John 19, 42
The "High Day
'Sabbath'" was a Sabbath for the Jews. The weekly Sabbath was a Sabbath
for the Jews.
Yet unless you (not me) are the one who is not being clear, you have effectively claimed that some of the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial of Jesus' body had to have taken place after sundown, and after the onset of 15 Nisan/Abib, simply because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown. This ignores the simple fact that both Nicodemus and Joseph were both 'well-heeled' (as well as influential) with access to more than a few shekels. Thus they didn't have to put up with the usual clap-trap one might expect from the locals, and could have paid the price for the spices, etc. no questions asked, had Nicodemus so chosen. I contend that he did just that. He wasn't into the usual haggling over price at that moment, for he did not have the time to waste. IMO, it was price asked; price paid. End of story! And likely greatly to the surprise of the one selling the spices, for such was effectively unheard of in the Ancient Near East, where it was even expected that there would normally be a long, drawn-out haggling and bargaining between the two parties over the cost of anything.
The Book of John specifically tells us that the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body buried by sundown, IMO (It was the Preparation, i.e. 14 Nisan, or Passover, although colloquial usage had now relegated the Biblical usage of "Passover", to what was properly "the feast of Unleavened bread", "the Sabbath drew near" and now not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur, with the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread) to precede the regular weekly Sabbath that fell on Nisan 16 of that year. Yet both were Sabbaths. There is not any difference between "a holy convocation" and "a holy convocation" in Lev. 21 I do not believe, at least as I am able to read Scripture. The Sabbath was a time of rest, not activity.
In addition, if I remember, you have also argued that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus also took place on the Sabbath, i.e. the seventh day, as well.
Among at least 2 ways you have spoken of this is "in Sabbath's fullness" and "in Sabbath's time" neither of which phrases are to be found anywhere in Scripture, as translated into English, at least in the 20 English versions I have access to on Bible Gateway.
And for free, I'll also tack on that both a 'traditional' Friday crucifixion and a Wednesday crucifixion (as we today reckon time) both also require the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, to break the Sabbath, as well, albeit the one preceding the crucifixion week, in travelling to or from Bethany.
The Thursday crucifixion does happen to be correct for the day of the crucifixion, again as we reckon time, despite your own convoluted reasoning and gyrations that serve to skew what is actually being said, IMO.
“The "High Day 'Sabbath'" was a Sabbath for the Jews. The weekly Sabbath was a Sabbath for the Jews.”
Fine, agreed ..... Which day of week was “The "High Day 'Sabbath”?
Friday, I should say. The day just before – ‘back to back with’ – “The weekly Sabbath” : ‘Sixth Day’ of the week; ‘Friday’.
“Yet unless you (not me) are the one who is not being clear, you have effectively claimed that some of the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial of Jesus' body had to have taken place after sundown ....”
It’s a pity I did not make myself absolutely clear, that I am claiming all the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial of Jesus' body, had taken place after sundown; not only “some of the events .... effectively”. Therefore to re-affirm : “All the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial”, literally :
“And now when the evening was come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the Fore-Sabbath, Joseph ....” Mk15:42;
“When the even was come, there came Joseph ....” Mt27:57;
“All the people that came together to that sight, having seen the things that happened, much afraid, went home ..... Now see, Joseph ..... this man, went unto Pilate ....” Lk23:48,50;
“The Jews, because it was the Preparation— that the bodies should, not remain, on the cross .... besought Pilate that their legs might, be, broken and that they might, be, taken away .... And after, this, Joseph secretly asked Pilate that he might, take away the body ....” Jn19:31,38.
No smart words, “unless you .... the one who is not being clear .... have effectively claimed that some of the events .... had to have taken place”; just ordinary words, Joseph started to undertake to bury the body of Jesus that day still, after it had had become evening and after sunset. As John explained: “Because it was a high day sabbath, that day”. Yes, for our conditioned hearing, not much sense in; but when understood “as custom / rule / law of the Jews to bury”, the passover-procedures of Ex 12 and Lv 23 give clear meaning to all these ‘events’.
“after sundown, and after the onset of 15 Nisan/Abib, simply because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown.”
The obvious indications of time and day given about
when, “this” actually took place, are :
a) “this” actually beginning Mk15:42, Mt27:57, Jn19:31,38, Lk23:48,50, “sundown” (Thursday night); and
b) “this” actually ending Lk23:54, Jn19:42, “mid-afternoon” 3 p.m. the Sixth Day (Friday)
— 21 hours in all.
According to you, these ‘events’ Thursday earliest 3 p.m. (Mt27:45) immediately after Jesus had died, started.
According to you, these ‘events’ Thursday afternoon ended well “before sundown” 6 p.m.
— in less than 3 hours all in all.
21 hours over against say 2 hours? There would certainly not have been “enough time for this to have taken place before sundown.” You have proved it beyond a doubt yourself. With an assumed lack of time, you, are trying to prove there was ample time so that the Burial could have taken place on the same day the Crucifixion took place. Normally, one would think this would prove the Burial could not have taken place on the same day that the Crucifixion took place. Normally.
Normally, “sundown” would mean the day has begun; normally, “afternoon”, would mean, “That day”, which “was the Preparation” (‘Friday’), Lk23:54, entered its last quarter and was running out. Normally.
Only remember, who is it who is saying, “after sundown, and after the onset of 15 Nisan/Abib, (there) simply .... was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown.” It was Ed Sutton; it was not GE. GE has never appealed to the time-shortage factor; GE only appeals to Scripture ‘statistics’ of time, days and dates. GE has consistently been appealing to the ample time reality. GE has consistently maintained the feeble excuse “simply because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown” carries no weight at all.
“This ignores the simple fact that both Nicodemus and Joseph were both 'well-heeled' (as well as influential) with access to more than a few shekels. Thus they didn't have to put up with the usual clap-trap one might expect from the locals, and could have paid the price for the spices, etc. no questions asked, had Nicodemus so chosen. I contend that he did just that. He wasn't into the usual haggling over price at that moment, for he did not have the time to waste. IMO, it was price asked; price paid. End of story! And likely greatly to the surprise of the one selling the spices, for such was effectively unheard of in the Ancient Near East, where it was even expected that there would normally be a long, drawn-out haggling and bargaining between the two parties over the cost of anything.”
Now read, who, is haggling over prices and any kind of irrelevancies! Is it GE? Ed Sutton is of the opinion, “This ignores the simple fact that .....”— “this” : the ‘shortage of time story’. “..... simply because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown ..... ignores the simple fact that both Nicodemus and Joseph were both 'well-heeled .....” What can I say else? I have nothing further to say on Ed Sutton’s ‘drawn-out haggling and bargaining’ over ‘much ado about nothing’. What have you, Ed Sutton, been trying to tell us with ‘this’? That the Burial had to have been on the day Jesus was crucified, and could not possibly have been the ‘event’ of the day that started with the evening after the day on which Jesus was crucified? Well, dear readers, hear the lofty speech!
“The Book of John specifically tells us that the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body buried by sundown ....”
“The Book of John specifically tells us that the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body buried by sundown.....”
First things first; therefore: Please give the Scripture in John where it says, “..... the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body buried” : “by sundown.....”
You should have let John speak for itself, and say, ‘..... the tomb of Joseph that was nearby, was used to have the Lord's body buried.’
This is all, and this is the only thing John said. What you added, is untrue. John is in full agreement with the other Gospels, and here, as far as time-indication is concerned, in particular with the Gospel of Luke. Luke states the time of day Joseph had closed the grave and had left: “It was mid-afternoon before the Sabbath. And the women went home and prepared spices.” John says, “because of the time-of-preparations of the Jews” had begun, “the tomb of Joseph that was nearby, was used to have the Lord's body buried” : like in Luke, “mid-afternoon”. Finished: three hours to follow before sunset. Nothing of, “in order to before sundown have the Lord's body buried.” How far will you go to have it your way, only to vindicate Sunday for having been the day of the Lord’s resurrection and not the Lord’s Sabbath? As far as making both John and Luke tell a gross, insulting lie!
This was not why they still had to bury Jesus there; this was why they had finished to bury Jesus there! I remember having read of Prophecy that centuries before foretold, Joseph’s tomb would be used for Jesus’ interment. I have read God-fearing men who recognised God’s providence in these ‘events’ about Jesus’ interment. Point I want to make : Joseph’s tomb was not used as an emergency measure to beat time before the Sabbath would start. “Buried by sundown” because of time was of the essence, is a myth created by Sunday-resurrectionists. If scarcity of time before sunset were the driving force behind the use of Joseph’s sepulchre, the whole event of the burial would make no sense. Why not simply throw the body away as they did with the other crucified? – exactly as the Jews actually had requested some 21 hours before, Jn19:31. For what would Joseph have done all the trouble to obtain the body for proper burial if he had not planned to use his own sepulchre for the purpose and because it was near, at hand, and prepared?
Jn. 19:31 says nothing about any 'bodies being thrown away'.
You can see it? Well, why can’t you see the Jews made their request to have the legs of the crucified crushed only after and “because since it had become the Preparation” and “great that (specific) sabbath-day it had been” / would be? (‘oun epei paraskeyehn ehn .... ehn gar megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou sabbatou’)
John did not say these things before, where the Jews requested Pilate to have Jesus crucified. The Jews would not in the first place “while the Preparation” and “because that great day had been sabbath”, have requested Pilate to have Jesus crucified; then suddenly have changed their mind it “(is) the Preparation”, “and great (is) that sabbath-day” : ‘Have the bodies removed, you hear us Pilate?’
Then you ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, and same event, day, and time, some time later on in the night, of which Mark and Matthew tell in 15:42 and 27:57, where the between two consecutive days intervening “evening had already occurred” (‘ehdeh opsias genomenehs’) after, ‘sundown’ and never in your life as you allege, “before sundown”.
You ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, in the night, “and there came also Nicodemus who the first time in the night came to Jesus”.
Joseph operated in the night, after the Jews, after sunset, must have had their passover meal, because they no longer had had scruples to enter Pilate’s house to make their request. (Cf. Jn18:28)
It would have been completely senseless for the Jews to have asked for the bodies to be taken away only at the last minutes of their “great day sabbath”; they wanted the crosses removed for, “that great day sabbath” of theirs because they would have been, an offence to their national pride on “that day”.
Joseph began his undertaking in the night, long after sunset, and therefore did everything he did, on the day after the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. That is common sense; anything else that negates that, is senseless, ‘Sunday resurrectionist bickering’, to try to have something to say for a Sunday resurrection. Anything else than what John really wrote and meant is a scramble for proof that Jesus rose on Sunday, so that things are innovated that never would have entered any sane mind had it not been infested with Sunday resurrectionist enthusiasm.
Innovative things that are saintly confessed, “I believe the totality of Scriptures seem to say, namely that 'Jesus was risen "early' (while it was yet dark) on the first day of the week'. (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2,9; 24:1; Jn. 20:1 - all NKJV)” .... without attention being paid to it that “all” this,
1) has been taken from the “NKJV” which in these Scriptures is an utter misrepresentation of the real KJV;
2) that of “all” this “totality of Scriptures”, only Mt28:1 is relevant and
3) that the rest of this ‘totality of Scriptures’ has no bearing on the day or time of the Resurrection except that it mentions an opened and empty and desolated tomb
4) visited several times from “while it was early darkness still” until after sunrise during the night of the First Day of the week.
Therefore, because Joseph’s grave was “at hand” – “near”, “they buried Jesus there”. The near grave was the only commodity “to bury as the custom / law of the Jews prescribed to bury” that was ready and available because “near” from the first! No contingency, ‘O my, where are we going to lay the body down because it is almost sundown!’ forced itself upon Joseph’s mind like an afterthought, as though time had run out on him. ‘My own grave nearby! It’s our only option!’ False! The whole notion is, made up to confuse and impose.
No! Joseph used his own tomb to bury Jesus in because he had his undertaking properly planned, as show every move he made, from daring to ask for the body and getting Pilate to give orders to have the body delivered to his place away from the crosses, buying the linen; advising Nicodemus; arranging with the women to attend; and eventually to bring the body to its place of interment and lay it down. John relates the whole process, like this: “Then ....” – that was long after Joseph had asked Pilate’s permission and long after Nicodemus “came there also” – “Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen sheets with the spices – as the manner of the Jews (according to the passover-prescriptions) is to bury.”
And so they buried Jesus.
John does not give every or all the detail, as is obvious from the other Gospels. (The laying in the tomb was the penultimate action; the closing of the grave with the stone door, was the final action. John says nothing about it.)
Nor do any of the other Gospels give all the details, and I've never said otherwise. Yet all do give some details.
It proves John often makes use of interjected parentheses; that’s all. But which says more than what you can be comfortable with, because John does not to the sequence of his sentences follow chronological sequence. On the contrary, it is characteristic of John by way of parentheses to ever so often look back, and give a summary of events up to a certain point in time past. Like in verse 41-42, where John refers back and reminisces,
“There was in the place where He was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new tomb (Joseph’s) in which was never man laid yet. There, where the tomb was nearby therefore, they by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning (on Fridays) had finished to bury Jesus.”
I disagree with your assessment here. It takes a preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing' to support this, and the language would imply nothing other that chronological reading, here.
I don’t know what you actually mean; whether you are confirming what I have said, or are negating it.
However, John follows the historical sequence of events in chapter 19 from verse 30 on – clearly.
Verse 30 : Jesus died;
verse 31, “The Jews therefore ....” that is, “because”, it in the mean time, “had become the Preparation Day (Friday, i.e., Thursday night : cf. Mk15:42) .... asked Pilate ....”
32— “Then came the soldiers ....”
33— “But when they came to Jesus ....”
34— “But one of the soldiers ....”
35— Parenthesis: “But he that saw bare record ....” of the things that had happened up to this point and after.
36-37— Another parenthesis within a parenthesis.
Historical chronology resumed ....
38— Joseph after this (the Jew’s preventive request in verse 31)
Parenthesis: “being a disciple ....”
Sequence: “besought Pilate ....”
Parenthesis: “but secretly ....”
Sequence: “Pilate gave leave ....”
Sequence: “He (Joseph) came therefore ....”
Sequence: “and he took the body ....”
Sequence: “And there came also Nicodemus ....”
Parenthesis (past): “which at the first came to Jesus ....”
Sequence: “and brought a mixture of myrrh ....”
Parenthesis: “about an hundred pound ....”
Sequence: “Then took they the body ....”
Sequence: “and wound it ....”
Parenthesis: “according to the traditional laws ....”
Parenthesis: “now there was in the place ....
Parenthesis (past): where He was crucified, a garden; ....
Parenthesis: and in the garden a new tomb ....
Parenthesis: in which was never man laid yet.
Parenthesis: There, where the tomb was nearby therefore ....
Parenthesis: by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning ....
Sequence: they finished to bury Jesus.”
To follow the historical sequence of events one may read the predicative clauses only; the parenthetic phrases and clauses are not ordered by chronological sequence. It requires no “preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing'”— actual events, content and context show John employed chronological and parenthetical, non-chronological language and style here.
What was near?
“Because the grave was near they buried Jesus there”,
not, Because the Sabbath was near they buried Jesus there’! (Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel) Not because the day was virtually over “buried they Jesus there”, but because three quarters of a day in time ago Joseph already had had begun his undertaking; and “Now therefore they (finishing entombment) laid Jesus there by preparations-time of the Jews (having dawned) and the sepulchre was (prepared and) near (and ready at hand).”
“IMO (It was the Preparation, i.e. 14 Nisan, or Passover, although colloquial usage had now relegated the Biblical usage of "Passover", to what was properly "the feast of Unleavened bread", "the Sabbath drew near" and now not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur, with the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread) to precede the regular weekly Sabbath that fell on Nisan 16 of that year.”
How near perfect are we in agreement here, dear Ed Sutton! Especially for this enquiry we are busy with, your words: “now not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur .....” “were”, “to”, occur! Now, of the “two Sabbaths”, the first one, “the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread)” – was prospective; it lay ahead, it was “to”, occur!
But where in time do we find ourselves, “Now”? for this, you give conflicting information!
First you say “It was the Preparation” – a reference to Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 and Jn19:31. “Now when evening had come it being the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” : Friday, which as yet, was, “to”, occur, still, yes. But, which as “now”, had had begun already, by “now, had been (its) evening already”, it by “now”, being after “sundown”, “already”. And Joseph “after these things” – which the Jews after sunset had done before he could do anything – “now” only, went to Pilate to ask for the body. “The Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread)”, “now”, was not only yet future – was not only yet “to occur”; “drew near” no longer : it “already had had started”. “Now” we in time find ourselves at the beginning of Joseph’s undertaking! Not even in it, yet!
And this now is where you make your mistake, and contradict yourself, where you confuse the end of this day (and Joseph’s undertaking), with its own beginning, and put its “mid-afternoon” ending-period (and Joseph’s closing of the grave) – its ‘drawing near-to-the-Sabbath, closing-period’ – right at this day’s “evening” after “sundown” beginning-period. In one breath you say, “It was the Preparation” quoting Mk15:42, and, “the Sabbath drew near” quoting Luke 23:54 as were these texts speaking of the same period of day. Instead of to allocate Lk23:54, “daylight (of Friday) tended towards the (pending weekly) Sabbath” that as yet had not started but was yet “to occur”, you allocate it to when the rest of “the feast of Unleavened bread”-‘sabbath’ that “had had begun already” the previous “evening”, was yet “to occur”.
Yes, “now”, “when it had become evening and the Preparation” – Friday night – not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur” yet, “with the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread)” that preceded the regular weekly Sabbath, “already” (‘ehdeh’), its “evening” proper after ‘sundown’, “come”, current, and, prospective.
“Yet both were Sabbaths ....”
“There is not any difference between "a holy convocation" and "a holy convocation" in Lev. 21; I do not believe, at least as I am able to read Scripture. The Sabbath was a time of rest, not activity.”
On both aspects I beg to differ with you greatly, but which things at this point in time and argument are of less importance. See other discussions between us and sundry studies of mine on these issues.
38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission.
Note that the NASB and ESV here correctly translate the force of " ἵνα " which means 'in order that' or 'so that' with the subjunctive.
Thank you very much; it is only confirming what I have been trying to say all the time, that the day that already had begun with the evening and Joseph's actions, the great day sabbath, had only begun and was in progress and prospective still, so that all these things recorded from Mk15:42/ Jn19:31 on, might or could still be done on it until such time "that day", Friday would END: "mid-afternoon the Sabbath pending".
The "force" of the Subjunctive is clearly emphatic: These things all would be done according to the Predestination and Providence of God. I think I said it in that way somehow, from the beginning until now.
“God hath begotten us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ unto a lively hope to an inheritance incorruptible.” 1Pt1:3-4
8 June 2009
Pvt Bag X43