end of the Sabbaths”.
The
relevant Scripture is not “Matt 28:1”;
it is Matthew 27:62(-66).
Paul R. Finch /
Martin:
Then, about 12
hours later, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, the stone was
rolled away by angel and Christ emerged, now resurrected from the dead.”
GE:
Where
is the Scripture, “as it began to dawn on
the first day of the week”— “..... ON
the first day”?
Where
or how in Greek does one say “towards”, but “on” a period of time?
Where
or how in Greek do you get ‘towards’-”eis” followed with a Genitive,
‘sabbatohn’?
Where
or how, ever, has one been able to use the preposition “on” in stead of “towards”— even in English?
What
about the first two phrases of Mt28:1? WHERE ARE THEY?, considering they both
declare
“ON
the Sabbath / IN the Sabbath / BY the Sabbath /
SABBATH’S FULLNESS”-‘opse de
sabbatohn’—
“even
on the Sabbath / in the Sabbath / by the Sabbath /
Sabbath’s IN THE EPICENTRE IN LIGHT (of day it)
BEING”-
‘sabbatohn
tehi epifohskousehi’ :
“BEFORE
/ TOWARDS the First Day of the week”-
‘eis
mian sabbatohn’.
Paul R. Finch:
This reckoning
would supposedly allow the “three days and three nights” of Math. 12:40 to be
more literal (using the inclusive count for the first day). It would also
satisfy the “after three days” Matt. 27:63. as literal (using again the
inclusive for the first day). And
thirdly, it dovetails with the new astronomical data that points to Nisan 14
occurring on Thursday in AD 30.
GE:
This
reckoning no way allows the “three days and three nights” of Mt12:40 to
be more literal, despite using the inclusive count for the day. It would never
satisfy the “after three days” in Matt. 27:63 because “after three days” is not meant
“literal”, but idiomatic for “in
three days” or “on the third day” literally nevertheless strictly
prophetically “according to the Scriptures the third day”.
This
reckoning allows the “three days and three nights” in no way, since it
involves an arbitrarily added, irrelevant and unrelated FOURTH day – Sunday –
by the sole assumption that “the “after
three days” Matt. 27:63” should be regarded “as literal”. What
nonsensical untruth!
Paul R. Finch:
Although Dr.
Martin believes that the Thursday Crucifixion is the correct explanation to the
problem it is he, himself, who has shown us why this theory can not be correct:
“The only major
difficulty to the whole scheme is ‘the third day’ of Luke 24:21, which if used
in the normal inclusive fashion
seems to reach back only to Friday. If one, however, accepts an exclusive reckoning in this special
case, then the first day back from that Sunday afternoon would have been Sabbath
afternoon, the second day back would have been Friday, and the third day back
would, obviously, be a Thursday afternoon! If Luke abandoned his normal inclusive usage in Luke 24:21, then
all the accounts in the biblical records appear compatible. But, it must be
admitted, that the inclusive manner
predominates in Luke’s writings..
GE:
‘The
third day’ of Luke 24:21 “if used in
the inclusive fashion”, is
not used ‘used in the normal fashion’.
‘Used in the normal fashion’ means ‘the
third day’ of Luke 24:21 is used to count a number of incidental days; not
to be applied “inclusive” or “exclusive” for PROPHETIC days like the “three
days” “according to the Scriptures” the passover-Scriptures in “Matt. 27:63” are.
As
Martin himself has explained, “the first
day back from that Sunday afternoon would have been Sabbath afternoon, the
second day back would have been Friday, and the third day back would,
obviously, be a Thursday afternoon!” What could be easier or more straightforward, “exclusive” or “inclusive” or whatever “reckoning
..... one accepts”!? Luke did not ‘abandon his normal usage’ to count from
one to three or backwards from three to one “in Luke 24:21”, and “all the
accounts in the biblical records appear compatible” regardless what “usage” Luke employed “in Luke 24:21”.
What
difference there is, as far as Luke 24:21
is concerned, is not the “usage” or “manner” “in Luke’s reckoning”; it is in the kind of days he supposed— ordinary
days which he ordinarily counted—ordinary days “SINCE”, and not OF the
passover. Simply, “today is the third
day SINCE THESE THINGS were done”, implying yesterday (Saturday) was the
second “day since these things
had happened”; the day before yesterday (Friday) was the first “day since these things”;
and the day before Friday – Thursday – was the day OF “these things” which were, that they delivered Jesus over
and that He was crucified— that He was buried, excluded!
After
all, “it must be admitted, that the inclusive manner predominates in
Luke’s writings” generally or where he specifically distinguishes the passover’s
‘calendar days’, Abib 14 and 15 and
16 according to the historical events that happened on each “according to
the Scriptures”, as “written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and
the Psalms concerning Me ..... for thus it behoved the Christ to SUFFER (and be KILLED on Abib 14) and from the DEAD (and from having been dead in the
grave on Abib 15), to RISE (on Abib 16) the THIRD day.”
Paul R. Finch:
Perhaps (it has
been suggested) that the annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath appearing in
tandem with each other in AD 30 only represented one day in Luke’s reckoning.”
(Closing quotation mark, GE.)
This may be, but
I know of no such usage in any other biblical or
secular text.
GE:
What
is the sense in looking for “other
biblical or secular text(s)” everyone knows does not exist? It is a more
futile attempt than Martin’s at building windmills to destroy with Don Quixote
flair.
To
say nothing with a lot of learned sounding words has been made a fine art
here. The only difficulty with this whole
scheme is it has no aspect real or true solely because it beforehand has been
decided the Resurrection MUST be on the First Day of the week.
E. L. Martin:
Indeed, the Day of
Pentecost was the 50th day from the Sunday during the days of Unleavened Bread,
and it always appears abutting to the weekly Sabbath that precedes it, yet that
weekly Sabbath is always called the 49th day, and the day from that Sunday.
This is inclusive reckoning!” The Case for a Thursday Crucifixion,
op. cit., p. 6.
GE:
I
am not going to try to fathom where Paul R. Finch is the writer, or where
Martin or anyone else; it’s not worth the trouble. So, whoever is here speaking, is speaking his
own mind, not what the Scriptures say.
And it is another of those cases where an ungrounded generalisation is
stated for rule without exception. Yes, “that weekly Sabbath is always called the
49th day, and the day from that Sunday” by moderns of that opinion; but it
is NOWHERE ‘called’ in the
Scriptures. I think it is the third or fourth time now this same ‘argument’
surfaced, which is falsely based on
Lv23:11-15, and where Paul R. Finch said the context is the only thing that can
explain the meaning of the passage, which was about the passover and its own
peculiar, ‘sabbath day’ the fifteenth day of the First Month, which occurred
between the day the passover was killed – Abib 14 – and the day the First Sheaf
Offering was waved before the LORD – Abib 16; where the context determined that
the passover was determined by the people themselves according to the
solar-year in contradistinction to the “My Sabbaths” which occurred
independently regardless the months and seasons of nature or man’s astrometric
knowledge.
Indeed
then, the Day of Pentecost was the 50th day from the “sabbath” OF THE
PASSOVER and was the FIRST of the Days of Unleavened Bread, and it by rule
could appear abutting to ANY day of the week, also, of course, to the weekly
Sabbath that might have preceded it occasionally. But since when Christ
resurrected through having occurred on the day BEFORE the weekly Sabbath, the
fiftieth day or ‘Pentecost’ is fixed by that event for ever after upon the
weekly Sabbath Day. This is ‘reckoning’ of days according to ‘the
Power of His Resurrection’!
PRF / Martin:
For Luke to
abandon his inclusive reckoning in the one instance
would be
inexplicable. There is no justification for Luke to “abandon” his normal
inclusive usage in this one instance. All the accounts are only compatible when
we realize that Matthew 12:40 is an idiomatic expression for three calendar
days. If one simply reads the account of the Crucifixion as Luke records it
from chapter 23:47 through 24:1 no one would ever have come up with any other
idea than a Friday Crucifixion. This was Dr. Martin’s earlier view Was Christ Crucified on Wednesday? op. cit., p. 8., and it still makes
the most sense.
GE:
Repeat! It’s your only resource of convincing
argument.
Luke
abandoned nothing; he kept up normal human brain-function in every instance
explicable. There is no justification for any of us to prescribe to Luke for
normal usage – in whichever instance –including or excluding conditions. All the accounts are perfectly compatible when
we realize that Matthew 12:40 is NO idiomatic but a literal expression for
three PASSOVER-calendar days. If one simply read the account of the Crucifixion
as Luke recorded it from chapter 22:7,14
through 23:49; then the account of
the Burial from 23:50 through 23:56a; then of the Sabbath implied
after 23:56b and until 24:1, no one would ever have come up with any other idea
than a Thursday Crucifixion and Sabbath
Resurrection. This has always been simply “according to the Scriptures”
and always will be the only explanation that makes sense.
But
to read as if it is the “account of the
Crucifixion ..... from 23:47 through 24:1”, is telling the reader, Close
your eyes and shut down your thought factory and cause your eyes to skip over
everything before, in, and after “Luke
23:47”.
Paul R. Finch:
..................
Jesus’ and Paul’s Interpretation
When Jesus said
in Matthew 12:40, “it is written,” what was He referring to? The only scripture
in the Old Testament that gives any
interval of time
for the duration of Jesus’ stay in the tomb was that associated with Jonah.
GE:
Nonsense! In every way, nonsense! The ‘subject’ of the “three days and
three nights” is not about an “interval
of time for the duration of Jesus’ stay in the tomb that was associated with
Jonah.” We have gone over this. Try answer your own question properly, “When Jesus said in Matthew 12:40, “it is
written,” what was He referring to?” Was it the “interval of time for the duration of Jesus’ stay in the tomb”? Or was it what Jesus said, HIMSELF? Now go read it, and please don’t bring this
nonsense of yours here again.
And
to help you, here is a friendly tip, This is definitely NOT “The only scripture in the Old Testament”
about the ‘subject’ of the “three days and three nights”.
Paul R. Finch:
Jesus, himself,
interpreted that interval of time as being “on the third day.”
GE:
What
are you TALKING my dear man? Are you
saying “three days and three nights”,
“as being “on the third day”? How do you manage that? Do you want to say “that interval of time”, “of Jesus’ stay in the tomb”, “as
being “on the third day”? How do you
manage that? Do you want to say “that interval of time” that is “associated
with Jonah”, “as being “on the third day”?
How do you manage that?
Paul R. Finch:
Jesus, himself,
interpreted that interval of time as being “on the third day.” The Apostle Paul
also said: “and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day in
accordance with the scriptures.” I Cor. 15:4, NRSV. Those who would interpret
Matthew 12:40 to be a reference to a 72 hour time period need to ponder these
statements of Jesus and Paul on this matter. Their authoritative definition as
to the fulfillment of the Jonah time interval should be the final word on the matter
in the light of the daily record of events that prove that this interval was
three calendar days, and no more. There is no way around the fact that the 72
hour theory would transpire over a period of four calendar days. To the Greek
audience that Paul was addressing he made no qualification to this expression
in order to help them understand that calendar days were not intended!
GE:
Sure
.....
Jesus,
himself, said He would rise again from the grave “on the third day”. And the Apostle Paul also said: “that He
was buried, and that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the
scriptures.” Would that change the amount of hours the “three days and
three nights”-”three days” referred to by Jesus in Matthew 12:40
would consist of, 72 hours?
In
the light of the daily record of events:
DAY
ONE, Crucifixion:
Mk14:12,17—15:41;
Mt26:17,20—27:56; Lk22:7,14—23:49; Jn13:1, 19:14—19:30;
DAY
TWO, Burial:
Mk15:42—47;
Mt27:57—61; Lk23:50—56a; Jn19:31—42;
DAY
THREE, Resurrection:
Mt28:1—4
DAY
FOUR, Appearances:
Jn20:11—17;
Mt28:5—10
That
proves three passover-calendar days, and no more. There is no way around the fact 72 hours would
transpire over “three days” on any calendar. To the whole Church that Paul wrote to, he
made no qualification to his expression, “the third day” except that it
was “according to the Scriptures” because he very well knew they could
not misunderstand him, that he had the passover’s three first days in mind! There is no way around the fact Paul intended
THESE “three days” on the passover’s calendar and no other— not even the
fourth day on the passover’s calendar.
Paul
R. Finch:
Jesus himself,
in the clearest of words, teaches us what the “third day” means. His recorded
words on one occasion are:
“Go tell that
fox [Herod Antipas], behold, I cast out devils, and I
do cures TODAY,
and TOMORROW, and the THIRD DAY I shall
be perfected.
Nevertheless, I must walk TODAY, and TOMORROW, and THE DAY FOLLOWING.” Luke
13:32,33.
GE:
Now,
what do you say, dear Paul R. Finch, did Jesus teach “what the “third day” means”?
You merely repeat the passage; you don’t explain anything?
Here,
the context is Jesus “went through the cities and vilages journeying on
(towards
This
episode teaches about the TEMPTATIONS of the devil to lure Jesus away from
obedience, onto a course of trespassing the Law of God. What “the
“third day”“ means in this passage, has nothing to do with “the third
day” in prophetic references, namely, the third day of the Passover of
Yahweh, except to teach that Jesus eventually would reach and fulfil PURPOSE
and therefore also “the third day according to the Scriptures” the
passover-Scriptures. But this, “the
third day” supposed in Lk13:31-33, is not “the third day according to
the Scriptures” the passover-Scriptures, just like “the third day”
supposed in Lk24:21 is not “the third day according to the Scriptures” the
passover-Scriptures supposed by Paul in 1Cor15:4 or by Matthew in 12:40.
Paul R. Finch:
And further, if
Jesus’ Messiahship rests solely on the fact that Jesus had to be in the tomb 72
hours, then why did none of the Gospel
writers follow
this up by stating the exact time indications when Jesus was laid in the tomb
and that on the fourth calendar day at the same hour his disciples were there
waiting for the proof of his Messiahship. As it stands, not even the disciples
seem to be aware that it was the exact timing of his stay within the tomb that
was the all important factor, and not his Resurrection itself.
If some Houdini,
magician type of person made a prediction
today that he
would die and be raised exactly 72 hours later there would be national coverage
of this event, and you can be sure that the critics of this prediction would be
first to record that it did not happen at the precise time predicted. You
simply can not press the point of exact timing if none of the Apostles or
Gospel writers themselves made such a point!
GE:
One
can be sure that the critics of Jesus’ prediction in Mt12:40 would be first to
prevent it happen! Which is exactly what we see in Mt27:62—66 they tried to do.
For they knew once it happened it would be impossible to undo or deny it.
Now,
That the Jews
UNDERSTOOD “the precise time predicted” betrays they
well
BELIEVED the
true meaning of Jesus’ words, that
He
would RISE from the dead
“after
three days” – i.e., that He would
RISE from the dead
“on
the third day” – i.e., that He
would
“be
in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”— as
“the
SIGN of the prophet Jonas” and “all the prophets”; and that
they
KNEW what every ‘expression’ ultimately, meant.
One
simply cannot repugn or reject the point of “exact timing” if none of the Apostles or Gospel writers repugned or
rejected it!
Paul R. Finch:
It is time for
blindness to be replaced by vision. It is time that people wake up to the fact
that Matthew alone is consistent in using this idiomatic Hebrew expression. In
other words, if Mark and Luke are not trying to define the exact hours, minutes
and seconds of the fast, where is the justification for assuming that Matthew
is, other than faulty, modern reasoning? Had Matthew 12:40 never been in the
Bible, no one would have ever reinterpreted all the other texts to conform to
such an outlandish scenario. The reality is that all these other scriptures
have been reinterpreted based solely on this one verse. This should have
cautioned many that something may have been amiss. Therefore, the burden of proof
rests upon those who have opted for a literal understanding of this expression,
without throwing all the other accounts into disharmony. But since Jesus and
Paul interpreted the Jonah time interval as being on the third calendar day,
why, therefore, should there even have been any dispute?
GE:
I
certainly have learned a lot from this dispute; and want to thank you, Mr
Finch, for having entered into it with me.
Third
delivery fifth part finished 1 January 2010.
Gerhard
Ebersöhn
Private
Bag X43
Sunninghill
2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Finch
– Fourth Delivery
Genesis
1:5
Paul
R. Finch:
Passover
Papers
C
H A P T E R 1 2
The
Evening and Morning of Genesis 1:5
ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES TO understand, before launching into a study of
the Passover time element problem itself, is how days were reckoned in the
Bible. In other words, how did the ancient Israelites reckon the beginning and
the ending of a civil, calendar day? Or, when, during any given day, did the
date change from one calendar date to the next?
GE:
One should make
sure of one’s initial approach towards an understanding of the Passover’s
dating, by first of all to keep in mind the REAL Passover is “Our Passover”,
“The Lamb of God”, Jesus Christ, and that therefore, when “launching into a study of the Passover time
element problem itself,” one should begin with the Gospel story of Jesus’
Last Suffering.
But
unfortunately when ‘launching’ with
an already fixed predisposition with regard to ‘how the ancient Israelites reckoned the beginning and the ending of a
civil, calendar day” as a kind of ready-made answer to the ‘problem’ of “the Passover time element”, one immediately is faced with the
dilemma that one sits with the ‘problem’ of how
the ancient Israelites reckoned the beginning and ending of day – how days were reckoned .... in the Bible in the Old Testament – to solve another ‘problem’, the “problem” of “the Passover time element” in ‘ancient
The first
‘problem’ we here are confronted with, is that PRF in his own opinion does not
really have an ‘issue’; he has an already made up mind, which mind has already
settled every potential dispute, problem and issue. His question, “How the ancient Israelites reckoned the
beginning and ending of day” is only its facade.
PRF:
Most
studies assume that the present day Jewish practise of beginning days at sunset
has always been the accepted practice. But was it thus in biblical times? Many
will say yes, based upon their conditioned understanding of the “evening and
morning” statements of Genesis 1:5. But could it be that this text has been
misunderstood because of the influence of the practices of latter Judaism? We
cannot merely assume that we know the answer based upon our present day
preconceptions. We must readdress what this text actually says in light of its
context.
A
total reappraisal of Genesis 1:5 needs to be considered in order to finally
make a significant breakthrough in the understanding of most time element
problems in the Bible. It is time to test and challenge one of the biggest
assumptions that people in general have had on this verse from time immemorial.
Therefore, the reader needs to study this chapter very carefully in order to not
only be aware of an adjunct issue that has a great bearing on the topic of the
Passover time-element. The issue also has a great bearing in respect to the
commencement of the weekly Sabbath day.
GE:
There are
‘problems’, but actually they are no problems; Genesis 1:5 is gonna fix them
chop chop because PRF has fixed Genesis 1:5
already. “Many will say..... based
upon their conditioned understanding .....” Only PRF doesn’t have a conditioned understanding.
All PRF is
saying, is ..... See for yourself what
is the meaning of ‘assumptions’ and ‘preconceptions’:
In general,
summarily the whole Bible is based on and conditioned by Genesis 1:5 ..... “A total reappraisal of Genesis 1:5 needs to
be considered in order to finally make a significant breakthrough in the
understanding of most time element problems in the Bible”;
“The issue also has a great bearing in
respect to the commencement of the weekly Sabbath day.”
And then of
course there is the “adjunct issue that
has a great bearing on the topic of the Passover time-element”.
PRF:
In
the interpretation of Genesis 1:5, many
have felt that since the word “evening” occurs first in Genesis 1:5, then this
is evident of days which begin at sunset. It is generally assumed that because Genesis
1:5 mentions the “erev” [evening beginning at sunset] first and then “boqer”
[morning beginning at sunrise] second, then the day must have begun at sunset
in the Bible. This definition is so universally taken for granted that hardly
anyone ever challenges it in the ever so many Passover Papers that have
accumulated thus far. Sunset beginning of days is merely assumed and those who
make their case for a Nisan 13/14 Passover invariably rush their readers past
it like telling them: “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” (as in
the movie: “The Wizard of Oz”). Check out the following pugnacious
pronouncement:
Please
note: All Biblical days are reckoned from eve to eve, or evening to evening —
sunset to sunset. There is no dispute about that Biblical fact. Whew! The voice
of authority has just spoken! One can almost sense from this how much the Nisan
13/14 theory rides on a day beginning at sunset. This author certainly knows
that his entire case would collapse immediately if days were counted from
sunrise. He therefore must not spend any time looking at this aspect of the
controversy, lest he risk the chance that critical thinkers would see through
his entire charade. Indeed, if this author is so oblivious to the fact that
there is indeed a dispute about how the Bible counts days, then we have an
obligation here to expose this dispute which this author refuses to address.
Certainly,
there may not be a dispute within the Jewish religion of today on how the Bible
counts days, but there is indeed a dispute among many Jewish biblical scholars
of today. Although sunset reckoning maybe the universally-accepted method among
modern Jewish people, the question is, has this practice always been the case?
GE:
‘Ereb’ is very
much the equivalent of the NT ‘opse’ ‘opsimos’ < ‘opis’, ‘late’.
Young’s
Analytical,
‘ereb’- “even”
62 times; “evening” 49; “eventime” 1; “night”,
4 times. ‘ereb’ with ‘boqer’- “day” 1; with ‘yom’- “evening”, 1; with
‘behn-ha-arbayim’- “at even” 8; “in the evening” 1; ‘eth’ with ‘ereb’ 1; “evening
tide” 2; “eventide” 1; ‘panah’ with ‘ereb’ “eventide” 1 (opposite of ‘panah’
with ‘boqer’, “right early” 1.
Linguistically
‘behn-ha-arbayim’ – according to Young’s, is the Dual of the ‘yom’- “day”.
‘Behn-ha-arbayim’, “between the PAIR of nights” = ‘emphatically during
daylight-time: neither before sunrise nor after sunset’.
Therefore ‘ereb’
has to do with late light-time of day, always. ‘Ereb’ never has to do with the last hours of darkness or night, called
‘early’ or ‘morning’; because ‘ereb’
does not represent night, but day— and always means, ‘late in the day’
concerned.
The Hebrew idea
of a ‘day’ is as exists it IN BETWEEN from the sun has risen until it has set.
After sunset ‘day’ does not exist for the Hebrew mind. The idiom ‘behn-ha-arbayim’ is an emphatic
way of expressing the same conception of a ‘day’ especially with reference to
the sacrificial system.
It is obvious
then that PRF gives his invention for definition of what ‘ereb’ means, “Genesis 1:5 mentions the “erev” [evening
beginning at sunset] first and then “boqer” [morning beginning at sunrise]
second”. PRF gives this – his
invention – for INSTEAD OF the
‘ereb’-‘evening’ / ‘afternoon’ ENDING of day BEFORE sunset which stands for the
past daylight before it and which it represented; and for INSTEAD OF the ‘boqer’-‘morning’ / ‘after-night’ ENDING BEFORE
sunrise which stands for the past night before it and which it represented; so
that the day began with, in English, ‘evening’— ‘evening’ in the sense of night
directly after sunset— just the OPPOSITE of PRF’s innovation, as is absolutely
clear from Young’s information.
Genesis 1:5 mentions
the ‘ereb’ for the ‘evening’-ENDING BEFORE sunset for the PAST day of daylight;
and ‘boqer’ is mentioned for the night-ENDING BEFORE sunrise for the PAST
darkness of night.
In word-order of
the text, yes, ‘ereb’ is mentioned in genesis 1:5 before ‘boqer’ is mentioned;
but in the story these words relate, and according to the events they relate
to, that which follows in word-order actually preceded in time-order.
The first day
there was no matter, no earth, no sun, no distance, no time, no energy, no
light. Then, “In six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that in
them is.” Ex20:11. And after God had
had created energy, and time, and distance, and sun, and earth, and matter “on
the first day”, there still was no light; only darkness and everything
covered in darkness like darkness of the plague. And God “on the First Day”,
“said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Then broke the dawn of
day and light, and darkness dissipated. And in the end of that day, “God
called the light, Day, and the darkness, He called, Night— and the
‘ereb’-after-noonday-before-sunset-‘evening’ of ‘Day’, and the
‘boqer’-after-midnight-before-sunrise-morning of ‘Night’ were the First Day.”
On the First Day
STILL but after it (Ablative concept) – in its end – Genesis 1:5 says, “And
the evening (‘ereb’) and the morning (boqer’) were the First Day.”
The Word now tells – relates, recapitulates – the creation from light to
darkness whereas God created from darkness to light. The Word informs from the
perspective from after the creation of light.
The Scriptures looks BACK; it sees from daylight to darkness— daylight
which was last, and darkness which was first. The Word of God mentions ‘ereb’,
‘day’s-ending’ representing which came last but is mentioned first; ‘boqer’-
‘night’s-ending’, representing which came first but is mentioned last.
“In Thy light
shall we see light” Ps36:9 ..... whether of the darkness or of the history
of beginnings or of the understanding of the fear of God. “We shall walk in
the light of Your Fire, o God.” (Is50:11) “O send out Thy Light and Thy
Truth!” Ps43:3 “Then shall thy
light rise in obscurity.” Is58:10. God created light in the darkness and
obscurity ON, as well as, OF the first day of his creating the world. It was no
darkness of before light which was not the darkness of the First Day that God
created.
The Bible-order
of the day-cycle since creation was for ever after established on the first day
of God’s creative acts. Darkness of
night is the first and beginning part of a day; light of day is the last and
closing part of a day. Or God must have created darkness out of light, and
harvested confusion and chaos from order and plan.
Now let us go
look what the context was of the four instances that ‘ereb’ is translated “night”
(and in effect, the four instances where day and light is translated darkness
and confusion), Gn49:27, Lv6:20, Ps30:5, Job 7:4 .....
Gn49:27, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the
morning (‘boqer’) he shall devour
the prey, and at night (‘ereb’) he shall divide the spoil.” The wolf
hunts in the dark of night; when in the early morning of night (‘boqer’) he has
caught his prey, the wolf devours it then and there, and returns to share the
remainder of his catch with other wolves when “the day is far spent /
declined” (‘kekliken hehmera’) and “towards evening”. (‘pros hesperan’ as in Lk24:29)
The
word-sequence is first ‘boqer’ for the PAST night, then ‘ereb’ for the PAST day
of the ‘day-full-night-and-day’.
Lv6:20, “This
is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD
IN THE DAY ..... half of it in the morning (‘boqer’?), and half thereof at
night (‘ereb’).” Both ‘boqer’ and ‘ereb’ fall within the “day”
(‘yom’). ‘Ereb’ obviously, again, has
the meaning like in Lk24:29, “the day far spent / declined” “towards
evening”, ‘ereb’ for the PAST day of the ‘day-full-night-and-day’.
As sacrifices
and offerings were ALWAYS made within day-time “between the pair of nights”
‘behn-ha-arbayim’— BETWEEN the ‘nights’ before and after the specific day;
after and before the sunrise and the sunset—, here also, it is first morning
‘boqer’ for the first half of the offering, and later on, on the same day
still, ‘evening’ – or better, ‘afternoon’ –, for the last half of the
offering.
Ps30:5, Read verse 4 first, “For his anger
endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night
(‘ereb’), but joy cometh in the morning.” Luther: Ps30:6, “Denn sein Zorn währt einen Augenblick, und
LEBENSLANG seine Gnade; den (nur) ein ABEND lang währt das Weinen, aber des
Morgens ist Freude.” “His wrath is
for a moment, but all life long his mercy; for but only an evening long is
weeping, but every morning again and again, comes joy.”
Word-sequence is
of NO consequence; word-meanings as such, are of importance.
Job 7:4, “When
shall I arise and the night (‘ereb’) be gone?” One should read verse
three as well. “So am I made to possess months of vanity and wearisome
nights are appointed me.....” Now Luther translated verse 4, “Wenn ich
Job never got
up. He lay in misery interchanged with switching from the one side to the other
after every long day and after every long night. Whether morning came or
evening came, every day and every night to Job were like months so
wearisome. ‘Ereb’ is much better
interpreted ‘late every day’, than ‘the night’.
The word-order means as much as the day and night order meant to Job. (Jeremiah did not even turn onto the other
side for how long, under in his pit?)
I mention this
to demarcate from the outset the opposing thought-patterns of the ‘sunrise-day’ approach (PRF) as over
against the ‘sunset-day’ approach
(GE).
Paul
R. Finch:
In
reality, this one point is the most crucial point to understand within the
entire subject. The fact that Nisan 13/14 Passover advocates do not even
address this fact is suspiciously revealing about the motives of such people.
GE:
Motives? But yes, “Nisan 13/14 Passover” is a total fallacy, and I have had some
experience of ‘motives’ involved in such disputes. Nevertheless I don’t think
it is completely fair to accuse “Nisan
13/14 Passover advocates” that “they
do not even address” the “ISSUE”
of “how days were reckoned in the Bible”.
I think yours is a more serious offence to presume, PRF, your innovation
and “charade” for “fact”— “this fact” ostensibly that “days
were counted from sunrise”, and, that “sunset
beginning of days is merely assumed”.
Paul
R. Finch:
Make
no mistake! The counting of days is indeed the most important aspect to get
straight once and for all. If days were counted calendrically from
sunset-to-sunset [i.e., the calendar day changed from one calendar date to the
next] right at the crucial time that the Passover Sacrifice was to occur, then
there might be a case for a Nisan 13/14 Passover. But, if not, then the Nisan
13/14 Passover theory is a total myth that never occurred in the Bible.
GE:
Wait a bit, my
dear fellow, who said “the calendar day
changed from one calendar date to the next ..... right at the crucial time that
the Passover Sacrifice was to occur”?
I’m no Armstrongite or Friday-crucifixionist, but as far as I know
neither of these groups assumes what you blame them here of doing. Or is it yourselves who is saying “the Passover Sacrifice was to occur”
when “the calendar day changed from one
calendar date to the next”, that is, “sunset”,
or “eve, or evening”?
Paul
R. Finch:
First
of all, we need to understand that there is a completely different way at
looking at the implication of the evening and morning of Genesis 1:5 that few
have considered. Let us now investigate this alternate
.....
GE:
Why only “few”?
And why would the rest not “have
considered this alternate” of “a
completely different way at looking at the implication of the evening and
morning of Genesis 1:5”? Surely they
must had reason .....
Paul
R. Finch:
Fred
Coulter, The Christian Passover, 26. The tone of Coulter’s assertion is one of keeping open minded
people from even questioning an alternative view.
The
Evening and Morning of Genesis 1:5 interpretation.
The
first part of Genesis 1:5 lists the day first and then the night, but the
second part of this verse lists evening first and then the morning. Is there a
reversal here in the order or is there a misinterpretation on the part of the
reader who assumes that the second part of this verse is in contradiction with
the first part?
Genesis
1:5a states that God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” The day
portion consists of 12 hours of light and the night portion consists of 12
hours of darkness — a 24 hour day. The first part of this verse already implies
a day which begins and ends at sunrise. The second part of this verse then
tells us that there was evening [after the 12 hours of daylight] and then there
was morning [after the 12 hours of night time] completing “one day.”“
GE:
You make some
misquotes, PRF, then you add your misinterpretations.
By saying, “there was evening [after the 12 hours of
daylight] and then there was morning [after the 12 hours of night time]
completing “one day”“ but at the same insisting the next day begins with
this supposed “morning AFTER the 12 hours of night time”, you take the “morning” which “there was” as a “day portion”
OF THE FIRST DAY, REMOVE IT FROM THE FIRST DAY, AND MAKE IT “the day portion ..... which begins ..... a
day”— the Second Day!
“The ..... second part of this verse lists
evening first and then the morning” NOT because “the morning” began the Second Day, but began the CURRENT day, which
in Genesis 1:5 was the First Day of the week.
More exactly, “the morning”
ENDED “the day portion” or rather “the night portion”, that “consists of 12 hours of darkness”, “and ends at sunrise”— marking the
precise MIDDLE of each day. See Jn19:14 for the best example anywhere.
“The first part of Genesis 1:5 lists the day
first and then the night, but the second part of this verse lists evening first
and then the morning.” Quite right! Obviously because “the first part” “lists”
things in terms of God’s declarations as seen from after they had been
declared, “the day first and then the
night”— “God called the light Day; and the darkness, He called Light.”
But
‘the second part’ is NO different; it does just the same. It REVIEWS
but also, SUMS UP “the first part of
Genesis 1:5” and what went BEYOND it as seen from after it actually had
happened. It tells ‘history’. (Not
‘history’ according to the human science of history or like defined by the
human science of history; but history as
from the viewpoint of the Scriptures— history of Divine Truth of actual
occurrence; not myth or fable.) So
Genesis ‘records’ the events of the First Day in their actual sequence, but on
paper in their reversed order.
Which, of
course, implies the negation of your invention or innovation or myth or fable,
that “The second part of this verse .....
tells us that there was evening [after the 12 hours of daylight] and then there
was morning [after the 12 hours of night time] completing “one day.”“ Your
corruption of the text lies between the brackets which you inserted (and a few
lines further would pretend “Nothing here
has been added to this verse, and
nothing taken away).
No, it is not “The second part of this verse ..... tells us
that there was evening [after the 12 hours of daylight] and then there was
morning [after the 12 hours of night time] completing “one day”“; it is: The second part of this verse tells us that
there was evening as the closing down period of the 12 hours of daylight; and then there was morning as the closing down
period of the 12 hours of night time-time, virtually in cash-register fashion “completing” “one day”, in the historical actually occurring sequence reversed or
counted up or given account of: End-result: “the First Day had been”: “And
the evening (‘ereb’) and the morning (boqer’) were the First Day.”
Paul
R. Finch:
If
we were to rearrange this verse so that each component is coupled with its
respective period this would be more than abundantly apparent. ......”
GE:
That is what I
have been saying ..... rearrange it in your mind— meaning, rearrange your
PERSPECTIVE; don’t rearrange the sequence of the narrative which is from the
present into the past.
Paul
R. Finch:
If
we were to rearrange this verse so that each component is coupled with its
respective period this would be more than abundantly apparent. ...... For
instance, see how differently this verse sounds when constructed this way:
And
God called the light day, and then there was evening.
And
He called the darkness night, and then there was
morning,
one day.
Nothing
here has been added to this verse, and
nothing taken away. ......
GE:
No, nothing here has been added; and as I
see it, it says exactly what I have said just now: The second part of this
verse tells us
TWO THINGS: that
“there was
..... evening” AS
THE CLOSING-DOWN PERIOD OF the 12 hours of daylight =
“And God called the light day, and then .....”
“its respective component COUPLED WITH
its respective period
..... there was EVENING”;
“and then”, “..... there was .....
..... morning” AS
THE CLOSING-DOWN PERIOD OF the 12 hours of night =
“And He called the darkness night, and
then.....” “its respective component COUPLED
WITH its respective period
..... there was MORNING”—
“Evening”
‘coupled with’ “the light day”; and
“morning”
‘coupled with’ “the darkness night”—
Cash-Register
Entry:
..... “completing”—
“, one day”, “first day”.
Bottom line, Sum-total:
“, one day”, “the First Day”.
“Each component” and “its respective period”, “coupled”,
makes them
mutually part and parcel of each other—
“evening”
= ‘afternoon’ = ‘after-day’ part and parcel of its whole “the light
day”, and,
“morning”
as part and parcel of its whole “the darkness night”.
And these, “the
light day” and the “the darkness night”, ‘coupled’ together, part and parcel .....
..... “were
the First Day”— “one day” .....
..... “The
First Day” at the same time, the name of the first day.
“One day” “The First Day” in the reversed
historical actually having had had occurred sequence, seen from after, looking
back into distance in time; or ‘counted up’; or ‘summarised’; RE-VIEWED and ‘given account of’: —
“And the
evening –‘ereb’ – part of and “coupled
with its respective period”, “the
light day”, and
the morning
–‘boqer’ – part of and “coupled with its respective period”, “the darkness
night”,
were the First
Day”
Therefore PRF in
actual fact, is contradicting himself.
Where have we
been when God created; when “He spoke, and it .... WAS”?
Paul
R. Finch:
We
are not tampering with this text or altering it in any way that would change
the basic meaning of what it is saying. But once we do read this verse in this
fashion, there is no contradiction and sunrise days are manifestly confirmed.
Erev is the period of time that ended at sunset and likewise the night period
ended at sunrise. That is what constituted a single, 24 hour calendar day. So
now when we read the literal Hebrew in Genesis 1:5b, we can see this so
clearly:
There
was evening [completing the light of the day that God created] and there was
daybreak [completing the first night period] one day.
GE:
Hail! Now you say it! Now compare with what you have said above, “The second part of this verse ..... tells us
that there was evening [after the 12 hours of daylight] and then there was
morning [after the 12 hours of night time] completing “one day”“ ..... the
difference is between completely skewed and completely straight! Paul R. Finch!
Paul
R. Finch:
A
recent translation of Genesis 1:5 also beautifully captures the thrust of this
text:
God
called the light: Day! And the darkness he called: Night!
There
was setting, there was dawning: one day.
Notice
the beautiful truth of this rendition. Day comes before night
— not the other way around!
GE:
All depending on
which way you look, back into what had happened as it happened – which is
Bible-history and Genesis-fact; or forward into what had not happened as is
supposed it happened – which is myth and fantasy. So there is only one way to look at ‘this rendition’; from the affirming
viewpoint of “the beautiful truth of”
it. The precedent had been set: Day shall consist of created complexity of
first (further in creation-time from where the observer stands): “the
darkness night”, then (nearer in creation-time from where the observer
stands) “the day light”.
Paul
R. Finch:
When
God said: “Let there be light,” He gave that “light” a name. He called the
light “Day.” Then the period of darkness that followed He called “Night.” .....
GE:
No no no no.
Here’s where you lost track ..... When God said: “Let there be light,”
He gave that “light” a name. He called the light “Day.” THEN IT
READS: “..... and the darkness He called NIGHT”, not, “Then
the period of darkness THAT FOLLOWED he
called “Night”“ as you have it! That
is a direct misquote! God called the
darkness that He HAD HAD created as first part of the First Day which He
created, “Night”! God “called
the darkness” or “respective period”
of darkness of the day that He created “the First Day”, “Night”. That is what is ‘written’.
Then the period
of darkness THAT FOLLOWED would have been the first part of the Second Day that
God created.
But I hold my
own private opinion with regard to the ‘introductory announcements’ to each
creation day – as I would like to call them— these statements, “And the
evening and the morning were the ..... day”. As I see them, they are – with the exception of the first one – not ‘concluding
interjections’; they are ‘introducing or introductory announcements’ of the
given day and its events. As far as this the first ‘introductory announcement’
is concerned, I am of the opinion personally that is of rhetorical nature, so
that the orator interjects it, in the middle of his oration, for effect. And,
so the First Day CONTINUES both before
and after its announcement, and the division of the firmament (until 8a) also
forms part of the First Day’s creating deeds of God. Verse 8b therefore serves
as ‘introductory announcement’ to the Second Day! But it is besides the point now. Or perhaps not. It helps understanding the sequence
construction of darkness and daylight of day-units. Yes, I am sure it actually does clear up much
difficulty. Try read these statements as
introductory announcements of the day that FOLLOWS, and the day’s sequence as
to ‘darkness then daylight’, is obviated: “And the evening and the morning
were the Second Day ....”. “The
evening” becomes the ‘respective’
concluding representing part of “the light day” and “the morning”
the ‘respective’ concluding
representing part of “the darkness night”; TOGETHER, THEY SHALL BE, “.....
the Second Day: .....”—
rhetorically speaking.
Paul
R. Finch:
That
“day/night” sequence represented the first 24 hours......
GE:
Retrospectively
.....
Paul
R. Finch:
That
“day/night” sequence represented the first 24 hours. It is for this reason that
throughout the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Matthew (originally written in
Hebrew) this “day/night” formula is used to convey the notion of a twenty-four
hour, calendar day (e.g., forty days and forty nights).
GE:
Matthew was not “originally written in Hebrew”. I won’t go into the matter here, except to
draw the reader’s attention to your presuming.
You have a world of scholarly criticism against your averring.
Though it is
true “throughout the ..... Bible ..... this
“day/night” formula is used to convey the notion of a twenty-four hour day
..... e.g., forty days and forty nights” will be forty days, it is NOT true “throughout the Bible” or “the
Book of Matthew”, “this “day/night”
formula is used to convey the notion of a calendar day”. E.g., the “forty days and forty nights” ARE NOT, ‘calendar days’; they are just solar days. It is not even pertinent
or relevant in which order of sequence of nights and days, OR, whether they are
‘reckoned’, ‘inclusively’ or ‘exclusively’!
So, yes, “That “day/night” sequence represented the
first 24 hours” understood prospectively or retrospectively; it makes no
difference to the length of time of the First Day be it a day and a night long
or a night and a day long. And it also
makes no difference whether the day is reckoned inclusively or exclusively. be
it a day of a night and a day or a day of a day and a night. Not because of splitting hair or ‘clockwatch requirement’; simply because
of the time it takes the earth to rotate around its axle once.
So, what I in
effect say, is, That it took God Almighty – for as far as the Bible is
concerned; never mind what other ‘sources’ of knowledge say – 12 hours our solar time to out of nothing
have created everything, and then in the first second of the thirteenth hour,
to have brought about order— to have created light – which implies time— which
implies order— which implies change and progress— which implies the change from
darkness to daylight and again from daylight to darkness of night, so that “It
was evening and it was morning the First Day.”
Paul
R. Finch:
That
“day/night” sequence represented the first 24 hours.
But
look what modern interpreters have done. They ignore the context of the first
part of Genesis 1:5 to blindly follow the post-biblical, rabbinical teaching of
reversing the second part of Genesis 1:5.
GE:
I’m sorry, PRF,
it is not “what modern interpreters have
done” OR do “ignore”. THERE IS
ONLY ONE “sequence” in “Genesis 1:5”; in the WHOLE “context of Genesis 1:5” the SAME “sequence” that in “the second part of Genesis 1:5 represented the first 24 hours”,
that in “the first part of Genesis 1:5
represented the first 24 hours”.
First see “that sequence” in
Genesis 1:5 ITSELF, in both “parts of
Genesis 5”, and you will see what both “modern
interpreters” and “rabbinical
teaching” “have done”— that they
obediently, open-eyed, and HONESTLY, have ‘followed’
the teaching of Genesis 1:5 ITSELF. Just
read the text and let it speak for itself, keeping in mind you are not reading
while doing what God did; you are reading what God inspired to be RE-corded
after, towards, what He had had done long before—
“And God
called the light (12 hours) Day, and
the (12
hours) darkness, He called Night;
and:
the Erev [“the
period of time that ended at sunset .... the evening completing the light of
the day that God created ....”]
and
the Boqer [“the period of time that ended at sunrise
....the daybreak completing the night period of the day that God created ....”]
were The First
Day
“[completing the first] one day”.
That is what
constituted THE single, once for all first 24 hour, earth’s solar “day”. It was not a “calendar day” though, yet, NOR EVER, WOULD BE! Because that was THE single, once for all
first 24 hour earth’s solar “day”, ‘The
First Day’ by name, OF THE WEEK, which is NOT determined / “ruled”
by the MOON and vernal equinox, and therefore cannot be a ‘calendar day’.
So now when we
read the literal English in Genesis 1:5 the unbroken verse, we can see this so
clearly from our vantage-point in time, long after it actually happened.
Paul
R. Finch:
This
brings us to an important point in regard to a typical practice known as “proof
texting.” We all approach Scripture with our own built-in preconceptions. Many
times, depending on our own predisposed position the reality is that it could
go either way in interpretation and still make sense to either position.
Genesis 1:5b is such a verse. When it says that “the evening and the morning
were the first day,” there are two ways that this can be understood: “the
evening [ began the night portion] and the morning [ began the day portion],
the first day,” or: “the evening [ concluded the day portion] and the morning [
concluded the night portion], the first day.” A decision as to the correct
rendering must be based on context — not on our own preconceived ideas of what
we think it should read based upon false tradition.
GE:
You should apply
this wise advice yourself to yourself. I
recommend though, you read your advice, a little different, like this,
We all approach
Scripture with our own preconceptions, which always depend on our predisposition,
while we are not prepared to accept the reality could go against us. This is the case too often when it comes to
understanding Genesis 1:5. When it says that “the evening and the
morning were the first day,” there is only one way that this can be understood:
“the evening concluded the day portion and the morning concluded the night
portion, the first day”— never, “the
evening began the night portion and the morning began the day portion, the
first day”.
A decision as to
the correct rendering must be based on context – in the case of Gn1:5 the
creation of light out of darkness – taking into account the circumstance of the
event, that it was the first ever day, having been created; and taking into
account the type of literature, in the case of Gn1:5 ‘inspired history’; and
taking into account other pertinent factors, like style (can Genesis its
introduction, be rhetorical language?).
A decision should not be made on either our own preconceived ideas of
what we think Gn1:5 should read; or upon false tradition; but in simplicity and
honesty after having given DUE CONSIDERATION to insight which many God-fearing
men through many centuries of study and research have reached and can offer as
help and support to understand the creation story in our modern times, better
and easier than ever before. Better than ever before, because so much severely
and thoroughly tried and proven.
Fools rush in
where angels fear to tread.
End Finch fourth
delivery
10 December
2009-12-10
Paul
R Finch:
“Isn't
interesting that the entire understanding of the Passover time element problem
could not be understood down through the centuries by all the great minds of
the past, but had to await the arrival of the most skilled biblical exegete of
all time to arrive on the scene and finally unravel this problem once and for
all? I thought I had seen unparalleled biblical arrogance in Herbert W.
Armstrong, and then Fred Coulter. I was wrong.
Ask anyone
with half a brain tied behind their backs if they see a “beginning of Burial day in Luke 23:50,” and I will
say that they are taking the same hallucinogens that you are. Do you have a
different Bible than everyone else? Are you kidding? Or are you just having
fun? I have seen your ilk before and I condemn your Scripture twisting!
Your
deliberate invention of a mirage called “burial day”
as occurring on the “great day of Sabbath's-esteem”
ignores Luke's explicit demarcation that “that day was the preparation, and the
sabbath drew on” Luke 23:54. Friday is the day of preparation of the Sabbath.
The First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided with the weekly Sabbath that year.
John 19:31 still called the day that Jesus was on the stavros as the day of
preparation and when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus laid Jesus in the garden
tomb it was still the day of preparation --- John 19:42. Are you saying that
there were two different days of preparations? If that were so, then the second
day of preparation either occurred on the weekly Sabbath or the High Day.
Imagine that. Preparing for a Sabbath on a Sabbath? Where in history do we ever
see two consecutive holy days back-to-back? There is nothing in the accounts to
alert the reader that there were two different days of preparation, let alone
one of them absurdly occurring either on the Sabbath, or the High Day of Nisan
15. Where's the absolute proof of such a nonsensical assertion? There is none
to be found in the accounts, to be sure!
If Luke were
here today he would condemn your blatant tampering with his text! Your scenario
produces a four day scenario and therefore stands self-condemned! Also Matthew
is guilty in his narrative if your scenario is right. Matthew 27:57 --- Day of
Crucifixion; Matthew 27:62 --- Day following the preparation guard is set;
Matthew 28:1-6, First Day of the Week, Jesus is risen!!
“The Son of
man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and the third
day rise again” Luke 24:7 --- not the fourth! What does Luke have to do to
be more explicit than that? Nothing! His testimony stands and yours is the
out-of-touch modern theory that is a deviation from plain simple fact.
I have seen
nothing in you circular reasoning that would convince anyone that there was
anything that should deviate from the simple teaching of Luke. If Luke knew of
another day in between, he is not only guilty of not making that fact crystal
clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he is guilty of tripping up our
understanding by not explicitly explaining such a fact.
You make up
phraseology such as “in-between-sabbath” as if
that phrase is in the Bible. It is not! People like you can not come up with
cockamamie ideas like yours without Scripture twisting, text tampering, and out
right inventing of phrases that are pulled right out of thin air. There is
simply no way you can prove from Scripture that there was a fourth calendar “in-between-sabbath” day.
As for the
attachment about the beginning of day, it is interesting what quotes from me
you include and which ones you choose to ignore. But your explanation that the
first day of Genesis is an exception to the rest of the days betrays your whole
approach. Your case is made up of nonsense! You criticize me for “'launching' with an already fixed predisposition,”
and then proceed to spew out your “fixed predisposition.”
And what
nonsense is this? “God called the light Day; and the
darkness, He called Light.”
Or this
nonsense: “Day shall consist of created complexity of
first (further in creation-time from where the observer stands): “the darkness
night”, then (nearer in creation-time from where the observer stands) “the day
light”. You “darkness first” people are promoting the doctrines of the
prince of Darkness.
“Matthew
was not “originally written in Hebrew”. I won’t go into the matter here, except to
draw the reader’s attention to your presuming.
You have a world of scholarly criticism against your averring.” So now scholarly criticism trumps the historical testimony of
Eusebius. Eusebius stated: “Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when
he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing
in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the
gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote (History of the Church
3.24.6). Go do you homework before lecturing those who have! You missed quoting
all the biblical scholars who promote the sunrise as the beginning of a new
day. So you pick and choose what scholars promote your theories, and disregard
those who don't?
“Fools
rush in where angels fear to tread.” Nice touch!
How about “Answer
not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him.” Prov. 26:4.
How about “Seest
thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool
than of him.” Prov. 26:12.
Yes, you are
wise in your own conceit because you believe that out of all humanity
prior to you, you are the only one who has been blessed with insight that
transcends anything yet before you. You epitomize what ministers of the
god of this world have done from time immemorial. You lurk in vague passages,
dark sayings, obscure nuances of thought that push aside the plain and the
simple teachings of the Scripture. You worship a ghost that thinks he is holy,
that promotes darkness over light. The eerie menace of your double-speak is testimony
of a sinister mendacity that is as evil as anything I have ever read.
Paul R.
Finch
Paul
R. Finch:
Isn't
interesting that the entire understanding of the Passover time element problem
could not be understood down through the centuries by all the great minds of
the past, but had to await the arrival of the most skilled biblical exegete of
all time to arrive on the scene and finally unravel this problem once and for
all? I thought I had seen unparalleled biblical arrogance in Herbert W. Armstrong,
and then Fred Coulter. I was wrong.
Ask
anyone with half a brain tied behind their backs if they see a “beginning of Burial day in Luke 23:50,” and I will
say that they are taking the same hallucinogens that you are. Do you have a
different Bible than everyone else? Are you kidding? Or are you just having
fun? I have seen your ilk before and I condemn your Scripture twisting!
GE:
Kindly get the
perspective right with regard to this point first of all, so that
misunderstanding will not taint our discourse --- “Ask anyone ..... if they see
a “beginning of Burial day in Luke 23:50,”
......” Have a look at the context in which I have said these words,
please. Because I do not see a “beginning of Burial
day in Luke 23:50”; I see the ENDING of Burial
day in Luke 23:50. And ask anyone, if they don't see the beginning
of Burial Day in Mk15:43/Mt27:57, Jn19:31/38, Lk23:50? But of course,
you, will not admit it, because you deem that day started the sunrise before -
here, in Jn19:14. Well, that is exactly the point of contention between
us.
Wait!
I’m sorry ..... I MUST APOLOGISE, I DID NOT RECOGNISE “Luke
23:50”; VERSE 54 WAS IN MY MIND. I many times in about every discourse
do give the parallel Scriptures where I say the beginning of Burial-day is to
be found, together, to quote myself, here: Mk15:43/Mt27:57, Jn19:31/38, Lk23:50. Therefore, sorry again. I should get my own
perspective right first!
So
then, you’re against it – you mock at it – I said “beginning of Burial day in Luke 23:50”. This now is where “Suddenly a man named
Joseph” appears on the scene and “this man went unto Pilate .....”. Yes. Why not?
But where would you have placed the specific time-slot supposed? Before sunset, is your only option if you
refuse the just after sunset option. You chose the before sunset option? Alright then, thank you dear Paul R
Finch. Then you admit – more, you insist
– day ENDS with the setting sun because “Ask
anyone with half a brain tied behind their backs if they see a “beginning of Burial day in Luke 23:50,”!”
Now what about
your claim “the beginning and the ending
of a civil, calendar day”, “Or .....
during any given day ..... the date change from one calendar date to the next”,
“sunrise”? What about your denial and rejection, “Most studies assume that the present day Jewish practise of beginning
days at sunset has always been the accepted practice”? Burial-day either can
END, before sunset; or it can BEGIN after sunset. You say it’s crazy to suggest it began after
sunset; so it MUST END BEFORE SUNSET. So Paul R. Finch contradicts himself
because he claims day ends in the mornings with sunrise.
Or you have a
last option, that the day of Burial did not begin in Luke 23:50 after sunset,
because it began “sunrise” like all
days – according to PRF – begin “sunrise”. So then, according to one Paul R. Finch, “Joseph
went to Pilate” sunrise just after, so that either the body of Jesus stayed
hanging on the cross until Saturday morning and Joseph buried Jesus during the
ensuing Sabbath after sunrise – “the
beginning” of day supposed “sunrise”
– or, Joseph buried Jesus on Friday morning after sunrise – “the beginning” of day supposed “sunrise” – before He was crucified
because – it is supposed – He was crucified on Friday.
These are the
completely exploited options if it is refused the day that Joseph buried Jesus
on began sunset and “when having come
already evening it being The Preparation Day”, BEGINNING. Thursday
night the Sixth Day of the week.
About
Luke 23:54, Burial-day ENDING ......
“Mid-afternoon”
says LUKE, “while the (weekly) Sabbath drew near”. Day
BEGINNING ending; you see day virtually having finished ending. I see three hours left on Friday before
sunset; you see 12 hours left on Friday before SUNRISE, so that the women “began
to rest” (Ingressive Aorist) sunrise on Saturday THAT WENT ON “the light
Day” and “the darkness Night” (Gn1:5 according to PRF), so that
EVERYTHING RECORDED in the Gospels from Mk16:1, Lk24:1, and Jn20:1, from “when
the Sabbath had gone through” and it was “early darkness still”,
until “deep darkness of morning” after midnight and “very early
before sunrise”, STILL happened during ‘SATURDAY’, with the inevitable
result YOU (not I), place EVERYTHING RECORDED on ‘Saturday’ until SUNRISE the next
morning when ‘Sunday’ was supposed to have STARTED.
Or,
simply, admit, Mk16:1 was “AFTER the Sabbath had gone through” SUNSET, and Jn20:1 was literally after SUNSET “when
early darkness still ON THE FIRST DAY of the week”, and Lk24:1 was “deep
darkness (just after midnight) ON THE FIRST DAY of the week”, and Mk16:2
was “very early before sunrise ON THE FIRST DAY of the week”. Therefore, dear Paul R. Finch, you explain to
me, please, how the ‘calendar day’,
changed sunrise and not sunset from the Sixth Day to the Sabbath, and from the
Sabbath to the First Day?
And
explain to me how you – not I – could maintain these things recorded in
Mk16:2f, Lk24:1f – which you maintain happened while Jesus resurrected on
SUNDAY MORNING – happened ON THE SABBATH because the Sabbath would only end
sunrise, yet He resurrected on the First Day, ‘Sunday’ which you maintain only
started sunrise? Did the women arrive at
the grave before He rose; did he appear before he rose? Because, if the women arrived at the grave
on the Sabbath still before day had changed from the Sabbath to the First Day
PRF:
Your
deliberate invention of a mirage called “burial day”
as occurring on the “great day of Sabbath's-esteem”
ignores Luke's explicit demarcation that “that day was the preparation, and the
sabbath drew on” Luke 23:54.
GE:
No. I do not “ignore Luke's explicit demarcation”; “Luke's explicit demarcation”, ‘demarcates’ “THAT day WAS
(Constative Aorist) the preparation, and the sabbath was draw-ING on”.
(Imperfect) Luke
23:54 ‘demarcates’ “THAT day’s”,
ENDING— the ending of Burial-day. Luke
23:54 does not ‘demarcate’ “THAT
day’s” END as such though; it’s end-point is implied in 56b, when the women
had begun to rest the Sabbath it had been the end of “THAT day”, the
Sixth Day (‘Friday’) SUNSET.
PRF:
Friday
is the day of preparation of the Sabbath.
GE:
Yes; I have
never denied it.
PRF:
The
First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided with the weekly Sabbath that year.
GE:
No. For several
reason, no. The First Day of Unleavened
Bread ALWAYS coincided with the PASSOVER’S Sabbath; It was the same day, “the
sabbath” in Lv23:11,15; “That Day” in most instances of the emphatic
Relative Pronoun, “THAT day”; in every case of its incidences “in the
bone of day-day”; “great day” in its only instance in the OT and
only in the NT, Jn19:31. (I have not
finished my study, “That Day”, yet; so my statistics may change, but the
truth of “That Day” will not.)
The fifteenth
day of the first month was the first day unleavened bread was eaten; now follow
its passover-history in the Law— it was the day of assimilation of the
sacrifice with the earth. We, as we eat
the bread of the Lord’s Supper, assimilate his body with our own mortal selves;
we as it were – by faith – bury the Sacrifice of the Passover of Yahweh by our
partaking of the bread and wine. (The RCs “crucify Him anew” Hb6.) Just like
the Israelites ate the sacrifice after sunset before midnight after the day
that they slaughtered it, and “that which remained” which they did not
assimilate with mortality and interred through eating, they had to assimilate
with the earth the next day by burning it.
The symbolism is obvious, of the suffering of Christ the wages of sin
which is the fires of hell that in Divine Reality consumed Him already at the
Lord’s Table and throughout “That Night to be solemnly observed” and
that Passover to be EATEN— observed and eaten by Christ by BEING THE PASSOVER
OF YAHWEH in soul and experience, tasting death and dying death the death of
sinners in hell-fire: “That night”, and, “that day”, were “That
Day”, first day they ATE the passover.
“That Day” was not a few hasty and confused minutes before “First
Sheaf Wave Offering”-day; it was “the sabbath” whole of night and
day of the passover, always.
See my study,
‘Friday Crucifixion SDA dilemma’.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided with the weekly Sabbath that year. John
19:31 still called the day that Jesus was on the stavros as the day of
preparation and when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus laid Jesus in the garden
tomb it was still the day of preparation --- John 19:42.
GE:
Let us get a few
particulars, right.
“John 19:31 still called the day.....”
No; this – “John 19:31 and 38
– is where John for the first time mentions JOSEPH’S actions— no longer the
Jews’; this is where John tells what Joseph INTENDED TO DO and in FAITH SET OUT
TO DO. You should have written what John
actually wrote, John 19:31 called the day that Jesus was on the stavros STILL,
as the day of preparation WHEN Joseph— in secret and ALONE, before anything (Or
more exactly, it must have been after Joseph had eaten the Jew’s passover meal,
cf. Jn18:28 and 19:31.), entered Pilate’s house to ask him for the body TO bury
it. Later, “(in the night .....) Nicodemus came there also”, where
Joseph “handled the body” and “prepared” it “according to
Jewish custom to bury”. Only later
that day – as John wrote – “by the time of the Jews’ preparation(-time)”
on Fridays, “laid they Jesus in the
garden tomb.....” WHILE “it was still
the day of preparation”. At this
point in time is where Jn19:42 and Lk23:54 perfectly agree, namely, where
Friday day “by the time of the Jew’s preparation”, “began to dawn towards the Sabbath” –
‘epefohsken sabbaton”. The Afrikaans
Bible, to avoid the implication it was only “mid-afternoon” –‘epi’-”mid”
plus ‘phohs’-”noon / light / day” plus ‘en’-”it was” 3 p.m. –
inserted the word “Sabbath”.
Joseph received
the body by Pilate’s “order” to have it buried a good time after sunset
and evening, “there” where he had “taken it away” to, to “attend”
to it further, and perhaps waited until morning to “buy clean / new linen”
to “wrap the body” in (Mk15:46a), when only also Nicodemus might have “arrived
there” with the myrrh and the two men then together, “properly handled /
treated the body”, so that the actual preparation of it might have been
done Friday day after sunrise only. Afterwards, the men called the two Marys—
who still later on Friday, “followed after” in the procession to the
grave. At the grave the two Marys “sat over against the grave” and they
were able to “see (into) the tomb” and “how his body was laid” “mid-afternoon” when Joseph “rolled the stone in the door”,
closed the grave and left and the women too, left, to go “prepare spices and
ointments” still before the end of Friday with sunset “while the Sabbath
drew on / mid-afternoon”.
Paul
R. Finch:
Are
you saying that there were two different days of preparations? If that were so,
then the second day of preparation either occurred on the weekly Sabbath or the
High Day. Imagine that.
GE:
I am indeed saying there were two different days of
preparations. But what you imagine, is what you imagine; it’s not what the
Gospels say. There were two ‘sabbaths’ –
I think you agree, though you claim they coincided “that year”. Now imagine it were another year, two
sabbaths on two different days would imply two ‘preparation-days’ on two
different days of the week. Therefore,
just – for argument’s sake – imagine “that year”, the two ‘sabbaths’ did
not coincide there would have been two ‘preparation-days’ on two different days
of the week. Now if that was actually the case in “that year” ..... Then, Friday would have been “The Preparation
which is the Fore-Sabbath” the Sixth Day of the week, won’t it?
That is what
Mk15:42 has been saying! And we know the
fifteenth day of the First Month was the passover’s “sabbath” –
Lv23:11,15. And we READ in fact, John WROTE: “The Jews
THEREFORE, BECAUSE it was The Preparation so that the bodies should not REMAIN
upon the cross BECAUSE THAT DAY WAS THE GREAT SABBATH DAY asked Pilate that the
legs (of the crucified) be broken, that they may be REMOVED”— from public view because “That-Day was
great-day-of-sabbath’s-esteem”, Abib 15.
NOT, the next day, not, the day before, but, “That Day”.
Friday’ “was”
BOTH “The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” AND, “That-Day
great-day-of-sabbath’s-esteem”, so that the day BEFORE this, must have been
“The Preparation of the passover”— “The Preparation of the passover”
of and for the passover’s ‘sabbath’; of and for “The Feast” of passover; of and
fot “the fifteenth day of the First Month.
Jn 19:14, “It was The Preparation of the Passover.”
John even wrote
which point in time on “The Preparation of the passover” it was. “It was the sixth hour (John uses
Roman hour-count) and The Preparation Day of passover”. It was sunrise,
the precise parallel in point of time of day and sequence of events in Luke,
23:24-26; in Mark, 15:15; and in Matthew, 27:26-27.
These were the
events of Crucifixion-day in its MIDDLE, sunrise;
these were the
events on, and of, “The Preparation Day of the passover”—
“The
Preparation of the passover’s” ‘feast’ and ‘sabbath’—
“The
Preparation of the passover’s” “great day of sabbath’s esteem”—
“The
Preparation of the passover” the fourteenth
day of the First Month;
“The
Preparation of the passover” FOR the fifteenth
day of the First Month—
in
contradistinction to
“That day
(that) was .....”
“The
Preparation while the Sabbath was drawing near” Lk23:54 .....
“that day
(that) was .....”
“The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”, Mk15:42 .....
“that day
(that) was .....”
“The Preparation
it being / because it was That Day great day of sabbath’s esteem” Jn19:31 ‘sabbath’
Lv23:11,15 .....
“that was”,
“that year”, on ‘Friday’.
“The
Preparation while the Sabbath was drawing near” Lk23:54 .....
“was” ‘the passover’s’, ‘Preparation’
It was ALSO ‘the passover’s’, ‘feast’
It was ALSO ‘the passover’s’, ‘sabbath’
It was ALSO ‘the passover’s’, “great day”
–
It was ‘the
passover’s’ Preparation Day
OF
AND ON “That Day”, ‘Friday’.
In other words, “The
Preparation Day of the PASSOVER”
was Thursday; and “The Preparation which is The FORE-SABBATH” was Friday.
Thursday “was
PASSOVER’S Preparation Day”
Jn19:14. Here is where it started: Mk14:12/17, Mt26:17/20, Lk22:7/14, and in
John, chapter 13:1.
It started
“the hour”
(Lk22:7,53, Jn12:23,27,31,47-13:1),
“in the
evening / when even was come” (Mk&Mt (Jn12:47))
“the first
day” (Mk&Mt)
“the day
leaven is removed” (Lk, Mk& Mt);
“night”
Mk14:30, 1Cor11:23, Jn13:30, Mk14:27/Mt26:31,34.
“this day”,
Mk14:30, Mt27:19, Lk22:34, 23:12,43.
So I’m saying
that there were two different days
of preparations.
“We prepare
FOR THEE TO EAT THE PASSOVER” Mk14:12/Mt26:17/Lk22:8,9. “To eat the passover”— for Christ to
BE, the Sacrifice “they the first day had to kill”: “THIS, is my body
..... THIS is my blood .....”, “on the first day they removed leaven”
the gist of life. Christ IS the Passover
the anticipation and the realisation of the Passover of Yahweh – “The Alpha
and the Omega” “It is done. I-AM
the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End. I will give ..... of the
Fountain of the Water of Life, freely.” Rv21:6. “Jesus Knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst .....
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: And He
bowed his head, and gave up the spirit.” Jn19:28-29. “It was the Preparation of the passover.”
“It was the
Preparation of the passover”
from
“The hour is
at hand” Mt26:45, UNTIL
“Now from the
sixth hour there was darkness over all the land
unto the ninth hour” Mt27:45 – “mid-afternoon”,
3.p.m.
“when Jesus
having again cried out with a loud voice,
YIELDED
UP THE SPIRIT.”
“And it was
the Preparation of the passover”
and THREE HOURS BEFORE
“evening now
already having come and it was
The Preparation
that is the Fore-Sabbath”;
“It was the
Preparation of the passover”
Thursday afternoon and AS SOON AS
“everybody
having seen these things
RETURNED
HOME much confused.”
Lk23:48-49
It NO LONGER “was the Preparation of the passover”
“Now EVENING having HAD already come
and it HAD BECOME / WAS
The Preparation THAT IS THE FORE-SABBATH”—
Thursday night and AFTER sunset, the Sixth Day.
December 11
........
Paul
R. Finch:
Preparing
for a Sabbath on a Sabbath?
GE:
Exactly!
Paul
R. Finch:
Where
in history do we ever see two consecutive holy days back-to-back?
GE:
Here is where
you see it the day that Joseph buried the Lord.
And in the old
Testament too, you see it; “This day ..... the night ..... this is that
night of the Lord ..... in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out .....
This day came ye out in the month of Abib.”
Ex12-13.
And in Acts
13:42-44 you see another such sequence (in the Greek; unfortunately not in the English)— the NT
fulfilled prophecy of the 9th and 10th days of the Seventh Month.
From the nature
of being ‘sabbaths’ these sabbath days all needed their days of and for
preparations AS WELL AS prescriptions.
The prohibitions about ‘work’ is very specific, as are the prescriptions
of work. There was NO day in the Old
Testament ministration of or for idleness.
The passover’s day of preparations was itself ‘passover’; it was the day
they should slaughter the lamb and remove leaven TO PREPARE TO eat it and
unleavened bread on the Feast Day, the first of seven days unleavened bread was
to be eaten afterwards. The preparation day of the passover was the fourteenth
day of the First Month; the Feast-sabbath of the passover was the fifteenth day
of the First Month.
And throughout
the Bible and ‘in history’, there was
no impediment or hindrance to “consecutive
holy days back-to-back” until your so heavily relied on “medieval” Jewish scholars concocted
‘reasons’ for arguments and rules against consecutive
holy days back-to-back occurring.
But the Christian doesn’t care about petty laws like consecutive holy days back-to-back
occurring or not; all that matters is can he read about it in the Scriptures
having occurred or not. So you have no
foot to stand on against consecutive holy
days back-to-back having in fact occurred in and according to the
Scriptures both Old and New Testaments.
Wave the Jewish scholars! Don’t
wave the Scriptures.
In the Gospels
in “that year” of our Lord’s
Crucifixion, Burial and Resurrection in
Paul
R. Finch:
There
is nothing in the accounts to alert the reader that there were two different
days of preparation, let alone one of them absurdly occurring either on the
Sabbath, or the High Day of Nisan 15.
GE:
Not?!
First) Have you, PRF yourself, not averred, “The First Day of Unleavened Bread coincided
with the weekly Sabbath that year”? What did you imply with having said, “that year”? What did you imply with having said, “Day of Unleavened Bread coincided”? You implied “The First Day of Unleavened Bread” may not have “coincided” like it supposedly did “that year” because whether it would “coincide” the way it did depended on the
“year”. And having said “that year”, you also implied, on another
“year” the coincidence may have been
different— all because of the ‘Biblical’, Old Testament factuality “calendar days” were designated their
calendar positions depending on which day in “that year” the new moon after the vernal equinox first occurred—
which Old Testament factuality is implicitly stated in expressions like “feasts
in their seasons” or according to their times— that is, their solar or
calendar dates.
There is nothing
in all the Bible to alert the reader that some different measures had to be
taken in case “consecutive holy days”
might occur “back-to-back”. And, there
is nothing in all the Bible to alert the reader that there could not be two
different days of preparation, or that a day of preparation may not fall on a
sabbath day whether another day of preparation or another sabbath day—
absolutely nothing; while we have sure Word of prophecy “the sabbath” of
the passover preceded day of first sheaf wave offering just like it followed “already
the first day”, “that they ALWAYS killed the passover on”— NO MATTER
WHICH DAYS OF THE WEEK INVOLVED.
Therefore, what
is so absurd about the plainest of statements “The
Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”, “it BEING The Preparation
(of the Sabbath) WAS ..... and That Day, WAS, great day of sabbath’s
(quality)” “the High Day of Nisan 15”?— Mk15:42/Jn19:31 literally and truthfully.
FACT IS no one
can find mentioning of days and their beginnings, evening and mornings and days
and nights OTHER THAN those there ARE in the Gospels GIVEN, that leaves NO
opportunity for speculation. ALL the
involved ‘days’ in their eschatological and Divine Imperative wholeness are
CLEARLY indicated “according to the Scriptures” the “three days”
of “three days and three nights” OF THE PASSOVER OF YAHWEH,
simultaneously and as the prophetic analogy of Egypt’s ninth plague of “three
days thick darkness”,
of the First
Month, its .....
fourteenth day
(all firstborn and the passover sacrifice killed), and
the
day after
fifteenth day
(first born buried and the lamb assimilated with earth
“eaten” and
“that which remained removed” and “burned”, and
the
day after
sixteenth day
of the First Month “THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH” and “First Sheaf Wave
Offering Before the LORD”.
Where do you
find space to squeeze in an extra day so as to prevent “two consecutive holy days back-to-back?” What is “absurdity”?
“There is nothing in the accounts to alert
the reader that there were two different days of preparation?
What about
The different appellations for these “two different days of preparation”—
one, Abib 14 Crucifixion-day, the unusual,
specific, “Preparation of the passover”, and
two, Abib 15 “The
Preparation” usual of the Sabbath-usual.
What about the extended naming of these
‘preparation-days’?—
The
double-naming for the Preparation usual The Preparation WHICH, is the
FORE-SABBATH”, in order to distinguish it from
the unusual “Preparation
of the PASSOVER”.
What about DESCRIPTIONS for or of these
‘preparation-days’?
“The first
day of un-leaven / de-leaven” – “thou shalt REMOVE leaven” Mk14:12 /
Lk22:7 / Ex12:15,19, 13:7, 1Cor5:7.
What about the
Old Testament SPECIFICS any Christian should know by heart—
About Abib 14,
“When they
always slaughtered / when they had to slaughter the passover (sacrifice)”
and
“un-leavened
/ de-leavened” – ‘adzymos’ in the Gospels – the day “you must remove
leaven”;
About Abib 15,
“You shall
EAT the passover”;
“That which
remains you shall burn with fire”;
About Abib 16,
“the day
after the sabbath you must wave the First Sheaf”;
What about the
Old Testament PECULIARITIES or implications—
“In the first
day (you must eat unleavened bread Abib 15) and in the seventh day there
shall be an holy convocation” – a ‘sabbath day’, “No manner of work
shall be done in them SAVE THAT WHICH EVERY MAN MUST ..... THAT ONLY MUST BE
DONE OF YOU ..... EAT you shall leave nothing over until the morning; but that
which remains over you MUST BURN THE NEXT DAYLIGHT”...... the implication
of this ‘sabbath’ that was the fifteenth day, in the date of the seventh day
you must eat unleavened bread being 21
Abib and “the (very) day after the sabbath you must wave the first
sheaf”, disallows any interjected day between 14 and 15 Abib or 15 and 16
or any others.
“There is nothing in the accounts to alert
the reader that there were two different days of preparation?
What about ‘The
Last week’ from “six days before Feast of Passover” Jn12:1 until the
Feast of passover— how would they count up were there some unknown days that
must also be counted?
No, it is not
true “There is nothing in the accounts to
alert the reader that there were two different days of preparation”; there
is MUCH besides the exact mentioning of each.
Paul
R. Finch:
Where's
the absolute proof of such a nonsensical assertion? There is none to be found
in the accounts, to be sure!
GE:
If that is what
you want, then that is what you want.....
Paul
R. Finch:
If
Luke were here today he would condemn your blatant tampering with his text!
Your scenario produces a four day scenario and therefore stands self-condemned!
Also Matthew is guilty in his narrative if your scenario is right. Matthew
27:57 --- Day of Crucifixion; Matthew 27:62 --- Day following the preparation
guard is set; Matthew 28:1-6, First Day of the Week, Jesus is risen!!
GE:
This now, “Matthew 27:57 --- Day of Crucifixion;
Matthew 27:62 --- Day following the preparation guard is set; Matthew 28:1-6,
First Day of the Week, Jesus is risen!!” of course is Paul R. Finch, speaking.
Let’s see ......
“Matthew 27:57 --- Day of Crucifixion”,
looks like this: “When the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph ......” Was he going to crucify the Lord?
“Matthew 27:62 --- Day following the
preparation guard is set”......
When – on which
day – was that? I think we agree on this
one for a change, yea! So at this
point in time on this day, the weekly Sabbath “morning after sunrise”-‘epaurion’, it was the 12 hours of night
from that “the preparation” had
ended. When and where did “the
preparation” end? I should say that
is one for Paul R. Finch to answer!
But I’ll answer
for him. It ended at sunset the same
time as another full day-cycle before in “Matthew
27:57 --- Day of Crucifixion” had
had ended “when the even was come, (and) there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph ......” who “went in unto Pilate and ASKED the
body”— because he WANTED TO BURY it “THAT DAY that WAS ..... The
Preparation ..... it BEING great day of sabbath’s”— ANOTHER 24 hours of
night and then day BEFORE – which, together with the night before the “day following the preparation” on which
the “guard (would be) set” –, adds up to 36 hours BEFORE the “following
morning”- which was the Sabbath’s morning after sunrise.
Therefore,
having alleged “Matthew 27:57 --- Day of
Crucifixion”, has been alleging wrongly --- and will, I think I vainly hope
eventually will be admitted, has been alleging falsely.
So, re: “Matthew 28:1-6, First Day of the Week, Jesus
is risen!!”
It is what the
whole dispute eventually boils down to; nevertheless, it may be explained in
just a few words, if in the words of the Text.
Read the KJV, is all I ask. Or if
you can, the Greek even better.
First thing to
notice: There are no words even vaguely
like “First Day of the Week, Jesus is
risen”; and there are no words even vaguely like “Jesus is risen”— anyway or at least up to “Answered the angel
and explained to the women, But be you not afraid because I know ..... I know
you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified (as you would know of course).
But He is not here now, as you can see because He is risen as He told you
(but which you would not know of course)— Come! come see for yourself the
place where the Lord lay......” Will
you ever believe?!
This is the
angel on Sunday morning “Explaining to the women”. (That the angel explained on Sunday morning,
is derived; it is NOT said or written.)
This is the angel on Sunday morning “answering” or “explaining
to the women”, WHAT? what is happening before the women’s very eyes, the
Resurrection? Like TV live covering of a football match, the Resurrection?
The angel is “answering”,
he is “explaining”, he is “telling the women” two things: Their own experience of having looked for
Jesus’ body but not finding it. That, we have just quoted Matthew’s relation
of. This was the SECOND PART of the
angel’s explanation; obviously, because directly after his explanation or
answer, the women reacted positively upon his effort.
Just look how
differently the women react; they react IN FAITH WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING SEEN.
According to the other Gospels the women reacted in DISBELIEF of the angel’s
very SAME explanation. What made the
difference? The FIRST part of the angel’s
answer made the difference – that first part which no other Gospel makes mention
of – is the angel’s explanation to the
women of the actual circumstances and day and time of day WHEN “..... suddenly
there was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descended from heaven
..... and rolled the stone away from the sepulchre” ..... (..... the rolled
away stone which Mary, “while early darkness still” Jn20:1 “after the
Sabbath had gone through” (Mk16:1) – would be the first to discover).
Now why would “the
angel explain” it to the women if they have just witnessed the Resurrection
happening? Because “The angel
explain(ing) to the women” is not the Resurrection occurring or when the
Resurrection occurred. “The angel
explain(ing) to the women” is the angel explaining to the women Jesus’
RESURRECTION.
The angel
explains on Sunday morning a short time before Jesus would APPEAR to the
women. “The angel explained” to
the women that He RESURRECTED “In the Sabbath’s fullness of day, in the
Sabbath’s midst being after noon as it began to dawn towards the First Day of
the week ..... WHEN suddenly there occurred a great earthquake” WHEN “it
was towards the First Day of the week”. The First Day would have begun
after sunset three hours and one night AGO—
three hours “On / In the Sabbath’s end towards the First Day”, PLUS,
from “When the Sabbath had gone through” until after sunrise on Sunday
morning (cf. Jn20:15b, Mk16:9). “The
angel explained” to the women on Sunday morning that He resurrected 15
hours ago.
Paul
R. Finch:
“The
Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and
the third day rise again” Luke 24:7 --- not the fourth! What does
Luke have to do to be more explicit than that? Nothing! His testimony stands
and yours is the out-of-touch modern theory that is a deviation from plain
simple fact.
GE:
Two things,
first, I do not say Jesus resurrected on a fourth day.
Next, this is
what I have contended consistently, ““The
Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and
the third day rise again” Luke 24:7 ”
Paul
R. Finch:
I
have seen nothing in you circular reasoning that would convince anyone that
there was anything that should deviate from the simple teaching of Luke. If
Luke knew of another day in between, he is not only guilty of not making that
fact crystal clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, but he is guilty of tripping up
our understanding by not explicitly explaining such a fact.
GE:
Again, I do not
‘reason’ “another”, “day in between”.
I ‘reason’ “That day” which “was
The Preparation”, ‘Friday’, was the “in-between-sabbath” of the
Prophets and Law, the passover’s “sabbath” of Ex12-14 and Lv23:11,15 et
al as explained before. Of the “three
days” of “three days and three nights” ‘Friday’ the Sixth Day from
Thursday night until Friday sunset was the middle-day “that year”. Where you allege
the passover’s ‘sabbath’ and the weekly “Sabbath” “coincided”, I maintain the Scriptures
maintain and explicitly state that “It was The Preparation ..... which is
the Fore-Sabbath (‘Friday’) ..... and because That Day was great day of
sabbath’s the Jews begged Pilate .....”. In other words, I maintain the
passover’s ‘sabbath’ and the weekly Sabbath’s “Preparation Day”,
Friday, “coincided”.
First, you
blamed me for having “two consecutive
holy days back-to-back”; now you blame me for having “another
day in between”. Make up your own
mind, first, before you try to make up the mind of another.
Paul
R. Finch:
You
make up phraseology such as “in-between-sabbath”
as if that phrase is in the Bible. It is not! People like you can not come up
with cockamamie ideas like yours without Scripture twisting, text tampering,
and out right inventing of phrases that are pulled right out of thin air. There
is simply no way you can prove from Scripture that there was a fourth calendar “in-between-sabbath” day.
GE:
My dear fellow,
I do NOT, nor try to “prove from
Scripture that there was a fourth calendar “in-between-sabbath”
day.” Please understand I ACCEPT
Scripture’s own “in-between-sabbath”, “That Day” that is “great
day of sabbath’s esteem” of the two great Old Testament feasts, Passover
and Atonement ‘sabbath’-days— ‘The Preparation’-days FOR and OF those
feast-sabbaths on the fifteenth day of the First Month – passover’s ‘sabbath’, and
tenth day of the Seventh Month atonement-day’s ‘sabbath’. Both these feasts
introduced and ‘prepared’ ‘weeks of feast’ following their ‘sabbath-days’. Both
though, were feasts and feast-sabbaths, in own right.
The passover’s
‘sabbath’ was Abib 15 – the “in-between-sabbath” that fell between Abib
14 and Abib 16, quite naturally. But
Abib 15 is not described “in-between-sabbath” in the OT. There existed a
Greek equivalent which Luke / Paul used in Acts 13:42. Have you not noticed I
gave the text? I did not “make up” the “phraseology”. Neither did Luke or Paul “pull” it “out of thin air”.
I believe this is a Hebraism, ‘metacsy sabbaton’ for “That Day”, “great
day”— verily of passover’s “sabbath’s esteem” which was “THAT DAY”
(in Jn19:31/Lk23:54) and “THAT NIGHT SOLEMNLY TO BE OBSERVED”, the
singular and extraordinary “in-the-bone-of-day day” through strict adherence to prescription concerning “that which
remained” of the passover sacrifice and how it had to be returned to the
earth— which was type of Christ NO LESS than was the passover sacrifice or the
passover first sheaf wave offering.
Paul
R. Finch:
As
for the attachment about the beginning of day, it is interesting what quotes
from me you include and which ones you choose to ignore.
GE:
It is easy to
talk into the bundle; all you do is make accusations without substantiating
any. I
‘ignored’ no ‘quotes from you’; I only answered
directly to some. The reason is obvious, that your ‘quotes’ are much alike. So, one answered is as good as all
answered.
E.g., instances
of ‘boqer’ for “the next day / the following morning” where “the day light”
by itself is supposed. There are millions of them – why pay attention to more
than enough? One answered is as good as
a hundred.
Also, I have not
finished with my answers or your ‘quotes’,
yet; nor may see need to.
Third, where
your ‘quotes’ looked more important
to me, I considered most if not all.
Paul
R. Finch:
But
your explanation that the first day of Genesis is an exception to the rest of
the days betrays your whole approach.
GE:
If I recollect
correctly, I did not “expla(in) that the
first day of Genesis is an exception to the rest of the days”; I think I
spoke about the author of Genesis’ use of the ‘introductory remark’ to the
First Day in verse 5, and also in just one regard, having placed it in the
rhetorically effective position of the middle of the First Day’s events. You must have ignored it or you did not
understand what I tried to say. I
believe you ignored it, because for my ‘explanation’
to so annoy you, you must have understood it thoroughly.
Paul
R. Finch:
Your
case is made up of nonsense! You criticize me for “'launching'
with an already fixed predisposition,” and then proceed to spew out your
“fixed predisposition.”
And
what nonsense is this? “God called the light Day; and
the darkness, He called Light.”
GE:
“This nonsense” – to me – may have meant
Jesus Christ. Take it, or leave it; or supply the context. So I looked up the context myself, and it was
obviously a typo. My sincere
apologies.
Paul
R. Finch:
Or
this nonsense: “Day shall consist of created
complexity of first (further in creation-time from where the observer stands): “the
darkness night”, then (nearer in creation-time from where the observer stands) “the
day light”.
GE:
Just what it
says; I’m afraid I won’t be able to help you further. Can you get 200 km ph out
of your City Golf?
Paul
R. Finch:
You
“darkness first” people are promoting the doctrines of the prince of Darkness.
“Matthew was not “originally written in Hebrew”. I won’t go into the matter here, except to
draw the reader’s attention to your presuming.
You have a world of scholarly criticism against your averring.” So now scholarly criticism
trumps the historical testimony of Eusebius. Eusebius stated: “Matthew had
begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others
too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for
those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was
filled by what he wrote (History of
the Church 3.24.6). Go do you homework before lecturing those who have!
You missed quoting all the biblical scholars who promote the sunrise as the
beginning of a new day. So you pick and choose what scholars promote your
theories, and disregard those who don't?
GE:
Is Eusebius your
Gospel and the only history book you read?
And Paul R,
Finch, has he just missed all the scholars who argue
the sunset as the beginning of a new day? Or did he pick and choose what
promotes his theories, and disregarded that which doesn't? I think he did neither..... I think I have an
idea what his methodology and method are; but it is not picking and choosing or
disregard; I have an idea his was .... ah what the heck, it’s of no consequence
what I think or what PRF’s case really is. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”
applies to me too, no doubt.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
Hebrew verb “ y’hi” translated “were” or “was” contextually should have been
translated “became.” It is this rendering that clears up the ambiguity: “And it
became evening and it became morning, one day.” With this in mind, then, let us
once again read this verse in its total setting before moving on:
And
God called the light: Day; and he called the dark: Night. And it became e r e v
[completing the day] and it became daybreak [completing the night] — Day One!
Emphatically,
if the day comes first and the night comes second, then this presupposes days
beginning at sunrise and the succeeding verses must be interpreted in this
contextual light. This alone leads to the inescapable conclusion that the event
that concludes the day is erev [sunset] and the event that concludes the night
is daybreak. That is what constituted “Day One!”
GE:
My dear brother,
You, have said it.
Paul R. Finch:
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Nice touch!
How
about “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also
be like unto him.” Prov. 26:4.
How
about “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more
hope of a fool than of him.” Prov. 26:12.
Yes,
you are wise in your own conceit because you believe that out of
all humanity prior to you, you are the only one who has been blessed with
insight that transcends anything yet before you. You epitomize what
ministers of the god of this world have done from time immemorial. You lurk in
vague passages, dark sayings, obscure nuances of thought that push aside the
plain and the simple teachings of the Scripture. You worship a ghost that
thinks he is holy, that promotes darkness over light. The eerie menace of your
double-speak is testimony of a sinister mendacity that is as evil as anything I
have ever read.
Paul
R. Finch
December 14
Paul
R. Finch:
But
you have ignored the problem of the two preparation days, when only one is
spoken of in the accounts. The reason you ignore it is because it blocks your
ridiculous theory. So ignore it you must. You are defeated and you can not face
the facts. Check mate.
How
does it feel to be the only one on the planet who believes, or who has ever
believed, in the stupidity of your delusions? Maybe you have some dumb
sheep who follow your idiocy, like obsequious myrmidons, but you don't have
common sense on your side, you don't have facts, and you don't have anything
that would overthrow anything that I have said. You have been debunked and
blown completely out of the water. You have nothing. You remind me of the story
of the Emperor's new cloths. There you stand in you own self delusion that you
are fully clothed, while everyone is laughing at your obvious “pee” sized
brain!
Run
along, Gerhard. See if you can find unicorns in your
15 December 2009
Finch End Fourth
delivery
Finch
Fifth Delivery
‘Passover
Papers’ by Paul R. Finch discussion continued
Paul
R. Finch:
WHAT
SCHOLARS ADMIT
A
number of noted scholars have come to the conclusion that ancient
Rabbi
Samuel ben Meir explained the following concerning this verse:
It
does not say that it was night time and it was day time which made one day; but
it says “it was evening,” which means that the period of the day time came to
an end and the light disappeared. And when it says “it was morning,” it means
that the period of the night time came to an end and the morning dawned. Then
one whole day was completed.
GE:
First, they are
supposedly “noted scholars” and
indisputably, “medieval rabbinical”. Their ‘noted-ness’ is besides the point. That
they were “medieval”, is as good as
to say they did not really know much of anything. They were “rabbinical”, which tells they were
neo-Judaists as far removed from Christianity as from the Old Testament Faith.
Nevertheless,
what is it, some of them (or perhaps even all of them) like Rabbi Samuel ben
Meir explained concerning Gn1:5? “: “It
does not say that it was night time and it was day time which made one day; but
it says “it was evening,” which means that the period of the day time came to
an end and the light disappeared. And when it says “it was morning,” it means
that the period of the night time came to an end and the morning dawned. Then
one whole day was completed.”
Obviously he
added: “Then one whole day was completed.” Will you deny Rabbi Samuel ben Meir added
that, and that what he added, no longer is that which “this verse .... says”? Will
you deny that the rabbi’s ‘explaination’,
“concerning this verse”, is that
which he has added, “: ..... Then one
whole day was completed”? You won’t
because you can’t; there is it, clear for everyone to read. Will you deny what
he added, “Then the whole day was
completed”, speaks of “the whole day”
and “when it (the text) says “it was
morning,” it means that the period of the night time came to an end and the
morning dawned”? But you – and the
rabbi – say the text, there, where it speaks of “the period of the night time”, when the NIGHT “came to and end and the morning dawned”, it speaks of when “the whole day was completed”? The verse, also, contains no words, “the morning dawned”; it says the morning
“was”, or, “had been”. Therefore having listened to the rabbi has
been as noteworthy as having listened
to PRF, neither of them having admitted
the truth of this verse.
Paul
R Finch:
More
recent scholarship confirms this conclusion.....
GE:
“Recent scholarship .....” It says it all
.....
Paul
R Finch:
More
recent scholarship confirms this conclusion:
In
GE:
For 430 years,
ja; in
Paul
R Finch:
In
GE:
“..... putting the day first .....” You mean
they put the ‘boqer’ first? How can the
‘boqer’ be ‘put first’ if the ‘boqer’
completes “the period of the night time”
when the NIGHT “came to and end and the
morning dawned”? Don’t you remember
your argument of before, “..... and there
was daybreak [completing the first night period] one day”?
Paul
R. Finch:
Scores
of references could be quoted (Dt28:66-67; I S 30:12; Is 28:19; Jr 33:20, etc.).
This suggests that they reckoned the day starting from the morning .....
GE:
“Dt28:66-67”— 66, “Thou shalt fear day and night”,
‘day’ < ‘yomam’; ‘night’ < ‘yalil’. One less of the “scores”. Zero out of Zero.
“Dt28:66-67”— 67, “In the morning thou shalt say, Would
God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning!” ‘morning’ < ‘boqer’; ‘even’ <
‘ereb’. One way or the other – it’s six
of the one; half a dozen of the other. And for sure, the poor soul is not going
to worry what “calendar day” that day
is going to be! This text shows once
for all the order of the words or the sequence of day and night follows nor sets rule and as such is
meaningless. Plus two less of the “scores”. Zero out of two.
“I S 30:12”—, “He had eaten no bread nor
drank any water three days and three nights.”
‘days’ < ‘yamim’; ‘nights’ < ‘layil’. Not an instance of ‘calendar dates’ or ‘calendar days’. No instance
of ‘boqer’ or ‘ereb’. “Three days agone I fell sick” 13c. So, the third night
must have been the night before the first of the three days the chap had not
eaten; and must be ‘put first’. Zero out
of zero.
“Is28:19”—, “Morning by morning shall it
(the overflowing scourge) pass over, by day and by night shall it be a
vexation.”
Here is no
specific day x night order, as if the scourge minded whether day or night came
first. Here is no ‘calendar days’ or ‘calendar
dates’, as if the scourge minded whether it was a calendar day or not.
“Morning by
morning” – < ‘boqer’ .... why not ‘boqer’ plus ‘ereb’? because “morning by
morning” explains exactly what, in other places, ‘morning (‘boqer’) and evening
(‘ereb’)’, means— which would have meant three 24 hour days irrespective of
word-order or day and night sequence.
‘by day’ <
‘yomam’; ‘by night’< ‘layil’ is no case of boqer.
Zero out of
zero.
“Jr 33:20”—. “If ye can break my covenant of the day, and
my covenant of the night”, and that there should not be day and night in their
season ......”.
‘day’ <
‘yom’; ‘night’ < ‘layil’— It’s no case of ‘boqer’ or ‘ereb’; obviously it’s
figurative language for the pace and progress of time and existence as the work
and faithfulness of God in his covenant with David “..... then ALSO my
covenant may be broken ....”!
Zero out of
zero!!
Four or six
cases that is alleged “suggest that they
reckoned the day starting from the morning”, four times 0/0 and one case of
0/2 = 0 percent— certainly the most brilliant ‘scores’ in poor exegesis I have ever encountered ..... the perfect
in perfidy, 6/6. Makes me think of a
number 666 mentioned somewhere .....
Paul
R Finch:
It
was in fact in the morning, with the creation of light, that the world began;
the distinction of day and night, and time too, began on a morning (Gn 1:3-5,
cf. 14, 16, 18).
GE:
Which says when light
was made, the heavenly bodies were immediately made, which is contrary Genesis
1 to 5 and Ex 20:11. This is to explain
Genesis in the light of human sciences and not in the light of God’s Word
ITSELF. The text declares it was in fact BEFORE there was any ‘morning’— BEFORE
“the closing part” of nights’
darkness; even before “night was”— ‘in
fact’, while there was nothing yet, that “God spoke and it was”
..... out of sheer NOTHING.
Take the Bible
for its own expositor or take science for its expositor; you cannot have
both. It was only AFTER – 12 hours after
– that God had begun ex nihilo to create “heaven and the earth and all that
in them is” including space and time, when He created light. Science identifies time with light; Genesis
identifies time with the Word of God speaking the heavenly bodies into being
first; which implies time in Genesis is associated with matter and space in
darkness; not in or with light. Why not?
Time is dependent on matter and space between matter and matter; not on light.
Why would space and time need light to be real?
God who in Himself lives in “unapproachable, impenetrable, light”
1Tim.6:16 does not need created light
to be or to see or to work. “The Spirit of God ..... creating ..... moved
upon the face of the waters” in utter darkness. So the darkness was first created night
before light afterwards was created day; or the night was created darkness
before day afterwards was created light.
“And the evening (of day before (it)) and the morning (of night before (it))
were: the First Day.”
The distinction
of time at the beginning of God’s creating therefore began together with
everything else BUT LIGHT— much the very opposite of the ‘big bang’ theory of
‘evolution’, that puts the origin of space and light together before matter,
time and darkness.
Creation says,
(after God) first, there was matter and space and time – everything together –
before light; Big bang and evolution
say, first, there was light or ‘energy’ then explosion and space, then cooling
off and concentration and conglomeration until everything turned around and started
to again dissipate and – say they –, to cool off because dissipation means
loosing heat, at the same time telling us the world is getting hotter which
should mean is getting denser which should mean is getting hotter which should
mean we’re heading for hell and consistently with the theory is the only thing
its theorists may be right about after all ......
So is it not
with God’s Word.
ORDER
characterises every day of the six creation days, which declares the Creator is
He who orders everything. “God is a God of order”— the only God of
order; the only order, only because of God.
God’s created
time-order / -law:
Moment; night;
day; day-and-night-days; months; seasons; years.
The order
established by the Almighty creation-Power of God was
First, time in
the smallest— time in the moment wherein “God SPOKE and it was”;
next, “God
called – ordered / commanded” time in the HOURS until “the darkness God
called NIGHT” ‘yalil’ ended in the “morning” ‘boqer’;
next, “God
called – ordered / commanded” time in the HOURS until “the light God
called DAY” ended in “afternoon / evening” ‘ereb’;
“Next”, “God
called – ordered / commanded” time in the DAY in whole, in that “the
evening and the morning (before-going) were the First Day; one DAY”;
And last and
comprehensively, “God called –
ordered / commanded” time in that “God made – ordered / commanded – two
great lights to rule” “days, months, seasons, years”.
God’s created time-order / -law: Moment, “God created”; night, “the Spirit
of God moved”; day, “God said”; day-and-night-days, “the evening and the
morning were the First Day”; “Let there be .... months; seasons; years”.
God’s uncreated time-order: “God
the Seventh Day rested (refrained) from all his work which He had made. .....
God blessed the Seventh Day and sanctified it BECAUSE that in it He had RESTED
from all his works” Gn2:2-3.
God created TIME
out of nothing
as much as He
created the heavenly bodies out of nothing.
God created TIME
out of nothing
as much as He
created the Sabbath out of nothing
“from his own
works” but “His Own Rest as God”.
From the chaotic
darkness of the “deep” of ‘space’
of all that God
had created
in the first
moment and first 12 hours
of time,
darkness and created things,
God created TIME
—
contrary human
conception of things
TIME not
dependent on light; but light dependent on TIME.
To his DESIGN
God in the beginning of his creation
created time
WITHOUT created light.
“I-AM the
Light of the world” – in Genesis –
“the Amen,
the Faithful and True Witness,
the Beginning of
the creation of God” – in Rv3:14.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
opposite conclusion has been drawn from the refrain which punctuates the story
of Creation: ‘There was an evening and there was a morning, the first, second,
etc., day’; this phrase, however, coming after the description of each creative
work (which clearly happens during the period of light ), indicates rather the
vacant time till the morning, the end of a day and the beginning of the next
work.
GE:
That “clearly” “each creative work” “happens
during the period of light”, clearly is audaciously pretending untruth for
truth. Is God restricted in his Power by
his own creation? No! “Because that IN IT”, God – in Victory
over the forces of darkness, TIMELESSNESS and nihil through CREATING – “RESTED”.
Cf. Hb4:4. God CONQUERED; He conquered the “deep”
in the “darkness” of it, CREATING in the “deep” in the “darkness”
of it. “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” that covered
the face of the earth in “darkness”— CREATING!
Also, when “God
spoke / said .....”, it is stated in the text as OF the whole day in all
its parts, rather than that God at any ONE point in time on any given day only,
spoke. It is not once said God only in daylight worked. On the contrary, it is so phrased as left God
things to each day of night and day to ‘get things sorted out’— “Let there
be ..... and there was .....”, whether in “the light, Day”, or, in “the
darkness, Night”.
Time at no stage
was “vacant time” whether concluding
time of “Day” with ‘ereb’- “evening / afternoon / late”; or
concluding time of “Night” with ‘boqer’- “morning / daybreak / early”. ‘In
fact’, “the description of each creative
work” which “clearly happens during
the period of light”, logically “indicates”
that “the end of a day” should be
after “the period of light” and its “creative work”— not after the supposedly
“vacant time” of night “till the morning”.
Paul
R. Finch:
Another
noted scholar informs us that:
There
can be no doubt that in pre-exilic times the Israelites reckoned the day from
morning to morning.....
GE:
Now you’re
talking sense .....
Paul
R. Finch:
Another
noted scholar ..... what brilliant exegesis ..... informs us that: There can be
no doubt that in pre-exilic times the Israelites reckoned the day from morning
to morning. The day began with the dawn and closed with
the end of the night following it , i.e., with the last moment before the dawn
of the next morning. The very description of the extent of the day in the Biblical
account of creation as given in Gen 1.5 presupposes such a system of reckoning
the day, for it says: “And it was evening and it was morning, one day.”
GE:
It is an obvious
oversight this “noted scholar” did
not note himself that “the Biblical
account of creation as given in Gen 1.5” does not deal with “pre-exilic times” or “pre-exilic times” with “the Biblical account of creation as given in
Gen 1.5”. In Genesis 1 before “In
the beginning” nothing had been created and no sin or bondage existed; God
ruled alone. Under Egyptian bondage
Not speaking of
‘idiomatic days’, “Gen 1.5 presupposes such
a system of reckoning the day” as God to his God-fearing People created the
precedent of— in whichever age and for whichever days, whether ‘solar-’ or
‘calendar days’, or days of the week.
1) God gave Abraham a posterity that they per
the Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20 may “keep sabbath” by precedent of
the creation-days and creation-Sabbath LONG FORGOTTEN;
2) God that
3) That they may not “again turn back to
your former no-gods” and “poor and miserable first principles” of
heathen wisdom and deities, “days, months, seasons years”, “Jesus had
given them Rest so that therefore a keeping of the Sabbath remains for the
People of God.”
Paul
R. Finch:
Another
Jewish scholar, Solomon Zeitlin, enlightens us as to why this interpretation
(sunrise) can only be the original understanding:
When
the sun set and the sun arose constituted the first day,
i.
e. the time from sunrise to sunrise completed one day. ......
GE:
Which is
arbitrary. Use the same words, only say ‘sunset’ instead of “sunrise” ..... and for what reason not? When the sun set and the sun arose
constituted the first day, i.e. the
time from sunset to sunset, completed one day.
Where did the
first-ever day, begin? After the
creation of the First Day? Definitely,
no! Then how could it have started
sunrise— sunrise that is supposed to start days? Ridiculous.
Would sunset to
sunset complete one day? Well, it does
not complete two days, the First and the Second Days; so it must ‘complete’ the
First Day only— in whichever sequence of words or time-periods. Actual sequence of events depends on actual
events; not on word-order, “Jewish
scholar” or not.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
Book of Genesis says that first there was darkness and
then
that light came when God said: “Let there be light.”
GE:
That is what I
ask you to recognise and acknowledge, dear Paul R. Finch.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
Book of Genesis says that first there was darkness and
then
that light came when God said: “Let there be light.” We are
told that God divided the light from the darkness and
called
the light day and the darkness night. When the light
which
God created went down, and it became dark, and then
when
the dawn arose, a full day was completed. ......
GE:
Ag please, come
now! A full day and half the Second Day
was completed “when the dawn arose”.
Paul
R. Finch:
What
an astonishing revelation! ..... Thus
the day really began with the light and lasted until the following dawn.
GE:
Nonsense! The ON WHAT “following dawn”? The on the
First Day “following dawn”— which was
the night following the First Day which ended ‘boqer’. Is this Kindergarten or what?
The First Day
began with God having created everything BUT AND BEFORE the light; and when
THAT light – God’s creation on the First Day “which clearly happens during the period of light” – had set, the
FOLLOWING day its NIGHT began to last, which “lasted until the following dawn”.
These Jews, they
know nothing, because they don’t know Christ.
Paul
R. Finch:
Dr.
Jack Finegan also reaches the conclusion that beginning of the day is at
sunrise, with the following independent observation:
In
the Old Testament the earlier practice seems to have been to consider that the
day began in the morning. In Gen. 19:34, for example, the “morrow” (ASV) or “next
day” (RSV) clearly begins with the morning after the preceding night.
GE:
It’s going from
bad to worse .....
Yes, “the day began in the morning”— “light
the day” or ‘daylight’, that is. “The day began in the morning”; it’s so
obvious it’s senseless to say, “In Gen.
19:34, for example, the “morrow” [‘boqer’] (ASV) or “next day” (RSV) clearly begins with the morning after the
preceding night.” The text is
speaking of “next day ..... the morning after the preceding night”—
daylight. It does not say the following “calendar day” or next day-cycle, begins
in the morning “from sunrise”.
This ‘example’ is equivalent of the Greek
‘epaurion’- “morning after (sunrise until noon)” or, literally, ‘mid-east’. There are “scores” of them as well.
They never have to do with the day-cycle of night and day or day and
night; they have to do with ‘boqer’- “morning” solely.
Paul
R. Finch:
These
scholarly appraisals are certainly in complete accord with the true context of
Genesis 1:5.
GE:
As we have seen,
these ‘appraisals’ of the opinion in the Bible the day begins sunrise, turned
out to be totally meaningless and useless irrelevancies with regard to both “the true context of Genesis 1:5” and the
meanings of the words which the passage contains.
This is becoming
a wearisome and spiritually disappointing enterprise trying to answer you, or
your ‘scholars’, or your ‘examples’, Paul R. Finch. I don’t know how long the
Lord is going to grant me tomorrow; He never promised me tomorrow; and
meanwhile I occupy myself with things like this ..... only I believe the Lord
has laid it upon my heart not to give up— He determined that the ways of us
crossed. I cannot be unfaithful to the
fact or the implications it holds.
Paul
R. Finch:
This
interpretation can really have no other meaning. ......
GE:
Honestly yes,
your “interpretation can really have no other
meaning”. That is not the issue.
Paul
R. Finch:
To
interpret it otherwise would be to add a contradiction into this verse .....
GE:
Again, your
customary slight of hand. Now your “interpretation”
suddenly turned “into this verse”. And you again, to start with, assume “a contradiction into this verse”; then
proceed treating your supposed ‘contradiction’
as a matter of proven fact ...... ‘proven’, with nothing than your
assumption. I have told you I am getting
tired .....
Paul
R. Finch:
To
interpret it otherwise would be to add a contradiction into this verse that
simply cannot be explained away with sunset reckoning.
GE:
“To interpret it ..... this verse ......
otherwise would be to add a contradiction into this verse ......”
Paul
R. Finch:
To
interpret it otherwise would be to add a contradiction into this verse that
simply cannot be explained away with sunset reckoning. The
full cycle of a day is met at each and every sunrise. The light portion of the
first day was completed in the erev when the sun went down and the dark portion
of the first day was completed when the sun arose — certainly not the other way
around!
GE:
Who is it here
who talks about “the other way around”
as were Gn1:5 commanding or declaring a certain “way around” which a ‘Bible day’ should revolve? Can the earth rotate in the opposite
direction it rotates? It cannot; but, one, one’s point of view can be turned
from the beginning of something to its end to from its end towards its
beginning; and two, a writer’s style can change from literally (and literary)
historical relating, to literally (and literary) historical review and summary—
which two ‘interpretations’ BOTH ARE FUNCTIONING in “the true context of Genesis 1:5” from verse one of Genesis 1 up to
the end of the chapter and, on— but
which you try to evade with your one-eyed distortion of the context and its
contents. What therefore is the good of
just repeating what you have said before over and over?
Paul
R. Finch:
That
is what constituted the first day and all succeeding days.
GE:
Absolutely! So
why must you be reminded of it, that “what
constituted the first day and all succeeding days” is that “God in the
beginning created the heaven and the earth ..... then God said, let there be
light ..... Afterwards, God declared: The light be Day! And the darkness, be
Night. And thus it happened: the evening end of Day and the morning end of
night WERE / “constituted” THE
FIRST DAY.”
What is your
‘problem’? Your own pre-set, concreted,
preconceptions and predisposition.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
second day began when the light shone forth the second time, and so on, and so
on, until this very day. It is an
entirely foolish interpretation that there was, “In the Beginning,” total
darkness and that twelve hours before there was any light God started counting
the beginning of a new day — right in the middle of that darkness!
GE:
Now who and by
whom is called a fool here? Luckily
these are you words, not mine. Read
yourself; I’ll give a little aid with a few words highlighted ..... Quoting Paul R. Finch, “It is an entirely foolish interpretation that there was, “In the Beginning,”
total darkness and that twelve hours BEFORE
there was any LIGHT God STARTED
COUNTING the beginning of a new day — right
in the MIDDLE of that darkness!”
Where or when
did God – according to you – “start
counting”? “before there was any light”; or, “right in the middle of that darkness”? Who – ever – of anyone who says that God “started counting before there was any light”
has said that God “started counting
...... in the middle of that darkness”?
Who, friend,
WHO? You – no one else than PRF in this
discussion has ever maintained (ever so ferociously) God “started counting in the middle of that darkness ..... and so on, and so
on, until this very day”!
Says PRF, “It is an entirely foolish interpretation
that there was, “In the Beginning,” total darkness”. What then, was there, “In the beginning”? Only God. Or is He only the fathom of the
opera who lived in everlasting darkness?
No. To the thinking of him who wrote Genesis 1, there was “the only
Potentate (Mighty One; Elohim) who only hath Immortality”— none other than “The
Light of the world ..... dwelling in the Light” of his own Being. In the beginning God was Light already and there
was no darkness in the beginning because God had not created yet— the opposite of the evolutionary idea “It is an entirely foolish interpretation
that there was, “In the Beginning,” total darkness and that twelve hours before
there was any light God started ...... the beginning .....”, by having “created
the heaven and the earth” and its darkness and, its TIME, “the First Day”!
Paul
R. Finch:
It
is an entirely foolish interpretation that
there was, “In the Beginning,” total darkness
..... twelve hours before there was any light ..... /// It
is an entirely foolish interpretation that .... “In the Beginning” ..... there
was ..... total darkness ..... before
..... God started ..... counting the beginning of a new day
.....” /// “God started ..... counting
the beginning of a new day ..... right
in the middle of that darkness!”
That
would mean that there would be no boundary to commence the beginning of the
first day.
GE:
The ‘boundary’
supposed would have been in time in the act of God and in the Being of God
Willing and Acting towards creating “the heaven and the earth” BEFORE
ANYTHING created, whether time or darkness or matter or ‘energy’ or light. Before “In the beginning”, before God
created the First Day, “was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God ..... In Him was LIFE; and The Life (in Him) was The
Light of men” even from before the creation of the world. The “boundary to commence the beginning of the
first day” was the Will of God. Darkness and time and distance and matter, “heaven
and earth” AND THE FIRST DAY – according to the Bible – began BEFORE
created light and not according to the wisdom of human sciences, AFTER light in
some big bang of the release of light-energy and everything accompanying or
resulting through natural process. The
Bible knows nothing of it. In the Bible
– in Genesis and everywhere else in the Bible – the ‘boundary’ lay where “heaven and earth” appeared in the
DARKNESS OF NOTHING by the spoken “WORD” of Almighty God who does not depend on
light either to be or to create, but on whom created light had to wait to be
spoken into being. “And God said” in Gn1:3 was the boundary “right in the middle of that darkness”
right in the middle of that day the First Day of God’s creating Word of Will
and Deed that separated “Day” from “Night” OF THE FIRST DAY, and
HENCE, the retrospective summary of the coming-into-being of the First Day, “And
the evening and the morning were the First Day” that set the pattern for
eternity after. As says Paul R. Finch
himself with reference to “..... the
British scholar Percy J. Heawood”, who “..... so succinctly and accurately put it: “So after at God’s word, light
had come, the sentence ‘there was evening and there was daybreak one day’ winds up the record of the first and
marks the transition to the second day of creation.” (Emphasis GE)
It all depends
where the ‘boundary’ or ‘beginning’ lay when God ‘commenced’ with his creation of the
First Day. History – the ‘history’ found in Genesis 1 – tells where it, the
first ‘boundary’ or ‘beginning’, lay— NOT “right in the middle of that .....”
created and SECOND “darkness” on and
of the First Day WHILE “the earth was without form and darkness was upon the
face of the earth”; but “right in the middle of that darkness” of
nothingness BEFORE the First Day WHEN “God in the BEGINNING, created the
heaven and the earth”, The first ‘boundary’
– the ‘boundary’ between “in the
beginning” and the First Day – and when there was no beginning and no First
Day yet, is where the First Day began— “right
in the middle of that darkness” which God with the beginning of the First
Day for eternity after overcame and expelled.
And the next ‘boundary’ – the ‘boundary’ with which “God divided the light from the darkness”
on and of the First Day – was when, and as, “God said, Let there be light!”
..... “right in the middle of that
darkness” which God never expelled, but perpetuated the precedent for ever
after of every created day of night-and-day-cycle.
Paul
R. Finch:
If
God said “Let there be light” half-way into the first day, then how could day
one fulfill the requirements of Genesis 1:5 for a full day? And if the second
day began at sunset, then the first day only contained 12 hours and not 24.
GE:
I have answered
– and explained, I believe – to the best of my ability. The fact you still ask,
reveals your uncertainty as to your own opinion.
Paul
R. Finch:
There
is simply no logical way around it. The reality has to be that the new day
dawned at sunrise and the second day dawned 24 hours thereafter, and so on, and
so on. As the British scholar Percy J. Heawood so succinctly and accurately put
it:
So
after at God’s word, light had come, the sentence ‘there was evening and there
was daybreak one day’ winds up the record of the first and marks the transition
to the second day of creation.
At
last we have true scholarship overwhelming the nonsense of
biblical
quackery once and for all!
GE:
I don’t see
sense in trying to dissuade you; I only know you do not persuade me. I haven’t
read Heawood so I haven’t got the bigger picture; but I from your quote
understand him for saying the negative of what you are saying. Fortunately no one needs guessing because the
Bible-Word which is the only authoritative, we all have.
So for now, I’ll
end this discussion-in-part here, because I have other matters to attend to. If
God will, I may return I don’t know when, to the further discussion of your
‘Passover Papers’, dear Paul R. Finch.
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
13 December 2009
Finch in further
discussion .....
Paul
R. Finch:
The
bottom line is that neither Robertson, nor any other reputible scholar would
ever agree with your stupid conclusions. Everyone down through the centuries
including the Church fathers right on down to today have been supposedly decieved,
but only the intellectual superiority of Gerhard Ebersohn has he been able to
see what no one else has seen down through history? Are you really kidding me?
GE:
“The bottom line” in this case is not
that neither Robertson nor any other reputable scholar would ever agree with my
conclusions; in this instance “the bottom
line” is about what Paul R. Finch has said.
Paul
R. Finch:
Sorry, but your attempt to misquote
Robertson is a glaring attempt to squeeze out of what he said. You want Robertson
to be on your side, and he is not. So you try to pull a fast one and convince
everyone else that they are the ones who can't read plainly what he said. You
are outrageous. Robertson did say that it is “the resurrection of Jesus Sunday
morning” that Matthew agrees with! No one who didn't have an ax to grind would
say that Robertson's clear words meant something other than what he clearly
said. You are the one who is guilty of misquoting him if you say anything
different. And for what reason would you have other than to twist Scripture to
make it say what it does not?
GE:
Re: “your attempt to misquote Robertson”
You, Paul R Finch “misquote
Robertson”, by plastering together his claim in “(Harmony of the Gospels, 289)”, with his statement in his ‘A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1914,
page 645’. YOU, Paul R. Finch, accuse Robertson for having written about the
time of the Resurrection while he was writing about – ACCORDING TO ROBERTSON
HIMSELF – a Sabbath’s VISIT at the tomb by the two Marys “on the Sabbath”
Mt28:1, on the day BEFORE the First Day— BEFORE the First Day which according
to Robertson would have been the day of the Resurrection.
“The bottom line” therefore – in this
case – is about whether “Robertson did say that it is “the
resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning” that Matthew agrees with” with
reference to Mt28:1-4 and the TERM,
‘opse’, OR, with reference to Matthew's alluding to THE OTHER VISIT of the
women on SUNDAY MORNING— which Robertson identified with the visit(s) mentioned
in the other Gospels! Because THAT, is the issue between the two of us, Paul R.
Finch and I, GE!
So, I say Robertson
A) in “Harmony of the Gospels, 289”,
WITHOUT having made reference to ‘opse’ in Mt28:1
avers INCORRECTLY that Jesus ROSE at the visit which some women paid the tomb on SUNDAY the morning after the Sabbath.
And I say, Robertson
B) in his Grammar
WITH making reference to ‘opse’ in Mt28:1
avers CORRECTLY
the TIME OF DAY when the two Marys
“went to see the tomb ‘opse sabbatohn’ late IN
the SABBATH / Late ON the SABBATH”.
And I say Robertson in his Grammar
C) with making
reference to ‘ehlthen theohrehsai’ in Mt28:1
avers INCORRECTLY that the women actually ARRIVED at and SAW the tomb BECAUSE HE ASKS, “Why
allow the women only one visit?”
That IS WHAT “the bottom line” HERE, in this discussion, is about; NOT about
whether Robertson, or any other person would ever agree with my conclusions of
a Sabbath-Resurrection of Christ. I
repeat, I don’t care if anyone ever might agree with my views. I am here in the
first place interested in what the TRUE meaning of the phrase ‘opse de
sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn’ is; and from there, I am
forced by what is WRITTEN to realise the implications of this time-indication
in Mt28:1 as far as Jesus’ Resurrection is concerned. Robertson did not follow the same route I
believe I am obliged to have taken, and he therefore arrived at different
conclusions. But we DO agree as far as
the meaning of ‘opse’ in its application in Mt28:1 is concerned, namely, that
the event of the passage – whatever it was – happened ON THE SABBATH DAY BEFORE
THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.
Paul R. Finch:
“..... your [sic.] not convincing anyone ..... with you [sic.] four calendar day resurrection scenario. .....”.
GE:
I say this here,
for the last time, I do not believe or try to convince anyone of some “four calendar day resurrection scenario”;
it is you PRF who is faced with the task to convince people with a Friday
afternoon crucifixion Sunday morning “resurrection
scenario”— who is faced with the task to convince people who are able to
add up three ‘calendar days’ on the
passover-calendar of Yahweh (‘inclusively’
or ‘exclusively’; ‘stop watch method’ or not ‘stop watch method’— it does not matter) and
see that they add up to “three days” of “three days and three nights”.
Paul
R. Finch:
I
am the one who has shown ..... what leading Bible translations record about
Matthew 28:1, that you said agreed with your ..... “late on the Sabbath”
rendering and you gloss over that fact without even mentioning it to this
discussion group. .....
GE:
Why should I do it if you have done it yourself? But have you not noticed, Mr Paul R. Finch,
‘the fact’ I have been busy all the
time ‘mentioning’ and illustrating
and defending my ““late on the Sabbath”
rendering ..... to this discussion group” and to you, personally?
Paul
R. Finch:
.....
Matthew 28:1 plainly reads: “Now, the
sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week”
( Kenneth S. Wuest). The setting here is not mid-afternoon of the previous
Sabbath day. How dare you twist this simple statement into something that only
agrees with your caccamamie theories.
GE:
I don’t see why
I should bother to “twist this simple
statement” which is that of “Kenneth
S. Wuest” and NOT NEARLY THAT OF MATTHEW? Thanks!
But please sir,
for us of this discussion group,
PLEASE, explain to us HOW, “Matthew 28:1
plainly reads: “Now, the sabbath having passed .....”“? Because, sir, we DO HAVE Mk16:1 that ‘plainly reads: “Now, the sabbath having
passed’ where the Greek words, ‘Kai diagenomenou tou sabbatou’ are used ---
words which not in the least resemble the Greek words used in “Matthew 28:1”, “Opse de sabbatohn tehi
epifohskousehi”.
And please sir,
for us of this discussion group,
PLEASE, explain to us HOW, “Matthew 28:1
plainly reads: “..... as it was growing light toward the first day of the week”“? Because, sir, we DO HAVE Mk16:2 that ‘plainly reads: “..... as it was growing
light toward the first day of the week”’ where the Greek words, ‘kai lian
proh-i tehi miai tohn sabbatohn ..... anateilantos tou hehliou’ are used ---
words that say the exact opposite of what the Greek words used in “Matthew 28:1”, ‘eis mian sabbatohn’- “as
it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”, say. Just look at all the ‘Form’ differences as
well as ‘Case Function’ differences! What about the different WORDS used? Amazing!
And you say they ‘plainly’ say
and mean the same thing ..... “Now, the
sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week”?!
Paul
R Finch:
The
simple reading of Luke is the following:
Day one, Friday, Nisan 14, Day of Preparation, Jesus becomes the ultimate
Passover sacrifice at mid-afternoon with a spear thrust through him at the
precise time that the High Priest kills the ceremonial lamb in the Temple.
GE:
Where in Luke it
in fact is written “Day of Preparation”,
there in fact is nothing to be seen of “Day
one, Friday, Nisan 14”, or, of “Jesus
becomes the ultimate Passover sacrifice”.
In Luke 22:7 though, it is written,
“Then came
the day without leaven
WHEN the
passover must be KILLED”—
which in Mk14:12
and Mt26:17 was “Day one” or,
“the first
day of when they removed leaven / de-leavened”;
“even the
first day” in Ex12:15b;
“the night in
which the Lord Jesus was betrayed” in 1Cor11:23;
“and it was
night” in Jn13:30b.
Then the
following morning “early” Mk15:1,
“six o’clock
it was The Preparation OF THE PASSOVER” Jn19:14
BEFORE “they
crucified Him” Jn19:18, Lk23:33,
“the third
hour” (9 a.m.) Mk15:25
“Nisan 14” (Thursday).
Therefore, in
Luke where it is written “Day of
Preparation”, there, “the simple
reading of Luke is the following:” “Then, as from nowhere, a man by name
of Joseph ..... This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus.”
Lk23:50-51
WAS THIS BEFORE
OR AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION?! It was AFTER
the crucifixion .... then (as Paul R. Finch says), “That night”, FOLLOWED!
But WHICH night
was THIS?
It was this
night that STARTED, HERE:
“And now when
the even was come because
it was The
Preparation (“Friday”)
which is the
Fore-Sabbath,
Joseph ....
came, and
went unto Pilate
and
asked for Jesus’
body.”
Mk15:42-43.
“The Jews
therefore –
since it was The
Preparation (then with “evening” beginning)
— BECAUSE THAT
DAY WAS GREAT DAY OF SABBATH
THAT THE BODIES
SHOULD NOT REMAIN ON THE CROSS
ON THE SABBATH —
asked Pilate
that their legs might be broken so that
they may be
taken away .....
And after these
things (of
the Jews)
Joseph .....
besought Pilate that he might
take away the
body of Jesus .....”
Jn19:31,38.
This was NOT “Day one, Friday, Nisan 14” upon which Jesus
had become “the ultimate Passover
sacrifice”. This was day TWO
beginning— “Friday”, Nisan 15” AFTER, Jesus HAD HAD become the
Ultimate Passover Sacrifice! [Thank God we both and all, believe
THAT! I mean, we all believe at least
that Jesus Christ was the ultimate Passover Sacrifice of Yahweh. Why, o why,
then, can’t we also not all believe]
this was day TWO,
“Friday”, Nisan 15” AFTER,
Jesus HAD HAD
become the Ultimate Passover Sacrifice?
For
the sake of Sunday-worship?!
Because this was
“Friday”, yes; but day TWO, and “Nisan 15”
the day AFTER Jesus HAD HAD become the ultimate Passover Sacrifice.
Because this was
“Friday” “Nisan 15” on the ensuing
day OF WHICH “that which remained” had to be removed out and assimilated
with the earth and the earthy again, by being
1) EATEN “That
Night” and “that which remained”
2) “the
following daylight” being “burned with fire” and ‘returned to dust’
as in ‘BURIED’.
Paul
R. Finch:
.....
the people partook of their own Passover lamb--- still Nisan 14.
GE:
Yes, in Exodus
with the first ever passover the people partook of their passover lamb, while “still Nisan 14”, but afterwards – as
right through all the Scriptures Old and New Testament – “the people partook of their own Passover lamb” AFTER SUNSET and “it
had become evening already” like in Mk15:42 and Jn19:31/38, on ‘Nisan 15’!
Compare Jn18:28
and 19:31— why would the Jews the morning not enter the house of Pilate? It was
“still Nisan 14”! They would not go into the
house of an infidel “That they might eat the passover” after Nisan
14. Why would they after sunset “And
now it had become evening already” enter into Pilate’s house? Because it by
then “had become evening” and Nisan 15 “already”. Because they must have had their passover
meal first!
And still the
body of Jesus was ON THE CROSS, not even granted Joseph yet; and not closed in
the earth and grave for the rest of that night and the next day until “by
the time of the Jews’ preparations” (to begin)— Jn19:42, Joseph rolled the
great stone in the opening of the grave “MID-AFTERNOON” Lk23:54, and “departed”;
and as soon as he had left, “the women also, returned and prepared spices
and ointments” --- Luke 23:54-56 happened on the afternoon after the
afternoon of the Crucifixion. Everything Joseph had BEGUN to do on Thursday
night after “evening” until Friday before “mid-afternoon”, he did
on the Sixth Day of the week; he did nothing of it while it was “still Nisan 14”.
In Exodus –
while the Israelites lived in
Paul
R. Finch:
No
part of the lamb was to remain after dawn (Exod 12:10). Why dawn? Because Nisan
14 ends at dawn.
GE:
Quite true in
fact! But once again, keep in mind Exodus from the tenth chapter to the
sixteenth records the first ever passover and it dates the events of TWO full
days on “the fourteenth day”.
“The FOURTEENTH
day you must kill the lamb in the afternoon” 12:6; “between the two
nights”
“And they
shall eat the flesh that night”— “still
Nisan 14” 12:8;
“In this
selfsame day have I brought your armies out” 12:17 “still Nisan 14”;
“And ye shall
let nothing of (the sacrifice) remain” 12:10 “still Nisan 14”;
“And that
which remaineth of it until the (next) morning, ye shall burn with fire”
12:10 “still Nisan 14”;
“And the
people took their dough upon their shoulders” 12:34 “still Nisan 14”;
“And the
children of
“And they
baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought forth out of
“EVEN THE
SELFSAME DAY it came to pass that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the
land of Egypt” 12:41 “still Nisan 14”.
That, “At the
end of the four hundred and thirty years” that Israel “dwelt in Egypt”,
gives one night and TWO daylight days, for “THE SELFSAME DAY” dated “the
fourteenth day of the First Month”.
But it shall not
again be the case for all eternity after; for “It shall be on the day when
ye shall pass over
Therefore it
afterwards was written, “They departed from Rameses in the First Month ON
THE FIFTEENTH DAY IN THE DAY AFTER THE PASSOVER.” Nmb33:3— no longer on the
fourteenth day as when at first it was the Exodus. It is no contradiction; it is the fulfilment
of God’s plan through the Passover of Yahweh. Jesus the Passover Lamb of God
was “killed the Passover” on “Nisan
14 still” “the ninth hour”
(“mid-afternoon”), but was assimilated with the earth in death “and
was BURIED” 1Cor15:4 AFTER “When
already it had become evening ..... when suddenly a man called Joseph .....
came ..... and went in ..... and asked for the body of Jesus”.
Therefore AFTER
the Exodus “..... the people” NO
LONGER “partook of their own Passover
lamb--- still Nisan 14”— “they KILLED the passover” “still Nisan 14”; and they “partook of their passover lamb” on Nisan
15 after “When the evening had come” and in the night.
Paul
R. Finch:
No
part of the lamb was to remain after dawn (Exod 12:10). Why dawn? Because Nisan
14 ends at dawn.
GE:
Again, yes, that
was true originally at the first and only historical exodus or passover.
But let us be
precise here. It is not a matter of “No
part of the lamb was to remain after dawn”. Nothing of the passover
sacrifice was to be eaten after the passover meal; whatever that did remain,
had – after MIDNIGHT and the meal – to be taken out with the Israelites on
their journey out of Egypt that had begun immediately after midnight and the
meal and went on until they reached Succoth where they made fire to roast their
cakes – and obviously also used the first opportunity to burn the remains of
their last meal – the passover’s sacrifice – there and then.
So it wasn’t so
much an issue of “dawn” as it was an
issue of “the next day”- ‘boqer’, which “next day” – after the
Israelites had had entered into Canaan – had become the fifteenth day of the
First Month and no longer was dated “still
Nisan 14”. After sunset of the original fourteenth day in fact later on
became the beginning of the fifteenth day of the First Month. Numbers 33:3 records the exodus to have
started on Abib 15. So the WHOLE night
of the passover’s meal became the fifteenth day of the First Month, “this,
that night of the LORD” Ex12:42 and after
SUNSET and the eating of the sacrifice and of the LORD’S Passing Through at
midnight. The rest of the Bible after
Exodus dates this NIGHT, the fifteenth day of the First Month, and calls it the
“Feast (of Passover)”, or “Great Day (of Passover)”, or “That Day (of Passover)”,
or “In-the-Bone-of-day Day (of Passover)”, or, “sabbath (of passover)”.
In the event of
the year of our Lord’s death this day happened to fall on “The Preparation
which is the Fore-Sabbath” --- ‘Friday’. Mark says so in 15:42; John says
so in 19:31; and Luke says so in 23:50-56; and also Matthew says so considering
27:62 and the Sabbath there supposed as having been the day “which is after
the Jews’ preparations”.
Paul
R. Finch:
On
this day of preparation the women bought spices, they went home and prepared
the spices, surely after the sun had set (still the day of preparation, no
violation of the Sabbath) .....,
GE:
O no!
“On this day of preparation the women bought
spices”, FALSE;
On this day of
preparation – the Sixth Day - the women “PREPARED
spices”.
“still
the day of preparation, no violation of the Sabbath”, true;
“On this day of preparation the women went
home and prepared the spices”, true;
“still the day of preparation, no violation
of the Sabbath”, true;
BUT ‘surely’ NOT, “after the sun had set.....”! Where did you get that from?!
No! “after
the sun had set”, was after Luke says “(The women) began to rest the
Sabbath according to the Commandment”! Yes!
But not all the women’s doings and coming and goings of BEFORE the sun
had set and while “still the day of
preparation”! Because “after the sun had set” it was no longer
the Day of Preparation; and “after the
sun had set” the women’s preparations and comings and goings would have
been “violation of the Sabbath ..... surely”!
No! NOT “after
the sun had set”, because this was all after Luke says “That day still
was The Preparation (‘ehn’ Constative Aorist or Imperfect) while the
Sabbath drew near mid-afternoon (‘epefohsken’ Imperfect).” ‘SURELY’,
no doubt at all!
Paul
R. Fincnh:
.....
but then they waited out the Sabbath Day before returning to the tomb. Why?
Because no work was to be performed on the Sabbath. Got it?
GE:
Who contested ‘it’?
Me? ......
Paul
R Finch:
The
simple reading of Luke is the following: ..........
Day Two, Saturday, Nisan 15, Weekly Sabbath and First Day of Unleavened Bread.
GE:
Luke NOWHERE and
NO HOW say anything of the kind. The simple reading of Luke is the following:
Nisan
14—
FROM 22:7,
“Then came the day of de-leaven WHEN the passover must be KILLED”;
UNTIL
23:48-49 “And all the people that came together to that sight (of the
Crucifixion) ..... RETURNED .....”;
Nisan
15—
FROM 23:50,
“And behold, there was a man named Joseph” (“When now it already had
become evening” Mk15:42);
UNTIL
23:54-56a “And that day was The Preparation ..... and they RETURNED and
prepared spices and ointments .....”
Nisan
16—
FROM
23:56b, “And (they) rested the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment.”
[UNTIL Mt27:62 “the morning after
their preparations”;
UNTIL
Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath’s fullness mid-afternoon ..... there was a great
earthquake .....”;
UNTIL
Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was past”.]
Nisan
17—
[FROM Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was
past”];
UNTIL
24:1, “Now upon the First Day of the week very early in the morning (the
women) came .....”
UNTIL
24:29, “toward evening the day far spent”.
Paul
R. Finch:
John
says “for that Sabbath was a High Day” (John 19:31). John is saying that that
Sabbath was also a High Day. He was not calling Friday a Sabbath, nor is he
calling Friday a High Day.
GE:
You directly
contradict and deny what John and yourself are saying! John says “for that Sabbath was a High Day”
(John 19:31). YES! John is saying that that Sabbath was also an High Day. YES! “Since it was The Preparation ..... and
because That Day was great day of sabbath .....”— how could John have said it clearer, that he
was calling “That Day” – Friday – a “sabbath”; that he was
calling “That Day” – Friday – a “great day of sabbath”?
Paul
R. Finch:
Such
a scenario is simply never explained by any of the Evangelists.
GE:
Such
a scenario is EXACTLY explained
by every Evangelist, especially
by John! You have just quoted John
yourself— before you again denied what John wrote down to be valid for ever
after.
Paul
R. Finch:
He
is calling the weekly Sabbath a High Day as well as being a Sabbath.
GE:
John is NOT “calling the weekly Sabbath a High Day”;
he is saying “Since it was The Preparation
..... and it was That Day, a great day sabbath.”
And John then
says that the Jews – mind you, the Jews – asked Pilate that ON THAT DAY the
crucified “might be taken away”. You think they would have asked Pilate
that on the Seventh Day Sabbath? (How
would you reconcile that, with Matthew 27:62?)
You think they would ask Pilate such a thing AFTER the scandal of the
oppressor’s token of domination stood displayed all day on their most holy day
already? Or would they not ask to
PREVENT it happen, and as soon as “That Day ..... it being evening already”
had BEGUN (after sunset) to have
saved face, would have besought Pilate to remove the crucified?
Paul
R. Finch:
Nothing
that you have presented would ever convince a jury of your peers that Friday
was a High day and also a day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath.
On
this day number two, the Guards were set to watch over the tomb throughout the
night because the next day at sunrise (not at sunset) would be the third day.
GE:
The guard was
stationed “on the following morning which is AFTER the Preparation”
spoken of in all the Gospels as having been the day from its inception to its
end upon which Joseph was the undertaker.
That, you, Paul R. Finch and each and every Friday crucifixionists,
admit. So “the Guards were set to watch over the tomb throughout the .....”
rest of the DAY after that “morning” , ‘epaurion’ after Friday. The guard was not set “after the Sabbath” ..... “to
watch over the tomb throughout the night” as you claim and in the process
contradict your own theory that days begin sunrise.
The guard also
was not “set .... on this day number two”
because this – ‘Saturday’ – was not “day
number two” but day number three, “We remember (the Jews “on the
morning after the Preparation” – Friday – argued,) while he was yet
alive, he said, The third day I will rise again ..... Command THEREFORE (because
“he said, The third day I will rise again” which is today!), that the
sepulchre be made sure for / until the third day (which is today) is
over, LEST (after today the third day) his disciples come by NIGHT and
steal him away.”
I have answered
you on these things before; you simply by just repeating empty claims wave what
I have said as if I haven’t said nothing!
Paul R. Finch:
Day three, Sunday, Nisan 16, First Day of
the Week. The two Mary's come to the tomb as it began to dawn toward the first
day of the week (Matt. 28:1). Clearly here, the first day of the week begins at
dawn, not dusk the day before. The stone is rolled back and Jesus is risen! So simple! So easy to understand for anyone
without preconceived theories to the contrary You do not have to be a super
intellect, just read the simple account like everyone else has down through
time, and believe what you read. If it requires your rose hued glasses to see
you your specially woven fabric of deception, then one is looking through
spectacles of self-delusion.
GE:
Re: “The two Mary's come to the tomb as it began
to dawn toward the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1). Clearly here.....”
Mr Paul R.
Finch, quote us “Matt. 28:1”, where
it “clearly” – or just vaguely will
also do – reads, “The two Mary's come to
the tomb as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1)”? WHY DON’T YOU SAY A WORD that it was Mary’s
intention “TO SEE the tomb”? You
cannot, because Paul R Finch has written his own gospel and it does not suit
his gospel that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary WENT TO SEE the tomb, but
then there suddenly came a great earthquake.”
The two Marys do
not come to the tomb in the sense of they arrive at the tomb. They “Went TO
SEE the tomb”, but “THEN SUDDENLY there was a great earthquake” and
all their intentions were thwarted. They NEVER at this occasion came to see or
arrived at and saw the tomb. The text does not say it; the text says they did
not get to the tomb and did not see it because the text says that when they “Left”,
or, “Set out to go have a look at the tomb, then there suddenly came a great
earthquake”. It would have been
senseless to say “Then suddenly there was a great earthquake”, had the “great
earthquake” not prevented the women “to go see the tomb”.
Even said
Matthew “as it began to dawn toward the
first day of the week” and only “as
it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” – as you, Paul R. Finch
clearly wants to create the impression Matthew said – “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” STILL IS NOT ON or IN “the first day of the week”, but STILL IS, “toward the first day of the week”— “TOWARDS”, i.e., “BEFORE
the First Day of the week” ..... which is NOT ON SUNDAY, but BEFORE
Sunday “ON the SABBATH”!
And “Clearly here, the first day of the week”
does NOT “begin”,
but it is the ‘dawn’
or ‘dawning’ “ON /IN the
Sabbath”, that
“began to
dawn towards the First Day”— “SABBATH’S”. “SABBATH’S it began to dawn towards the
First Day of the week”, as the KJV and ALL the pre-20th century English
Bibles have it.
As I have
pointed out before,
“as it began
to dawn towards the First Day of the week”, happened
“In the
Sabbath / On the Sabbath / Sabbath’s mid-afternoon”
and is the
translation of the words
‘eis mian
(hehmeran) sabbatohn’.
It is not the
translation of ‘sabbatohn’;
it is not the
translation of ‘opse sabbatohn’;
it is not the
translation of ‘sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi’.
“As it began
to dawn towards the First Day of the week” is the translation
of ‘sabbatohn
..... eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn’- “On the Sabbath / Sabbath’s .....
as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”.
“As it began
to dawn towards the First Day of the week” does not mean “dusk the day before”, because “dusk the day before” is a totally
senseless remark.
“As it began
to dawn towards the First Day of the week” also does not mean “dusk”, whichever day’s “dusk” is supposed, because “dusk” is after sunset until dark and in
the whole of the concept “as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the
week” there exists not the vaguest resemblance to the idea of “dusk”. I never evoked that impression; PRF did.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
two Mary's come to the tomb as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week (Matt. 28:1). Clearly here, the first day of the week begins at dawn, not
dusk the day before. The stone is rolled back and Jesus is risen! So simple! So easy to understand.
GE:
Everybody finds
his own ideas easy to understand; especially when not put to the test against
the REAL WORDS WRITTEN to test one’s ideas against. In fact one’s own ideas are much easier
understood if not even one’s own words are tested against pure logical demands
of understanding; e.g., “The stone is rolled back and Jesus is risen!” What does that mean? That Jesus was raised, “risen”?
I prefer the more difficult way; it is safer and more face-saving.
Paul
R. Finch:
Gerhard
maintains that he doesn’t believe in a “four calendar day resurrection
scenario,” as stated here below:
GE:
I say this here, for the last time, I do not believe or try to convince anyone
of some “four calendar day resurrection scenario”; it is you PRF who is faced
with the task to convince people with a Friday afternoon crucifixion Sunday
morning “resurrection scenario”— who is faced with the task to convince people
who are able to add up three ‘calendar days’ on the passover-calendar of Yahweh
(‘inclusively’ or ‘exclusively’; ‘stop watch method’ or not ‘stop watch
method’— it does not matter) and see that they add up to “three days” of “three
days and three nights”.
But then he goes on to explain a four calendar day resurrection scenario in the
following:
Nisan 14—
FROM 22:7, “Then came the day of de-leaven WHEN the passover must be KILLED”;
UNTIL 23:48-49 “And all the people that came together to that sight (of the
Crucifixion) ..... RETURNED .....”;
Nisan 15—
FROM 23:50, “And behold, there was a man named Joseph” (“When now it already
had become evening” Mk15:42);
UNTIL 23:54-56a “And that day was The Preparation ..... and they RETURNED and
prepared spices and ointments .....”
Nisan 16—
FROM 23:56b, “And (they) rested the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment.”
[UNTIL Mt27:62 “the morning after their preparations”;
UNTIL Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath’s fullness mid-afternoon ..... there was a great
earthquake .....”;
UNTIL Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was past”.]
Nisan 17—
[FROM Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was past”];
UNTIL 24:1, “Now upon the First Day of the week very early in the morning (the
women) came .....”
UNTIL 24:29, “toward evening the day far spent”.
You be the judge.
GE:
Alright, I made
the mistake not to indicate exactly WHERE and WHEN the Resurrection occurred.
Obviously Paul R. Finch himself must
think the Resurrection occurred ..... here,
Nisan 17—
[FROM Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was past”];
UNTIL 24:1, “Now upon the First Day of the week very early in the morning
(the women) came .....”
UNTIL 24:29, “toward evening the day far spent”.” Otherwise PRF cannot say “Gerhard ..... believe(s) in a “four calendar
day resurrection scenario” because “Nisan
17” is the fourth of the four calendar dates which GE gave.
Therefore, let
me highlight just WHERE and WHEN the Resurrection in the above summary of
events and their times and days occurred ..... which I am only able to do by
indicating its CIRCUMSTANCES. The event
of the Resurrection must be deduced from the phenomenal events that accompanied
it; the Gospels do not mention or describe the Resurrection ‘live’. And it is
ONLY Matthew that describes those phenomena.
So, here is WHERE and WHEN (but not HOW) the Resurrection occurred,
Nisan 16—
FROM 23:56b, The women – after they had prepared spices on Friday afternoon
before sunset – from after sunset “rested the Sabbath Day according to the
Commandment.”
This weekly
Sabbath kept on through Mt27:62 “the morning after their preparations”
and the setting of the guard, UNTIL
Mt28:5A, 1-4 when
“EXPLAINED
THE ANGEL TO THE WOMEN ..... IN THE SABBATH’S FULLNESS SABBATH’S MID AFTERNOON
AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN TOWARDS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK SET OUT MARY MAGDALENE
AND THE OTHER MARY TO LOOK AT THE TOMB ..... BUT BEHOLD THERE CAME A GREAT
EARTHQUAKE FOR THE ANGEL OF THE LORD DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN AND APPROACHING
HURLED AWAY THE STONE FROM THE DOOR AND SAT UPON IT .....”. HERE, Jesus
rose from the dead WHEN, it was “in ripeness of Sabbath’s-time the sun
inclining midway towards the First Day of the week .....” 3 p.m. Saturday,
‘Nisan 16’, “the third day according to the Scriptures”.
I must frankly
admit I am unable to explain clearer or more unambiguous my personal view of a THREE calendar day resurrection scenario!
Let God be my Judge.
The real problem
here though was not the additional day of Nisan 17 which I mentioned, or that I
did not fill in the particulars of the circumstances of the event of Jesus’
resurrection. The real problem here is
that Paul R. Finch – like all Friday-crucifixionists – does not RECOGNISE the
SECOND of the “three days” of the Passover of Yahweh so thoroughly
circumscribed in all four Gospels.
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting
Gerhard:
Therefore AFTER the Exodus “..... the people” NO LONGER “partook of their own
Passover lamb--- still Nisan 14”— “they KILLED the passover” “still Nisan 14”;
and they “partook of their passover lamb” on Nisan 15 after “When the evening
had come” and in the night.
Not so fast, Gerhard. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it ever say that the
Israelites partook of their passover lamb on Nisan 15. Once again, you change
the text. Don't you know that you are not supposed to do that? You are not
allowed to change the words of the Bible to suit your own theories! Its an easy
rule to follow, so follow it!
GE:
Exodus 12:6, “Ye
shall keep it (the passover lamb) until the fourteenth day of the
(First) month: and the whole assembly shall KILL it in the afternoon; and
they shall EAT (‘feast’)
the FLESH (of it) IN THAT NIGHT, roast with fire WITH UNLEAVENED BREAD without
anything (else).”
Leviticus 23:6, “And
on the FIFTEENTH day
of the (First) month is the FEAST
(‘eating’) of Unleavened Bread”.
Numbers 33:3-5, “They
departed from Rameses in the First Month, on the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month— on the morrow AFTER the
passover (had been killed) the children of Israel went out with an High
Hand in the sight of all Egyptians; for the Egyptians BURIED all their
FIRSTBORN which the LORD had SMITTEN among them. ..... and pitched in Succoth.”
Exodus
12:34,37,39, “The people took their dough ..... and journeyed from Rameses
to Succoth ..... and
they baked UNLEAVENED BREAD of the dough ......” for no reason than to EAT it; they were hungry; “They had
not prepared for themselves any victual.”
Cf. Deuteronomy 16.
Numbers
28:16-17, “In the fourteenth day of the First Month is the passover of the
LORD (‘behn ha arbayim’ sacrificed) and in the FIFTEENTH day of this month is The FEAST (‘eating’ of the SACRIFICE “WITH unleavened bread”).
“Perceive” the symbolism in Judges
6:20-21, “Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes and lay them upon This
Rock and POUR OUT the broth ..... and FIRE CONSUMED the flesh and the
unleavened cakes.”
What is it to “change the text”? Is it not to “change the text” if of the text is taken away?
Paul
R Finch:
Leviticus
23:5 states that the Passover is to occur on Nisan 14, and that the Feast of
Unleavened Bread (v.6) begins on Nisan 15. Joshua 5 does not contradict this.
Verse 10, they ate the Passover on Nisan 14. Verse 11, on the morrow after the
Passover (Nisan 15), they ate unleavened bread.
GE:
Quoting PRF, “Leviticus 23:5 states that the Passover is
to occur on Nisan 14”;
Quoting “Leviticus 23:5”, “In the fourteenth
day of the First Month afternoon / at even is the LORD’S passover”;
So far so good
.....
Quoting PRF, “Leviticus 23: (v.6) states ..... that the
Feast of Unleavened Bread ..... begins on Nisan 15.”
Quoting “Leviticus 23: (v.6)”, “And on the
fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened bread unto the LORD:
seven days ye must eat unleavened bread”;
So far so good
.....
Quoting PRF, “Joshua 5 does not contradict this.”
Quoting “Joshua 5 Verse 10”, “..... the
children of
So far so good;
Joshua 5:10 and Leviticus 23:5 are virtually word for word identical
Quoting PRF, “Joshua 5 ..... Verse 10, they ate the
Passover on Nisan 14.”
Quoting “Joshua 5 Verse 10”, “..... the
children of
PRF: “they ate the Passover on Nisan 14”;
“Joshua 5 Verse 10”, “
“Leviticus 23:5”, “In the fourteenth
day IS the passover”;
“Passover KEPT”
/ “passover IS” ..... what does it mean?
It means,
“Your
lamb ..... ye shall keep up until the
FOURTEENTH day of the same (First) month: and the whole congregation of
Deuteronomy
16:1, “KEEP the passover ..... 2, SACRIFICE the passover ..... 6,
SACRIFICE the passover in the afternoon (‘at even’).”
Does “Joshua 5 verse 10” SAY, “they ate the Passover on Nisan 14”? It does not.
Does “Joshua 5 verse 10” MEAN,
“they ate the Passover on Nisan 14”? It does not.
Said Paul R.
Finch, “Once again, you change the text. Don't you know that you are not
supposed to do that? You are not allowed to change the words of the Bible to
suit your own theories! Its an easy rule to follow, so follow it!”
Quoting PRF, “Joshua 5 ..... Verse 11, on the morrow after
the Passover (Nisan 15), they ate unleavened bread.”
Quoting “Joshua 5 Verse 11” and 10, “The
children of
Did they eat
unleavened cakes only “after ..... Nisan
15”?
Did they eat
unleavened cakes the first time only on Nisan 16?
NO!
“They ate
unleavened cakes on ‘MOCHORATH’”!— “They ate unleavened cakes on ‘THE-DIRECTLY-AFTER-DAY’”; that
is,
“They ate
unleavened cakes on the directly-after-day” after “the fourteenth day of
the (First) Month”— they therefore ate unleavened cakes on the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month.
“They ate
unleavened cakes on the directly-after-day on ‘ETSEM’”!— “They
ate unleavened cakes on the directly-after-day on ‘THAT DAY’”; that is,
“They ate
unleavened cakes on the directly-after-day on THAT-DAY-The-Fifteenth-Day-Of-The-First-Month.” Because ‘etsem’ is specifically Nisan 15 and
the first day unleavened bread was EATEN.
Quoting PRF, “Joshua 5 ..... Verse 11, on the morrow after
the Passover (Nisan 15), they ate unleavened bread.”
Quoting Joshua
5:11, “They ate unleavened cakes on the directly-after-day on THAT-DAY-The-Fifteenth-Day-Of-The-First-Month.” The first day unleavened bread was eaten was
not Nisan 16.
Paul
R. Finch:
And
nowhere in the Bible does it explain that in
presented
no evidence that such a change ever occurred. Again, you can't just make up
stuff to suit your own theories.
GE:
The Egyptians
observed days from sunrise to sunrise because they were sun-worshippers. The
Israelites were the slaves of the Egyptians, and also observed days from
sunrise to sunrise, just like their taskmasters. God’s whole idea with the exodus was to free
The ninth plague
would be for “three days” on the very first of which the firstborn of
the Egyptians would be killed. Those “three days” in fact was absolutely
“clearly explained so that no one would
be in doubt as to how to count days” and fall victim to the death-angel.
God through Moses explained it to the Israelites in terms of the observance of
days AS THEY KNEW IT!
I have shown
above how Exodus 12 – not I – included
TWO daylight parts and one night part in the fourteenth “calendar day” of the First Month in the history of the nation of
But more
important even than what these factors are, is the PROPHETIC, GOD-GIVEN and
therefore eschatological IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS (Expression borrowed from
Lohmeyer.) of it all because these things “written concerning the CHRIST”
“in these last day” were fulfilled “by the SON”! So all of it would have been pretty useless
information otherwise. And we today having become witnesses of these things as
they happened in and through Jesus Christ, have become the keepers of the
oracles of God. The Christians are the guardians of the Promises of God, and
they – us – are beholding the TRUE PASSOVER OF YAHWEH through Jesus Christ and
in Jesus Christ, and should teach them who before were supposed to teach
us. Christ is our Passover and the Lamb
of God, and looking at HIM, we see the passover of yonder times FULFILLED
PERFECTLY. And we SEE, there is not the
slightest dichotomy; the old and the new perfectly match.
Therefore in the
New Testament – as in all the Scriptures after Exodus – The True Passover was
observed according to ‘a sunset day
calendar’ and not ‘a sunrise day
calendar’. Christ made and still
makes the difference. He had to come to make the difference between truth and
deception in every respect of life. The
Passover of Yahweh had to occur and was therefore clearly explained so that no
one would be in doubt as to how God so loved the world – us – that He gave his
only begotten Son, our Passover Sacrifice, our Passover Bread, our Passover
First Sheaf Before the LORD Offering, waved in Resurrection from the dead— “So
that ye may KNOW what is the EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER ..... the POWER
OF HIS RESURRECTION” and may “ENTER IN INTO HIS REST” and our “LIFE
BE HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD”!
Alleluia!
I needed not to
present any evidence; Christ presented Himself The Evidence of God’s Passover-Love
and Salvation-Rest. That is why the Bible says in Hb4:8-10, “He having
entered into his own rest as God in his own— because JESUS had given them rest,
THEREFORE remains for the People of God keeping of the Sabbath Day.”
It all rests on
one solid TRUTH: God raised Christ from the dead; and as far as the Christian
Day-of-Worship is concerned, all rests on one solid FACT: God raised Christ
from the dead “Of Sabbath’s fullness in the very being of light-day”—
when, “Late in the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out to go
see the tomb and suddenly there occurred a great earthquake, for the angel of
the Lord descending, approaching hurled away the stone from the door and sat
upon it— THE ANGEL TELLING THE
WOMEN” on the Sunday morning after, so that today we are in possession
of the true and trustworthy accounting of Christ’s resurrection just as the
women “Departed quickly from the sepulchre to bring his disciples word.”
Paul
R. Finch:
No part of the lamb was to remain after
dawn (Exod 12:10). Why dawn? Because Nisan 14 ends at dawn.
Quoting GE:
Quite true in fact! But once again, keep in mind Exodus from the tenth chapter
to the sixteenth records the first ever passover and it dates the events of TWO
full days on “the fourteenth day”.
“The FOURTEENTH day you must kill the lamb in the afternoon” 12:6; “between the
two nights”
“And they shall eat the flesh that night”— “still Nisan 14” 12:8;
“In this selfsame day have I brought your armies out” 12:17 “still Nisan 14”;
“And ye shall let nothing of (the sacrifice) remain” 12:10 “still Nisan 14”;
“And that which remaineth of it until the (next) morning, ye shall burn with
fire” 12:10 “still Nisan 14”;
“And the people took their dough upon their shoulders” 12:34 “still Nisan 14”;
“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses (Egypt) to Succot” 12:37 “still
Nisan 14”;
“And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought forth out
of Egypt” 12:39 “still Nisan 14”—
“EVEN THE SELFSAME DAY it came to pass that all the hosts of the LORD went out
from the land of Egypt” 12:41 “still Nisan 14”.
That, “At the end of the four hundred and thirty years” that Israel “dwelt in
Egypt”, gives one night and TWO daylight days, for “THE SELFSAME DAY” dated “the
fourteenth day of the First Month”.
This is all bunk. Numbers 33:3 states that the Israelites “departed from
Ramases in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month, on the
morrow after the passover the children of
GE:
This
is all bunk ..... Exodus 12:6, “The FOURTEENTH day you must kill the lamb in the afternoon”;
verse 8, “And they shall eat the
flesh that night” verse 17, “In
THIS SELFSAME DAY have I
brought your armies out”? .....
STILL, Nisan 14! It’s ‘all bunk’?!
This
is all bunk ..... Exodus 12:12-18, “I will pass through THIS NIGHT ..... and the BLOOD shall
be to you for a token ..... WHEN I see blood, I
You call “this bunk”? ..... 12:29-51, “MIDNIGHT
the LORD smote all the firstborn ..... and there was a GREAT CRY for not one
house was there not one DEAD ..... and
the Egyptians were urgent upon the people to leave immediately for they said,
before we all be dead ..... and the children of
And it came to
pass the SELFSAME DAY
that the LORD
did bring the children of
of the
12:6a the
FOURTEENTH day of the SAME MONTH .....”???!!!
In Numbers 33:3 the date is given of “on
the FIFTEENTH day of the first month, on the morning after the passover
(MEAL)” from immediately after “MIDNIGHT” “on the FIFTEENTH day” Israel
LEFT— which means, they left from BEFORE SUNRISE so that the fifteenth day
CANNOT have begun sunrise, but MUST have begun sunset!
In Exodus the date is given of “on the
FOURTEENTH day of the same month”— “on the morning after the passover”
HAD BEEN EATEN, and immediately from after “MIDNIGHT” Israel LEFT Egypt;
which means, they left from BEFORE SUNRISE “still
Nisan 14”, so that the fourteenth day CANNOT have begun sunset, but MUST
have begun sunrise!
There is this
UNDENIABLE DIFFERENCE between Exodus and the rest of the Holy Scriptures like
in “Numbers 33:3“ for which there is
NO explanation THAN THE PASSOVER ITSELF!
And the Scriptures do not attempt to hide or gloss over this difference;
On the contrary, the Word of God throughout the whole history of Salvation
emphasizes this difference because “all that is written”, was written “concerning”
Jesus “the Christ”, “our Passover”. “Giving thanks unto the
Father which hath DELIVERED US FROM THE POWER OF DARKNESS (of
1) 12:6,
“The FOURTEENTH day
of the (First) month ye shall KILL
it in the evening (ereb) i.e.,
‘before sunset’ = “in the afternoon” in now-a days English = in the day;
2) 12:18,
“In the First month on the FOURTEENTH
day of the month ye shall EAT
UNLEAVENED BREAD at even (‘ereb’); i.e.,
‘after sunset’ = “in the evening” in now-a days English = in the night;
3) 12:8,
“And they shall EAT the
flesh in that night WITH unleavened
bread” after they have killed it ‘ereb’-
“afternoon”
4) 12:29,
“MIDNIGHT the LORD smote all the
firstborn .....
“I shall pass over you and the PLAGUE
(darkness and death) shall not be upon you to destroy you when I smite the
there shall no
leavened bread be EATEN—
THIS DAY YE CAME OUT in the Month Abib Ex13:3.
So it is all
UNTRUE what Paul R. Finch alleged, that “This
is all bunk” that according to Exodus the Israelites departed from Ramases “still Nisan 14”, and ate Unleavened
Bread the first time in the desert at Succot “still Nisan 14”.
Paul
R. Finch:
The
Hebrew term “ben ha-arbayim” used in Exodus 12:6 does not mean “between the two
nights.” Arbayim is the dual form of Erev which is always applied to the light
portion at the end of the day, i.e., late afternoon. The word for night is
Lighla and is not used in this expression. So your translation is bogus.
GE:
‘Ereb’ is in the
KJV 62 times translated ‘even’, 46 times ‘evening’, once ‘eventide’, 4 times,
‘night’; in combination with ‘arbayim’ 8
times ‘at even’, and once ‘in the evening’.
Young calls the
combination the Dual of ‘ereb’ and translates it “between the two evening times”.
In Ex 16:12 it
says of the quails with ‘behn-ha-arbayim’, “in the evening ye shall eat”
while in the morning they would eat the manna. In verse 13 it says the quails “came”,
“at the even”- ‘ereb’ = the quails came LATE DAY-TIME and LATE DAY-TIME
‘eating’ is the supposed.
In Ex29:39 and
Nm28:4,8 ‘behn-ha-arbayim’ is said of the LATER daily sacrifices or continual
offerings “the one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; the other lamb thou
shalt offer at even”. DAY-TIME ‘offering’ (after 3 o’clock) is the
supposed.
In Nm9:3 and
5 and Lv23:5, this “dual of ‘ereb’”,
‘behn-ha-arbayim’, is used for the ‘keeping’ of the passover in the sense of
the KILLING of the lamb— DAY-TIME ‘sacrifice’ is the supposed. It once happened
that so many passover sacrifices were brought that the offerings continued “until
night” 2Chr35:14— which was an EXCEPTION and shows the rule the passover
was a sacrifice offered DURING DAY. Passover had to be ‘kept’ in between
before sunset and after sunrise; and therefore “between the two nights” that
border the fourteenth day of the First Month.
Yes, mine is not
strictly a literal “translation”, but
it is technically correct. I would not
mind if you chose to consider it ‘bogus’, seeing your understanding of
the time of day implied in the phrase ‘behn-ha-arbayim’ does not contradict the
time-limits mine presupposes. In fact, I herewith acknowledge and am prepared
to accept Paul R. Finch’s for a better definition of the phrase
‘behn-ha-arbayim’, that it “is always
applied to the light portion at the end of the day, i.e., late afternoon.” I acknowledge and appreciate the contribution
Paul R Finch has made to the correction I herewith make to my view of before
that ‘behn-ha-arbayim’ included the earlier half of daylight-time; it does
not. Paul R. Finch’s definition is more
correct— but if I may make a suggestion I would say, leave out the word “late”. ‘Behn-ha-arbayim’ is always applied
to the light portion at the end of the day, i.e., afternoon – even from mid-day
until sunset —not so “late afternoon”
that it could be said the after-sunset ‘evening’ virtually has started; because
that is a mistake unfortunately made by some people.
The Gospel of
Christ supplies the EXACT time of day indicated by the phrase ‘behn-ha-arbayim’,
which was the hour that Jesus died ‘our Passover’, which the Gospels say was 3
p.m. or in the words of the Scripture, “the ninth hour” (‘Jewish-time’).
Paul
R. Finch:
John says “for that Sabbath was a High Day” (John 19:31). John is saying that
that Sabbath was also a High Day. He was not calling Friday a Sabbath, nor is
he calling Friday a High Day.
GE:
Johns words are:
“THAT DAY WAS”, ‘ehn .... heh hehmera ekeinou”, and “that day”,
that “was sabbath”, “was The Preparation”; “The Preparation which” – Mark, 15:42, told us – “was the
Fore-Sabbath”; irrefutably the Sixth Day of the week, which – with its “Evening
now having come” – was BEGINNING and prospectively “That Day”, “AS
THE CUSTOM (Law / Scriptures) OF THE JEWS IS TO BURY”.
Even were an
Absolute Genitive the case like it seems to me you understand verse 31, it
would make NO difference to the eventual outcome, “Since it was The Preparation
the sabbath THAT DAY, was great.”
The LOGIC of the Jew’s anxiety and request confirm but one thing: “SINCE
IT WAS The Preparation and That Day (being) sabbath and a great day that the
bodies should not remain on the cross besought Pilate that ..... they might be
taken away.”
John 19:31
speaks about “That Day” at its prospect; Luke 23:54 refers to “That
Day” in retrospect. HAD THAT DAY
BEEN THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT SABBATH IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT JOSEPH BURIED
JESUS ON IT.
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting GE:
You directly contradict and deny what John and yourself are saying! John says “for
that Sabbath was a High Day” (John 19:31). YES! John is saying that that
Sabbath was also an High Day. YES! “Since it was The Preparation ..... and
because That Day was great day of sabbath .....”— how could John have said it
clearer, that he was calling “That Day” – Friday – a “sabbath”; that he was
calling “That Day” – Friday – a “great day of sabbath”?
Gerhard, John 19:31 distinguished the day of Preparation from the Sabbath by
showing that the bodies must be brought down on the day of Preparation before
the Sabbath. You must not be allowed to flagrantly get away with
misrepresenting the clear text of the account.
GE:
John 19:31 does
not distinguish the day of Preparation from the Sabbath; nowhere! John 19:31 ‘distinguishes’ the day of The
Preparation FOR “That Day”— a “sabbath”, “since it was the
Preparation and SO THAT the bodies should not remain on the cross because That
Day was great day sabbath” of when they always removed and burned –
assimilated with the earth; returned to dust – “THAT WHICH REMAINETH” of
the passover sacrifice “AS AN ORDINANCE”, OF “THAT DAY” “in-the-bone-of-day
day” ..... a ‘day’ dedicated to nothing else than IT!
The bodies had
to be brought down BECAUSE OF “That Day” having been that ‘great day
sabbath”; or, vice versa, BECAUSE OF that ‘sabbath” having been “that
great day sabbath” (Genitive Absolute). The text cannot be unclear; viewed
from any angle it remains unambiguous.
TWICE John
19:31 says “for the very reason why .....”
Read by
following the capital letters .....
“For the very REASON (‘gar’) .....”
“For the very
reason THE DAY (heh hemera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day WAS (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very reason
the day was THAT DAY (‘ehn hehmera
ekeinou’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day GREAT DAY
(‘megaleh heh hehmera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day OF
SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day of sabbath THEREFORE (’gar’)
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day of sabbath therefore WAS (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day of sabbath therefore was GREAT THE DAY (‘megaleh heh hemera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day of sabbath therefore was great the day OF SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’) .....”
John’s reason
why the Jew’s were so anxious is, The specific “DAY WAS that day great day sabbath”.
Or, seen as a
Genitive Absolute which IT IS NOT—
“For the very REASON (‘gar’) .....”
“For the very
reason THE SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’)
.....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath WAS (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath was THAT DAY
(‘ehn hehmera ekeinou’) .....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath was that day GREAT
DAY (‘megaleh heh hehmera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath was that day great day THEREFORE
(’gar’)
“For the very
reason the sabbath was that day great day therefore WAS (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day therefore was GREAT THE DAY (‘megaleh heh hemera’) .....”
John’s reason
why the Jew’s were so anxious is, the specific “sabbath was That Day great
day ..... therefore the Jews asked .....”.
John’s “REASON
..... THEREFORE WAS ..... SINCE it was The Preparation BECAUSE That Day was
great day sabbath ..... SO THAT THEREFORE NOT (‘OUN .....HINA MEH’) the
bodies should remain on the cross on the sabbath day” (‘meinehi epi tou
staurou ta sohmata en tohi sabbatohi’) the Jews besought Pilate that their
legs might be broken and they might be taken away.”
One for the full
implication of “Since it having been The Preparation because That Day was
great day sabbath”, should for the best rendering possible in English,
convert the Past Tense in the above into the Past Perfect – which in any case
is the best English Tense to translate the Greek Aorist into – and WHERE NEEDED
as a result, should convert the Past Tense into the Future Past Tense, and
say,
“For the very REASON (‘gar’) .....”
“For the very
reason THE DAY (heh hemera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day HAD BEEN / WOULD BE (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be THAT
DAY (‘ehn hehmera ekeinou’) .....”
“For the very reason
the day had been / would be that day GREAT
DAY (‘megaleh heh hehmera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be that day great day OF SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be that day great day of sabbath THEREFORE (’gar’)
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be that day great day of sabbath therefore HAD BEEN / WOULD BE (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be that day great day of sabbath therefore had
been / would be GREAT THE DAY (‘megaleh
heh hemera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the day had been / would be that day great day of sabbath therefore had
been / would be great the day OF SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’) .....”
John’s reason
why the Jew’s were so anxious is, The specific “day had been / would be that
day great day sabbath”.
Or, seen as a
Genitive Absolute which IT IS NOT—
“For the very REASON (‘gar’) .....”
“For the very
reason THE SABBATH (‘tou sabbatou’)
.....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath HAD BEEN / WOULD BE
(‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath had been / would be THAT
DAY (‘ehn hehmera ekeinou’) .....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath had been / would be that day GREAT DAY (‘megaleh heh hehmera’) .....”
“For the very
reason the sabbath had been / would be that day great day THEREFORE (’gar’)
“For the very
reason the sabbath had been / would be that day great day therefore WAS (‘ehn’).....”
“For the very
reason the day was that day great day therefore had been / would be GREAT THE DAY (‘megaleh heh hemera’) .....”
John’s reason
why the Jew’s were so anxious is, The specific “sabbath was That Day great
day ..... therefore the Jews asked .....”.
John’s “REASON
..... THEREFORE” had been or would have been,
“SO THAT
THEREFORE NOT (‘OUN .....HINA MEH’) the bodies should remain on the
cross on the sabbath day” (‘meinehi epi tou staurou ta sohmata en tohi
sabbatohi’) the Jews besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and
they might be taken away.”
It was more or
less a like situation as when some Jewish leader ‘prophesied’ that it would be
better for ONE MAN to die than the whole nation. They did not themselves
recognise they fulfilled the very Prophesy and Promise of the passover! They
were powerless in their conceitedness; everything they did – even their
humiliating begging from Pilate that the bodies and crosses be removed for
their passover-sabbath, was their doing of GOD’S, will and a working out of the
Passover of Yahweh as such!
Paul
R Finch:
Quoting
GE:
Alright, I made the mistake not to indicate exactly WHERE and WHEN the
Resurrection occurred. Obviously Paul R. Finch himself must think the
Resurrection occurred ..... here,
Nisan 17—
[FROM Mk16:1 “When the Sabbath was past”];
UNTIL 24:1, “Now upon the First Day of the week very early in the morning (the
women) came .....”
UNTIL 24:29, “toward evening the day far spent”.” Otherwise PRF cannot say “Gerhard
..... believe(s) in a “four calendar day resurrection scenario” because “Nisan
17” is the fourth of the four calendar dates which GE gave.
Therefore, let me highlight just WHERE and WHEN the Resurrection in the above
summary of events and their times and days occurred ..... which I am only able
to do by indicating its CIRCUMSTANCES. The event of the Resurrection must be
deduced from the phenomenal events that accompanied it; the Gospels do not
mention or describe the Resurrection ‘live’. And it is ONLY Matthew that
describes those phenomena. So, here is WHERE and WHEN (but not HOW) the
Resurrection occurred,
Nisan 16—
FROM 23:56b, The women – after they had prepared spices on Friday afternoon
before sunset – from after sunset “rested the Sabbath Day according to the
Commandment.”
This weekly Sabbath kept on through Mt27:62 “the morning after their
preparations” and the setting of the guard, UNTIL
Mt28:5A, 1-4 when
“EXPLAINED THE ANGEL TO THE WOMEN .....
Why is this even
here?
GE:
First, because
of the FACTS. It is ‘here’, in the
text!
Nobody would
ever have known about the events and circumstances described in Matthew’s
Gospel, “here”, had the angel not ‘here’, “EXPLAINED TO THE WOMEN” as nowhere else! For NO ONE was present at the tomb while the
Resurrection had taken place. “The angel of the Lord” has been our sole
source of information ever since, and Matthew was as dependent on the women’s
witness as they were dependent on the angel’s witness. They women did not “SEE”;
they did not “COME”; they only “SET OUT TO SEE”. That is ‘why’ – in the first place – ‘this’, i.e., “EXPLAINED THE
ANGEL TO THE WOMEN”, ‘is
here’.
“This is here” – in the second place –
because it is Matthew’s STYLE of writing to have used this the angel’s – or
Matthew’s for that matter – ‘oratorical introduction’
half-way or more
through his ‘speech’ or “answer to the women”. The angel’s “answer /
explanation to the women” can begin
as far back as
verse 51 where it is told of the veil that rent;
or as far back
as verse 52 where it is told of the graves that had opened when Jesus died;
or the angel’s “answer
/ explanation to the women” can begin
where Joseph
appears in the ‘Burial-scene’, 27:57;
or it perhaps
can begin with the guard’s act from verse 62 after Joseph’s role.
Or it can begin
with the angel’s description of the “Sabbath’s”-circumstances and the ‘scenario’ of the Resurrection in 28:1—
the act of “the
angel of the Lord” himself who
as token of
Jesus’ Resurrection (Ps24)
opened the grave
in honour of Him .....
..... anywhere “here”,
because all of “this here”
most probably
were the things that
“The angel
explained to the women” and
could have “informed
them” about
“early on the
First Day of the week”
AFTER Jesus
“As the Risen
One (had)
appeared to Mary
Magdalene first” Mk16:9, Jn20:14.
Because none of
all “this here”
is being “EXPLAINED
TO”,
or is being “TOLD”
by,
another Gospel
writer.
Therefore “The
angel told the women”—
on Sunday
morning
of all these
things that had had happened
AFTER “EVERYBODY
HAD GONE HOME”
AFTER Jesus HAD
HAD DIED – Mt27:50, Luke 23:48-49 – and
AFTER “since
the evening had come” – Mark 15:42, Jn19:31 – and
AFTER “the NIGHT”
in which Joseph had begun his undertaking
“TO BURY”
the body of Jesus
“FOR THE
REASON it was The Preparation now ALREADY” and “That great day sabbath”
only discomfited and unsettled the Jews while Joseph truthfully and diligently
observed it “according to the Scriptures” the Passover of Yahweh
Scriptures.
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting
GE:
IN THE SABBATH’S FULLNESS SABBATH’S MID AFTERNOON
This is a flagrantly bogus translation. There is no “mid afternoon” in the
text. There is no “Sabbath's fullness.” You simply can not be allowed to make
up your own Bible to suit your own theory.
“Opse de sabbatwn” is simply “Now after the Sabbath” as the majority of
translators have it---and that is that!!!!!!
GE:
You are so
extremely offended by this, it demonstrates how acutely the implications of it
effect you viewpoint. It therefore is
necessary I repeat .....
Re: “There is no “Sabbath's fullness” .....”
“IN THE
SABBATH’S” ..... “SABBATH’S”: ‘sabbatohn’, Genitive:
Genitive of
Possession: “of the Sabbath / belonging to the Sabbath”;
Genitive of
Quality or Kind: “Sabbath’s-time”, “time of Sabbath’s-value”;
Locative
Genitive: ‘rather on the Sabbath than on any time else”;
Subjective /
Objective Genitive: ‘the Sabbath was .....’;
Genitive of
Apposition: With ‘Opse’ as a Noun, “the (late-)part of Sabbath .....”;
Partitive
Genitive: “the Sabbath Day (late) .....”;
Or ‘sabbatohn’,
Ablative:
Ablative of
Source: “the whole Sabbath up to / until .....’
Ablative of
Means: “by Sabbath measure .....”
Ablative of
Comparison: “no later than Sabbath .....”
NEVER can “SABBATH’S”-
‘sabbatohn’ be interpreted or rendered as an Accusative, and ONLY an Accusative
can convey the idea of ‘AFTER the Sabbath’. Matthew used the Genitive; it is not I who ‘make up my own Bible to suit my own theory’. People who use “AFTER the Sabbath” replace Matthew’s Genitive with their own
Accusative.
“In the
Sabbath’s FULLNESS .....” ‘opse’,
‘ripeness’ / ‘maturity’ / ‘completeness’ / ‘slow hours’ / “END”— concepts USED
in Greek literature other than the New Testament. Check them up in book 2 of
‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’ – it is NEVER ‘used in the sense of “after”’!
It is without
exception ‘used in the sense of’, “In
the END of ..... “
Tyndale, KJV et
al; in fact ALL English Bibles from Wycliffe’s Vulgate to the Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition, made for the 16th Century
(1501-1600), the KJV 1611 Edition, made for the 17th Century (1601-1700), the KJV
1769 family of editions, made for the 18th Century (1701-1800), the KJV 1873
Edition, made for the 19th Century (1801-1900) and in fact ALL English
Bibles except suddenly round about the beginning of the twentieth century when
these “flagrantly bogus translations”
and “misrepresenting the clear text of
the account” with “after the Sabbath”
renditions began appearing.
Re: “There is no “mid afternoon” in the text.”
Before anything
else, and without anything else, let the WORDS speak for themselves!
‘EPI’— “MID /
centre / in essence / acme / emphatic / on / in / the vertical inclined to /
over”. Check any ‘usage’ or any
dictionary, ‘EPI’ is NEVER used for or with the meaning of, “after”, or of, “towards”. ‘EPI’ in ESSENCE has to do with “MIDDLE”.
‘FOHS’— “DAY /
LIGHT / daylight / noon / midday / shining / brightness”. Check any ‘usage’ or any dictionary, ‘FOHS’ is
NEVER used for, or with the meaning of, “dawn
/ early morning before sunrise / darkness / night”, or of, “dusk / evening after sunset / darkness /
night”— ‘FOHS’ in ESSENCE has to do with “BRIGHT DAYLIGHT”.
“-OUSEHI”— “WITH BEING / in essence / by presence / while is”. It’s impossible ‘AFTER / having been / past / no longer is’.
‘TEHI’— “THE / IN THE / in / by / with”. The Article
in the Dative can never mean ‘towards /
before / against’ or “after” or
anything DIFFERENT THAN WHAT the Noun it articles in essence means and contains
and conveys,; in other words, it can NEVER mean or be used for “sunrise before the First Day” (“while
in the mid-day of the Sabbath”), or “morning
after the Sabbath” (“while in the mid-day of the Sabbath”)— which
would have been “a flagrantly bogus
translation”.
“EIS MIAN
(hehmeran) sabbatohn”. People who use “ON
the First Day” replace Matthew’s Accusative with their own Dative or
Genitive.
Paul R. Finch:
Quoting GE:
AS IT BEGAN TO DAWN TOWARDS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK
I'm surprised here that you did not change the word “dawn” into “dusk.” I mean,
why not? You certainly had no problem changing other words. The fact of the
matter remains that “dawn” means “dawn”----and it does not mean dusk! The First
day of the week was dawning, starting to light up the sky which happens at
sunrise.
GE:
Even
though it cannot mean ‘dusk’, ‘dawn’ can mean ‘dawn’ in more than one way. In
Matthew 28:1 “The First day of the week
was dawning”, but not “starting to
light up the sky which happens at sunrise” or in the sense of “before sunset”, but “in the sense of before 6 p.m.” as
explained by A. T. Robertson in his Grammar and discussed above.
Personally
I would interpret the phrase “eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn” as rendered in the
KJV, “as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”, rather
than like Robertson interprets the phrases ‘opse de sabbatohn tehi
epifohskousehi’ “Late in the Sabbath”
/ “Late on the Sabbath .... afternoon ..... before sunset”.
“Dusk” is “while still early darkness”
from after sunset until it has become properly dark. As little as had Matthew
in mind “starting to light up the sky
which happens at sunrise”, had he in mind “Dusk” “while still early darkness”.
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting
GE:
WHEN,
it was “in ripeness of Sabbath’s-time the sun inclining midway towards the
First Day of the week .....”
Here we go again with made up jargon that is nowhere in the text. Where on
earth are getting this stuff? Do you hear voices in your head? You are totally
incoherent. All of this is total nonsense.
You
mean to say that the guards were guarding an empty tomb? That they sealed it
shut without first making sure that the body had not already been stolen? I'm
sure that if the guards didn't first check, the Jewish authorities did. And
therefore they remained at their post until dawn! The earthquake occurred at
sun up.
GE:
So what if ‘they’ “didn't first check” or if ‘they’
did? I believe the Scriptures which say the body was buried in the grave just
as I believe the Scriptures which say that He rose from the dead neither of
which I or anyone else could check on if they were real. The point here is when Jesus rose from the
dead; not whether He rose from the dead; and the implications and complications
as far as the guard is concerned would have been the same no matter on which
day of the week He rose. All that
matters is what the Scriptures say, and they DO NOT SAY Jesus rose “dawn ..... at sun up”. But Matthew
states “When there was a great earthquake it was in Sabbath’s fullness of
day mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”
Scripture-time and -calendar schedule, days reckoned from sunset to sunset,
translated from the literal Greek as literally and as correctly as possible in
any language.
Paul
R. Finch:
Quoting
GE:
I
must frankly admit I am unable to explain clearer or more unambiguous my
personal view of a THREE calendar day resurrection scenario! Let God be my
Judge.
I'll give you a sneak preview of how God will judge you---Guilty on three
counts: 1) Guilty of Scripture twisting (Rev 22:18); 2) Guilty of deliberately
fabricating about what scholars and other translations have said; 3) Guilty of
teaching false doctrine.
Quoting GE:
The
real problem here though was not the additional day of Nisan 17 which I
mentioned, or that I did not fill in the particulars of the circumstances of
the event of Jesus’ resurrection. The real problem here is that Paul R. Finch –
like all Friday-crucifixionists – does not RECOGNISE the SECOND of the “three
days” of the Passover of Yahweh so thoroughly circumscribed in all four
Gospels.
Again,
you bear false testimony. I recognize Nisan 14, 15, and 16, day one,
If you put me in the category of “all
Friday-Crucifixionists”, then you put me in the same category as 99% of all
scholarship, the Church Fathers, indeed, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That leaves
you in that finite percentile of outsiders (maybe only you in all of time) that
believes your unbiblical scenario.
GE:
“Unbiblical”? If me only or alone, as long as I believe
Biblical, is all that counts with me, So help me God, I pray (and swear
not).
Paul
R. Finch:
I just don’t understand why it is that you
are pressing for this Nisan 14, 15, 16, 17, scenario when there is truly no
biblical evidence for such.
GE:
And I don’t understand why you are pressing on accusing me of “this Nisan 14, 15, 16, 17, scenario”.
What is it that makes “this scenario”
as you call it a “four day scenario”? It is on which day the Resurrection would
fall after on which day the Crucifixion would have fallen. Now I believe the
Bible reveals a Fifth Day Crucifixion and Seventh Day, “Sabbath’s”,
Resurrection; so PLEASE STOP attributing to me “this Nisan 14, 15, 16, 17, scenario”.
Paul
R. Finch:
I perceive that you are a Sabbatarian. And
like many Sabbatarians, wish to make the Resurrection occur on the Sabbath,
instead of on Sunday. Fine. I once was where you are now. But I acquiesced to
that facts that could not sustain such a theory. Maybe its time for you to let
it go. Maybe its time to say to yourself that you are chasing after rainbows
that don’t exist.
GE:
You say you “once was where (I
am) now”; now I once was where you
are now. I began where you have ended up. My whole life has been one of “let it go”, because I grew up to believe
Friday was the Crucifixion and Sunday was the Resurrection and the Sabbath
rested upon the Law from a to zee. .
You say you “acquiesced to that facts
that could sustain” a Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection. The ONLY ‘fact’ “that could sustain” and bring peace of mind and conscience with regard
to one’s stand on the Christian Day of Worship or ‘Sabbath’, in my opinion and
experience has been that the Resurrection
occurred on the Sabbath.
But it is interesting HOW you “acquiesced
to that facts that could sustain” a Friday crucifixion Sunday
resurrection. That which disturbed me in
my ignorance and peace about the traditional ‘belief system’ in the first place, was how the younger generations
of Bible translators “acquiesced to that
facts that could sustain” a Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection, which
was their introduction into every of the pertinent to the matter Scriptures of
exactly such ‘acquiescing facts’
..... very interesting and entertaining it has been ever since, indeed. For soothe, ja, it does feel like I have been
“chasing after rainbows that don’t exist”
the best part of my life. It kept me life-fit, I assume non the less.
Paul
R. Finch:
I have studied this issue for decades. Now,
anew, I have looked at the supposed evidence that you have presented and if
there was something that I thought that I had missed, or that you presented
that I really felt would change my mind, I would do it. But what I have thus
far seen is deliberate scripture twisting and outright falsifications of what
the bible has to say on all pertinent supports for your theory. I am not
convinced. Why? Because I have my own personal agenda? No! Because I am stupid?
No! Because I would be embarrassed to admit I was wrong? No! It is because you
have failed to provide convincing evidence that you are right. If there is
anyone out there that can explain why Gerhard Ebersohn is right and I am wrong,
please explain it to me and show me what it is that I am missing.
GE:
Although I never doubted that I ‘provide
convincing evidence’, I fortunately (or maybe just too unfortunately)
haven’t claimed or thought or hoped that I would or might ‘convince’ a soul other than myself.
So, most welcome, if there is
anyone out there that can explain why Gerhard Ebersöhn is wrong, please explain
it to me and show me what it is that I have been missing— Paul R Finch
himself, most of all welcome! Because
so far you have made nothing than vague generalities about my erring ..... no,
CLEAR, generalities about my erring but without a SINGLE specific ‘evidence’ or ‘fact’ of “deliberate
scripture twisting”, or “outright
falsifications of what the bible has to say”, or “making up” my “own
interpretation when confronted with texts that disagree” with me.
Paul R. Finch:
Do I need your rose hued glasses to make me
see your scenario? If so, then “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a
workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” is a
worthless statement. My mind is open to new ideas, otherwise I wouldn’t be at
where I am today, because, in many respects I used to believe as you do and I
have grown and moved forward. Facts are facts. And when people start distorting
facts to suit their theories, then I must protest. If you can persuade me with
legitimate facts, then fine, I will be the first to renounce everything that I
have previously held to. I want the truth. I have pursued this topic not to
defeat you, but to see if you really did have something insightful that I had
never considered before. You certainly did have a lot that I never considered
before, but it doesn’t pass the muster, because I still can see through
arguments that are based upon changing what the scripture simply says. It all
looks contrived to me, and when confronted with texts that disagree with you,
you simply make up your own interpretation.
Scripture should be a Rock! It should be a stabilizing phenomenon in our belief
system. Just like Tevia the Dairyman in Fiddle on the Roof, who felt that
without his traditions, we are all like shaky fiddlers on the roof that could
fall and tumble, we too are shaky if we don’t have a firm, rooted foundation in
the Scriptures we believe in. But with Gerhard, Scripture is like quicksand.
Anything can be anything. You can bend and twist it into any fashion you like.
But in the end what have you got?
To me, maybe the subject of the timing of the Passover is a trivial thing to
most people, but the real issue here is that if Scripture can be twisted in
this instance, then nothing is safe. All bets are off. Doesn’t anyone else out
there see the danger in that or even care?
What does it take to shake people out of their stupor? Hello????? Is anyone
awake out there? Is this a forum where important ideas are discussed, or is it
just a place where pseudo-intellectual, thin-skinned Pharisees get offended
when their feathers get ruffled, and want to go and pout. Jesus condemned the
Pharisees, and so do I! I have no patience for those who twist biblical truth!
And I have no respect for those who think that they are intellectually superior
for no other reason than they think that they are God’s chosen and because of
that fact can look down on anyone else they disagree with.
And if others out there, the supposed super biblical snobs that think that they
are God’s gift to the world (you know who you are) can not offer some sane
intelligent discussion here, then you have no business being in this
discussion!
GE:
Apt word to end this conversation finally! Thank you, Mr. Paul R. Finch; I
really DID LEARN a lot, thanks for having conversed with me. God bless you!
End of conversation, “Finch Days of Crucifixion and Resurrection”
13 January 2010
Hopefully the following are going to be the last remarks in this
discussion.
Paul R. Finch:
Quoting
Gerhard:
I needed not to present any evidence; Christ presented Himself The Evidence of
God’s Passover-Love and Salvation-Rest. That is why the Bible says in Hb4:8-10,
“He having entered into his own rest as God in his own— because JESUS had given
them rest, THEREFORE remains for the People of God keeping of the Sabbath Day.”
Just another striking example of how Gerhard just makes up his own bible.
Compare Gerhard's miserable translation above and what Heb 4:8-10 really says:
“[8] For if Joshua had brought them to a place of rest, He would not have
spoken of another day. [9]Therefore, there remains a Sabbath rest for the
people of God. [10] For the one having entered into the rest of him also
himself rested from the works of Him, just as God from his own.”
First of all, the word “JESUS” should be translated Joshua, since the book of
Hebrews tells us right in the beginning (1:2) that only in the last days has
God spoken to us by “a son,” not back when Joshua was leading Israel into
Canaan. Jesus was not working back then with the Israelites. If he was, he was
a failure. That is the thrust of what is being discussed here.
GE:
Re:, “First of all, the word “JESUS”.....” The Name “JESUS” in Hb4:8 should NOT “be translated Joshua”, since the Book of
Hebrews tells us right in the beginning – in 1:9 – WHO this ‘Jesus’, is, “But we see The One having been made but a
little lower than the angels, even Jesus: crowned with glory and honour.” It is the same Name and the same Person – the
ONLY ‘Jesus’, named by “the Book of
Hebrews”. “Seeing that we have a Great High Priest that is passed into
the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.” 4:14. “The Fore-Runner is for us entered, even
Jesus, made an High Priest for ever.” 6:20.
“By so much was Jesus made Surety of a better Covenant.”
7:22. “Where remission of (sins) is,
there is no more offering for sin— having therefore boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus by New and Living Way which He hath consecrated
for us through the veil ..... let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance
of Faith.” 10:18-22. “Let us lay
aside every weight, and the sin which so easily beset us, and let us run with
patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the Author an
Finisher of Faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross,
despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of of the Throne of God.”
12:1-2. “Ye are come unto Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and .....
the blood that speaketh better things than of Abel ..... that those things
which cannot be shaken may remain.” 12:22(-27). “Jesus also suffered without the camp that
He may sanctify the People with his own blood. Let us go forth therefore unto
Him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” 13:12-13. “The God of peace that brought again from
the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of
the everlasting Covenant, make you perfect ..... through Jesus Christ to whom
be glory for ever.” 12:20-21.
The Name
‘Jesus’, here used ten times— is the Name of the only ‘Jesus’, “Jesus Christ”,
“our Lord Jesus”, “Jesus the Son of God”, “Jesus the
Author and Finisher of Faith”, “Jesus, Surety” and “Mediator”, “of a better Covenant”, “Jesus,
that great Shepherd of the sheep”, “even Jesus: crowned with
glory and honour”, “Jesus Christ to whom be glory for ever”. It is THIS “JESUS”, who “had given them
rest.” 8a. “For HE” – THIS JESUS – “THAT IS ENTERED INTO HIS REST— HE
ALSO (is it who) CEASED FROM HIS OWN WORKS AS GOD”, “THAT IS”,
‘RESTED’; entering into his rest He rested; having raised Christ from the dead,
God rested in the Son. 10. He who had “given
them rest”, is He who has “ceased from his Own Works as God”. He who
had “given them rest” is “He also” – is He who “Himself” –
“has entered into his Rest”— WHO IS NO OTHER THAN “Jesus, that great
Shepherd of the sheep” who “had given them rest”.
To say “the
word “JESUS” should be translated Joshua”, would mean to rob THIS “Jesus
Christ to whom be glory for ever” of both his rest and glory. Joshua did
NOT give the People of God, the rest that is God’s. For “his rest” is God’s “glory”,
and God’s glory is “his rest”. God’s Glory is the Son “As He hath
OBTAINED a more excellent NAME by inheritance.” God declared Christ Son and Inheritor, “Thou
art my Son, THIS DAY (when He raised Him from the dead) have I begotten
Thee.” 1:4-6.
The word “JESUS”
should NOT be translated ‘Joshua’, since the book of Hebrews tells us right in
the beginning (1:2) that only “in these last days” has “God spoken to
us by his Son”, his Only Begotten Son— “not
back when Joshua was leading
And in the Book
of Hebrews 4:8 the thrust of what is
being discussed is no transitory, temporary, ‘Canaanitical’ ‘rest’, because
it says, “God would NOT after these things – of the one who “had
given them rest” – “speak of another day” of salvation or rest. “God
did speak” of another day of rest and salvation when He “in these last
days ..... spoke to us ..... through the SON”, JESUS. So the reference
cannot be to Joshua. “Jesus” is God’s Word in, and for, “these last
days”, and “He had given them – “the People of God” – rest”.
4:8b. “There THEREFORE, REMAINS VALID,
for the People of God, a keeping of the Sabbath Day.” 4:9.
Paul
R. Finch:
Second,
the words “keeping of the Sabbath Day” are not in the text at all. Just another
example of making the text say something that it does not.
GE:
Compare the word
‘babtism’ from ‘baptismos’. The rite or ritualism or institution or ‘keeping’
of ‘baptism’. Just so, the IDEA of “the
words “keeping of the Sabbath Day” “ are in fact “in the text” and are virtually irreplaceable by another phrase to
express the idea to ‘the thrust’ of
the author’s intention here.
“A rest to the people”, KJV, is WRONG
because it must confuse. The writer of
the Letter has his specific word for the idea of “a rest to the people”, namely, ‘katapausis’, and if he in 4:9
wanted to have said “a rest to the people”
he would have used the word ‘katapausis’ to express the idea; not
‘sabbatismos’.
Paul
R. Finch:
That
these verses refer to the seven thousand year plan of God is apparent. Joshua
lived in the third millennium after creation, which would be comparable to
Tuesday in the weekly calendar. So if Joshua had given them rest, then God
would have rested on Tuesday in creation week. But Joshua didn't lead the
children of
GE:
Re: “at the time of the writing of Hebrews, the
people of God still had not entered into that rest,” Yes, “Wherefore I was grieved with THAT
GENERATION.”(3:10a) But it also “at the time of the writing of Hebrews”
is written, “For SOME – when they had heard – did provoke, YET be it NOT
ALL.”( 3:16) “For we which HAVE believed, DO enter into (the) rest”(4:4a)
“BECAUSE we ARE MADE PARTAKERS OF CHRIST.”(13:14a) “Let us therefore COME BOLDLY UNTO THE
THRONE OF GRACE;”(4:16) “Let us labour to enter into that rest lest any
man fall after the example of unbelief”(4:11) of those who formerly did not
enter into the Rest. “For, if Jesus
had” NOT “given”, US, HIS, “rest”, WE, “are” NOT, “made
partakers of CHRIST”.
“Rest”-
‘katapausis’ and “Jesus” – throughout – are IDENTIFIED; how can “Joshua” be That Rest? He cannot; he MAY not. And just so can a “keeping
of the Sabbath Day” – ‘sabbat-ISMOS’ –, NOT be identified with or as “Jesus”
BE That One who “had given them Rest”— who had “made them The
Partakers of Christ”, alias, “The People of God”, That One who above
all IS THAT REST, GOD’S REST.
Paul
R. Finch:
Also,
in Heb 4:1 it states: “Therefore, while the promies of entering rest is still
open . . .” There is nothing here that says that “Jesus” had given them rest
back then on millennial Tuesday. Jesus did not give them the millennial rest
back then, neither did Joshua.
GE:
True, but what
is the issue in this debate? Is it about ““Jesus”
..... that ..... had given them rest
back then on millennial Tuesday”, OR, is it about whether it is “the word “JESUS”“ and whether “the word “JESUS” should be translated Joshua”,
and whether ““JESUS” had given
them – the People of God – rest”— i.e.,
eternal salvation?
Paul
R Finch:
And
to say that because Jesus had given them rest on millennial Tuesday, that is
reason to keep the weekly seventh day Sabbath, makes no sense at all.
GE:
Yes, it
certainly “makes no sense at all”. But who was it who spoke of stuff like “Jesus had given them rest on millennial Tuesday” and “that because Jesus had given them rest on
millennial Tuesday, that is reason to keep the weekly seventh day Sabbath”???
Paul
R. Finch:
The
whole point is that the millennial rest is yet future.
GE:
I didn’t see
that point in the Book of Hebrews or in this discussion before you, Paul R.
Finch, have raised it (from the dead).
Paul
R. Finch:
This
just illustrates once again that Gerhard lives in a world of his own, and cares
not one iota for faithfully presenting what the Scriptures say, but bends and
twists them whenever he wishes to make it say something to suit his own
theories. Those who stand for the integrity of the Word of God must protest!
First
Gerhard says: “In Ex 16:12 it says of the quails with ‘behn-ha-arbayim’, “in
the evening ye shall eat” while in the morning they would eat the manna. In
verse 13 it says the quails “came”, “at the even”- ‘ereb’ = the quails came
LATE DAY-TIME and LATE DAY-TIME ‘eating’ is the supposed.”
Then he says: Paul R. Finch’s definition is more correct— but if I may make a
suggestion I would say, leave out the word “LATE”.
That the term ben ha-arbayim is the mid-point between when the sun is highest
in the sky and sinking below the horizon is the accepted definition, i.e., 3:00
pm. Likewise, the morning sacrifices occurred in the same comparable period, in
mid-morning, between sunrise and high-noon, i.e., 9:am.
But then Gerhard says: “‘Behn-ha-arbayim’ is always applied to the light
portion at the end of the day, i.e., afternoon – even from mid-day until sunset
—not so “late afternoon” that it could be said the after-sunset ‘evening’
virtually has started; because that is a mistake unfortunately made by some
people.”
Where in Scripture is there any evidence of an “after sunset 'evening?'“ I have
surveyed every place the term erev is used [in my book] and have not found one
instance. I do not wish to open another thread here, but I suspect that such a
thing as an “after sunset evening” is just another halucination that people
dream up in order to try to sustain their cherished theory of sunset days.
Obviously, these people realize that if there were no such usage of an “after
sunset evening”, then the entire idea of a sunset day collapses. So they then
back feed this notion into Genesis 1:5 to sustain their theory, when in fact,
they have no proof of an after sunset erev. The evening there concluded the end
of the day period, and the morning concluded the end of the night period---ONE
DAY! Indeed, the term ben ha-arbayim and erev are used interchangeably in Exod
16:12, 13.
GE:
And herewith it’s the end! I could not have dreamt up a better ending to
this conversation, thanks to Paul R. Finch.
Looking forward to meeting you in another discussion, brother in Jesus
Christ,
God bless!
14 January 2010
Paul R. Finch:
Quoting
Gerhard: “The ONLY ‘fact’ “that could sustain” and bring peace of mind and
conscience with regard to one’s stand on the Christian Day of Worship or
‘Sabbath’, in my opinion and experience has been that the Resurrection occurred
on the Sabbath.”
So you admit that it is the idea of a Sabbath resurrection that drives how you
make the Bible support your personal belief. You slice and dice Greek words,
like epi, and then phwso (which is entirely bogus), you then make up your own
definition based upon what you like it to be, and make up decisions on whether
to use genitive or accusative or ablative, or whatever, to suit your theory, find
one or two scholars out there that seem to support “late on” instead of “after,”
and in the end you can make the Bible say anything you want. This is why people
like you are so dangerous. They start out with a pet theory, then force feed
the scriptures to seemingly support their theory, caring the least about what
damage they do to the whole process. By your method, the Bible is no longer
firm ground to stand on, but quicksand.
The correct way to derive the truth is to put aside all personal and previous
prejudices, and then to take all the pertinent facts, put the facts on the
table, and let the facts themselves drive the story, and then believe it. Its
very simple actually. And in the end you have to have the ability to use your
head and just plain simple logic.
I see no proof that Nisan 15, the First day of Unleavened Bread, fell on a
Friday in the year of the Crucifixion, which is crucial to your theory. John
19:31 does not support such an idea, in fact, I still see it saying that the
weekly Sabbath was great because of the fact the First Day of Unleavened Bread
fell on the weekly sabbath, making it doubly holy, so to speak. Where in
history has anyone believed otherwise?
I see no proof that Jesus rose on Sabbath afternoon at 3:00 pm. What was he doing
for some 15 hours, where no one saw him, where he informed no one of his
presence nor resurrection? Everyone of his disciples were clueless, the Jewish
authorities didn't know, the guards who were manning an empty tomb didn't know,
and the Bible is completely silent about all of this. No one down through
history ever understood, nor believed such a scenario, and for good reason.
There simply is no proof of such.
I see no proof that from the burial of Jesus to early sunday morning (a period
of nearly three days) passes by with no mention at all, yet some 48 hours into
that time period occurred the resurrection. Why then is all the focus on day
break of Sunday morning? If it was important to God that we keep a weekly
sabbath, and by having Jesus resurrected on the Sabbath, He then should have
made that event known to everyone. Yet this important fact for Sabbatarians
goes by unrecorded. If God were reaffirming the Sabbath here, then why did He
not make this fact known to His followers. God blew His perfect oppurtunity.
What a shame!
Your entire case is so weak, it should be dismissed and entered into the realm
of fiction. It has no basis in fact, grammar, historical precedent, nor just
plain logic. To believe such a scenario doesn't take spiritual insight, nor
expert grammar, but just plain gullibility. As I said before, its like the
story of the Emperor's new clothes. Is the fabric real, or is it just wishful
thinking? Personally, I see right through it.
Quoting
Gerhard: "To say “the word "JESUS" should be translated Joshua”,
would mean to rob THIS “Jesus Christ to whom be glory for ever” of both his
rest and glory. Josua did NOT give the People of God, the rest that is God’s.
For “his rest” is God’s “glory”, and God’s glory is “his rest”. God’s Glory is the
Son “As He hath OBTAINED a more excellent NAME by inheritance.” God declared
Christ Son and Inheritor, “Thou art my Son, THIS DAY (when He raised Him from
the dead) have I begotten Thee.” 1:4-6."
This entire post is like listening to a mad man, someone on drugs. It is total
psycho-babel in the extreme. After reading Gerhard, one still never knows what
he really thinks. But here's the bottom line. The context is about Joshua
leading the Israelites into Canaan and the fact the he did not give them the spiritual
rest back then, because if he did, then why should we look forward to a
millennial rest in the future? Therefore, there does remain a sabbatismos for
the people of God in the future, the millennial Sabbath that is to come.
Now, If Gerhard is saying that Jesus (a name that was given to him at his birth
[Luke 1:31], who came into existence in the time of Ceasar Augustus [Luke 2:1])
lead the Israelites into the promised land back in Joshua's day, then there is
nothing here for me to discuss any further. A pre-existing Jesus is a doctrine
of demons and I will not have any part of it!
15 January 2010
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za