Onlangse
Opstelle
CGE Verdana 12
Skrif Onderstreep
Nadruk CGE
Ander Kursief
Barnabas
Tony Zbaraschuk, 22 Sep 2005,
Re: Barnabas and eighth day,
Wrote:
TZ:
The Word of Gerhard Ebersoehn came to
the Net, claiming:
From what word
of Barnabas does one get the idea
he with 'eighth
day', meant Sunday?
Or, even more far–fetched, the 'Lord's
Day'?
….
Barnabas associates the Seventh Day Sabbath
with 'the eighth
day' – there is not the least
allusion to any
other day (of the week) per se in
Baranbas. He identifies
the 'eighth day'
with “the
seventh period” – which 'period' he
(in his own way)
derives from the Seventh Day Sabbath Day!
TZ:
I really do not see where you are getting this from the text, which is very
specifically _contrasting_
the two days rather than identifying
them.
The eighth day, to Barnabas,
is the day the Lord rose from the dead,
and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now
are”.
We know from the Gospels that Jesus rose
from the dead the day after the Sabbath, and Barnabas is pretty obviously
drawing a connection between the first day of the week when God begun to create
everything, and the first day of the new
week when everything was re–created.
Note that I don't accept Barnabas as canon, so I don't have to worry about this
being used as authority for us to keep the Sabbath at present. But I
think it _does_ tell us what at least some Christians were doing in the
generation or two after the apostles.
….
I think you are allowing your (very justifiable) desire to keep the Sabbath to
override the plain evidence that some second–century Christians were no longer
keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first–century ones. ….
Consider:
“… plain evidence that some second–century
Christians were no longer keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first–century ones.”
GE:
It may surprise you, but I maintain some second–century
Christians were no longer keeping the Sabbath, but Sunday. Justin Martyr
supplies the first ‘plain evidence’ of it though – not Barnabas.
And it may surprise you even more, if I told you I believe
Sunday–worship tried to make its inroads into Christianity at a VERY early date
(but failed), for Paul reprimands the Galatian Congregations they were “superstitiously
observing days” etc. so as for them to have “made u–turn” to their “weak and
beggarly (former) principles” – to their “by nature not gods” – which they “desired
/ lusted” to “serve / worship again”, just as when they “knew not God”, and
were pagans still.
As to Barnabas:
I first wrote, “From what word of Barnabas does one get the
idea he with 'eighth day', meant Sunday? Or, even more far–fetched, the 'Lord's
Day'?”
I used the words “what word” not without purpose! You
supplied the word,
“The eighth
day, to Barnabas, is the day the Lord
rose from the dead,
and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now
are”.
We know from the Gospels
that Jesus rose from the dead
the day after the Sabbath,
and Barnabas is pretty obviously
drawing a connection between the
first day of the week
when God begun to create everything,
and the first day of the new week
when everything was re–created.”
But then I said, “associated”; you quote me as having said
Barnabas “identified” “the two days” – “the eighth day” and “the Seventh Day
Sabbath Day” with one another! I did not say that; I wrote: “He identifies the
'eighth day' with “the seventh period” – which 'period' he (in his own way)
derives from the Seventh Day Sabbath Day!” Quite different things!
Now Barnabas is NOT “very specifically _contrasting_ the two
days”
–
he concludes hither and thither from any which one of
them. If he makes any sure impression it is of confusing his concepts of the
‘days’, “periods” and even “years”.
–
TZ:
The eighth day, to Barnabas,
is the day the Lord rose from the dead,
and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now
are”.
GE:
This is what Barnabas actually wrote,
“The Lord says to them (the Jews), I cannot stand your new
moons and your Sabbaths! Do you not see what he means? He means the present
Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that which I have made, in which I will
give rest to all things and make the beginning of an eighth day that is the
beginning of another world. Wherefore we also celebrate with gladness the
eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and
ascended into heaven.”
Barnabas undeniably associates “Sabbaths” with “the eighth
day”, namely, “Sabbaths … that which I have made, in which I will give rest to
all things and make the beginning of an eighth day that is the beginning of
another world”.
He does NOT associate anything with the First Day of the
week!
Barnabas associates these ‘Sabbaths’ – of whatever nature
they may be – with some allegorical period which he describes metaphorically
with the phrase “the eighth day” – “the eighth day IN WHICH, Jesus also rose
from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven”.
Regardless
of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! ‘Very specifically’
this is NO specific ‘day’ of the week! The ONLY thing ‘pretty obvious’, is that
Barnabas does NOT ‘identify’ the ‘eighth day’ with the First Day of the week,
but rather associates it with the ‘old’ Sabbaths, even in their ‘present
unacceptability’.
Barnabas blames Christians (“children”, 4) for
keeping their “present Sabbaths” without
Christian meaning. He does not vent ‘anti–Jewish sentiments’ at all, but
explains that Christians, no longer should keep the Sabbath because the Law
forces them to. According to Barnabas, in believing in Christ these Christians
ought to have found the true Sabbath that God from the beginning had intended
for them – which according to Barnabas was no literal day whatsoever.
Barnabas does so through a process of reasoning the literal
Seventh Day Sabbath of creation (15:1–3) as “meaning” a period of “thousand years” (4); as well as “meaning” some
metaphysical day of judgement (5). The
Sabbath (according to Barnabas) no longer can be a specific day, because it is
impossible to keep properly, but rather is ‘meant’ as a “promise” of Christ – 6–7.
8: “Further He says to them (at Sinai,
15:1, “my sons”, 2), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths!
See what He means,
Unacceptable are (your) present
Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which I had made, in which thing I
shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth day that is (the) beginning of
another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the eighth day with joy, in which
day Jesus rose from the dead, and having been made manifest, indeed ascended
into heavens.” (Rendering CGE)
In this there is no suggestion of the First Day of the week!
Barnabas presents the new meaning, the Sabbath had received in the event of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was this,
“… Something I had made /
perfected – ho pepoiehka”, and “in which everything
rested”,
which now, was made “a beginning of another world” (8b). This is
a direct reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where “He
(God) speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the creation”, when “God on the Seventh Day in the day (of it) made and end / perfected
(sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it (the Seventh Day)”.
According to Barnabas this day, and “in it”, first of all, the ‘new’ world of the
Christ–era “became”, or “was made a beginning of”. And in the end, it meant, that “When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the wicked one, and
then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day”. (5)
“No one, at the present time, has
the power to keep holy the day which God had made holy” (6) – which
can ‘mean’ any or both of the Seventh Day or the
experiencing of the reality of the ‘day’ of the ‘new
beginning’.
“But when all things have been
made new by the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy”. (7) Barnabas
here of course refers to the new earth after Christ’s return, and again he is
ambiguous as to the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the ‘day’ of the ‘new
beginning’. In any case, Barnabas makes
association between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new
Sabbaths of after Christ had come and had made everything new through
resurrection from the
dead.
The First Day never comes into the picture.
And there is only one perfection envisioned by Barnabas –
the “ending made / perfected” which is
simultaneously the “beginning made / perfected” of, and in,
and by, the single and comprehensive moment of Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and 2, of Him appearing (before the
throne of God), and 3, of Him being taken up or exalted into heavens. (9)
This is what Barnabas meant is the Sabbath–Seventh Day’s “meaning”: “He (God) means this!”, 4, “Notice children, what is the meaning of He made and end …”. It is “an eighth day” that is BOTH and AT ONCE God’s “making and END”, and His ‘making a NEW BEGINNING”.
Common sense despite Barnabas himself, can only ‘identify’
this “eighth day” with the Seventh Day he has been
speaking of all along – the Sabbath Day that “presently” was kept in an
“unacceptable”, Judaistic way for the Law’s sake, and
not because and for the sake of Jesus
Christ. With that, my conviction is in perfect sympathy.
If the First Day of the week ever came into play or at all
was relevant, Barnabas would have mentioned it in so many words; he would have
made the direct association between the Christ–event and the First Day of the
week which he is making between the Christ–event and the Seventh Day Sabbath.
Because Barnabas specifically and in detail makes mention of the Divine acts of
the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out the actual deeds of God on and of
the First Day, had he ‘meant’ the First Day
of the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later
would do – he would have made mention of the First Day, and he would have made
mention of God’s creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to
anything of the kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First
Day of the week in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into
association with the ‘Eighth Day’ because of false ‘translation’ of Mt.28:1,
amounts to adulterating the Scriptures (the way Justin did).
If this is below the standards of SDANet for publishing, I
would call it cowardice for hearing the truth. And kindly don’t repeat the
objection it is “incoherent”, for better coherency in this case of Barnabas’
allegorical reasoning, is just not possible, and is used as an easy but poor excuse
to present a better explanation than ever before of the issue.
Wrote Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator, to me,
“Gerhard,
After discussion with the other moderators, I am rejecting this post.
Your argument does not seem even coherent, much less a worthwhile contribution
to the SDAnet discussion environment.
Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator”
This is what I had written
To: SDANet Re: Barnabas and First Day
...how Barnabas got to ‘the eighth day’ – from the Sabbath – “Seventh DAY”, to
the “seventh PERIOD”, to “the EIGHTH day”; and IT being IDENTIFIED with the
Christ–EVENT in whole.
Now, Tony Zbaraschuk (SDANET 23 Sept), wrote:
“We know from the Gospels
that Jesus rose from the dead the day after the Sabbath, and Barnabas is pretty
obviously drawing a connection between
the first day of the week when God begun to create everything, and the first
day of the new week when everything was re–created.”
Replied I, GE:
First: We know nothing from the
Gospels what Barnabas was doing.
Two: From Barnabas himself it is not
at all obvious he drew a connection between, quoting TZ:
“the first day of the week when God begun to
create everything, and the first day of the new week when everything was re–created.”
That is what TZ thinks – not what Barnabas wrote. (I have shown above what
Barnabas wrote – and thought.)
Three: SUPPOSE Barnabas had the
Gospels' ONLY account of the day and time of Jesus' resurrection in mind –
Mt.28:1.
Then keep in mind he wrote about a quarter of a century before Justin and could
therefore not have been misled by Justin's rendering of Mt.28:1.
So Barnabas – who wrote in Greek had Mt.28:1 the way we read it today in its
ORIGINAL text in mind – we suppose.
Then: he pretty obviously drew a
connection between the Seventh Day of the week “Sabbath”,
when God FINISHED ALL HIS WORKS when everything was re–created by “the
exceeding greatness of His power to us–ward ... which He wrought in Christ when
He raised Him from the dead” ... “IN THE SABBATH'S FULLNESS” – opse de
sabbatohn – every thought and every word written “according to (as could and
should be expected) the Scriptures”!
The LAST 'day / period' is what Barnabas was writing about – not the First Day.
Four: Then for TZ's information: You
did not give in English what Matthew or Mark (16:9) wrote; you gave Justin's
perversion of Mt.28:1.
Five: And with that you have the
EARLIEST (after Gal.4:10) indication of how Sunday–observance started in the
Christian Church – it began with the adulteration of the Scriptures—
adulteration like that of TZ’s.
Barnabas associates the 'Sabbaths' – the Old Covenant
Sabbath by reason of the Law – with some allegorical period which he describes
metaphorically with the phrase “the eighth day” – “the eighth day IN WHICH,
Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven”.
Regardless of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! 'Very specifically' this is NO specific 'day' of the week!
The ONLY thing 'pretty obvious', is that Barnabas does NOT 'identify' the 'eighth day' with the First Day of the week,
but rather associates it with the 'old' Sabbaths, even in their 'present
unacceptability'.
Barnabas blames Christians (“children”, 4) for keeping their “present Sabbaths”
without Christian meaning. He does not vent 'anti–Jewish sentiments' at all, but explains that Christians,
no longer should keep the Sabbath because
the Law forces them to. According to Barnabas, in believing in Christ,
these Christians ought to have found the true Sabbath that God from the
beginning had intended for them – which according to Barnabas was no literal day whatsoever.
Barnabas does so through a process of reasoning the literal Seventh Day Sabbath of creation (15:1–3)
as ‘meaning’ a period of “thousand years” (4); as well as ‘meaning’ some
metaphysical day of judgement (5). The Sabbath – according to Barnabas – no
longer can be a specific day, the First Day of the week included, because
impossible to keep properly, but rather is 'meant' as a “promise” of Christ – 6–7.
8: “Further He says to them (at Sinai, 15:1, “my sons”, 2), I cannot stand your
new moons and your Sabbaths! See what He
means,
Unacceptable are (your) present Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which
I had made, in which thing I shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth
day that is (the) beginning of another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the
eighth day with joy, in which day Jesus rose from the dead, and (after) having
been made manifest, indeed ascended into heavens.” (Rendering CGE)
In this there is no suggestion of the First Day of the week! Barnabas presents ‘the–new–meaning–the–Sabbath–received’
in the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was this,
“... Something I had made / perfected – ho pepoiehka”, and “in which everything
rested”, which now, was made “a beginning of another world” (8b). This is a
direct reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where “He (God) speaks of the Sabbath at
the beginning of the creation”, when “God on the Seventh Day in the day (of it)
made and end / perfected (sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it
(the Seventh Day)”.
According to Barnabas this day, and “in it”, first of all,
the 'new' world of the Christ–era “became”, or “was made a beginning of”. And
in the end, it meant, that “When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the
wicked one, and then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day”. (5)
“No one, at the present time, has the power to keep holy the day which God had
made holy” (6) – which can 'mean' any or both of the Seventh Day or the experiencing
of the reality of the 'day' of the 'new beginning'. “But when all things have been made new by
the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy”. (7) Barnabas here of course
refers to the new earth after Christ's return, and again he is ambiguous as to
the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the 'day' of the 'new beginning'. In any case, Barnabas makes association
between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new Sabbaths of after
Christ had come and had made everything new through resurrection from the
dead. The First Day never comes into
the picture.
Only one perfection is envisioned by Barnabas – the “ending made / perfected”
which is simultaneously the “beginning made / perfected” of, and in, and by,
the single and comprehensive moment of Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and 2, of
Him appearing (before the throne of God), and 3, of Him being taken up or
exalted into heavens. (9)
This is what Barnabas meant is the Sabbath–Seventh Day's “meaning”: “He (God)
means this!”, 4, “Notice children, what is the meaning of He made and end ...”.
It is “an eighth day” that is BOTH and AT ONCE God's “making and END”, and His
'making a NEW BEGINNING”.
Common sense despite Barnabas himself, can only 'identify' this “eighth day”
with the Seventh Day he has been speaking of all along – the Sabbath Day that “presently”
was kept in an “unacceptable”, Judaistic way for the Law's sake, and not
because and for the sake of Jesus Christ. With that, my conviction is in
perfect sympathy.
If the First Day of the week ever came into play or at all was relevant,
Barnabas would have mentioned it in so many words; he would have made the
direct association between the Christ–event and the First Day of the week which
he is making between the Christ–event and the Seventh Day Sabbath. Because
Barnabas specifically and in detail makes mention of God’s Divine acts of the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out
the actual deeds of God on and of the First Day, 'meant' he, the First Day of
the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later would
do – he would have mentioned the First Day, and he would have mentioned God's
creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to anything of the
kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First Day of the week
in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into association with
the 'Eighth Day' because of false 'translation' of Mt.28:1, amounts to
adulterating the Scriptures— the exact same way Justin did.
If this gets regarded as below the standards of SDANet for publishing, I would
call it cowardice for hearing the truth. And kindly don't repeat the objection
it is “incoherent”, for better coherency in this case of Barnabas' allegorical
reasoning, is just not possible, and is used as an easy but poor excuse to
present a better explanation of Barnabas in this matter than ever before.
1 October 2005
Buried Before Sunset On Same Day Crucified?
Women Prepared Spices at the End, while Men at
Days’ Beginning.
Cronin:
Note: The buying and
preparing of the spices and oils by the women occurred between two Sabbaths. Therefore, these two Sabbaths
could not have been concurrent, as is popularly believed. And, as
John 19:31 explains, the first Sabbath, the one immediately after Jesus'
death, was a High Day, that is, an annual Holy Day, the First Day of Unleavened
Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.
“The buying and
preparing...” – Wrong! “The buying and preparing occurred between two Sabbaths...” – Wrong! ‘The preparing occurred’ immediately after
the interment on the first of the two consecutive ‘sabbaths’, on
the Passover’s ‘Great Day’–sabbath, in its closing hours before sunset before
the weekly Sabbath. And ‘the buying
occurred’, after the second ‘sabbath’, after “the Sabbath
according to the commandment”, after it “had gone through” – so
that the women “bought” spices, on the First Day of the week in fact— not
to be confused with their ‘preparations’ on Friday afternoon. “Therefore, these
two Sabbaths could not have been concurrent, as is popularly believed”, nor could they have been separated
by another ‘ordinary’ day between them, as you would have liked it popularly
believed. Yet it was on precisely this ‘intermediate’ day of your imagining
which in actual fact was the Passover’s sabbath–day, that Joseph and
Nicodemus did their undertaking— according to your reasoning then, after the
women— while in fact the women did their preparations after the men!
Only the ‘preparing’ of the
spices and oils by the two
Marys ‘occurred’, well on “(Friday)
afternoon / while the (weekly) sabbath drew on” well on
Passover–sabbath of that Friday. And only the ‘buying’ (for Salome’s
sake) – “occurred”, “after the Sabbath”. The “buying” of the spices by three women, was “after the
Sabbath” or “when the Sabbath was past”— nothing of the sort “occurred”
on any day in “between two Sabbaths”!
... The “two
Sabbaths” were: Friday ‘Passover–sabbath’; and Saturday ‘weekly Sabbath’, Nisan
15 and Nisan 16. Crucifixion was on “The Preparation of the Passover”, Nisan
14, Thursday.
Cronin:
Then “they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested on
the Sabbath day according to the commandment”
(Luke 23:56).
No women or men after the crucifixion and before
sunset prepared or bought spices or ointments. No women
before or for the burial, prepared or bought spices or ointments. Nobody ever expected a burial! The two Marys on Friday afternoon after the burial “prepared”; and
they and Salome on Saturday evening after
the burial, “went to buy” spices and ointments, so that they “on the Sabbath day according to the commandment”, the Fourth Commandment, first “rested”. The way you emphasised, the women both ‘returned and prepared spices and
ointments and rested, on the Sabbath day according to the commandment’, as if ‘the
commandment’, were a ‘ceremonial commandment’. But they rather ‘returned and prepared spices and
ointments’ after they had seen the tomb closed; then, “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment”.
All and any preparations or buying of
spices or ointments before or for
the burial, were made by men, before “the Sabbath according to the Commandment” but after “it had become evening” —
therefore, were made during Thursday
night on “the Day of Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath”–Friday. Any and
all preparations or buying of spices or ointments for the burial were made during about six hours or longer after the crucifixion and only after Joseph had begun with the
customary preparations for burial, about fifteen to twenty hours before he closed the grave “And that day was the
preparation, and the sabbath drew on”!
The women on Friday afternoon after the burial “went home” – to
Jerusalem like in every time Luke uses the word “to return” – hupostréphoh, Lk23:54–56. The women’s was a returning to prepare. Theirs then was no
returning after a purchase of
ointments and spices, because this was “(Friday) afternoon”, not Saturday
evening “when the Sabbath was past”, Mk16:2, and the women “went and bought spices”. This was their second ‘returning’ – their
first was after the crucifixion the day before. (Lk23:56 cf. 48c) “They prepared
spices and ointments” directly after
the two Marys had “looked on how the body was laid”. Then, “the Sabbath approached”, and they after they had done
to prepare, “began to rest the Sabbath”, the ‘Sabbath’ in both 54 and 56. The “preparation” of spices by the two Marys therefore was on Friday
afternoon after the burial and “before the Sabbath” ‘epéfohsken
sábbaton’. The “buying” of the spices by three women, was “after
the Sabbath” (Mk16:1a) – more than
24 hours later. Both the after the burial “preparation” and after the burial “buying”,
were meant for application at the first possible opportunity after the Sabbath, which the women must
have realised because of the Roman guard,
would present itself after midnight of Saturday night when the Roman day and
watch would have ended. Therefore, “deepest morning (‘orthrou batheohs’) came
the women bringing their spices …”, Lk24:1.
Cronin:
“When evening 2
had come...” Joseph of Arimathea
walked ... to Pilate ... to ask of him the body of Jesus” ... “Note the use and
application of the term “evening.” Clearly, evening was before sunset and must have been
considerably longer than just an hour and twenty minutes before sunset. Joseph
had time enough to do all these things and still finish before sunset. Since the
Passover could not be sacrificed until “between the two evenings,” and according to some, that must
be between 3:00 in the afternoon and sunset, but others consider it to be
between sunset and dark, this scripture is evidence that it is the former
definition that is the Biblically accepted meaning of the term.
Since the Passover had to be sacrificed “between the PAIR OF NIGHTS” – that of the
14th Nisan ending and that of the 15th Nisan beginning –
Jesus was crucified 9 am and died 3:00 in the afternoon. Then after sunset,
between sunset and dark, this Scripture (Mk.15:42 / Mt.27:57) is evidence that
after sunset is the definition that is the Biblically accepted meaning of the
term. Mk.15:42 / Mt.27:57 has no
relevancy to the time of the sacrifice of the Passover – it simply gives the
time when Joseph began undertaking.
Evening was after sunset and Joseph must have had time considerably longer than
just an hour and twenty minutes. He had enough time to do all these things; in
fact, he had until the following day about 3 p.m., well ‘before sunset’. Mk15:42 and Mt27:57 have no ‘between’, nor “two evenings”, but ‘opsia’, singular.
So does any day have one undividable evening, always from sunset until
dark, which when Joseph appeared on the scene,
had already begun. ‘Evening’, even ‘considered to be between sunset and
dark”, is still ‘evening’ after sunset,
not “before sunset”. To make Joseph and the women start after 3 pm, “do all
these things”, “go home and prepare spices”, “and still finish before sunset” or forty minutes later, is not even comical. The Greek word here used, opsía, without exception means the early part of night after
sunset before deep night (6 to 7.30 maybe 8 pm)— fifteen times without
exception in the NT! Mark and Matthew say “evening already had begun” and that “it
was the Preparation”. Mark says “the Preparation which is the Fore–sabbath”,
that is to say, Friday. John says Joseph did so “after these things”, 19:38,
referring to “The Jews (who) therefore because it was the Preparation (now),
that the bodies should not on the sabbath day remain upon the cross because
that sabbath would be a great day— asked Pilate to have the legs of the
crucified broken.” Jn19:31. The Sixth
Day was beginning; it was after sunset at night now, and the “great day” of Passover–”sabbath”, prospective.
Cronin:
“When evening
had come...” Joseph of Arimathea walked from
Incorrect! “walked from Golgotha”—
Nobody remained at
Cronin:
Pilate investigated the death of Jesus,
to find “if he had been dead for some time” (Mark 15:44),
and granted Joseph his request (Matt 27:58, Mark 15:45,
John 19:38. Joseph went to buy “fine linen” — presumably in
For the exact order of Joseph’s actions
– he first took the body down, and then removed it from the place of the
crucifixion to the place he could “treat the body”, and then only, must have
gone out to buy the linen. The implication is, Joseph did not immediately and at the cross, prepare or bury the body of
Jesus.
Cronin:
He then walked back to
Joseph then walked back to the place he
had taken the body to for safekeeping and preparation – probably where he
stayed for the Passover; it isn’t recorded; we correctly may assume it.
Cronin:
He and Nicodemus (John 19:39) “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with
the spices...” (John 19:40, Matt 27:59), “and laid it in his
[Joseph's] own new tomb” (Matt 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53,
John 19:39–42).
Here you put together two events that in
fact had been separated by quite a
few hours and the going under of the sun! Although the text in Mark and Matthew
mentions different things in one breath, it does not mean they happened
simultaneously. John e.g., mentions Nicodemus’ arrival at the scene of Joseph’s
preparation of the body some good part of the night after Joseph’s initial request for and removal of the body. The
preparation was properly done “according to the Jewish usage”, and must have
taken Joseph – and later on also Nicodemus – the whole night! This brings us to
the two things I say you should have separated instead of have put together:
They are: “... (they) wound it in linen cloths
with the spices...”, and “... laid it in his [Joseph's] tomb”. Most part of
night, and good deal of day, separated Joseph’s first initiatives and the finishing
of his undertaking.
Cronin:
“And that day
was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on” (Luke 23:54, John 19:42).
Here we have the last word on Jesus’ burial, “as the sun (“light” – fohs) was sinking towards (the west), the Sabbath approaching” – epéfohsken
sábbaton— not of his death. The weekly Sabbath approached. You in the wrong place make it the ‘Great Day’–sabbath of Passover that was
prospective; you confuse Mk15:42 and Mt27:57 for this place, Lk23:53–56.
But see Lk23:48–49 which you have overlooked!
In Lk23:53–56 it is the immediate
day before “the Sabbath according to the Commandment” – the weekly Sabbath,
that was running out. You seem to
have forgotten that you yourself have shown how on the day before, after
the crucifixion and after “the
evening had come”, Joseph only had begun
his undertaking, so that, by the time he – the
next day – had finished, “it was the preparation, and / while the sabbath
drew on”— “that day”, had been, the burial; which implies, crucifixion
had had happened the day before, and
was, the Thursday.
Cronin:
“And the
women also, which came with Him from
This happened just before your point “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew
on” (Luke 23:54, John 19:42).”
The women followed in the procession to
the grave. They must have joined with Joseph and Nicodemus during the course of
Friday morning. Four people only – the Scriptures mention them only – “beheld how
his body was laid”. Only these
knew of the interment – nobody else – no disciple besides these, and no Jew or
Roman.
Cronin:
“And that day
was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”.
... referring to the burial, not the crucifixion. The women
after the burial and after sundown, “began
to rest the Sabbath” the whole Sabbath’s rest (Ingressive Aorist). On Sabbath
morning, the Jews came to know of Jesus’ burial— all their plans thwarted, and
asked Pilate to have the grave sealed and guarded “for the third day”, Mt27:62–66.
Cronin:
“And when the Sabbath
was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Solome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and
anoint him” (Mark 16:1).
“(H)ad bought” is old English
for the ordinary past tense. The Greek simply states the fact: “When the Sabbath was past, the three women “bought sweet spices”. This time
there are three women – Salome who was absent from the burial has now joined
the two Marys. The buying of spices most probably was for the sake of her who
did not know about the burial.
“(T)hat they
might come and anoint him” has a future, tentative connotation. They “bought when the
Sabbath had passed” – that is, they bought during the evening of after–sunset,
‘Saturday’–night. But they could not immediately go and anoint Him. Why not?
Because according to the Roman
reckoning of time the guard’s watch
would last till midnight. Only after midnight would any disciples of Jesus
again be allowed to approach the grave. Mk16:2 gives a time of a later
actualised visit of the women to
the grave when it was “very early sunrise” – lían
prohí anatéílantos tou hehlíou – by far not
the time of their buying the spices
just after sunset.
Cronin:
As John 19:31 explains, the first
Sabbath, the one immediately after Jesus' death, was a High Day, that is, an
annual Holy Day, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.
Rather, as John 19:31 explains, the
first of the two Sabbaths was the one on which Joseph would bury Jesus, and was a High Day, that is, an annual Holy Day,
the First Day of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath. It was pending because it had just begun.
The Passover Institution had the “remains” of the Passover lambs
returned to dust and earth on the Feast Sabbath that followed “the day when they always slaughtered the Passover”.
Ex12:10. When Jesus was crucified our Passover and Lamb of God, His body was
sealed in the earth on the Passover Feast’s Sabbath Day – “a Great Day that day
was”, John says. “That day” was what we call, Friday, and “the Sabbath
approaching” was “the Sabbath according to the (Ten) Command–ment(s)”— the second and consecutive Sabbath during
that Passover Feast. “They could not have been concurrent”, but also were not
separated by a day in
between them.
Cronin:
“Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulchre.” (Matt 28:1 3 ,
Luke 24:1, Mark 16:2, John 20:1)
There are two crucial mistakes in this
‘translation’ of the text. “Dawn” from ‘epifohskóúsehi’ should be “afternoon” –
like in Lk.23:56 where “the Sabbath
approached”–‘epéfohsken sábbaton’ on Friday afternoon; and ‘came’ should be “went
to look”, “éhlthen theohréhsai”. Because of the guard the women’s intention “to go have a look at the
grave” was frustrated; and the occurrence of the earthquake made impossible the occurrence of their intended visit.
Also from the reports of the women’s realised
visits to the grave on Sunday morning is it clear they had not actually visited
the grave before then.
Cronin:
The women could not have bought the spices after
the sun set on “Saturday” because:
If there had been any businesses open on the
Sabbath (unlikely, because the Jews were strict in not allowing such at that
time) they would have closed for the day before dark; and,
It is highly unlikely that any businesses would
have opened after sunset.
‘Businesses ... unlikely’, but for any
who “have need against Passover”— see
Jn13:29. Here it was Joseph and Nicodemus “after it had become evening ...”,
even “night”, “in need against Passover” for the interment of the Lamb of God’s
Passover. And the women before sunset on
this very ‘Great Day’ “the Sabbath approaching”, “in need against Passover”
indeed ‘preparing’ for the embalmment of the Lamb of God’s Passover “after the
Sabbath had gone through”! These were no ‘foolish virgins’ who before midnight
bought their oil, but faithful followers “in need against Passover” “nothing
let remaining … with loins girded, shoes on, and staff in hand … this night …
the LORD’s Passover” observing.
Summary
1.”The ninth
hour...” (3 p.m.) Jesus died. Matt 27:46–50, Mark 15:34–37,
Luke 23:44–46, John 19:28–30).
2.”When
evening had come...” (6 p.m.) Joseph of Arimathea walked to Pilate to ask of him
the body of Jesus (Matt 27:57–58, Mark 15:42–43, Luke 23:50–52,
John 19:38).
3. Pilate investigated the death of Jesus,
to find “if he had been dead for some time” (Mark 15:44),
and granted Joseph his request (Matt 27:58, Mark 15:45,
John 19:38.
4. Joseph then walked back to
5. He then went to buy “fine linen” (Mark 15:46).
6. He and Nicodemus (John 19:39) “Then treated the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the
spices...” (John 19:40, Matt 27:59),
7. “And the
women also, who came with Him from
8. Then “they
returned, and prepared spices and ointments...(Luke 23:56).
8. “And (retrospectively) that day was
the preparation, and the Sabbath (now) drew on” (Luke 23:54,
John 19:42).
9. “They (the women) started to rest the
Sabbath Day according to the commandment.”
10. “Late on the Sabbath Day, after the
noon, before the First Day of the week, (when) went Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary to look at the grave, and suddenly there was an earthquake …”
Mt.28:1
11. “And when the Sabbath
was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Solome, bought sweet
spices, that they might come and anoint him (Mark 16:1).”
Christ entered hell and tasted death, from “the
table”, through Gethsémané and onward, and died
and
was dead while on the cross for the last three hours of the Preparation day “of the Passover”, and for the entirety of
the first High Day Sabbath ‘the intervening day’ Friday, the second day of the Passover Season, was dead and
buried all but the last three hours of the last
weekly Sabbath, Saturday, “the third
day according to the Scriptures” — exactly three days and three nights, just
as scripture declares (Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, Mr 9:31, 10:34,
Lu 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 21, 46, Ac 10:40, I Cor 15:4). There
is no finagling needed (redefining what a day and night is) to get Scripture to
agree with some preconceived and errant doctrine.
Cronin:
It is also noteworthy that A. T. Robertson, in A Harmony of the Gospels, declares
that the women visited the tomb at dusk*
at the end of the Sabbath (sunset on Saturday)*, not at dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday) as is
popularly believed. ... (meaningless omitted.)
*** ‘at’ – before or after sunset? Robertson does
not say these things! Cronin obviously
means to say ‘ascended’ – not, ‘risen’. Jesus was the First Sheaf through
resurrection from the dead waved before the Lord and “exalted to the right hand
of the power of God in heavenly places” right there on the soil of Calvary’s
hill “in (earthly) Sabbath’s time” (Mt.28:1)! (Ro.1:4, 14:9, Eph.1:19f,
Col.2:12, 15, Phil.2:8–9, 3:10a
Cronin:
After having risen from the dead (GE: on the “afternoon
of the Sabbath” – opse sabbátohn
epifohskóúsehi), what was he doing all night long while waiting for the
disciples to discover him alive at the tomb? However, if it had only been a few
minutes since his resurrection to when the women discovered the empty tomb (as
is suggested by Matt 28:1–15 and Mark 16:1–4), there is no interval
to question.
GE:
“.... what was he doing all night long while waiting...”? Cronin’s ‘answer’ does not solve his ‘problem’
as were it a ‘problem’ for Jesus ‘all night long to have to waited for the
disciples to discover him alive at the tomb’. That “the women discovered the
empty tomb (as is suggested by Matt 28:1–15 and Mark 16:1–4)”, makes no
difference, and there still is the “interval to question”, “what was he doing all night long while
waiting for the disciples to discover him alive”?
There is NO “interval to question” in Matt 28:1–15
or Mark 16:1–4, and it had NOT been “only a few minutes since his
resurrection to when the women discovered the empty tomb”. Since his resurrection to when the women
discovered the empty tomb was as many hours as between 3 pm to after 12 pm on
Saturday night when “on the First Day of the week” in “deep darkness” (Lk.24:1)
the women “came, bringing the spices” to anoint the body. Only Mary had an
earlier glimpse of the rolled away stone
“when it was still early darkness” (Jn.20:1) of that same night.
Jesus Christ,
our Passover lamb, was sacrificed
and died at the time of the Passover
sacrifice of the lambs in the afternoon
at the end of the 14th of Abib
(Nisan) — which occurred on a Thursday
(in 30 AD), the year of his crucifixion. He was finally “laid” in the
sepulchre in the afternoon before sunset the next day, and he experienced death and was in “the heart of the earth” for … three days and three nights, as he had
said He would, until he rose from the dead and his grave in the afternoon long before sunset on that
week's Sabbath — NOT on Sunday morning, as is popularly believed.
Cronin:
Footnotes:
Translation from
A.T. Robertson's A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper San
Francisco, p. 239 — He footnotes this verse (Matt 28:1) with: “This phrase
once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koine Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the
Sabbath was over … (before 6 p.m. on Saturday). But the same Greek
idiom was occasionally (GE: two centuries later!) used in the sense of
after.' Robertson goes on to say that the women likely bought the spices
after sunset. But this is contradictory. (GE: It is no contradiction)
Robertson orders Matt 28:1 the time the women visited the sepulchre (GE: They
did not ‘visit’ – they “set off to go have a look”, but obviously they did not
execute what they intended to do.) at the end of the Sabbath, before
Mark 16:1 (the buying of the spices and oils, after the Sabbath), in
effect, saying that the women went to the sepulchre with the spices and
oils ––– GE: Cronin saying,
not Robertson. This also is not
what Matthew or Mark says; Luke says it – one of those “certain details
included in one account that are not in another”! GE: So they “the earliest morning” – Luke,
went to the sepulchre WITH the spices which the Marys the Friday afternoon
already had prepared, as well as WITH those they had “bought ... when the
Sabbath was over / through”.
Cronin:
“This … shows that there is (GE: all the) evidence
that Jesus did not die on a Friday night and rise on a Sunday morning … and
that translators are subject to bending scripture toward their preconceived
beliefs over the truth.”
GE:
Cronin not only perverts the Scriptures; he also
perverts Robertson’s words and thoughts.
Robertson's
Word Pictures of the New Testament
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? End quote
The providence of God in the development of
‘The Lord’s Day in the
Covenant of Grace’!
Many a time
as I wrote on ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’, I discovered that
there all the while were others who experienced the same problems and came to
the same conclusions as I have about things I thought I have found and tried to
unravel all by myself. I often suspected things to be not as traditionally
accepted, only to be surprised by the reality there are others who agreed with
me— or with whom I, agreed . Sometimes the similarities appeared self–evident
and virtually identical; sometimes they were less conclusive.
But God and
my book are my witnesses I never borrowed or copied the doctrines of others,
whether individual or denominational. My ideas are my own, nevertheless not
mine, but, I pray God, of His Word. My book, I believe, proves the genuineness
of my hopes and claims.
It must be
remembered the book didn’t take shape in time as it did in form. Many sections
are later inserted. I tried to follow in structure the sequence of the events
of the days of God’s Passover. Thereafter the historical development of the
Church to an extent determined the place in the series each Part would receive.
Larger parts shifted into their positions after others had been completed. And
so was it with many smaller parts perhaps comprised of but a single idea.
Till today
some sections of the book are far from finished or not even started properly.
(The “monstrous scope”, as Barth said, of the Sabbath Commandment! Its “vast
scope”, said Calvin I think, or was it Thomas Watson?)
Here then, is
one – and not the least – of those occasions of unawares coincidence. I did know – or came to know many years after
the formulation of my ‘first’ ideas had taken final shape – about A. T. Robertson on this subject in his
‘Grammar’, where he reaches conclusion but cautiously. I would not have thought
he in another work of his, would agree with the results I have found, so almost
exactly and unconditionally! I don’t
hesitate to admit the solace and inspiration it was to me to find myself in
this regard ‘on the same side’ that this great scholar had stood.
Begin en Einde van
Laaste Lyding
Ons vraagstuk doen homself op tweërlei wyse aan ons voor as die vraag na
die betekenis van Mt12:40 en die “drie dae en drie nagte” waarin “die
Seun van die Mens in die hart van die
aarde”, was.
Ons Geloofsbelydenis
verduidelik “in die hart van die aarde”,
as dat Jesus “ter helle neergedaal”
het:
“Ek glo in
God, die Almagtige, Vader, Skepper van hemel en aarde, en in Jesus Christus sy
eniggebore Seun, ons Here, van die Heilige Gees ontvang en uit die maagd Maria
gebore, wat onder Pontius Pilatus gely
het en gekruisig was, gesterf het en begrawe is, wat neergedaal het na die hel,
en op die derde dag volgens die
Skrifte opgestaan het uit die dode,
wat opgevaar het na die hemel en sit aan die regterhand van die krag van God.”
Die volgorde van Jesus se ‘neerdaling’ déúr die lyding héén van sterwens–pyn en doods–smarte, van sterwe, en
van die dood sélf, is nie
kronologies in die Belydenis nie, maar volgens intensiwiteit. ‘Ter helle neergedaal’ som op wat Christus se lyding in totaliteit beteken het –– “... gely
... gekruisig... gesterf ... ... neergedaal, en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan, uit die dode ...”. Wanneer Jesus sy laaste lyding vir die versoening van sondes íngaan – ‘ter helle neerdáál’, sterwe,
begrawe word, en weer opstaan –, sal alles afhang van wat dit is wat sy
‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan betéken,
en waarmee dit ingelui sal
wees.
Eerstens wat
dit gaan beteken.
“Wat neergedaal het na die hel”, en dan, “en
... opgestaan het uit die dode”,
staan alles–verduidelikend náás én teenóór mekaar as uiterste teenoorgesteldes. Daarmee, plaas die Belydenis “ter helle
neergedaal” nie soseer ná “gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf” nie, maar juis vóór, “en op die derde dag volgens die
Skrifte opgestaan uit die dode”.
“Ter helle
neergedaal” word ná “gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf” geplaas, om dit te skei van dié dinge wat Christus direk
onder Pontius Pilatus, “gely het”.
Pilatus kon Jesus “oorlewer om gekruisig en gedood te word”; maar dit was nie
hý, wat Gód, daartoe gebring het om só lief te hê “dat Hy sy Eniggebore Seun gegee het”, om vir die sonde te sterwe
en aldus die smarte van die helse dood te deurgaan nie. Nee, dít, was God se eie, en genade–daad én wilsbesluit. Daarom sê die Belydenis nié, “... gely ... gekruisig ...
neergedaal ... gesterf ...” nie, maar,
“... gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf ... neergedaal ...”, om “neergedaal”, van
‘Pilatus’, wég te kry. Want God in
Christus, het alreeds van ewigheid
af, sy eie verheerliking–deur–neerdaling–ter–helle, gewil, sowel as begin
en onderneem. Ten laaste is dit Gód wat hier en laastens handel, en seëvier, en
nie die begeertes en swakhede van die mens (in Pontius Pilatus verteenwoordig)
nie. Dit dan oor die volgorde in die
bewoording van ons Belydenis.
Ons het
inleidend gesê: Ons vraagstuk doen homself op
tweërlei wyse aan ons voor as die vraag na die betekenis van ons
Geloofsbelydenis dat Jesus “ter helle neergedaal” het, en die betekenis van Mt12:40 en die “drie dae
en drie nagte” waarin “die Seun van die Mens in die hart van die aarde”
was. Wanneer Jesus sy laaste lyding dan sou íngaan, om ‘ter helle neer te daal’, te sterwe, begrawe te word, en
weer op te staan, sal alles afhang van wát
dit is, wat sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan inlui.
Mense het
met twee ‘oplossings’ vir die oënskynlike ‘probleem’ van wat die ‘drie dae’ van
‘ter helle neerdaling’ sou beteken,
vorendag gekom. Volgens my kennis is die ene, ’n splinternuwe fenomeen, en
weereens sover ek weet, heeltemal onbekend in die Christelike dogma tot omtrent
die begin van die twintigste eeu. Hierdie nuutjie wil dan hê dat die periode
wat Jesus in die graf gelê het
die periode van sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ was, en dat die periode wat Hy in die
graf was, die periode uitgemaak het waarna die Skrifte as die “drie dae en drie
nagte in die hart van die aarde” verwys. Met ander woorde, “Die drie dae en
drie nagte” van Mt12:40 begin die oomblik wat Josef die graf toegemaak het, en
eindig die oomblik toe die engel die graf weer oopgemaak het. Of so sê hierdie mense wat vir
hulle drogrede op lasterlike wyse van 1Pt3:18–22 misbruik maak. Ons gaan nie
nou daarop antwoord nie, behalwe om daarop te wys dat dit sou beteken het dat
Jesus nie regtig gesterwe het nie. Tyd vir of nodigheid aan arbitrêre
wanvoorstellings wat die aandag nie werd is nie, het ons nie.
Die ander opvatting
is die oue – die een wat “die Een Algemene Christelike Kerk” (volgens die
Belydenis) nog altyd geglo en bely het, maar wat vir baie van ons vreemd op die
ore geword het. Hierdie Evangelies regte en ware verstaan van Jesus se
‘neerdaling ter helle’ en opstanding “volgens die Skrifte op die derde dag” van
die “drie dae en drie nagte”, is dan eenvoudig wat ons as Christene gewoonweg
en sonder bevraagtekening, nog altyd gegló,
het: “... neergedaal het na die hel, gesterf het en begrawe is en op die derde
dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan het uit die dode ...”.
So ver dit
verskille tussen die twee verklarings van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ en ‘ter
helle neergedaal’ aanbetref, is die eerste en opvallendste verskil dat die
nuutjie die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ in beginsel laaste plaas, naamlik, ná
Christus se kruisiging, sterwe en begrafnis; terwyl die aanvaarde ou opvatting
volgens ons Belydenis, die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ in beginsel éérste plaas,
naamlik, vóór Christus se begrafnis. Jesus se ‘neerdaling na die hel’ en die
ewige dood – sy ondervinding van ‘in die hart van die aarde’ te gewees het –,
word deur sy ganse laaste, en
léwende, ten volle bewúste, lydingserváring,
uitgemaak: van vóór sy kruis, áán sy kruis; en van ín sy sterwe, déúr sy
sterwe, van vóór sy dood, tot áán sy dood en ín sy dood.
Dit laat
onmiddellik die vraag opkom: Hoe
is dit moontlik dat Jesus neergedaal het na die hel terwyl Hy nog nie gesterf
het nie? En ek wil antwoord: Omdat ons al te gou gewoond geraak het aan die
verskuilde onheil bevat in die nuwe opvatting; en lankal te lui geword het om
vir onsself die waaragtige aan die hand van die Skrifte te gaan herbevestig.
Plaas dat ons die moeite doen om behoorlike brood by die bakker te gaan koop,
koop ons sommer so deur die kar se venster die halfgebakte en onsuiwer brousels
van straatverkopers. En ons spysverteringstelsel moet dit ontgeld. Hoe anders
met geestelike dinge?
Hierdie
basiese verskil ten opsigte van die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ – wáár ons dit
plaas, vóór, of ná, Jesus se dood – laat die tweede vraag ontstaan: Wat is die
verwantskap dan tussen Jesus se dood en sy neerdaling ter helle? En my antwoord
vir u oorweging sal die volgende wees:–
Wat is die
verskil tussen Jesus se doodslydende sterwe, en sy dood as sodanig? Want dit
maak die verskil:– Waarmee ons Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan
identifiseer; sy ‘in die hart van die aarde’ gewees het, gaan verklaar! Sê ons
Jesus se dood as sodanig is sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ of het Jesus se
‘neerdaling ter helle’ ook sy uiteindelike dood as sodanig, voorsien en
ingehou? Sê ons Jesus se ondergáán of erváring, of smáák, van die dood déúr
lyding en déúr lydende sterwe en doodgemaak wórd – een en dieselfde –, wás sy
‘neerdaling ter helle’? “Die beker wat Ek drink”, en “die Pasga vir My berei om
te eet” – híérdie dinge, sal aanstonds Jesus se ‘neerdaal na die hel’ wees; wás
na alles, sy ‘neerdaal na die hel’. Sodat, waar Jesus uiteindelik die fisiese
en serebrale dood “drie uur namiddag” (Mk15:34) íngaan, Hy úít sy Godsalmagtige
‘lýding’ van die helse tweede dood úít, ín die onbewuste, onbegryplik
Godsonmoontlike dood in óórgaan – wat steeds ‘die tweede dood’ en doodstraf vir
die sonde blý, totdat Hy die “smarte van die dood ontbind” en verdienstelik
deur opstanding uit die dood, die Groot Oorwinnaar uit die Stryd, tree!
Daarom was
die een groot versoeking vir Jesus in hierdie sy lydingsdeurgang van helse
ewige dood en Godverlatenheid én van Godsbesoeking, die sataniese begeestering
na beneweldheid: om nie déúr sy lyding, in gehoorsaamheid die verheerliking van
die Vader by volle bewussyn vóórop te blý stel nie; om soos die heidense
afgodshelde in ’n trans te raak juis daar waar Hy God se heerlikheid en werke
ononderskeibaar in vervolmaking in Homself moes verenig en volbring.
Waar het die Here Jesus se ‘benouing
tot die dood’ begin? Sodra ons vir die doelbewuste en gewillige onderganing van helse smarte
van Christus besluit het (en téén die mening dat Jesus se neerdaling ter helle onwillekeurig met die oomblik van sy
sterwe aanvang geneem het), kan ons vra: Wat lui Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter
helle’ dan nou in; waarmee begin Sy ondervinding van die smarte, pyniging en
lyding van helse afmetings? Of hoe sterf Christus ‘die tweede dood’ en waarso
begin Hy om ‘die tweede dood’ te sterwe? Wat lui Jesus se ‘ter helle–neerdaling’ ín?
So gaan ons
menslike begrip aan met tekortskiet, en word ons dringend gedwing en dwingend
gedring om te vra na die Woord: Wat sê die Skrifte?! Ons honger en dors na die
Woord van God vir ’n antwoord: Waarmee die Skrifte Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter
helle’ laat begin? Begin die Skrifte
Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ met sy begrafnis? of eindig die Skrifte Jesus se neerdaling ter helle met sy begrafnis?
As dit dan nie met Jesus se begrafnis
is dat sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ aanvang
neem nie, waarmee en wanneer dan, neem die ‘drie dae en drie nagte volgens die
Skrifte’, hul aanvang? En waarmee en wanneer hou die ‘drie dae en drie nagte
volgens die Skrifte’, dan ook op, as dit nie met Jesus se begrafnis opgehou het
nie? Want is die volle ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ nie van een en dieselfde duur,
as Christus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ nie?
Hosea 6:1–2,
“Die Here het verskeur; en sal ons genees. Hy het geslaan en sal ons verbind.
Hy sal ons ná twee dae lewend maak, op die derde dag ons laat opstaan, sodat
ons voor sy aangesig kan lewe.”
Christene van fundamentele geloofsoortuiging aanvaar dat hierdie belofte
en teken op Christus slaan. ‘Ons’, is in Hóm, en Hy is die Een in Wie ons,
‘opstaan’. Hy is die Een vir ons, ‘geslaan’, en ‘verskeur’. Hy het vir ons,
gesterwe. Hý was opgewek, en ons in Hom, het ‘in sy heerlikheid ingegaan’,
sodat ons – in Hom – ‘voor sy aangesig kan lewe’. Hierdie Skriftuur praat van
Jesus, en mens kan vas aanneem dat Jesus Hosea 6:1–2 ingesluit het toe Hy, “beginnende
by Moses”, aan die dissipels op pad na Emmaus “uit al die Skrifte die dinge
aangaande Homself, uitgelê het”.
“Moes die
Christus nie hierdie dinge ly en in sy heerlikheid ingaan nie?” Lk24:26. “Ly”,
en “ingaan in sy heerlikheid”, dui die beginpunt en die eindpunt van beide die
‘ter helle neerdaling’ en die “drie dae en drie nagte” aan. “Die Here het
verskeur ... Hy het geslaan” dui die beginpunt aan; “Die Here sal genees ...
sal verbind”, dui die eindpunt aan. Die Skrifte is in volle ooreenstemming.
Christus se ingaan in sy lyding van die
dood is die begin van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’; en sy ingaan in sy
heerlikheid deur opstanding uit die dood,
is die einde van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’.
Nie sy begrafnis nie, maar Jesus se dood, is die bepalende middelpunt
van sy ‘neerdaling na die hel’ of ‘hart van die aarde’, sowel as van die duur
van die ‘drie
dae en drie nagte’.
“Hom het God
opgewek nadat Hy die smarte, van die dood, ontbind het. … Hierdie Jesus het
God opgewek. … Weet dat God Hom Here en Christus gemaak het, hierdie Jesus wat
julle, gekruisig het.” Hd2:24.
Duidelik van vóór “die dood”, want
nog vóór “die dood”, lý, die
Christus “die smarte van die dood”! So duidelik van vóór “die dood”, as tot ná “die dood”, want juis
ná “die dood”, en ná “die smarte
van die dood”, “het God hierdie
Jesus, opgewek”!
“Gekruisig”,
en, “opgewek”, wys die hoof– en begin– en eind–momente van Christus se
neerdaling na die hel uit, asook die hoof– en begin– en eind–momente van sy
‘drie dae en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde’. Hierdie twee dinge wys die eerste van die
‘drie dae’ ‘volgens die Skrifte’, en “die derde dag volgens die Skrifte”. “Op
die derde dag volgens die Skrifte”, het Jesus uit die dood uit opgestaan; op
die eerste dag volgens die Skrifte het Jesus in die dood begin neerdaal en het
Hy kláár deur doods–sterwe in die dood in, néér, gedaal. (Kláár, met
‘helleváárt’.) Daar is geen ander dag of dae as die tweede dag tussen die
eerste en die derde dae, nie; daar is geen ander dag of dae vóór, óf, ná, die
eerste en die derde dae nie. Ter
laagste het Christus al op die eerste dag van die drie dae ter helle
neergedaal. Ter laagste het Hy ter helle op elk van die drie dae waarvan die
Skrifte praat, in die dood geblý: “Die derde dag maak Ek klaar”; “in
drie dae sal Ek die tempel weer oprig”. “Hom het God opgewek nadat, Hy die
smarte van die dood ontbind het.”
Ter helle
het Hy neergedaal vandat die bande van die dood Hom begin omgewe het: “Jona was drie dae en drie nagte in die
ingewande van die vis. En Jona het tot die Here sy God gebid uit die ingewande
van die vis, en gesê: Uit my benoudheid het ek U aangeroep … uit die binneste
van die doderyk (KJV, “hell”) het ek geroep om hulp – U het my stem gehoor. U
tog het my in die diepte gewerp, in die hart van die see, sodat ’n stroom my
omring het; al u bare en u golwe het oor my heengegaan. Toe, het ek gesê: Ek is
weggestoot, weg van u oë; tog sal ek weer u heilige tempel aanskou. Waters het
my omring tot aan my siel toe. Die vloed was rondom my; seegras was om my hoof
gedraai. Ek het afgedaal tot by die grondslae van die berge, die grendels van
die aarde het my vir ewig ingesluit. Maar U het my lewe uit die kuil uit
opgetrek, HERE my God! Toe my siel in my versmag het, het ek aan die Here
gedink, en my gebed het tot by U gekom in u heilige tempel.”
Waar word
eenmaal na Jesus se vertoef in die graf verwys as sy ingaan in of as die ingang
tot sy helle–lyding en helle–benouing? Of dan as die aanvang en duur van die
‘drie dae en drie nagte’? Nie eenmaal waarookal nie! Nee, heeltyd in sy
‘hellevaart’ is Jona by sy volle bewussyn, nugter en skerpsinniger as voor of
nadat hy in die vis was! Net so ondervind Jesus sy ‘hellevaart’, sy ‘in die
hart van die aarde vertoef’, bewustelik, lewendig, en terwyl Hy nog nie ‘dood’
was nie. Christus het die dood, ‘gesterwe’
–oomblik vir oomblik alle ewigheid, “in drie dae”, in “drie dae en drie nagte
in die hart van die aarde”!
Eintlik was
Christus se menswording alreeds die
begin van sy smaak van die ewige dood van sondestraf; en sy hele lewe van lyding en smarte. Hy was
‘’n Man van Smarte bekend met krankheid’ – óns krankheid van siel. Sy hele
lewe. Die begin en eindpunte van Jesus
se doodsondervindende neerdaling ter helle begin hier: “Vernietig hierdie
tempel.” Jh2:19. Die ‘tempel’, is nie die graf nie, en nie die graf word in
‘drie dae en drie nagte’ vernietig en weer herbou nie, maar die Lewe van Christus. Nie sy toesluiting
in die graf maak Jesus “Here en Christus” nie, maar sy doodservarende
neerdaling ter helle en wederopstanding uit die dode! “Julle het gekruisig …
God het opgewek” merk die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ aan hulle begin en aan hulle
einde af.
“Die Seun
van die Mens word in die hande van mense oorgelewer,
en hulle sal Hom doodmaak; en nadat Hy doodgemaak
was, sal Hy die derde dag weer opstaan.”
Mk9:31.
“... gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf
... neergedaal ... en op die derde
dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan
uit die dode ...”. Ons belydenis
verskaf ons met die duidelikste definisie van wat ‘neergedaal ter helle’,
beteken: Dit beteken: “gely ... gekruisig ...”, vóórdat Hy “... gesterf” het, én, dát Hy, “gesterf hét”, vóórdat Hy dóód was in sy
dood! “Het gely” en “was gekruisig”, is,
“het neergedaal”! Daarín dat Christus gesterwe het, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”,
en daarín dat Hy weer opgestaan het, het Hy sy neerdaling na die hel van ewige
dood, oorkom en beëindig.
Terselfdertyd
verskaf ons Belydenis ons met die duidelikste definisie van wat die ‘drie dae
en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde’, beteken: Dit beteken: Dat die
Christus “in drie dae”, “al hierdie
dinge moes ly”, en dat Hy “op die derde
dag volgens die Skrifte, opgestaan het uit die dode”. Ons belydenis meld: “Gely ... gekruisig ...
gesterf”. “Gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf ... op die derde dag opgestaan”, sodat Christus ‘drie dae /
gedurende drie dae / vir drie dae’, ‘ter helle neergedaald’, was. “Het gely” en “was gekruisig” en “het
gesterwe” maak uit: “Drie dae” van “drie dae en drie nagte”, van “in die hart
van die aarde” gewees het! Daarín dat
Christus deur aktiewe wilsdaad gesterwe hét – nie ‘maar net’ dat Hy dood was
nie –, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”; daarín dat Christus gestérwe het – nie
‘maar net’ dat Hy begrawe was nie –, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”; en daarin dat Hy weer opgestaan het, het Hy
sy neerdaling na die hel van ewige dood, déúr, én, úítgegaan; het Hy die ‘drie
dae’ van ‘ter helle neerdaling’, oorkom, beëindig en oorwin. ‘Drie dae en drie
nagte’ van, ‘neergedaal na die hel’, en God het vir die sondes van baie, versoening
bewerk en volmaak, eens vir altyd, in Christus en deur Christus, ons Here.
(Laat ons
nogtans nie Jesus se begrafnis vergeet nie, want God het dit ingesluit in sy
reëling van die volheid van die tyd, net soos elke ander aspek van die dinge
waarmee ons tans te make het. Maar die begrafnis bevind hom in ’n eie
‘katagorie’ wat sowel vernedering as verhoging inhou, want dit lê tussen aan
die linker kant die lyding, sterwe en dood van Jesus, en aan die regterkant die
opstanding, verhoging en verheerliking van die Christus en Here van God en van
ons Belydenis.)
Noudat ons
verstaan wat ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ sowel as ‘neerdaling na die hel’ omvattend beteken, kan ons gaan vra na
die nadere aanduidings van die begin
van Jesus se versoenende en regverdigende lyding, sterwe, en dood. Want hier, gaan Christus die ewige dood van
sondestraf vir ewig en geheel die lááste
keer, ín! (“Die derde dag maak Ek
klaar!” Lk13:32. Die KJV het, “I, shall be perfected.”) Waar is ‘hier’? Waar Josef die graf toemaak? Nee! Waar die verhoging
van God in die neerdaling van sy
Christus, begin! Waar? Waar die eerste van die “drie dae volgens die Skrifte”,
begin! Waar was dit? “Op die eerste dag wanneer die
Pasga geslag moet word ... toe dit aand geword het” Mk14:12,17, Mt26:17,20,
Lk22:7,14, “Aan tafel /
gedurende die maaltyd ... omdat Hy wis dat sy
uur gekom het ... omdat Hy wis dat die Vader alles in sy hande gegee
het en dat Hy van God uitgegaan het en na God heengaan. ... Toe Hy buite was,
sê Jesus: Nou, is die Seun
van die Mens verheerlik, en is God, in Hom, verheerlik!” Jh13:2,1,3,31–32. “Hy het met sy dissipels óór die spruit Kedron** gegaan.”
Jh18:1. “En toe Hy in sware stryd gekom het, het Hy
met groot inspanning gebid.” Lk22:44. “My siel
is diep bedroef tot die dood toe.”
Mt26:37. “Nogtans nie wat Ek wil nie, maar wat
U wil!” Mk14:36. “Die Seun van die Mens word in die hande van mense oorgelewer, en hulle sal Hom doodmaak; en nadat Hy doodgemaak
was, sal Hy die derde dag weer
opstaan.” Mk9:31.
Nie die
tydperk óf toestand waarin Jesus se liggaam in die graf gelê het nie, maar die
tydperk en toestand en ervaring waarbinne
en waardeur Hy bewustelik én onbewustelik sy lewe afgelê het én dood was én
begrawe was, totdat Hy weer sy lewe, ópgeneem het, vervul beide die ‘drie dae
en drie nagte’ en ‘neergedaal–na–die–hel’ – sowel na tyd as na betekenis.
** “die
spruit Kedron”. ‘Kedron’ beteken ‘Donkerspruit’. Hierdie spruit was die afvoer–water
vir die tempel se onreinhede, sien 2Kron29:16. Hierdie dag neem Jesus alle
sondebesoedeling op Homself, om dit eens vir altyd in die tempel van sy eie
liggaam, “uit en weg te dra” (KJV ‘carry abroad’).
Christus–Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
NM 1 A |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
10 PS |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 PtP |
15 S–GD |
16 EGBO |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
1 Zif |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
|
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
|
29 |
30 |
1 Sivan |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 Shav |
|
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
|
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 Tamm |
2 |
3 |
|
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
|
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 Ab |
|
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
|
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
|
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
|
30 |
1 Elul |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
1 Tisri |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 Tisri |
11 |
|
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 Tisri |
16 |
17 |
18 |
|
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
Agt
‘sabbatte’! |
25 |
|
Nou glo ek mos, soos ek van lankal af geglo het – gaan lees maar boek 3 /
1 – die Pisidia–krisis het hom op die Groot Versoendag afgespeel. Ek het wat
die datums en dinge aangaan toentertyd nie die kloutjie mooi by die oor kon kry
nie. Na al die jare loop kyk ek toe weer na hierdie aspekte, en watter
interessante dinge kom my teë!
Kyk maar na die kalender hierso. Ons weet mos nou klaar en onteenseglik
die Eerste Gerf Beweegoffer was op die Sabbatdag voor die Aangesig van die Here
beweeg deur die opstanding van Jesus Christus uit die dode, “Sabbatstyd”, Abib
16 “midde lig–dag–oor–neigend”, of te wel, “namiddag”. Neem nou aan die maande
was elk dertig dae lank, dan val die Groot Versoendag – 9 en 10 Tisri of
Sewende Maand –, op Donderdag en Vrydag.
Maar dis mos nie op die Sabbat – die weeklikse Sabbat – nie? Reg! Maar wat
het die Ou–Testament die Groot Versoendag genoem? Nie ook ’n ‘sabbat’, nie?
Natuurlik ja! Nou hoekom kon dit nie op
hierdie vlottende sabbatdag – vlottende deur die weeksdae – wees wat Paulus sy
preek in die Kerk gegee het en die Jode te lig geoordeel was, en hulle die
Goeie Weg vir laas byster geraak het nie?
Dis presies wat die teks sê! Vir ’n feit in elke opsig in besonderheid
uitwys! U dink ek’s mal? Ook goed!
Omdat hierdie ‘oordeelsdag–sabbat’ nie ’n In–bring–Sabbat was nie, maar
meer ’n sombere dag van die skeiding van weë en van afkering en wedersydse
verlating tussen God en die volk Israel, het God dit juis so beskik dat dit nie
die Sabbat van die rus van die HERE jou God moes gewees het nie. Want God
reserveer sy Heilige Dag, Die Dag van die Here Jesus, vir die ontmoeting tussen
die Nuwe Gelowiges van die ware Volk van God!
Paulus staan op die ‘sabbat’ (14c) van die laaste ‘amptelike’ prediking aan
Israel van die Evangelie van die Messias, in die Kerk op en verklaar: “U, manne
van Israel – én, julle wat God vrees, Luister!” (16b) Met die intrapslag donder
die oordele van God. Nou, die verdere verloop van die dag se gebeure, ken u.
Paulus se sweepslae eindig met hierdie woorde: “Nou, laat dit vir julle
duidelik wees, julle veragters (van Christus en sy Groot Versoenwerk), staan
verwonderd, en vergaan (in julle verbasing), want Ek (Ék, ‘eghóó’, ‘Jawe’ die
HERE God) werk ’n werk in julle (rus en heilige sabbatte)–dae— ’n werk wat
julle weier om te glo al verklaar en verduidelik wie ookal julle dit hoe goed!”
En toe? Toe stap die hele lot Jode
uit die Kerk uit! Want die God van hierdie mal mens Paulus breek die sabbatte
van die Jode! (‘érghon erghádzomai eghóó en tais heemérais humóón— érghon ho ou
mee pisteúseete eán tis ekdieeghéétai umíén.’ Dubbele Eerste Persoon; dubbele
Ontkenning; dubbele ‘verduideliking’! ) Dit gaan vir die Jode nog steeds oor
niks anders as hulle heilige dae nie. Vir hulle is die Vervulling daarvan met
die Grootse Inhoud van die Werke van God deur die Beloofde Messias, die gans en
by voorbaat onmoontlike! Sodra God in hierdie Jesus Christus juis op die Sabbat–dae
al werkende rus en al rustende werk, dan is dit bokant hulle vuurmaakplek en
dwars teen hulle piëteit; die toppunt van heiligskennis! Met sulke Sabbatsontheiligers wil ons nie
assosieer nie; ons gee eerder die Kerkgebou en die hele keboedel oor – gooi dit
vir die heidene, die honde!
Nee, ons het nie hier met maar net nog ’n Sabbatdag te doen nie: Hierdie
is die Groot Versoendag wat die dag van groot onversoenbaarheid word! Heden
vandag nog sal die Jode Christus verwerp eerder as om hulle sabbatte te staak.
Want hulle leef nog onder die Wet en verag die Genade: die Genade juis as die
Opstanding van Christus Jesus uit die dode. Eerder as om Christus die
vervulling en rede vir die Sabbatdag te aanvaar, sal hulle saam met Hom, van
die hele Godsdiens, afstand doen.
Sou die oordeels–karakter van hierdie sabbatdag nou al wees op grond
waarvan ek wil beweer dit was nie die weeklikse Sabbatdag toe hierdie keerpunt
in die geskiedenis bereik was nie? Sou die oordeels–karakter van hierdie dag
nie genoeg wees om te bevestig wat ek beweer dit aandui nie? Ek glo dit vertel
meer as genoeg om die gewillige gelowige te oortuig.
Maar ek het vir u nog ’n bonus–bewysstuk.
Vers 42 vervolg op die uitstap–aksie van die Jode: “En toe die Jode uit
die Kerk uitgestap het, het die ‘Heidene’ (wat gebly het), gevra dat dieselfde
woorde aan hulle gepreek mog word die volgende Sabbatdag.” Nou het ons almal nog altyd verstaan die hele
drama het afgespeel op ’n ‘weeklikse’ Sabbat, en dat die Heidene gevra het die
preek moet weer gepreek word sewe dae later weer op die weeklikse Sabbatdag.
Nouja, daarmee is natuurlik niks verkeerd solank ons net die gewone vertalings
se verduideliking beskikbaar het nie. Dis in elk geval van geen reddingsbelang
nie ... of is dit? Dit kan
lewensbelangrik word wanneer mens soos die Jode terwille van jou troetelsondes
teen die waarheid daarvan wil stry. Dat
’n beter begrip ’n beter aanvaarding en genieting van die krag van Gods Woord
meebring, lei dan ook geen twyfel nie. Ek reken dus dit is nodig en die moeite
dubbel werd om noukeuriger besonderhede in ag te neem juis omdat Paulus – in
vers 41 én in die groter geheel – dit waarvan hy gepraat het, so stiptelik en
nadruklik vir die Jode uitgespel het.
Lukas maak dan ook nes Paulus: hy ‘spel uit’ presies watter ‘sabbatdag’ hy
na verwys. Hy skrywe: “Hulle (die
Heidene) het almal/eendragtig versoek, (dat) hierdie, selfde, woorde met die oog op en
ter verduideliking van (hier)die–sabbat–midde–in
tot hulle (spesifiek) gespreek word.”
(‘parekáloen eis to metaksúú sábbaton laleethéénai autóís ta réémata táúta.’)
Die Jode het hulle nie oor die Groot Versoendag en die betekenis daarvan,
vertroud kón maak nie. Net die Christelike Geloof kan dit doen.
|
13) Paulus en sy
metgeselle het by Perge in Pamfilië gekom |
Johannes het hulle
verlaat en na Jerusalem teruggekeer. |
|
1 of 4 Tisri |
|
|
Lv23:23 ... Op die eerste dag van die Sewende Maand moet dit vir julle
’n sabbat wees, ’n gedenkdag deur basuingeklank, ’n heilige vierdag. |
|
|
Hulle het in
Antiogië in Pisidië aangekom en ... |
... op die sabbatdag
in die sinagoge gegaan en gaan sit. |
|
En na die lesing van die Wet en die Profete het die hoofde van die Kerk
na hulle gestuur en gesê: Broeders, as julle ’n woord van opwekking vir die
volk het, spreek dan! |
|
|
Paulus staan op en
sê, Israeliete én julle wat God vrees! |
Jerusalem het Hom
nie geken nie, en deur Hom te veroordeel, het hulle die woorde van die
Profete vervul wat elke Sabbat gelees word |
|
42) Nadat die Jode uit die Kerk uitgegaan het, het die heidene
versoek dat daardie woorde op die tussenin–sabbat tot hulle gespreek
word. |
|
|
10 Tisri ... op die tussenin–sabbat ... |
|
|
... (was) daardie
woorde tot hulle gespreek ... |
En toe die Kerk uit
was ... |
|
... het baie van die Jode en die gelowige bekeerlinge na Paulus en
Barnabas oorgeloop Hulle het hulle
toegespreek en bemoedig om in die genade van God te volhard |
|
|
11 Tisri Op die (gewone) Sabbatdag
(daarop)volgende ... ... het omtrent die
hele dorp se mense saamgekom om die Woord van God te hoor. |
Nege en tien Tisri / Sewende Maand was Groot Versoendag! Hierdie twee
feesdae lê volgens ons kalender vóór die ‘weeklikse’ Sabbat, op die Donderdag
en Vrydag— die Vyfde en Sesde Fees–Sabbat–Dag “–midde–in”! Die eerste
‘sabbatdag’ toe Paulus die eerste keer gepreek het, was ’n ‘sabbatdag’ wat ‘in–die–week’ geval het: “metaksúú–sábbaton”!
Verse 43 én 44 klaar verloop van gebeure verder op: “Toe die (Groot
Versoendag–sabbat) Vergadering (waartydens Paulus–hulle met die Heidene alleen
gepraat het), opgebreek het, toe het (ook weer) baie van die Jode saam met hierdie aanbiddende proseliete, Paulus en Barnabas (verder)
gevolg.” Dit was, let wel, “Toe
(hierdie) Vergadering verby was”,
dat “bykans die hele stad se mense op die gewoon–volgende
/ komende (weeklikse) Sabbatdag, vergader
het om die Woord van God te verneem”— net soos in die geval van die Laaste
Pasga toe daar twee opeenvolgende ‘sabbatte’ was, op Vrydag die Pasga–sabbat en
die “Sabbat volgens die (Vierdie) Gebod” – sien Jh19:31 en Lk23:54, 56, so was
daar by hierdie geleentheid, twee opeenvolgende ‘sabbatte’, op Vrydag die “mid–week”–Groot–Versoendag–sabbat van
Tisri 10, en op die ‘gewone’ aanbiddingsdag–Sabbatdag, die Dag vir die
Verkondiging van die Evangelie van Christus Jesus. Tweekeer dus, presies volgens die Daniël–profesie
van die sewentig weke, word – volgens die dispensasies van God – die ‘Groot’
maar verbygegane ‘tussenin–sabbatte’ deur die Nuwe–Testamentiese Gemeentes met
vieringe van Christus–fees opgevolg,
en word Nuwe Begin met Christus–Sabbattefees
gemaak!
Lukas benoem hierdie Nuwe
Christelike Sabbatdag op opvallende en betekenisvolle manier: “op die–om–die–Woord–van–God–te–Hoor–Saamgekom–Sabbat”:
‘Infinitief met Selfstandigenaamwoord–krag’ – ‘Infinitive of Noun–Force’:
‘Sabbátooi suunéégthee akóésai ton Lógon tou Theóé’— ‘n absolute Griekse
eienaardigheid met onvergisbare trefkrag aangewend. (Vergelyk Hd20:7 waar die
dissipels – by implikasie op die Sabbat – “vir Nagmaal bymekaar gekom het
(suuneegménoon heemóón klásai árton) (en) op die aand van die Eerste Dag steeds
bymekaar was en Paulus (sake) met hulle bespreek het”.) Laat niemand ooit weer sy mond wil oopmaak
dat die Eerste Christelike Kerk nie die Sabbat geonderhou het of aan sy
Christelike naam geken het nie. So een weet nie waarvan hy praat nie. Loof God
deur Sabbatte–feesvieringe! Stel jouself die hoera’s voor as wat hier in
Hd13:43 van die Sabbat gesê word, in 20:7 van die Eerste Dag gesê sou gewees
het! Maar nou swyg die ganse Kerk soos die dood oor die bestaan van hierdie
feite in 13:43, terwyl hulle sonder enige vrese vir God self, die Skrif vermink
om dieselfde uit 20:7 te probeer haal.
U sal merk dat dit sonder uitsondering ’n valse gees is wat in die Naam
van die Heilige gees van God ewig teen die Sabbatdag van die HERE jou God die
Dag van die Here Jesus Christus deur Opstanding uit die dode, agiteer. Dit is
die gees van die duiwel wat homself verraai aan drie ‘toetse’ soos die Skrif sê
die geeste getoets móét word: dit is u Christelike plig om hierdie geeste uit
te ken aan: 1. Of hulle van hulself getuig, want ’n gees wat van homself getuig is nie die
Gees van Christus Jesus nie, maar van hoogmoed, eiewaan en die eie–ek; 2. Of
hulle teen die Wet van God getuig, want ’n gees wat nie van sonde en oordeel oortuig nie, is nie die Gees van God
nie, maar die gees van eiegeregtigheid, skynheiligheid en van die duiwel self;
3. Of hulle geeste van wonder– en welvaart–leuens is, want die gees wat nie die
gelowige aan die lyding van Christus
Jesus mededeelagtig maak nie, is nie die Gees van die wedergeboorte en
doding van die ou mens en sondige natuur nie, maar van selfgenoegsaamheid,
begeerte en die dood.
Daarom, omdat God ten laaste deur die Pisidia Oordeelsdag vir ons die
oorgang na die Christelike aanbiddingsdag opgeklaar het, sal ons met gejuig
Sabbatte–fees vier, etende en drinkende van die Water en Brood van die Lewe,
ons Here Jesus Christus.
“Wás opgestaan” (‘Verrese’), óf, “Hét
opgestaan”
Roy Davison:
“Toen Hij des
morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was ...” In alle vier
Evangeliën, zonder uitzondering, wordt er vermeld dat Jezus op de eerste dag
van de week uit het graf is opgestaan!”
GE:
Wys dit! U
Inteendeel,
verklaar Die Statevertaling,
Mt.28:1: OP die Sabbatdag; net “Sabbats”!
Die woord 'na' staan in hakies – wat aandui dat dit 'n bygevoegde
woord is – waarmee die Grieks se ware betekenis verdraai sou word. Vergelyk daarteenoor die KJV, “IN the end OF the
Sabbath = TOWARDS the First Day” – nie ‘OP die Eerste Dag’ nie; nie ‘NA die
Sabbat’ nie!
Die Ou
Afrikaanse Vertaling het op die Statevertaling se in hakies “(Na) Sabbats”
staatgemaak vir sy eie “Lank na die sabbat”. Hierdie verregaande flater sou
eers ’n halwe eeu later met ’n nog uitdagender blaps ‘reggestel’ word, toe die
NAB (Ek wil nie eers die afkorting uitskryf nie; dit voel te lasterlik.)
vorendag gekom het met: “Na die Sabbat, toe dit die Sondagmôre begin lig word
...”.
Net Matteus van “alle vier
Evangeliën”, vermeld (by implikasie) die opstanding van Jesus –
die ander vertel alleen van die vroue se besoeke
aan die graf, en Jesus se verskynings
bepaald op die dag NA die Sabbat— die Sabbat tevore naamlik waarop Jesus
alreeds opgestaan hét— die Sabbat waarná, vanselfsprekend op die Eerste Dag van
die week, daar eers verskeie besoeke aan die graf plaasgevind het, en
uiteindelik na die besoeke, die Verskynings, Sondagoggend ná sonop, “Vroeg, op
die Eerste dag van die week, eerste, aan Maria Magdalena”, en na haar, aan
ander vroue tesame, volgens Mt28:5–10, terwyl hulle op pad was om die dissipels
te gaan vertel wat die engel aan hulle “verduidelik het” wat “Sabbatstyd” die dag tevore, gebeur het
toe daar “Skielik ’n groot aardbewing was, net toe (die Maria’s) vertrek het om
na die graf te gaan kyk het”, maar hulle duidelik in hul voorneme gedwarsboom
was, en toe nooit by die graf kón uitgekom het nie. (Let op dat die engel nie
die Maria’s in die Tweede Persoon aanspreek nie, want Maria Magdalena was nie
hierdie keer by nie – Jesus het klaar aan haar verskyn, en sy is nou seker by
die dissipels, besig om hulle te vertel “dat sy die Here gesien het”,
Jh20:18.)
Sondag–heiligheid
is afgodediens! Dit leer mens lieg soos niks; jy kom nie eers agter jy lieg
agter ander aan nie. Maar Calvyn het die waarheid geleer: Dat
Jesus op die Sabbatdag opgestaan het. Ek staan by die Gereformeerde Leer! Ú,
het die Gereformeerde Leer sowel as Gereformeerde Vertaling, vaarwel toegeroep!
Roy Davison:
1. “En op de sabbat rustten zij naar het
gebod” (Lucas 23:56). Dus gingen de vrouwen pas NA de sabbat naar het graf.
2. “En op de eerste dag der week ging Maria van Magdala vroeg, terwijl het nog
donker was, naar het graf en zij zag de steen van het graf weg–genomen”
(Johannes 20:8). “Toen het dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter
plaatse, waar de discipelen zich bevonden, de deuren gesloten waren uit vrees
voor de Joden, kwam Jezus en stond in hun mid–den en zeide tot hen: Vrede zij
u!” (Johannes 20:19). De sabbat eindigde te 18 uur. Aangezien het 'nog donker
was' moest het op de eerste dag van de week zijn.
3. “Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was,
verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten
uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9).
Duidelijker
GE:
Duideliker kan dit nie wees nie dat die
opstandingsdag van Christus vóór die Eerste Dag van die week was— wat die
Sewende Dag Sabbat was.
U bewering, “Duidelijker
Oor “1. “En op de sabbat rustten zij
naar het gebod” (Lucas 23:56). Dus gingen de vrouwen pas NA de sabbat naar het
graf.”
Lukas – na wie u verwys – vertel hierso,
niks omtrent die Opstanding nie. Hy vertel niks, van vroue wat na die graf gaan
nie, maar wat van die graf af weggaan. Hy vertel niks, van “pas NA de sabbat”
nie, maar van heelwat vóór die Sabbat, Vrydag na die middag, Engels, ‘after
noon’. U verwar Lk23:56 met Mk16:1, so lyk dit vir my. Wat u sê, is nogtans
gans verwarrende versinsel en van gener waarde.
Volgens Lk24:1 eers, gaan die vroue –NA
die Opstanding– na die graf, en vind dit: Léég, EN, verlate! Duideliker
Oor u opmerking: “2. “En op de eerste
dag der week ging Maria van Magdala vroeg, terwijl het nog donker was, naar het
graf en zij zag de steen van het graf weg–genomen” (Johannes 20:8). “Toen het
dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter plaatse, waar de discipelen
zich bevonden, de deuren gesloten waren uit vrees voor de Joden, kwam Jezus en
stond in hun midden en zeide tot hen: Vrede zij u!” (Johannes 20:19). De sabbat
eindigde te 18 uur. Aangezien het 'nog donker was' moest het op de eerste dag
van de week zijn.”
Hier gooi u twee onverwante tekse saam, Lk24:1 en Jh20:1. U raak dan geheel en al
verward en verwys sommer verkeerdelik na “(Johannes 20:8)”. Wat u daarmee sou
bereik, sal niemand weet nie (maar gehoop niemand sal nagaan nie?). Want nóg
Lk24:1 nóg Jh20:1 vertel iets omtrent die tyd of dag waarop Jesus opgestaan
het. Nie een selfs, vertel van 'n verskyning van Jesus nie. Allengs, uit beide
tekse is dit slegs moontlik om af te lei dat Jesus al die vórige dag, op die
Sabbatdag naamlik, opgestaan hét. U verklaring van die implikasies in Jh20:19a
ten opsigte van die dagsbereking, klink streng letterlik, reg; maar omdat u geensins die idiomatiese of dan alledaagse taalgebruik in ag neem nie, skep u
net probleme waar daar eintlik geen probleme hoef te gewees het nie. Want
Sondag na sononder volgens Romeinse
siening van tyd, is wel nog Sondag. Streng volgens Joodse en Bybelse
siening van tyd egter, is die aand na sononder die Eerste Dag, reeds die
Tweede Dag van die week. So is dit
dan ook dwarsdeur die Evangelie van Johannes duidelik dat Johannes, onder kulturele invloed, tyd ‘Romeins’,
‘tel’, terwyl die ander en – vroeëre – Evangelies se tydsberekening nog ‘Joods’
en ‘Bybels’ of te wel ‘Ou–Testamenties’, is. Maar verstaan mens Johannes
doodgewoon “volgens Joodse en Bybelse siening van tyd, dat die aand na
sononder die Eerste Dag, reeds die Tweede Dag van die week is”, is daar
geen probleem om “Toen het dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter
plaatse, waar de discipelen zich bevonden” as synde reeds die Tweede Dag van
die week op te vat nie. Dis ’n tegniese, volksmondige, taalkundige puntjie sonder enige invloed hoegenaamd op die
feit van die “helder–oordag” opstanding van Jesus “op die Sabbatdag”— soos die
Grieks (‘opse de sabbat–oon epi–foos–k–oes–ei’) letterlik én idiomaties
bevestigend verklaar.
Oor u opmerking “3: Toen Hij des morgens
vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria
van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9).”
Enigste Werkwoord van
die sin, is “Hy het verskyn”
(verscheen Hij) – NIE, “opgestaan was” nie, want “opgestaan was” is 'n Deelwoord.
'n Deelwoord vertel HOEDAT Jesus “verskyn het” : “VERRESE, het Hy verskyn,
vroeg, op die Eerste Dag van die week”. Dit was relatief 'lank' NADAT Hy “Laat
Sabbatstyd synde voldag, VOOR die Eerste Dag van die week”, Mt.28:1, opgestaan
het. Dat Jesus “op die Sabbat”,
opgestaan het, is wat Mt.28:1 met soveel woorde verklaar, al noem dit nie die Opstanding as sodanig nie. So,
bowendien, sou dit wees, en was dit volgens die Profetiese AARD van die Sewende
Dag Sabbat, dwarsdeur die Skrifte; want dit was wat die Sewende Dag Sabbat “volgens
die Skrifte” eskatologies ingehou
het!
Roy Davison:
Deze (“Toen Hij des
morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan
Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus
16:9)) is een juiste vertaling van de grondtekst en in
deze tekst verklaart de H.G. duidelijk dat Jezus op de eerste dag van de week
opstond.”
GE:
Hierdie, (“Toen Hij des
morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria
van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9)) is inderdaad “een juiste vertaling van de grondtekst”,
maar u vergis u deeglik dat “in deze tekst de H.G. duidelijk verklaart dat
Jezus op de eerste dag van de week opstond”! U verstaan eenvoudig gladnie ‘deze
juiste vertaling van de grondtekst’ nie.
Die enigste Werkwoord van die sin is “Hy
het verskyn” (verscheen Hij) – NIE, “opgestaan was” nie, want “opgestaan was”
is 'n Deelwoord. 'n Deelwoord vertel HOEDAT Jesus ‘verskyn het’ : “VERRESE, het
Hy verskyn, vroeg, op die Eerste Dag van die week”.
U plaas die Bywoord van Tyd by die
Deelwoord, en verwyder dit so van die Werkwoord waarop dit van betrekking
behoort te wees. “Nadat HY opgestaan was, het Hij, des morgens vroeg op de
eerste dag der week, eerst aan Maria van Magdala verscheen”, is wat die Woord van God, ‘duidelik verklaar’.
Wat u doen, is téén wat “de H.G. duidelijk verklaart”. U besef duidelik nie die
erns van wat u doen nie. Jesus het nié, “Toen des morgens vroeg op de eerste
dag der week”, opgestaan nie, maar
Jesus “was”, “toen opgestaan”. U, om u eie agenda ontwil, wurg uit die
Vertaling nog meer as wat dit so gebrekkig as wat dit is, aan die afperser sou
kon afgestaan het.
“Opgestaan was”, is nie ’n Indikatiewe
Werkwoord nie, maar ’n Deelwoord –‘Partisium’– die ekwivalent van die Grieks,
‘anastas’. Die Bywoord van Tyd het dus nie in die eerste plek op “opgestaan was”
toepassing nie, maar op “verscheen Hij”. In Afrikaans moet mens sê, “Verrese,
het Hy vroeg op die Eerste Dag verskyn”. Natuurlik ‘was’ Jesus “morgens vroeg
op de eerste dag der week”, ‘opgestaan’, want só, ‘opgestaan (was)’ –in
hoedanigheid van ‘verrese’ te gewees het– het Jesus “morgens vroeg op de eerste
dag der week eerst aan Maria van Magdala verscheen”.
Dit sê nie dat Jesus “des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan”
‘het’ nie, maar impliseer dat Hy reeds van die vorige dag af al, “opgestaan was”.
Roy Davison:
Een letterlijke vertaling is: “En
verrijzende vroeg op de eerste dag van de week verscheen hij aan...” Zowel de
verijzennis als de verschijning waren op de eerste dag van de week.
GE:
“Verrijzende ... verscheen hij” is GEEN
vertaling van die Grieks nie, wat nog “een letterlijke vertaling”! Die teenswoordig–durende “verrijzende”, sou
uit ’n Presens of moontlik nog uit ’n Imperfektum vertaal kon word. Maar die Aoristos
gee géén DURENDE aspek van ’n Werkwoord aan nie. Die Voltooide Verlede Tyd vertaal die Aoristos heel beste. Die Aoristos
bevestig die PUNKTUELE ‘Aspek’ van VOLDONGE OORGANG in toestand, dus altyd
Voltooide Verlede Tyd vir die Aoristos!
Die Aoristos Partisium ageer eweveel Adjektief as Adverbiaal. Adjektief
– dit beskrywe die Onderwerp, Jesus – hoe “Hý,
verskyn het”, nl., “As die Opgestane Een het Hy verskyn”. Adverbiaal
– dit beskrywe die Werkwoord, “het verskyn” – hoe Jesus verskýn het: “Verrese het Hy verskyn”.
Dit is as sodanig in die Werkwoord van
hierdie sin agerende dat “Hy (Jesus) verskyn het” – nie dat Hy (‘toen’)
opgestaan het nie. Jesus was nie besig
om op te staan toe Hy verskyn het nie. Alle feite en faktore in die vier
Evangelies vermeld, getuig daartéén. Jesus het nié soos wat Hy opgestaan het, ook verskyn nie; dit is onwaar. Lees
maar net Jh20 van vers 11 af. Daar is nog baie ander onderskrywende faktore en
feite vir my ontkenning.
Vir die DURENDE, Teenswoordige,
Tydsaspek, “verijzende verscheen hij”, sou die Teenswoordige Tyd van 'n
Indikatiewe Werkwoord vereis gewees het, of dalk ’n Imperfektum— wat nóg
sintakties, nóg feitelik, die geval is.
“Verrijzende ... verscheen hij”, sê baie meer as “Zowel
de verijzennis als de verschijning waren op de eerste dag van de week”!
Dit sê sowel de verrysenis as die verskyning was op dieselfde oomblik – iets wat geheel en al
onmoontlik is in die lig daarvan dat niemand geweet het dat Jesus opgestaan het
nie. Niemand het Hom gesien opstaan nie. Verrysenis en veskyning was heeltemal
afsonderlike gebeurtenisse, van en op afsonderlike dae! Die Evangelies gee nie
om dowe neute veskillende tye vir elk, Opstanding, en, Verskyning, aan nie.
Verskillende persone; verskillende terminologie; verskillende besonderhede soos
met betrekking tot engele, die graf, natuurlike omstandighede – en dan logies,
kronologies én, ‘teologies’, verskillende
gebeurtenisse en verskillende dae.
Vir die Teenswoordige, DURENDE Tydsaspek
van die oomblik, “verijzende”, sou
die Teenswoordige Tyd van 'n Indikatiewe Werkwoord (of die Teenswoordige Tyd
van ’n Deelwoord), vereiste wees! Die
Indikatiewe Werkwoord van die sin as sodanig, is egter agerende in, “Hy het verskyn”. Die Verrysenis van Jesus daarenteen, word gladnie eers na verwys nie;
dit is slegs geïmpliseer in die ‘hóé’,
van Jesus se verskyning, naamlik “as
die Verresene”. “In Sabbatstyd” egter – Genetief van Soort en Behorenheid na
tyd, vertel Matteus ons (nie Markus
nie) – “was daar ’n groot aardbewing”; nie tegelykertyd met Jesus se Verskyning wat eers die volgende oggend
– Sondagoggend (volgens Markus) – plaasgevind het nie. Maar “Laat Sabbatstyd
synde ligdag in volheid, VOOR die Eerste Dag van die week” (Mt.28:1) het Jesus
opgestaan. Dit is die tyd én dag wat
die teks met soveel woorde verklaar; en dit is wat die Profetiese AARD van die Sewende Dag
Sabbat dwarsdeur die Skrifte eskatologies
ingehou het!
Roy Davison:
De vrouwen rustten volgens het gebod op de sabbat. Dus kon het alleen NA de
sabbat zijn dat zij naar het graf gingen. EPIFOOSKOUSEE betekent “bij het
krieken” van de eerste dag van de week of “toen het licht aan het worden was”.
Dit was bijna 12 uur na de sabbat!!!
GE:
Dit was byna drie ure méér as 12 ure ná
die Sabbat en die Opstanding! “Dus kon het alleen NA de sabbat zijn dat zij
naar het graf gingen” ... is dit nie eienaardig nie!?
“EPIFOOSKOUSEE betekent”, daarom ‘NIET’,
“bij het krieken” van de eerste dag van de week of “toen het licht aan het
worden was”, maar net wat dit in konteks en volledig, sê, naamlik: “In volheid
ligdag synde van–die–Sabbat”.
Dieselfde woord “EPIFOOSKOUSEE” vind u
aangewend waar Josef die graf toemaak en die vroue toe vertrek het om
Sabbatsvoorbereidings te gaan doen 15 ure vóór die volgende môre sonop en “in–vol–dag–lig–synde”:
letterlik ‘epi–foos–k–ous–ei’. “Dit was” toe, nie naastenby ‘bijna 12 uur na’
die Vrydag nie, maar eenvoudig “namiddag” OP Vrydag, “vóór die Sabbat / die–Sabbat–aan–skynend”
– “sabbaton” Akkusatief. Dit is dan ook
maar niks anders as wat 'epifooskoesei' LETTERLIK én idiomaties in Mt28:1 beteken nie: “epi”=“in/na/neigend”–”foos”=“lig/dag”–”oes”=
“synde/wees”–”ei”=“in/met”— dit is, gewoon,
“namiddag”; of dan, “opse”=“laat, middag / vol / ryp / lig / dag / namiddag / met–lig–synde–na”
of “op die Eerste Dag toe / aan”, Akkusatief, “eis mian (hehmeran) toon
Sabbatoon”: NIE, “OP die Eerste Dag” nie; nooit nie! Dit sou in elke moontlike
en onmoontlike opsig, verkeerd, onwaar, en onmoontlik, gewees het. En byna elke nuwe ‘Vertaling’ en ‘Edisie’
(‘Version’) van die Nuwe Testament gaan uit sy pad uit om hierdie leuen gediend
en gedwee te wees!
Selfs die Engels, “dawn”, van die KJV,
het die betekenis van ‘vooraand’ – soos in u eie taal, asook in myne –
eenvoudig die VOORAF–TYDVAK “tot” (‘eis’) enige nog toekomstige tydperk
– in die geval van Mt.28:1, die toekomstige tydperk van die Eerste Dag van die
week, KJV: “… dawn towards the First Day”.
“Het woord 'voor'“, STAAN, wel “in het Grieks”:
(1) “EIS mian sabbaton”.
Die gedagte
van “vóór die Eerste Dag”, STAAN boonop, in die Grieks, bevat in
(2) die Akkusatief; STAAN boonop, bevat
in
(3) die Voorsetsel ‘epi’ – ‘na ... toe /
op ... aan’. Drie maal.
Net so STAAN die woord “OP die Sabbat” dáár in die Grieks in Mt.28:1 deur
middel van die gebruik van
(1) die Genetief, ‘sabbatoon’: “Op die
Sabbat / Sabbats”;
Net so STAAN die gedagte van “OP die Sabbat” dáár, d.m.v.
(2) die Bywoord ‘opse’, “laat” – “Laat
(op) die Sabbat”, STAAN dit daar, deur
(3) die Voorsetsel ‘epi–’, ‘op / in /
met / na ... toe / op ... aan’; STAAN dit daar, deur
(4) die Datief ‘–ei’, ‘epifooskoesei’. Vier maal.
Niemand in die wêreld staan ’n
In u artikel “Aanbidt God” haal u
Kolossensiërs 3:16 aan as sou dit aandui dat die Gemeente “op de eerste dag van
de week” ‘saamgekom’ het. Die gedeelte dui egter niks van die aard aan
nie! Net so, Hd. 2:42 en 1Kor.14:15! Nie
een dui naastenby op Christelike aanbidding op die Eerste Dag nie.
Terwyl daar nie ’n enkele is nie, skep
u eenvoudig VALSLIK die indruk van VELE Skrifture vir Sondag–heiliging—
Sondaghouers se oudste truuk! Hulle tweede oudste truuk: Ignoreer die VELE
Skrifture wat aanbidding op die Sabbat
direk en indirek maar altyd onteenseglik, aandui, dood.
Calvyn verklaar dat
Hd.20:7 asook 1Kor.16:1,2 van dinge wat op die Sabbat plaasgevind het, praat. Ek stem nie met hom saam nie;
nogtans beteken nie een van hierdie TWEE Skrifture iets vir die Eerste Dag as
Christelike aanbiddingsdag nie. Inteendeel, in werklikheid impliseer ook
hierdie TWEE Skrifture Christelike Gemeentelike aanbidding op die dag vóór die
Eerste Dag van die week, naamlik, op die Sabbatdag (Sewende Dag van die week).
Met hoogagting, ‘duidelijker kan het
niet zijn’, Jesus Christus hét: “Op die Sabbat” uit die dood uit opgestaan en
triomfantlik op die Sabbat die Rus van God ingegaan, en deur sy opstanding uit
die dode, aan die Volk van God, “rus
verskaf: Juis daarom bly onderhouding van die Sabbatdag vir die Volk van
God geld.”
Daily Worship, Acts 2:46
SO, Sunday observer
RSB, Resurrection Sabbath believer
SOA
The Church worshipped every day and is supposed to worship every day
still.
RSB
The Church worshipped every day and is supposed to worship every day
still, is what SO claims because of the single word 'daily', in
Acts 2:46.
That is taking the word and
the text out of context, and immediately implies the corruption of the meaning
of both.
Read the section from verse
41 to 3:1, e.g., and the illegitimacy of SO's claim, becomes clear.
Those first Christian on
Pentecost were together “_in one place_”, which we do not know was which, but
it was not the temple or the synagogue, as it seems.
Then 2:41 says “_the same
day_” – Pentecost – about 3000 were added. 42: “_and they continued ...._” to
gather in that same place? verse 44 “_all who believed were together ...._”
still in that same place? 45: “_Sold their possessions ...._” nowhere else left
for them to worship than this 'place'? AND SO: 46, “_They continued daily ...._”,
BUT OH MY! it says, “_In the temple_”!
So the Church always every
day worshipped, then every day it had to be in the temple!
Now: What about their assembling in that
'old' place of theirs? What about their congregations in the homes of some believers?
It was every day in the temple,
remember! So today still the Christian Church should be found in the Jewish
temple. But strangest of all, not
keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath!
That is what it means, according to SO's single–word–argument of 'daily'.
SOB
Maybe you are confusing the sabbath with the Lord's death. The Sabbath
is resting in the Lord. It is a weekly break from the hustle and bustle of life
to be with the Lord. It is like a date with your love. Something to look
forward to.
As far as the Lord resting on the Sabbath, it is true, but He pre–ordained
it in His organised feasts, what I call His day runner, his appointment book.
They are appointments in dealing with very important aspects of salvation
procedure for God in His relationship with man.
You can read all of them in Lev 23. They are known as “rehearsals” and
the Israelites rehearsed these throughout the years and still do today. Just as
we have seen, the Lord fulfilled the spring feasts.. AKA Passover, Feast of
Unleavened Bread, Pentecost... with His first coming ... I believe that He will
come again and fulfill the fall feasts... Feasts of Trumpets, Day of Atonement,
Feast of Tabernacles.
There are various understandings of the falls feasts and their time of
fulfilment, 1844 and 1848 are commonly presented here. It too has its time and
place in spiritual awakening and advancement in spiritual truth. I know it was
a disappointment, but that does not change the fact that I believe William
Miller was on the right track as far as it being a very important subject of
study.
While we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives and are extremely
thankful for His sacrifice, He set a time aside in which is the memorial. I am
sure you do too.
RSB
What
can be happy about a Sabbath the 'rest' whereof was Jesus' death in the 'second
death' or hell?
What
makes the Sabbath a happy Sabbath, is the Delight Jesus took in “_the Holy of
the Lord_”, so that the LORD made Him to “_soar the heights of the earth_”, “_when
He raised Christ from the dead_” and “_exalted Him_” to the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
I
hope to in this life keep the Sabbath with you guys for Jesus' sake, for God's
having raised Christ from the dead, for God's having raised Christ from the
dead “_In the Sabbath Day’s fullness being
mid–afternoon towards the First Day of the week_”.
SOB
Others here are better able to explain the reason why the sabbath is
happy. Only once a year do we remember His feast in which He died for us..
Passover...
RSB
None
is better able to explain how and why the Sabbath is happy than Paul, Eph1:19f
and Col2:12–19. It is happy, not because Christ was dead in the tomb on the
Sabbath, but because on the Sabbath Day He rose
from the dead.
Notice
how the women, as soon as “_the angel explained to them_”, Mt28:5, hastened to
obey their commission with great joy and holy fear and fervour. Notice how
before, a few hour earlier, they fled from the grave terrified and told no one
anything because they were so afraid (Mark)! The knowledge of the Resurrection
is what brought about the change. The
Sabbath Day is happy, only because
Christ, “_on the Sabbath_”, rose, from, the dead.
SOB
While we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives and are extremely
thankful for His sacrifice, He set a time aside in which is the memorial.
RSB
If
the sacrifice set apart the time in which is the memorial, then it cannot be
the Sabbath so set apart because Jesus was not sacrificed on the Sabbath.
No,
while we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives in thankfulness for His
sacrifice, we rejoice even more in that moment in which He set the Sabbath
aside the memorial of his resurrection
in life and the glory of the Father, as Paul says He was raised by.
SOB
There are various understandings of the falls feasts and their time of
fulfilment, 1844 and 1848 are commonly presented here. It too has its time and
place in spiritual awakening and advancement in spiritual truth. I know it was
a disappointment, but that does not change the fact that I believe William
Miller was on the right track as far as it being a very important subject of
study.
RSB
You
are still sitting on sacks with ash on your heads; you have never recovered
from your time–setting ailment, my heart bleeds for you saying.
SOB
Maybe you are confusing the sabbath with the Lord's death.
RSB
No,
I am not. I say, The Sabbath of the LORD is the Lord's Day— His Day of
Resurrection and Life and Triumph over death.
SOB
The sabbath is ‘resting in the Lord’.
RSB
No,
it's not. Salvation is resting in
the Lord; the Sabbath does not save. God's 'rest'–'katapausis' is God's 'rest'— it is Jesus Christ. Then,
“_Because Jesus had given them rest
(because Jesus is the 'Rest'), therefore, there remains valid for the
People of God a keeping of The Sabbath
Day_” – ‘sabbatismos apoleipetai’. Justification through grace, then
follows the gift of grace, sanctification. So follows the Sabbath on the rest, and is not the Rest— the Rest of God, is Christ Himself and exclusively
who by grace also is made our ‘rest’ in God’s salvation.
Can
anyone re–write this, “_Because Jesus
had given them rest (because Jesus is
the 'Rest'), therefore, there
remains valid for the People of God a keeping of The Sabbath Day_”, to say 'Therefore the Sunday became valid for
God's People to keep'? You know, 'they' really achieve this impossibility!
'They' simple write another 'Version' of the Bible; that's how easy!
It's
only going to cost you a lot of money to get it written, edited, published,
distributed – to get it read – which
money you won't have unless the Roman Catholic Church is going to finance you.
SOB
As far as the Lord resting on the sabbath, it is true, but He pre–ordained
it in His organised feasts, what I call His day runner, his appointment book.
They are appointments in dealing with very important aspects of salvation
procedure for God in His relationship with man.
RSB
That
is the Sabbath of the LORD your God,
the Seventh Day of His appointment through Christ and unto Christ. That is what
Christians generally are unable to see about the Seventh–Day–only–Bible–Sabbath,
but take for granted without reservations about Sunday the completely un–Biblical
day of worship of man’s free–will!
SOB
Daily Worship,
Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:9, 1 Tim 4:12,
These are just a couple of scriptures which we are to follow the example
the disciples left for us. Their example through Acts was explicit especially
in 5:42 (just one of many scriptures) “And DAILY in the temple and in every
house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” and scriptures are
clear in that we are to follow this example.
RSB
2Thess3:9,
In 2 Thessalonians,
believers are told to work for their
living. “_We hear that there are some who walk among you disorderly, working
not at all, but are busybodies. Them we command that in quietness they work,
and eat their own bread. ... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him._”
I suppose they were
‘busybodies’ in the temple and Synagogues, pretending they taught and preached
Christ ‘DAILY’.
They could have fooled men; but not God! Their ‘daily’ worship, the Apostle
deemed ‘disoderliness’, and no following of the “_ensample unto you to follow
us_”. (9)
Paul says, these fellows
should not think they could go to the Christian assemblies to find food and
clothing there, like you make it look, SOB. No, Paul says they must “_eat their
own bread_” in their own houses. And in another place, Paul says if a confessor
doesn’t provide for his own household, he is worse than a gentile.
So, either you have the cat
by the tail with regard to Christian ‘daily worship’, or you very well are
aware you stand judged guilty concerning the Sabbath Commandment to you, if you
are of the true “_People of God_” for whom “_a keeping of the Sabbath Day
remains valid_”.
1Tim4:12,
“_Be thou an example of the believers , in word,
in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, till I come._”
This, you say, SOB, was as
the example of the apostles “through
Acts .... explicit especially in 5:42 (just one of many scriptures) “And DAILY
in the temple and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus
Christ” and scriptures are clear in that we are to follow this example”.
You chose 5:42 (which you misinterpreted) but especially, chose to choose not,
the ‘many scriptures’ in
Acts, like, 13:42, 16:13, 18:4, where many Seventh Day Sabbaths and many times of their
observance by the apostles and others, especially heathen believers, are
mentioned as exemplary apostolic precedents for generations of believers to
follow after.
The Word of God is sharper
than any two edged sword.
But, observe you, how that
the apostle Paul in the words of this verse, employs practical, liturgical,
Congregational, activities of Communal worship in an age long after the
beginning of the Church on Pentecost, as “an example of (1, the believers , (2, in word, (3, in conversation, (4, in charity, (5, in spirit, (6, in faith, (7, in purity”— things the very fibre of Christian
Congregational worship while it no longer in the least was possible or
desirable “daily” or
“in the temple” or
“in every house” or
without “cease”, “to teach and preach Jesus Christ”,
but in which time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ the exact same
practices and faith were maintained in Congregational
worship, so that it is impossible to imagine any of it or just part of it being
maintained in the Church without the
Church practicing its fundamental and essential beliefs and life, on one certain explicit chosen as well as
mentioned and appointed day in its life, which only could have been the Seventh
Day Sabbath.
Now whether you might say,
no, these things were those the Church practiced on Sundays, it still would be your admitting the Church no longer at
all – if it ever did – congregationally, “daily” worshiped, but weekly only worshiped.
This illustrates what I
times without counting have stressed, that the Sabbath is constantly the
axiomatic presupposed of Christian Church life, throughout the New Testament,
so that it in fact is surprising we do find direct mention of the Sabbath’s
observance in its pages. And so that, even if nowhere mention had been made of
the Sabbath, it’s keeping by the Church would still have been the most obvious
and natural thing to imagine and without any doubt to accept, had been a priori
reality of its existence in the world.
And this presupposition
underlies Paul’s every reference in this epistle of his to Timothy, in 1:3 to
11 for example, where what Paul is saying, may be summarised in his own words: “_We
know that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully .... according to the
Gospel of our blessed God which was committed to my trust._”
Never ever accuse Paul of
having broken that trust in any respect! “_Knowing this, that the Law is ....
for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers, .... for whoremongers ...._”, and, – we may
add because it is contained in the Law – for Sabbath breakers and Sabbath
despisers. The Law is for any such, as a judgment, for no one is saved by the
Law, but everyone is condemned by the Law so that no one can boast, but in
Christ in Whom he has been shown saving grace through faith and purity and
abstention from – as an example – breaking of the Sabbath–law.
SOC
We do know they did gather on the 'sabbath' but the point needs to be
made they also gathered on the other days also, even Sunday. So worshipping on
Sunday and everyday is following the example left for us.
SOB
This is true, except that there was no day named 'Sunday'. Jews would
have been horrified at the thought of naming a day after the sun, or planets,
which were associated with pagan gods. They had no names for days, they simply
gave days numbers, like 'the first day of the week', 'the second day of the
week'. One never hears of a call for a return to this pure, and desirable
Jewish practice.
There was no command to meet on Mosaic sabbaths, anyway, and sabbath–supporters are stretching the
truth somewhat in this matter. The sabbath (rest) was primarily for staying at
home and resting, though later, specific meetings were arranged
on sabbaths.
A week was not necessarily of seven days for members of the early
church. The Roman Empire (other than Judaea) had an eight day week at that
time, and non–Jewish Christians in, say, Rome or Ephesus would have had
difficulty in keeping a seventh day rest, without travelling or lighting a
fire. There must be few advocates of seventh day sabbaths today who keep them
themselves. There is no reason at all for any nation today to organise its
schedules into seven day cycles.
RSB
You people are masters at avoiding the
real issue and steering off the road after every rabbit trail. It is a
dishonest tactic, the mark of the scared, ignorant and incompetent.
Had not Luke recorded that the Church
gathered for worship on specific occasions, one might have been more inclined
to deduce from the disciples’ use to “continue every day”, that they deemed “all
days alike”. (Paul) But now the distinction had been made: certain days were
selected and separated from other days of the year and from other days of the
week, as days of Christian dedication and worship of the time. Although the
Church of the apostles for a short time ‘daily’ gathered on other days than Sabbath, it never became the rule or ‘law’, nor created a precedent for
later times and generations. Once the Christian Faith was properly founded, the
daily worship ended and everything went back to normal and weekly Congregational and Sabbaths’ worship.
“.... the point ... they also
gathered on the other days also, even Sunday ...”, “so”, “worshipping on
Sunday” (“and everyday”) “is following the example left for us”, is
utter arbitrary and baseless presumption.
‘Every Day’ ––– from the literal, “according
to the day”, ‘kath’ hehmeran’....
Nevertheless, the earliest Christian
believers, according to their history in the Acts of the Apostles, assembled “every
day” for worship. Luke’s “Acts” does not only mention the fact that the
Apostolic Congregation worshiped “every day”. It further stipulates that the
Church observed Passover. That implies that Christian worship “every day”, is
meant generally. In Acts 2:46, the phrase stipulating the believers’ “continuing
daily” with one accord in the temple, is placed as a parenthesis within the
very history of their worship on the Day of Pentecost. The expression “continuing
daily” is clearly used not in the sense of special, congregational and
liturgical worship “continuing daily”, but refers to the believers’ “waiting”
in Jerusalem as Christ had commanded them for the promise of power to be
fulfilled.
The fact that 2:1 states that the
believers assembled “in one place” implies that they were not always assembled
in one place, and if not always in one place, then not always on every day.
In Acts 5:42 it is said that the
apostles ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in
“every house”. The meaning is clear that the apostles taught each day, but not each day in congregation in the
temple neither each day in congregation in the believers’ homes. It also means
the ‘ordinary’ believers (‘laymen’),
did not, teach and preach Jesus
Christ daily in the temple and in “every house”.
Had congregational teaching and
preaching every day been meant, the apostles would have taught and preached in “houses”
and not in “every house”. By mentioning “temple” as well as “every house” two
distinct ways of preaching and teaching are implied. When they worshipped in
the temple the people came to the
apostles in the temple to be taught and to hear their public proclamation. When in the houses, the apostles went to the people to teach and
proclaim the Gospel privately.
“The apostles in those days had to leave the Word of God and serve tables”.
6:2. Seven deacons were appointed to see after charity in order to allow the apostles to engage full time
in proclaiming the Gospel. That also
implies that “the multitude” of disciples (6:1) did not worship full time, or,
every day.
“Continuing daily” does not mean that
the Church had no special day of worship, the Seventh day Sabbath, as their “Lord’s Day” for Congregational Worship.
SOC
Didn't the Jews adopt Babylonian names for the months of the year after
they went into captivity?
SOB
I believe this is true, the Jews adopted many things from other
cultures. As for as what biblical can be proven, the bible speaks of
Hellenistic Jews. Were these not Jews who adopted Greek culture into their own
lives? Even in the OT the Jews were shown to have adopted rituals from others
cultures.
SOC
I agree with what you're saying. It seems to run counter to the idea
that the Jews would have been “horrified” at adopting (at least some) pagan
nomenclature. (Why would they be “horrified” at the thought of calling a day by
a pagan name when they called the months by pagan names?) This is what I was
hoping SOB would address.
SOD
'Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs
were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything
in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had
need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They
broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to
their number daily those who were being saved.' Ac 2:43–47 NIV
The Holy Spirit, filling the first disciples, stimulated desire for
constant association and the fellowship that is enjoyed by those so filled.
While they obviously had employment to occupy much of their time, they still
succeeded in meeting every day, to pray, to read Scripture, to break bread.
This contrasts with the practices of many who lay claim to Christian faith now.
Many meet just once in seven days, and then briefly, and in a highly formalised
way in which there is little if any fellowship, where every word spoken by the
majority is recited from a written source. One can reasonably suppose that the practitioners of this format,
particularly its organizers, do not have the Holy Spirit, and probably have no
intention of permitting Him into their meetings.
'They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.' Ac 2:42 NIV
RSB
Have you say over the Holy
Spirit? How
impressive, you boasters, too scared to boast openly in Christ. How do you
exalt the human spirit, deceitful above all things. What empty verbosity, “One can reasonably suppose that the
practitioners of this format, particularly its organizers, do not have the Holy
Spirit, and probably have no intention of permitting Him into their meetings.” Pentecostal fakes!
2008 November 21
The Sabbath is for the Israelites;
it is not important for Christians
SRB:
Sabbath–Resurrection believer
SO / SDA: Sunday observer / Seventh Day Adventist
“ “ Scripture
SO:
All who devoted themselves to the research of it the
Sabbath was not more important.
SRB:
We suppose an importance of the Day, for the Church as for
the believer’s individual life of faith.
Through study of the Scriptures, contemplation and debate,
the Christian Day of Worship–Rest has emerged and proved itself to those who
devoted themselves to the research of it, an essential, integral and vital prerequisite
for, and part and distinctive of, the Christian Church and Faith.
Immediately the question arises as to how it came about it
is the Sunday and not the Sabbath that emerged the Day of Worship–Rest of the
Christian Community?
Most naturally the dual answer to this question, the
resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ the Head of the Church (supposedly
‘on the First Day’), and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Body of the
Church (supposedly on the First Day), invariably follows.
And this answer, it is always assumed first, is derived
from the Scriptures and its record of the history of Jesus Christ on earth,
which unequivocally tells us – it is alleged – He rose from the dead on the
First Day of the week, Sunday.
Now these assumptions are accepted ample and authoritative
to explain the importance of Sunday.
But, just try to claim by this very same argumentation the
Sabbath the Seventh Day of the week, is indicated the Day of Worship–Rest of
the Christian Faith, and it – immediately without any consideration first – is
rejected and judged a weak and beggarly principle!
So, back to the Scriptures is the only option. For here,
at this single, clear, and matter of fact point of argument, lies the key to
the truth of either the First Day’s, or the Sabbath Day’s correctness and
validity “according to the Scriptures”.
One needs no great imagination to form an idea of the
immense difficulty facing the address of such biased tradition as Sunday–veneration.
But just as great and far outweighing tradition’s bias, rises before the eye of
the enquirer, the immense and unbiased, yea single and unchallenged, exclusive
witness of the
whole
of the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, as one, to
“The
Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God”.
SO:
Day of Firstfruits was
Sunday ( Lev 23:11)
This day symbolized the Day of Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If anyone doesn’t
know this, he or she doesn’t know the Bible very much yet.
Jesus was resurrected on this very day of Firstfruits! which was Sunday.
SRB:
Wrong. False; stolen from God’s Day of Rest for the false god of Sunday.
It’s for sun–worshippers who “observe / venerate / idolize days, months,
seasons, years”, the four ‘deities’ or ‘stoicheia’ of heathen
paganism; not for true worshippers. The Resurrection–motive for the Day of
Christian Worship–Rest throughout the Bible belonged to the Seventh Day Sabbath
of the LORD your God.
The statement “Day of
Firstfruits was Sunday (Lev 23:11)”, is a lie. This Day and its event was
determined by God to be, and was realised by God, “In Sabbath’s–time”, “WHEN,
He raised Christ from the dead”.
SO:
I esteem everyday ‘alike’, then am I wrong?
SRB:
Are you a Jew perhaps, who “esteem(ed)
every day alike” (Ro14:5)? If even the Jew who has become a Christian no
longer regards one or any days of the Old Testament Feasts, they all must
actually have been fulfilled, historically by Christ on the Seventh Day Sabbath. So, a Christian keeps and regards all
those days and feasts, in Christ, worshipping Christ in faith, on the Lord’s
Day the Sabbath Day of which Jesus proclaimed Himself Lord.
SO:
Christians worshipped on the first day of the week
(actually the day following and succeeding or replacing the Sabbath) this now
is the eighth day typifying the New Genesis (Paleogenesia; i.e. regeneration)
after the conclusion of the Kingdom Age.
Have you read From Sabbath To Lord’s Day edited by D.A.
Carson (Zondervon Publisher)?
See also Scofield’s notes on Matt. 12:1 and the marginal
note on Matt. 28:1. “Margin: end of Lit.
end of the sabbaths. The sabbaths end, the first day comes.”
SRB:
Sure (of Scofield’s)! It’s what you read! This is a
literal representation of the Greek –– not an ideological interpretation of it!
Just correct the spelling above a bit, and see for yourself: “The Sabbath’S,
end”: Exactly, “Sabbath’s–time”—
Genitive of belonging, quality, or time. (The Greek Plural means the Singular.)
The ‘end’ of that Day of Sabbath, began when noon, the sun started to go down and would end the day
finally with the sun having set – with its disappearance behind the horizon.
(When the sun is gone, the day is gone – the ‘Jewish’ ending of day.) It in
fact was “‘epi’, the very, ‘fohs’ (sun)light, ‘ousehi’, being”, “in its
fullness/ripeness, ‘opse’”. Get the very same word in Lk23:54b where it
tells you the time of day Joseph had closed the grave; it was Friday, “mid–afternoon”.
The same time of day and same word,
in Mt28:1 for “mid–afternoon”.
SDA:
I think that Christians are correct in saying that we need
to trust in Jesus alone for our salvation. However, that being said, the 7th
Day Sabbath is a SIGN that we worship the true God who created the heavens and
the earth, the CREATOR...
Ex:31:13: Speak thou also unto the children of
...and as the CREATOR, He is able to CREATE a clean heart
in us and renew a right spirit in us, instead of we trying to do it ourselves.
This applies to God too as being our SAVIOUR! The texts
you refer to – read them again to see God’s REST in them firstly and
predominantly; then ask yourself the question of what the rest of God
ultimately is. If not the Person of our Saviour Jesus Christ, then the concept
of Divine rest becomes ridiculous!
GE:
I have often before argued with you that the SDA
understanding of the Sabbath differs in no respect with that of the unbelievers
the Jews. You must discover the New Testament Sabbath: It is the Seventh Day of
God’s eternal design and order and determination; but it no longer is nor ever
has been the Jewish Seventh Day of an order and design of a temporary salvation
by works. The New Testament Sabbath was as valid and obligatory during the
previous dispensation as it is during the present – it spoke of as today it
does, and pointed to as today it does, the Saviour
God of our rest. It witnesses of Jesus Christ, or belongs not in our, Christian
worship which, being Christian, cannot do without it.
SO:
Jesus reinforces all of the commandments in the NT as well
as other writers in the rest of the epistles except for the Sabbath. I don’t
think that is reinforced, especially when dealing with Gentiles, because it was
a sign for
Now Jesus and the disciples kept the Sabbath, but that was
because they were Jews and that sign was for them.
I just don’t think you can get away from the clear
teaching that the Sabbath was a sign to
Now with that said I think we can draw some very
significant teachings and understandings from the Sabbath, because there is
coming a Sabbath for us as well if we will walk in the Spirit and do all of
those things necessary to realize that, but the Gentiles do not require a sign
therefore we are not obligated to keep the Sabbath.
SRB:
Yes, the Sabbath was and is for
SO:
Jesus and the disciples kept the Sabbath, but that was
because they were Jews and that sign was for them.
SRB:
No! But because He was the Son of God He came to ‘make
great’ – “magnify”, “thy
law, o God” ––– not man’s Law!
The Sabbath is all, God’s. He gave it
for His Church for ever – which is the People that belongs to this God whose is the Seventh Day
Sabbath.
Perspective!
The Sabbath in this day of ours has become a ‘testing
truth’ as never it had been before. It challenges no less than any other
Christian denomination, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which as yet, it
occurred to me, has been too self–satisfied or perhaps too cowardly, to review
their fossilised ideas concerning it.
The rest of Christendom may not glee over their embarrassment, but should
return to the Scriptures and to the Christ of the Scriptures, and stop
slavishly to follow after and glorify the antichrist Roman Catholic Church as
far as their superstitious “observation”–‘paratehreoh’ – the word used for ‘reading
the entrails of a slaughtered victim’) of
“the
day of the lord SUN” is concerned.
SO:
We are not obligated to keep the Sabbath.
SRB:
We are privileged to keep the Sabbath – because we are
Christians, believing in Jesus Christ who “finished all the works of God”.
Read this in your New Testament in
Hb4:5. How did He do it? Read this in Eph1:19 further – through resurrection
from the dead! But then He must have risen on the Sabbath, while He actually
rose on the First Day of the week? No; wrong! Because He according to all the Scriptures
should have risen on the Sabbath
Day, He actually did just that, and
that is what you can go read in Mt28:1 ... as it should have happened, it
happened. So the antichrist saw to it that the translation was changed to “After
the Sabbath on the First Day of the week”. Pity! But woe unto the mother of
harlots!
SO:
If you want to keep yourself under the law then that is up
to you. The Bible clearly says the Sabbath was a sign for the nation of
SRB:
The Law is it that keeps on keeping everyone under it for
as long as he might live –for as long as he will be a sinner– it’s not for me
to decide I’m no longer under the Law. That would be rather presumptuous. To be
under the Law simply means I must still die before I can be translated above
the Law – which all the credit for must go to Jesus Christ.
But I gladly submit –through Grace– to the Law that is the
Word of God. Jesus is ‘my’ Law – not the Ten Commandments or specifically the
Fourth. In Him and through Him the Sabbath – mark the Word: “of the LORD your
God” –not Israel’s as a nation’s but as the nation of God – takes on every bit of meaning it has for ‘believers’,
‘spiritual Israel’, ‘the new man’ –– call it what you want, it’s for Christians: “for the People of God”
: New Testament terminology!
Paul assumes this Christian freedom most beautifully:
“Let not therefore (because of Jesus Christ and He
in resurrection from the dead, verses 12–15) you be judged / condemned by
anyone (of the world) in feasting Sabbaths’ Feast”, Col2:16. Don’t!
don’t let yourselves be judged hypocrites, heretics, legalists, Judaists,
disturbers of the peace, antisocialists – whatever – condemned! Because feasting the Lord’s (Sabbath) Day
isn’t legalism, but is Christian freedom – even this side of death and resurrection.
“For it –”feasting of Sabbaths’ Feast”– is a spectre of things
a coming, even the Body of Christ’s own growing with the growth of God.” I
appreciate Christian freedom, because I have been set free for Christ through
Grace amazing and incomprehensible. That certainly means I will not submit to
the devil’s designs, of which Sunday–sacredness is chief.
This I find strangest of my brethren in the faith, that
while they resist God’s designed Day of Rest, His, holy Sabbath Day, they
presumptuously regard themselves the lord–protectors of the antichrist error of
Sunday sacredness.
SO:
You take everything that was promised to
SRB:
Precisely : I make Christ my own! I claim Him for myself,
He being “everything promised to
It is the
All through the Old Testament, the true “Israel of God”
had been but ‘Spiritual Israel’. “All that devour him (‘
“The inheritance of the children of Simeon was within
the inheritance of the children of
There is no ‘Sabbath–rest’ in the Sabbath–Day since Jesus’
resurrection but the rest He, introduced into it; for God never “rested”,
but in and through Jesus Christ; God never “finished”, but in and
through and by Jesus Christ; God never “blessed” the Sabbath Day, but in
and through and for Jesus Christ; God never “sanctified”, but unto Jesus
Christ, the Well of Water unto eternal life, “The water that I (the Well
of Rest by sevenfold Oath of God) shall give him shall be in him a well of
water springing up into everlasting life”.
This ‘Inheritance’ all
the tribes of the earth shall inherit who have their “inheritance within the
Inheritance of
Then come the SDAs and say there is no ‘symbolism’ of the
Sabbath Day; that it is not ‘prophetic’ or ‘figurative’; ‘figurative’ namely of
Jesus Christ; ‘eschatological’, in the sense of symbolic of Jesus Christ, so
that in the resurrection of Jesus Christ God by “the exceeding greatness of
His power” “In the Sabbath’s fullness, mid–afternoon”, for the
Christian, created and left behind “remaining for the People of God” the
“Israel of God”, an ‘inheritance’, even His holy Sabbath Day for
to ‘commemorate’ the “great deeds of the LORD” in and through and by
Jesus Christ – the Well of eternal life. That, is the ‘Sabbath rest’ of God
today for Christians of which Christ is
the Rest, and the day, is “the–Seventh–Day–Sabbath–of–the–LORD–your–God”.
The SDAs say, no such thing! They deny the true day, in that they deny its true meaning: its meaning of service; the
service of it, to the Lord of the Sabbath; which is no one’s service that he may render the
day, and no one’s keeping of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath’s witness and service unto Christ!
But then come the Sundayists, and they too, deny; but more
viciously and more shrewdly. They don’t deny the Day its Truth; they deny the
Truth His Day! They steal the Sabbath’s truth of honour and service to its
Lord, and attach it to this false day of the world and its “beggarly first
principles”, “The lord sun’s Day”. It is a shame!
SO:
I believe that every commandment was reinforced in the NT,
except the Sabbath as a binding law (although the principals behind the Sabbath
can teach us an awful lot if we will allow them to).
I don’t know of a single congregation of Sabbath
believers/followers that are monitoring their folks and then stoning the ones
that break the rules of the Sabbath.
And once again the first four show us how to love God with
all our heart, soul, mind and strength and the last six show us how to love our
neighbour as ourselves.
Then we are to obey everything that was given in the NT as
well.
SDA:
The fact that God the Son is a member of the Trinity
acting in Genesis 1–2:3 in no way gives us license to ignore the fact that God
DID rest and God DID bless and God DID Sanctify “just as HE said” in the text.
The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation,
having been instituted in
SRB:
You supply all these arguments (mostly borrowed from
Sunday–keepers) without attending to anything I have proposed. As you have told
me before, you have had your proposals prepared for years. Obviously that’s why
they’re so stale and dry and cold they’re unpalatable and indigestible.
You vault your heaviest machinery at the loftiest,
holiest, most beautiful, most worthy of reasons and grounds for the Day of
God’s worship by a Christian People : that says it all. You make enemies of
what should be co–labourers to the glory of Christ; you oppose Salvation with
Law. How do you wish to attract any to your ways and methods? What does the Law
have, a searching soul won’t find in Jesus Christ? In Him, first, and, without the Law? Wherein does Christ
fail that He cannot provide everything
the sinner needs unto salvation? Then why must the Sabbath stand on those
obsolete principles and not solidly on Jesus Christ? You say you treasure God’s
Sabbath Day, yet cut it from its life–giving Fountainhead –– the Maker and
Creator of the Sabbath Day, Jesus, in resurrection from the dead, become, “Lord, even of the Sabbath”?
Go on your diet of sand pebbles like those ostriches with
brains smaller than a pea!
SO:
The sabbath is simply a Red Herring – I am surprised that
people use it.
SRB:
The SDAs’ –the Law–method of argument for the Sabbath–
isn’t the Red Herring. You –the Sunday agitator– is the one that is trying to
say that the law is still in effect, but you are trying to pick and choose
which parts are ‘in’ and ‘with it’, and which parts you don’t care for and view
out of fashion. You don’t have to do that; it’s either all in, or all out, with
the Law. Which is it with you?
SO:
“There be no gatherings when I come” –
There should be no collection of money when I come ( doesn’t mean the church
gathering) They collected the money on the first days of the week.” ( 1 Cor
16:2)
SRB:
Correct – – so as not to do it on the
Sabbath!
SO:
They broke the Bread on the First day of
the Week ( Acts 20:7)
SRB:
False, false, false – – so is it
‘translated’ to support Sunday observance.
You go much further than the
‘translations’ that make a Verb of the Participle. You make of the Infinitive
of Noun–force, a word of unheard of
‘Verb–force’!
The Greek says, “After having had
assembled together for Holy Communion they being gathered together still on the
First Day of the week, Paul discussed matters …” with the disciples
(mentioned earlier in the same chapter). Conclusion: They actually, had
gathered the previous day, the Sabbath, for Holy Communion.
SO:
You missed the Pentecostal meetings were
on Sunday, First fruits day was Sunday. That’s why I believe the Resurrection
was on Sunday because the Firstfruits day was Sunday which symbolize the
resurrection.
SRB:
Every assertion you make is false, one way or the other.
Dae
van Genesis Een
Skeiding: uit niks, die
heelal! Worstelinge tussen God die Skepper en magte van niet–en–verganklikheid, onbegryplik
skrikwekkend aangrypend: “In die begin het God die hemel en die
aarde geskape; en die aarde was woes en leeg, en duisternis was op die
wêreldvloed, en die Gees van God het op die waters gesweef.”
“Maar
Gód, het Gespreek:
Dag 1 (v3) “Laat daar lig wees!” – skeiding! (v4b–5);
Worstelstryd tussen God van lig en magte van alomteenwoordige duisternis, onbegryplik skrikwekkend
aangrypend!
Dag 2 (v6) – skeiding! (v6b–8);
Worstelstryd tussen God van openbaring en bowêreldse newelskimme, onbegryplik skrikwekkend
aangrypend!
Dag 3 (v9) – skeiding! (v9b–10),
Worstelstryd tussen God van orde en woeste magte van kokende wêreldvloed, onbegryplik
skrikwekkend aangrypend!
“Maar
God” . . . vier maal seëvierend in
stryd, “spreek … en daar was”
... vir die eerste keer, léwe – léwe teen aanvegtinge van dóód, van
niet, van duistenis, skimme en chaos! “Toe sien God, en dit was ...
goed.” (v11–13) God deur te ‘spreek’ én, deur te ‘sien’, ‘skep’; en skep – Lewe!
Dag 4 (v14) – God óór lig én
duisternis, óór ‘heersers van die lug’, in krag:
God óór ruimte én tyd in mag: is God
en Heerser, Enig–aanbiddingswaardige, Ewige Verbonds–God, God oor alles wat in
sigself geen lewe bevat en oor geen lewe beskik nie! “Gód sien, wat Hý vermag
het, en dit was goed.” (14b–19) “Jy mag
geen ander gode voor my aangesig hê nie; Jy mag geen gelykenis van wat in die
hemele is, maak, of voor dit neerbuig nie!” Hoe gaan die mens nie nog hierdie
Gebod van God oortree nie! Hoe gaan hy nie nog die skepping van God met sy
aanbídding daarvan, onteer nie! En Sonaanbidding is van dag een af die gruwel
der gruwels in die oë van God.
Maar lofwaardig is “Die Evangelie na die Krag, van God, wat ons gered het met ’n heilige roeping, nie
volgens ons werke nie, maar volgens sy
eie Voorneme en Genade wat aan ons van
ewigheid af in Christus Jesus geskenk is, maar wat nou geopenbaar is deur die Verskyning, van
ons Verlosser, Jesus Christus, wat die dood tot niet gemaak het, en die Lewe en Onverderflikheid aan die Lig gebring het . . . Enigste Heerser,
Koning van konings en Here van here, wat alleen Onsterflikheid besit, en
ontoeganklike Lig bewoon, wat geen méns
gesien het of kán sien nie, aan Wie toekom, eer, en ewige krag!”
Dag 5 (v20) – “God het gespreek …” Dit
is sy Wet, Koningswet! Oorwinnaarswet! God vermag,
met ’n Doel! Vandag vervul God die moontlikheid wat Hy
klaar geskep gehad het, en vul Hy die ruimte wat Hy alreeds die Tweede Dag
bewerkstellig het, met sin en inhoud, en “Spreek en sê, Laat die waters wemel …”
(“Gee vir My iets om te eet?” vra die Koning!)
Ons het gou tot by die Vyfde Dag gekom.
Nou weet ek dit is heeltemal teen die gewone verstaan van Genesis 1 maar moet
ek nogtans ’n ander benadering tot die dae van Genesis aan u voorstel. Toemaar,
dis nie ewolusie nie! En ek besef u sal dink ek verbeel my gans te veel om dit
enigsins te noem. Maar my ander benadering
“En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag
…”, begin elke nuwe keppings–dag (‘en alles daarin’)
presies deur “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag …”, as inleiding tot elke dag, te lees! Want
die dae in Genesis 1 begin met hierdie woorde; hierdie woorde sluit nie die
gedeeltes oor elke dag af nie.
Genesis begin met gebeure wat volgens
die Vierde Gebod binne die eerste dag veronderstel word. Genesis 1 self,
voorveronderstel ook die skeppingswerk van God wat binne die bestek van verse 1
tot 5a en voor vers 5b vermeld staan, as synde behorende tot, aan, en van, die
Eerste Dag van God se skeppingsprestasie. Wat juis die Eerste Dag aanbetref, is
dit daarom so dat, terwýl “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag” die betrokke
dag se gebeure agterna saamvat, dit
dit ook aan die begin inlei en
inlui! Mens kan dus begin om Genesis – ‘Oorspronge’ – te lees: “Dit was aand en
dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin: En God het die hemel en die aarde geskape; en die aarde was woes
en leeg (op die Eerste Dag), en duisternis was op die wêreldvloed, en (op die
Eerste Dag) het die Gees van God op die waters gesweef.” Want God het die hemel en die aarde en álles daarin, op die Eerste Dag, begin skep. Vergelyk 2:4b, “Die dag toe die Here God die aarde én
die hemel gemaak het”! Vir my is dit onbetwisbaar in die lig van ook die Vierde
Gebod wat ál die werke en die héle skepping van die heelal, binne die
tydsbestek van die eerste ses dae plaas.
Ek probeer nie ‘wetenskaplik’ wees nie; ek praat as gelowige in God
Almagtige Skepper, en probeer om die Skrif “volgens die Skrifte” uit te lê –
die Skrifte is my enigste maatstaf en gesag— is al waarvan ek miskien iets mag
weet of verstaan. Daarom dink ek dit
staan ons vry (“Die waarheid sal julle vry maak.”) om Genesis 1 ook so te
interpreteer dat “Dit was aand en môre die eerste dag in die begin …” heel
vooraan verstáán, móét word, soos ’n
opskrif vir ál daardie dag se gebeure – wat dié vóór vers 5b, insluit. (“Dit
was aand en dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin” klop buitendien met die dagberekening,
éérs aand, dán môre, van heel die Bybel! En “Dit was aand (of nag–donkerte) en
dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin”, klop ook met die skeppings–gebeurtenis
self, toe God ná, en úít, en náás duisternis, niet en chaos, lig gemaak het, en
só, die Eerste Dag geskape het.
Dit gaan beteken dat die gebeurtenisse
wat in verse 6 tot 8b ná vers 5b – “En
dit was aand en dit was môre die Eerste Dag” – vermeld word, skeppingwerk van
en op die Tweede Dag was, en nie,
soos ons dit nog altyd verstaan het, skeppingwerk van die Eerste Dag nie! Daarmee wil ek dan juis nié, dat dit wat vóór
die woorde, “En dit was aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag: …” nie óók geskép was,
nie óók deur Gód geskep was, en nie óók tot Eerste–Dag–skeppingswerk van God,
behoort nie. Eerste–Dag–skeppingswerk sluit alles geskape vóór, “En dit was
aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag”, ín!
Onteenseglik is “En dit was aand en dit was môre, Die–Eerste–Dag”, ‘Die–Eerste–Dag’–aanhef van en tot die hele Genesis Een verhaal van skepping!
Hierdie ‘benadering’ sluit enige moontlikheid vir ‘spontane generasie’,
‘selfstandige bestaan’, of ewolusie of watter ongeloofsgoggas ookal, uit!
Ek wil ’n tweede voorstel waag, dat die
numering van die dae méér as suiwere telling is, en dat dit elke skeppingsdag
se naam, aangee: “En dit was aand en
môre, Die–Eerste–Dag: En God het gesê, Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees”.
Die frases, “En dit was aand en môre,
Die–Eerste–Dag:”, word retories, midde die konteks van uitsluitlik die
skepping van die Eerste Dag geplaas, soos tipies in dialektiese, apologetiese
beredenering. U wat vertroud is met debatvoering sal weet, voordat die orator
sy ‘opskrif’ vir sy standpunt ‘stel’, val hy as’t ware met die deur in die huis
met kernidee in hooftrekke saamgevat.
Digter, se manier is anders; hy, sal sê: “ ‘Op die Hoëveld’, deur Toon
van den Heever “; en dan eers sal hy aangaan met die gedig self, “Op die
hoëveld waar dit oop is ...” (As ek my gediggies en digters reg onthou!) ’n
Digter sal nie een versie voordra en dán eers die titel van die gedig gee nie.
Maar nie die meer serebrale debatvoerder nie. Hy is orator, verteller; wil
dadelik indruk maak, en onmiddellik standpunt duidelik stel. Dan nog al die
ondergeskikte detail omtrent homself ens., vóórdat hy met sy eintlike
‘redenasie’ sal áángaan asof hy nét begin het. So, in Genesis Een. Verse 1
tot 5a staan metodies voor vers 5b, nie chronologies nie.
Aanvaar mens nou hierdie ‘indeling’ van
die teks, dan skuif jy elke dag by wyse van spreke, een dag terug:
(1) Dit was die Eerste Dag waarop God hemel en aarde gemaak het; dit was die
Éérste Dag steeds waarop God gesê het: Laat daar lig wees; dit was die Eerste Dag stééds waarop God dag en nag van mekaar geskei het; én,
dit was die Eerste Dag steeds toe God gesê het: Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees!
(2) Dan was dit die Twééde Dag maar, waarop God die see en aarde geskei het, en plantlewe geskep het;
(3) Dan was dit die Dérde Dag al, waarop God
die ‘hemelligte’ aangestel het om te
heers – anders as wat ons dit altyd verstaan het, op die vierde dag.
(4) En so moes dit die Vierde Dag gewees het waarop God die see met lewe gevul en sy doel met die skepping daarvan, vervul het.
(5) “Verder was dit aand en môre die Vyfde Dag toe God gesê het: Laat die aarde, lewende wesens voortbring”, en toe Hy sy doel met al die Tweede Dag
se skepping van aardse lewensruimte, vervul het.
Skielik staar moeilikheid ons in die
oog! Wat nou gemaak? Was die mens op die Vyfde Dag geskape? En ’n leë, stil,
dooie, Vrydag–Sesde Dag? Is dit nou op
die Vyfde Dag dat “God alles wat Hy gemaak het, sien, en verklaar, Dit was baie
goed”? Is dan ‘so’ “voltooi, die
hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag”? “So is voltooi …” Hoe, “So …”?! Op
die Vyfde Dag voltooi? A nee a! “Want in
ses dae (nie net in vyf dae nie),
het die HERE die hemel en die aarde gemaak, en die see, en alles wat in
(aldrie) is – die mens inkluis!” (Ex20:11 en 31:17) Nadat God die mens geskape
het, toe eers het Hy sy skeppingswerk voltooi “En was dit aand en môre die
Sesde Dag”.
Daar is net een manier – so ver as ek
Hier is dan die oplossing. Net soos ons
aan die begin gesien het dat die inleiding van die Eerste Dag eers ná sy
werklike aanvang vermeld staan, word die inleiding van die Sesde Dag, óók, eers
ná die gebeure daarvan, aangehef. Nogmaals, op beklemtonende, aan betekenis
sware, retoriese wyse. Al wat vir ons
oorbly om te doen, is om te gaan kyk wáár die Sesde Dag se aanvang in die
konteks, nou eintlik lê. En dit is tog
gladnie moeilik nie, want, Word
die skeppingsdae nie keer op keer afgesluit
met God se eie oorsig en bevinding – met Goddelike konklusie – nie?
Inderdaad!
Ná
die Eerste Dag: “God hét toe die uitspansel gemaak en die waters
wat onder die uitspansel is geskei van die waters wat bo die uitspansel is … En dit wás so; en God het die
uitspansel, ‘hemel’, genoem.” God gee naam aan die hele wydste hemele van sy
grote skepping – alles, “die werke
van sy hande”, wat Hy “nooit sal laat vaar nie”. Dit sluit alles voor vers 5b
in! God was van die begin af: God oweral
Teenwoordig, God oweral Almagtig. Sonder Hom het niks onstaan wat ontstaan het
nie; deur Hom en uit Hom en tot Hom, is alle dinge.
Aan
die einde van die Tweede Dag: v10 en 12, Seewaters versamel en aarde
en wolke word sigbaar “... en dit was so. Toe sien God dat dit goed was”.
Die aarde het (plante) voortgebring. … Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
Alvorens God lewe geskep het, sal Hy nie
verklaar “dat dit goed was” nie! God begin sy tuin vir die mens met goeie grond en lewe, Gn1:8b–12,
2:7 en 3:1c. Daarom lees ons tweemaal
op die Tweede Dag, “Toe sien God dat dit goed was” – met die oog op wat Hy op
die Sesde Dag, “baie goed”, sou gáán doen het.
Aan
die einde van die Derde Dag: v17–18, “God het die ligte aan die
uitspansel van die heelal gestel om op die aarde lig te gee en om oor dag en
nag te heers en skeiding te maak. v18c, Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
Aan
die einde van die Vierde Dag: v21c, “Toe sien God dat dit goed was.
En God het hulle (die visse en die voëls) geseën en gesê: Wees vrugbaar en
vermeerder en vul die waters in die see, en laat die voëls (van die lug) op die
aarde vermeerder.”
Let eers op hoedat “Toe sien God dat
dit goed was” in verse 21–22 na aanleiding van die skepping van die
betrokke dag, eerste staan, en nie agterna soos in al die ander gevalle nie.
Dit bevestig ons stelling soos van toepassing op die dae se name, dat hulle
eerste
Aan
die einde van die Vyfde Dag: “En God het die wilde diere van die
aarde gemaak volgens hulle soorte en die vee volgens hulle soorte, en al die
diere wat op die grond kruip, volgens hulle soorte. Toe sien God dat dit
goed was.”
Op hierdie Vyfde Dag verklaar God, Hy is
Wetgewer oor lewendige én ‘dooie’ dinge, want Hy is dit wat na orde en skikking
volgens sy wil, ‘dooie’, én lewendige dinge, na soort en aard voortgebring het, en daaroor blý beskik. (“Vir alles
het Hy grense gestel.”) “En dit was so” . . . en so sal dit wees tot in
ewigheid. Vrees nie oor ’n ‘skepping’ wat aan menslike of kosmiese vernietiging
onderworpe sou kon wees nie. Net Een is Smelter van die elemente: Hy wat die
elemente gemaak het. Net een is Gieter: Hy wat die mens uit die stof van die
aarde ‘gevorm’ het. God die Beskikker is God die Bewaker en Verlosser van gans
en al die werke van sy hande. God heers! Vers 25c dan, “Toe sien God dat dit
goed was.” Dit was God se besluit
van en op die Vyfde Dag. Maar hierdie is nie God se finale besluit –
sy finale konklusie of beaming of blyke van tevredenheid nie! Daar wag ’n beter verklaring van die Skepper self – sy verklaring van die Sesde Dag naamlik.
Aan
die einde van die Sesde Dag:
“Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was … báie, goed!”
Nou wat
het hierdie beter gevolgtrekking by God self teweeggebring? Wat het aanleiding
gegee vir God se groter genoegdoening? Niks anders nie as God se skepping van
die mens nie! Niks anders nie
as God se voltooiing van sy skepping
met sy skepping van die méns nie!
Niks anders nie as God se voltooiing
van sy skepping met sy skepping op die Sesde
Dag nie! Dáárom is die aanvang
van die Sesde Dag sonder enige huiwering in die teks aantoonbaar dáár, waar “God
gespreek het: Laat ons mense maak!” Die Sesde Dag, begin, met vers 26! Die
Sesde Dag begin nie met vers 24 nie; en die Vyfde Dag eindig nie met vers 23
nie, maar begin, met vers 23! En so
terugwerkend tot die Eerste Dag. Die naam
van die dag, ‘Eerste Dag’, ‘Tweede Dag’, en so aan, lei die dag in, en sluit dit nie af nie . . . behalwe, in die geval van die Sesde Dag, juis omdat God sy eie,
laaste, afsluitende voltooiingswerk
– God se skepping van die mens op
die Sesde Dag – self soveel
wonderliker as sy skepping van al die vorige dae tesame, geag het. Want die
Sesde Dag is enig daarin dat dit skeppingsdag van die mens en net van die mens
was; enig, omdat God méér as sy gewone ‘goeie’ werk daarop gedoen het; omdat
God op die Sesde Dag die mens, ‘baie
goed’, gemaak het – inderdaad “na die beeld van God gemaak het”. Geen ander
skepping van God pas, by God se werk van die Sesde Dag nie omdat, geen van God
se vorige werke daarteen
Kan u nou sien hoedat hierdie afsluiting van die Sesde Dag van die
skeppingswerk van God, terugreik,
tot aan sy begin, tot aan sy fondamente – tot aan, “En God het gespreek: Laat
ons mense maak!”? Want hier begin God se ‘baie’,
goeie werk!
En nog is hierdie slot op die Sesde Dag,
“Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak
het, en – dit was … báie, goed!”,
nie waar die teks met die skeppingsverhaal van die eerste ses dae ophou nie.
Die chiastiese struktuur waaruit Genesis
een opgebou is, word hier baie duidelik. Net soos die teks begin het met die groter geheel van die begin van God
se skepping vóór, die
eintlike aanhef by wyse van “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Eerste Dag”,
eindig dit die groter
geheel van die begin van God se skepping ná, die eintlike slot by wyse van “Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was
… báie, goed!” Want opvolgend staan
weereens verder vermeld, “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Sesde Dag, So (met die skepping van die méns), is dan
voltooi die hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag.” Eers hier, eindig
Genesis 1 werklik. (Ongelukkig, soos u weet, sny die teksindeling die laaste
sin van die Eerste Dag af.)
Dae van Genesis
1, 2 en 3
Genesis 1, Dae:–
|.………1…|2……….…|3……………|4……………|5…………|…….…6…|
1…….8a…|8b……12|13…..…18|19…….22|23…..25|26……2:1
en
teksplase… “Dit was aand en dit was
môre die ...”
Sewende Dag: 2:2–3 / 4a
Genesis 2, Teks en Dae:–
|4b………6|………………………………………………………..|7……….7|
|…………….|8………14|………………………………………..|15……18|
|.……………………………….…………|19b………|19a……|19c….25|
|…….1……|…….2…….|……3……|…….4……|……5…..|……6…….|
Genesis 3:–
Sesde Dag: ………………………………….|….1–7….|
Sewende Dag.……………………………|..8–24..|
Genesis 2, 3 –
Piramiede:–
………………………….Sewende Dag………………………….|3: 8–24|
………………….…………………………………………………………|
3: 1–7 |
.……………………………………………....|19b………..|19a…...…|19c….25|
……………..|8………14|……………………………………........……|15……18|
|4b………6|…………………………………………………….......……..|7……….7|
|…….1……|…….2…….|………3..…..|……..4…….|…….5…….|……6……|
Genesis
3
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
2 |
Genesis 2 |
6 |
||||||||||
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
Genesis 1
The Last Week
“ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES”[1] ... “THREE DAYS AND
THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”[2]
The First Month for You
“Observe the Month of Abib!”[3] Christ our Passover
sacrificed[4]; Lamb of God[5]; A Lamb stood on the
mount; they sang a new song before the Throne[6]
Friday
“The eighth day of Abib, they came”[7], He came to
Saturday (Abib 9)
Six days before the Passover Feast; where Lazarus stayed;
lunch.[9]
‘Palm Sunday’ (5 days before Feast)
The next day[10], “tenth
day of Abib”[11],
Monday (Abib 11; 4 days before Feast)
The next day[14] From
[1] 1Cor15:3–4
[2] Mt12:40
[3] Dt16:1–3, 2Chr29:15a
[4] 1Cor5:7
[5] Jh1:29,36
[6] Rv14:1,3, 15:3; Ps40:2–3, 138; Ex15:1–3, 6–7, 16–18; Eph1:17–23; Ro6:4;
Col2:12b, 15
[7] 2Chr29:15b
[8] Jn11:56, 12:1a
[9] Jn12:1b
[10] Jn12:12a
[11] Ex12:3,6
[12] Jh12:12b–13
[13] Mk11:11
[14] Mk11:12–13, Mt21:18–19
[15] Mk11:19, Mt21:17
Tuesday (Abib 12; 3 days
before Feast)
The next day[1]; returned to city; saw
fig tree; in temple; out of temple; mount of Olives.[2] = “When Jesus had
finished these sayings, he said to his disciples, You know that after two
days is the Passover when the Son of Man is to be crucified
(Abib 14).”[3]
Wednesday (Abib 13; 2 days before Feast)
In the night (Tuesday–night) He abode in the mount.[4] Early in the morning;
all the people came to the temple[5]; The Feast Day when
they began to eat Unleavened Bread drew nigh[6]; After two days
was the Feast Day[7] of the Passover of
Unleavened Bread; The priests sought how they might take Him; not on the Feast![8]
And He being in
[1] Mk11:20, Mt21:18,23, Lk20:1
[2] Mk13:1,3
[3] Mt26:2, Jesus’ own words to his disciples; “two days” to Nisan 14, but 3
days to Nisan 15.
[4] Lk21:37
[5] Lk21:38
[6] Lk22:1
[7] Mk14:1, Abib 15; Mark’s words to the readers.
[8] Mk14:2, Mt26:5, Nisan 13 – “Not on the Feast Day”, Nisan 15, yet!
[9] Mk14:3,10, Mt26:6,15, Lk22:3
Thursday (Abib 14; 1
day before Feast)
“The fourteenth day”[1] Before the Feast[2]; the first[3] day Leaven had[4] to be Removed; began[5]; the night in
which He was betrayed[6]; the Preparation of
the Passover[7]; when always[8] the Passover must[9] be killed; My
time is at hand.[10] In the evening[11] when the hour was
come[12] He sat down with the
disciples. His hour was come.[13] It was night.[14] This day in
this night[15]; this hour[16]; Enough, the hour had
come[17]; Behold, the Son of
Man is betrayed!
[1] Lv23:5
[2] Jn13:1
[3] Mt26:17a
[4] Ex12:19
[5] Lk22:7a
[6] 1Cor11:23
[7] Jn19:14
[8]Mk14:12a/17, Mt26:17a/20, Lk22:7a/14, Jn13:1
[9] Lk22:7b
[10] Mt26:18b
[11] Mk14:17, Mt26:20
[12] Lk22:14
[13] Jn13:1
[14] Jn13:30b
[15] Mk14:30
[16] Mk14:35, Mt26:39a
[17] Mk14:41b Mt26:45b
[18] Jn18:28
[19] Jn19:14
[20] Mk15:25
[21] Mk15:33
[22] Mt27:50
[23] Lk23:48
It was early; and they themselves
went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but
that they might eat the passover.[1]
It was the Preparation of Passover six o’clock am ... Behold, your
King![2] It was the third hour when they crucified Him.[3]
When the sixth hour was come, there was darkness until the ninth
hour.[4] Jesus then after, yielded up the ghost.[5]
And all the people that came to that sight, when having seen the things which
were done, went away and returned.[6]
[1] Jn18:28
[2] Jn19:14
[3] Mk15:25
[4] Mk15:33
[5] Mt27:50
[6] Lk23:48
Friday The Feast
After this because it was the Preparation, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly for
fear of the Jews, went[1] in[2] boldly unto Pilate[3], (and) besought
(him) that he might take away the body of Jesus.[4] And Pilate gave him leave.
He came therefore and took down[5] the body of Jesus (and) away[6]. Having
bought linen[7], Joseph wrapped[8] the body. There came also Nicodemus who the
first time came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh about an
hundred pound. Then prepared[9] they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen
with the spices as the manner of the Jews is to bury.[10]
[1] Mt27:58
[2] Mk15:43 – cf. Jn18:28
[3] Lk23:52
[4] Jn19:38 ‘arehi’
[5] Mk15:46a, Lk23:53a ‘kathelohn’
[6] Jn19:38c ‘ehren’
[7] Mk15:46
[8] Lk23:53 ‘kathelohn – enetulicsen’
[9] Jn19:40a, ‘elabon – edehsan’; Mt27:59a ‘labohn – enetulicsen’
[10] Jn19:39–40
Daylight Procession
The women also, who came with Him from Galilee (Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary), followed the procession.[1]
There was a garden in the place where He was crucified, and in the garden a new
sepulchre, hewn out of rock[2], wherein was never man yet laid.[3] There laid
they[4] Jesus because of the Jews’ preparations.[5]
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre[6] beheld
where[7] (and) how his body was laid.[8]
(Joseph) rolled a great[9] stone unto the door of the sepulchre[10], and
departed.[11]
(The women) returned home also, and prepared spices and ointments.[12]
The day was The Preparation, afternoon while the Sabbath drew on.[13]
[1] Lk23:55
[2] Mk15:46c, Mt 27:60b
[3] Jn19:41
[4] Jn19:38a, 39a, Joseph and Nicodemus
[5] Jn19:42
[6] Mt27:61
[7] Mk15:47
[8] Lk23:55b
[9] Mt27:60c
[10] Mk15:46d
[11] Mt27:60d
[12] Lk23:56a
[13] Lk23:54
Saturday (Abib 16)
“First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD; on the day after the sabbath (of
the Passover, Abib 15).”[1]
The women began[2] to rest the Sabbath Day according to the (Fourth)
Commandment.[3]
The morning sunrise, all their precautions despite, the chief priests and
Pharisees had a meeting with Pilate, and protested, But Sir, we remember this
deceiver said while he was yet alive, After[4] three days I will rise again!
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day has
passed; lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say, he is
risen.[5] So they secured the tomb by sealing the stone and setting a watch.[6]
[1] Lv23:10,15–16
[2] Ingressive Aorist. Cf. Lv23:32, Dt24:15
[3] Lk23:56b
[4] “After” is used idiomatically for Matthew’s usual “the third day”, 12:40,
16:21,23, 20:19. “After tree days” – not ‘after the third day’! It does not
mean on a fourth day after three days. Cf. 26:2, “after two days the Feast”,
inclusive of first and last days.
[5] Mt27:62–64
[6] Mt27:66
In
the slow hours[1] of the Sabbath’s[2] after noon[3], towards the First Day of
the week – explained
the angel[4]:– When suddenly there was a great earthquake, (and) Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary set out[5] to go[6] have a look at the grave[7], Behold! For the angel of the Lord
descended from heaven and came and hurled back the stone from the door, and sat
on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And
for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead.[8]
[1] Dionysius
[2] ‘Sabbath’s–time’
[3] ‘Being (day)light tending’
[4] Mt28:5a
[5] Wenham
[6] Infinitive of intention
[7] Mt28:1
[8] Mt28:2–4
Sunday (Abib 17)
And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, bought sweet spices that when[1] they come, they might anoint
Him.[2]
Early darkness still the First Day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes[3] to the
sepulchre and sees the stone taken away from it! Then she runs and comes to
Peter.[4]
On the First Day of the week, deep dark morning[5], they[6] and certain other
with them, went[7] to the grave bringing their spices which they had prepared.
And they found[8] the stone rolled away from the grave.[9]
[1] They did not then, immediately, go to the tomb, but first waited.
[2] Mk16:1a Salome did not know of events.
[3] Notice the Present!
[4] Jn20:1 futher
[5] Lk24:1 ‘órthrou bathéohs’
[6] The two Marys and Salome. A variant has “three women”.
[7] Notice the Past!
[8] Just as Mary must have told them!
[9] Lk24:1 further
Very early before sunrise on the First
Day of the week, they[1], came[2] to the tomb. Talking among themselves, they
wondered: Who could have rolled the stone away for us (for it was exceedingly
big!)?[3] So on re–investigation[4] they found that the stone was thrown back
uphill![5] ... They fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were
amazed. They told nobody anything, because they were afraid.[6]
... But Mary had had stood after[7] in front of the tomb. Weeping, she bent over and looked inside
the sepulchre. ... She turned herself around, and saw Jesus ... supposing Him
to be the gardener ...[8] Risen (Jesus), very early daylight on the
First Day of the week, first appeared to Mary Magdalene.[9]
[1] Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome, but probably ‘others with them’
again.
[2] ‘erchontai’, Present of past
meaning; they first ‘come’ = ‘came’, KJV, then ‘talked’.
[3] Mk16:4c, They were familiar with the
situation already; it was not their first visit to the tomb!
[4] Mk16:4a, ‘anablepsasai’
[5] Mk16:4b, ‘anakekúlistai’
[6] Mk16:8
[7] Jn20:11a, “heistehkehi”, Pluperfect
[8] Jn20:15b
[9] Mk16:9 The other women must have returned to the grave after Jesus
had appeared to Mary, when “The angel explained to them”, and they believed,
and Jesus appeared to them while they went to tell the others. Refer to Mt28:5
further.
Shewbread,
The
‘Continual’ Sabbathly Offering Before the Lord
One
‘Shewbread’,
from ‘lechem panim’
Ex25:30, “And thou shalt set upon the
table shewbread before me continually.”
“Kai epithéhseis epí tehn trápedzan artóús enohpíous enantíon mou
diapantós.”
“enohpíous” (<‘enohpéh’), facing, of presence.
Ex35:5,13, “Let him bring an offering
unto the LORD, … the table, and his staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread.”
Ex39:33,35, “And they brought unto Moses
… the table, all the vessels thereof, and the shewbread.”
1K7:48, “Solomon took … the table on
which shewbread (was).” “Élabon
Salohmóhn … tehn trápedzan eph’ hehs hoi ártoi tehs prosphoráhs.” (LXX)
“prosphoráhs” (<prosphoréoh), present, offer.
2Chr4:19, “Solomon made … the tables and upon
them (were to be) the loaves of shewbread.”
“Epóíehse Salohmóhn … tas trapédzas, kai ep’ autóhn ártoi prothéseohs.”
Two
The
“shewbread of arrangement”, from ‘maareketh’
“prothéseohs” (<protíthehmi), put forward.
1Chr28:16, David gave Solomon his son
the plan of the temple ... he gave
him both of gold and silver the weight ... of the tables of shewbread
(trapedzóhn tehs prothéseohs) ... David gave all to Solomon in the
Lord’s handwriting according to the knowledge given him of the work of the pattern.
2Chr2:4, Solomon, saying, I, his
(David’s) son, also am building a house
to the Name of the Lord my God, to consecrate it to Him, to continually
(1) burn incense before Him (tou (1)
thymiáhin apénanti autóú thymíama), and
(2) offer
shew–bread always (kai (2) próthesin diapantós); and to offer up
(3) whole–burnt–offerings continually
morning and afternoon (diapantós (3) toprohí kai todéílehs) :–
on the Sabbaths, at the new moons, and
at the feasts of the Lord our God : This is a perpetual statute for
2Chr29:18, The Levites went to king
Ezekias, and said, we purified all
the things in the house of the Lord,
(1) the altar of whole–burnt–offering
and its vessels, and
(2) the table of shew–bread (tehn
trápredzan tehs prothéseohs ) and its vessels; and
(3) all the vessels which king Achaz polluted in his reign, in his apostasy, we have prepared and purified: Look, They are in place before the altar of the Lord!
We see that ‘maareketh’, is used when
institutional or when a re–instatement of the ‘arrangement’ or
institution. We see the “statute”, “to continually” and “perpetually”, “offer shew–bread always”, meant to every Sabbath Day, offer it. It does
not mean the shewbread to be offered fresh every day. It means ‘every day’ as
little as it means every day ‘mornings and afternoons’; it means once every day
as little as it means twice every day. It means every day as little as it means
only monthly, or only with every yearly feast! The “statute” to “offer shew–bread
always”, “continually” and “perpetually”, meant the
shewbread to be offered, “on the Sabbaths” every
Sabbath Day, and also “on the Sabbaths” every Sabbath Day “at the new moons, and at the feasts of the Lord
our God”. For thus it has, divinely, been “arranged”. The Shewbread was an
offering of Sabbath days only, and specifically, for its peculiar Sabbath’s–meaning: “… in the Lord’s handwriting according to the
knowledge given …”!
Three
‘Shewbread’,
from ‘panim’
The shewbread “when the camp moves on”:
Numbers 4:7, “Upon the table of
shewbread (LXX, “On the table set forth for shewbread”, “epí tehn trápedzan
tehn prokeiménehn”) they shall spread a cloth of blue and put thereon
the dishes … and covers to cover withal. The continual bread shall be
(laid) thereon (LXX, “the continual loaves shall be upon it”, “hoi ártoi hoi diápantos
ep’ autéhs ésontai”), and they shall spread upon them a cloth of scarlet, and
shall cover the same with a covering of badgers’ skins.”
‘prokeiménehn’ (<prókeimai), set before, proposed.
‘diápantos’ (<diá + pántos),
throughout.
Four
‘Shewbread’,
from ‘lechem’
1Chr23:25–31, “The LORD hath given rest
… they shall no more carry the tabernacle … by the last words of David … the
Levites were to wait on the sons of Aaron … for the service of the house of the
LORD…
(1) both for the shewbread (ta
érga leitourgéías eis tous ártous tehs prothéseohs),
(2) and for the fine flour for meat
offering, and for the unleavened cakes, and for that which is baked in the pan,
and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measure and size;
(3) And to stand every morning to thank
and praise the LORD, and likewise in the afternoon;
(4) And to offer all burnt sacrifices
unto the LORD :–
In the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and
on the set feasts; By number, according to the order commanded unto them,
continually before the LORD.”
We
see:
In a sense all sacrifices and offerings
were ‘perpetual’ or ‘continual’:
(1) The yearly or seasonal, every year every season and always, without
interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;
(2) The monthly, every month and always, without interruption continually,
and for ever perpetually;
(3) The sabbathly, both of:
(3a) the weekly Sabbath and
(3b) the sabbaths of the Feasts
every sabbath and always, without
interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;
(4) The ‘morning–and–afternoon’ or ‘daily’,
every day both morning and
afternoon, always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;
(5) The ‘morning’, every day only
in the mornings, always, without interruption continually, and for ever
perpetually.
2Chr13:10–11, “As for us, the LORD is
our Mighty, God, and we have not forsaken Him: The priests who minister unto
the LORD are the sons of Aaron (and not the priests of Baal), and the Levites
wait upon their business:
(1) They burn unto the LORD every
morning and every evening, burnt sacrifices and sweet incense;
(2) They set in order also the Shewbread
upon the pure table (not polluted by the sacrifices of apostasy); and
(3) They set in order the candlestick of
gold with the lamps thereof, (in the afternoons) in order to burn every night :–
For we keep the charge of the LORD our
Mighty, God;
But ye, have forsaken Him!”
Neh10:33, “For the service of the house of our Mighty, God, we have charged
ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel,
(1) For the Shewbread, and
(2) For the continual meat offering; and
(3) For the continual burnt offering :–
Of the Sabbaths; of the new moons; for
the set Feasts …” all offerings generally.
1Chr9:32, “The sons of the Kohathites were
over the Shewbread, to prepare it every
Sabbath.”
Conclusion:
Only some sacrifices, offerings and
services of the seasonal Feasts, uniquely belonged to them only. Sacrifices and
other offerings and services generally, were common, whether yearly, monthly, sabbathly, mornings and
afternoons, or mornings only. But only the Shewbread
uniquely was a Sabbathly ‘offering’ and ‘service’. Only the Shewbread was
‘prepared’ and ‘offered’ / ‘ministered’ on ‘sabbaths’ only, whether on the weekly ‘Sabbaths’, or on the ‘Feast–sabbaths’;
and then lasted for the whole week
or seven days, after.
Thus the Shewbread ‘showed’ the Conqueror over corruptibility, Jesus Christ; and it ‘showed’ the perpetuity of the Sabbath – “a sign
between Me and you, for ever!”
(1) The Shewbread was the only offering
that was not consumed in it’s
preparation, but was perfected
therein.
(2) The Shewbread was the only offering
that applied and lasted after the
duration of its preparation.
(3) The Shewbread was the only offering
without ‘remains’. After its continuity ended, the Shewbread was not disposed of by burning or other
means, but was eaten wholly by the priests, being
assimilated by them as their very life.
Shewbread
– Sabbath’s Offering Before the LORD
The Shewbread, as ‘continual offering
before the LORD’, being the token of the eternal presence of the mercy of God, of Eternal Life, and of God’s gracious and without
failing Sabbath’s Rest – the
Shewbread, most desired by the Lord offering before his Face – is token of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, “in Sabbath’s–time”,
by which the life of the Body of
Christ’s Own is raised from the dead and is being created and brought together in Him – Lord for ever inseparably of both the Sabbath and the People of God.
The Shewbread signified that
bond in Eternal Covenant of Grace.
(1) The Passover was the Sabbath, “the
Day the LORD has made”, in the making! The Passover was not finished on either
the day of the sacrifice, Abib 14, or, the ‘sabbath’ of Abib 15! On
the ‘sabbath’ day of Abib 15, the ‘going out’ of the Passover just started.
(2) On both ‘sabbaths’ that would occur
on every Passover, Shewbread was
placed ‘before the face’ of the Lord. The Shewbread of the ‘sabbath’ of Abib 15 Passover–sabbath,
“showed forth” to the fulfilment of
the ‘bringing out from
(3) In
(1) the Shewbread, of both (2) the sabbaths
of the beginning and fulfilment of the ‘bringing–out from
Egypt’ on (3) the day and date of First Sheaf Abib 16, is
seen: three–fold, the Divine Antitype and Fulfilment by the Once–for–All
‘Bringing In’, the type and figure, in:
(1) Shewbread,
on
(2) the day and date of Abib 16 First Sheaf, on
(3) the Sabbath Day, “when
God raised Christ from the dead and set Him at his right hand in heavenly
realms” of “the glory of the Father”.
Thus was ‘arranged’ (maareketh), The
Shewbread of God, even Jesus Christ, on the pure and golden altar of The–Temple–of–His–Offering.
The Shewbread of the Old Testament, derives from its New Testament Institutor.
Which day, in the ‘calendar’ of God’s
predetermination, providence and dispensation, has this Sabbath’s–event of
Shewbread–placement been? “For God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake”; “He would not concerning another day thereafter
have spoken!” (Hb4:4,8) “Mark the coming in and the going out” of
This
One the Lord of the Sabbath!
Continually and simultaneous has been
keeping up with God’s Passover, the Sabbath’s continual Shewbread, punctually replaced so that
it perpetually could be present, and be ‘presented’, and be ‘shown’, and
‘offered’, on the altar, before the LORD, in His Glory, through Christ, in
Victory – in Resurrection from the dead! The Shewbread placed “on the Sabbath”
of Abib 16, two sabbaths after each other, and on two of the head–days of the
Passover after each other – ‘showing forth’ witness of the Coming Messiah in
Truth and Light – is Shewbread of our Lord Jesus Christ in glorious perfection
of Life.
“In the fulness of time”, “once for all”,
“shon forth” Shewbread, Sabbath Day and Abib 16, ‘arranged’ and ‘placed’ on
heavenly altar–seat of pure glory and omnipotency, ‘hot’, and ‘holy’, in
triumphant Glory of Victory and Lordship: “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the
LORD”, “Lord of the Sabbath Day”, “when by the exceeding greatness of His
Power, God raised Christ from the dead”.
Hot
Shewbread that (according to 1Sam.21:6)
still was ‘hot’ when “replaced on
the Sabbath”, must have been baked,
just before the Sabbath would have
started with sunset. The switch of the old and new Shewbread
must have taken place as soon as the Sabbath had, begun. That means
the furnace had been prepared, also the dough and the utensils, and the baking
had been done, on the late afternoon of the Sixth Day or “Preparation which is
the Fore–Sabbath”, before sunset. The question cannot even be asked, The day begun with sunset, or the day begun with sunrise?
It is a ridiculous question.
Josephus writes: “The breads) were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were
brought into the holy place on the morning
of the Sabbath, and set upon the holy table.” (Antiquities of the Jews 3, 10, 7 in S.Bacchiocchi, TCR p. 82)
The loaves, if they were baked before sunset on Friday and placed on Sabbath
morning only, when placed, would no
longer have been hot. Josephus obviously
must be wrong! Bacchiocchi remarks, “The
replacement of the shewbread with “hot
bread” could hardly have been done on Sabbath morning but presumably
on Friday afternoon in
conjunction with the beginning of the Sabbath. This conclusion is
required by two facts. First, it is
hard to believe that the priests would bake bread on Sabbath morning, since, as
Josephus points out, all the baking was done “the day before the Sabbath”. Second, David and his men could
hardly have travelled on a Sabbath day all the way to Nob where Ahimelech lived.” (Ibid p.
82/83) (Emphasis CGE)
The inevitable inference of the Bread
being changed hot, on the Sabbath during evening after
sunset, is that the mixing of the dough as well as the baking of the bread,
were done on the Sixth Day, just before its sunset–end.
Bacchiocchi, still insisting, assumes: “The shift in time from Friday
afternoon to Sabbath morning may
reflect the adoption of a sunrise reckoning in
Further, a sunrise reckoning of the day
would imply the improbable, unnatural and inhospitable situation for the
preparing for and making of the fire and the dough, and of the baking of the
bread in night’s darkness. (“Night when nobody works” – especially not
priests.) A situation without precedent would have doomed, considering the time
all other offerings and sacrifices were prepared and made. The priests were
Commanded to do their work “between the nights”, that is, in daylight.
Observes Bacchiocchi, very aptly, that
Josephus himself in any case “offers (‘with remarkable clarity’) an explicit
evidence of the prevailing sunset reckoning in New Testament times. He describes how one of the priests “gave
a signal beforehand with a trumpet, at the beginning of every seventh day, in
the evening twilight, as also at the evening when the day was finished, as
giving notice to the people when they were to leave off work, and when they
were to go to work again.” Ibid p. 71b
“And All its Vessels”
2Chr4:19, “Solomon made … the tables and upon them (were to be
placed) the loaves of shewbread.” More
than one table; ‘tables’ – not ‘altars’!
1Sam.21:3, “What is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my
hand, or, as many as you can give me of what you have!” told David the priest
of Nob, Ahimelech.
Ahimelech was busy to change the
Shewbread – those of the last Sabbath with those of the Sabbath just begun. He
needed to bring the loaves from the furnace outside to the altar inside the
temple. For that, the priest needed two tables. The new Shewbread loaves were
taken from the furnace and placed on one table and upon it, were carried into the
Holy to the altar. Another table served to remove the old loaves with. The new
loaves were all brought in together on the first table. Then, one loaf of the
old loaves was taken from the altar in order to create space for one new loaf,
and was put down onto a second table, the ‘out’–table, so as not to contaminate
the new loaves on the ‘in’–table. A hot loaf was then taken from this ‘in’–table,
and put – ‘arranged’ – in the place of an old one on the altar. As long as the
loaves remained on the altar, they were ‘holy’, because the altar ‘sanctified’
them. The old loaves could not all be at
once removed from the altar, nor all the new loaves ‘placed’ on a ‘clear’ altar
together. The continual ‘presence’ and ‘showing’ of the Shewbread should not be
broken.
Just as Ahimelech was putting down onto
the ‘out’–table a next loaf of the remaining Shewbread, David entered, straight
into the lions’ den where Saul detained the Edomite with hidden sword. But
David noticed the old loaves under Ahimelech’s hand on the ‘out’–table. David
asks for five loaves or as many as Ahimelech could give him. David couldn’t
immediately see how many had already been removed from the altar for a new.
There were seven loaves, one for every day of the week. Offerings were often
doubled for the Sabbaths; so there could have been an eighth loaf of Shewbread.
I think eight the likely number, because with eight loaves on the altar, when
changed, they would never be less than seven loaves left on the altar.
“Mark
well the entering in of the house.” (Ez44:5)
With most loaves already changed, David
entered and asked for about five. He didn’t ask any loaves that might still
have been on the altar! David did not demand all of the priests’ food, but was
considerate and meek in his request. He respected the sanctity of the Shewbread
that had not yet been removed from the altar, because it is the altar that
sanctifies the bread – as Christ is our Altar of Mercy in the Sanctuary of
Heaven that sanctifies us as well as our burdens, which we have placed on Him. “Come
to Me, all you heavy laden … and I will give you rest!”
The priest protested, “There is no
common bread under my hand, only holy bread – you could have had them if your
men were holy (separated from their wives) for at least three days.” Defends
David, “They have; the young men are holy. In any case that bread in a way no
longer is holy as if sanctified today!”
Ahimelech has everything the wrong way
round. He thinks the breads are holy in themselves, on or off the Altar. He
thinks a person must sanctify himself; holiness is the work of one’s own, not a
gift of grace; it doesn’t derive from the altar; the altar’s holiness derives
from the bread’s holiness, the holiness of which in the end is derived from the
holiness of the priest who prepares it. But David the shepherd–boy knows
better, because the Lord Himself was David’s Rabbi. Remember what we read at
the beginning of this lecture? “David gave all to Solomon in the Lord’s handwriting according to the knowledge given him of
the work of the pattern.” David designed the Tabernacle – he drew its plans and
specifications, and patented it; also
the duties of the priests, David commanded! But this priest wants to teach
David, about the holy things!
Now pay attention to this priest’s moralising! How good he was at it! But
he considers not the soldier’s deadly dangerous and self–sacrificing work, in
his cosy little sanctuary. O Pharisees,
you hypocrites! Generation of vipers! Woe unto you!
But how was the Shewbread no longer ‘all
that holy’ and ‘not as if sanctified today’? Its ‘show–time’ has run out! It
was evening–start of day and Sabbath
now, and time for the old Shewbread to be replaced with new Shewbread.
The
Sword of Saul
“There was that day a certain man of the
servants of Saul, He was Doeg, an Edomite, the top herdman of Saul, stationed
in the LORD’s sight (in the LORD’s Sanctuary)!
David said to Ahimelech, You have a spear or sword? Right at hand I
mean! I didn’t bring sword or weapons with me. Quick! Haste, it’s royal
duty! Ahimelech answered, The sword of
Goliath the Philistine, behind the draped apron – wrapped in a cloth. Take it
if you want; there’s no other. None like this indeed!, said David. Then David
left.”
“There is no sword like that!” It was
the sword of Goliath whom David slew with a pebble, then decapitated him with –
the sword with which he, David, defied the armies of the Philistines who defied
the armies of the LORD. But Saul unlawfully
took this sword from David for himself, and unlawfully brought his stolen trophy of vainglory into the Holy of
the Tabernacle of God where the Shewbread showed forth the glory of God! It also was unlawful for an unclean sword – or ‘cleansed’ for that matter – to
be brought into the Lord’s House. Saul with collaboration of the priests, unlawfully, hid, the sword while in the
Tabernacle in this place, were supposed to be openly exhibited “before the LORD”
every object of furniture and use. Saul
topped his arrogance with the unlawful
appointment of a heathen in the
Sanctuary of God, to guard his abomination there! (Ez43:7b–8)
The
Sword of David
David coming into the Holy, although
strange and against the stipulations of all ‘Law’ to the priests, hindered
David, not the least. To David the sword’s presence in the Holy of the
Tabernacle, was obnoxious, but nothing wrong with for the priests.
On this Sabbath Day, the true conqueror
would act appointed priest of God, and cleanse
the Sanctuary of both the Edomite and the idol. He will receive ‘this day’, his
own and valiantly won spoil, back, and lawfully,
will carry the pollution out of the
House of God! “And David arose and went
out.” “For the King’s business requires
haste and valour!” – God’s warrior
and lion of
Like Christ our Lord, David “sprang out
of Juda – of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood”. But
Ezekiel 44 records of the east–gate of
the sanctuary: “Because the LORD, the Mighty, God of Israel, hath entered in by
it … this gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter
into it … It is for the prince; the prince, he, shall sit in it to eat bread:
Bread–Before–the–LORD.” David the
prince, type and figure of Jesus Christ, King, Lord, and, Priest! “The place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my
feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of
Lord
of the Sabbath
By what is the Son of Man, ‘Lord’? By
what is the Son of Man, Victor and Triumphator? By resurrection from the dead;
by victory and triumph over death and grave! By which victory and triumph over
death and grave then, the Son of Man, is Lord.
By what “is the Son of Man Lord of, the
Sabbath Day”? by the Triumph of Victory of His, of, the Sabbath Day! By what then is the Sabbath Day the day, the
Son of Man, is Lord of? by what Triumph of Victory of the Son of Man its was,
even resurrection from the dead! By resurrection from the dead therefore, “the
Son of Man, is Lord, Lord, even of the Sabbath” and the Sabbath, “the Lord’s
Day”.
The lord if not in the day of battle is lord, cannot be, ‘lord’. Jesus the Son of Man, Conqueror of death in battle, “Therefore, is Lord, Lord
indeed, of the Sabbath!” The Hero of
the Day, is Christ; and his Triumph is that He took up again His Life; He had the Power in battle to! Therefore
became He, ‘Lord’. The greatness of the day,
is that “this day” and “on” it – the Sabbath Day –, Christ rose from the dead: ‘Lord’! Otherwise
Jesus could not have claimed that He is ‘Lord’,
or, that He of the Sabbath, is
‘Lord’! The Name, ‘Lord’, is Victor; The
LORD is His Name: Christ Jesus, Hero, Deliverer, Victor of the Day – Triumphator.
Fourty
and Two Days
A giant: “I defy the armies of
A herdsman: “Then David said to the
Philistine … This day will the LORD
deliver you into my hand … I come to you in
the Name of the LORD …”
1Sm17:2, “
From the First Day when they ‘pitched’,
it is six times the week, on the Seventh
Day of the week, and Sabbath,
exactly 42 days. So was it the Sabbath Day, when David slew Goliath. “This day … in the Name of the LORD” – Lord
of the hosts of
Day
of Shewbread
In a service of the Sabbath Day, came David into the Holy, and stood, king–priest.
Now mark well, David forced not his way
in! “Thus saith the LORD God, The gate of the inner court that looketh to the
east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened … and the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate … as he did
on the Sabbath Day”, Ez46:1–2,12. “For
the prince, the prince, he shall sit in it to eat: Bread–Before–the–LORD.” That was bread ‘shown’ – ‘Shewbread’! The king, like the priests,
ate of the Shewbread! Jesus said the
priests ‘profaned’ the Sabbath with their work on it; He did not say David
profaned, Sabbath or tabernacle, by eating of the Shewbread. The priests with their works polluted the
temple, but David ‘cleansed the
House of the LORD’, for David was a type of Christ. “Is there not a cause?”
Revived
When David “waxed faint” and “got tired”
at his near defeat as an older man against Ishbebénob of “the sons of the giant”
Goliath (See 2Sm21:17), “The men of David sware unto him, Thou shalt go no more
out with us to battle, that thou quench
not the light of Israel”. Yea, Sabbath
was it indeed on this earlier occasion, and day of renewal of Shewbread and of ‘lighting the light of
Look at Ex23:12 and 31:17, both
‘Sabbath’–Scriptures, with ‘naphash’ < ‘nephesh’, life, spirit, vigour,
strength, for servant, master, and, LORD. LXX translates with ‘anapsyxoh’,
‘refresh / revive / charge’ – from ‘psyxeh’, soul, life, heart. Compare
2Sm16:14 (king, people came, refreshed); Ex23:12 (stranger refreshed); 8:15,
1Sm16:23 (relieved), Ps66:12 (place of refreshment), 39:13 (spare, recover),
Jr30:9 (I will raise up their king; cf.v.22), Jdg15:19 (water from jaw, spirit
came back, revived), Hos12:8 (refreshment)
Look at Ruth the third chapter, 4,7,8,14,
and Is28:12, “revive” from ‘margea’ / ‘margeloth’ – ‘foot’:– To recuperate (in
one’s sleep) one’s vigour; like also in the Old Testament custom of feet–washing.
Day
of Song
These are the things God’s ‘katapausis’–rest
and ‘anapausis’–rest of the Sabbath Day, and the Shewbread, had in common: “Reviving”
– Sabbath’s revival, Ex31:17. “The Sabbath is sign between me and the children
of
“And David spake unto the LORD the words
of this song in the day that the
LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his
enemies and out of the hand of Saul: The LORD is my Rock and my Fortress, my
Deliverer, the God of my Rock; in Him will I trust: He is my Shield, and the
Horn of my Salvation, my High Tower and my Refuge – my Saviour! Thou savest me from violence. (Thou givest
me rest.) I will call on the LORD who
(through victory) is worthy, to be praised, LORD!” 2Sm22
Further on, one can read of David’s
Jonah’s–anxieties as of Christ’s in his sufferings of death; and from verse 7
to 21, one can read as of the Resurrection of the Anointed of the LORD (51); as
of the recompense of the Righteous One of God. The rest of the Song is just the
Song of the Lamb, the Song also of Moses, sung by this king–priest David, of
his Saviour Jesus Christ. “Lord”, is
Jesus’ Name of praise, Title won by Victory over sin and death.
Precedent
Although fugitive and outlaw, this
Sabbath Day with enemy’s wrested sword and temple’s holy bread, David and band
shall sing, and celebrate and feast! They “feast” Shewbread of Sabbaths’–Service,
Christians, “eating and drinking” of The Shewbread of God, Jesus Christ. “And
let not you condemn you anyone!” Col2:12–19!
The Shewbread, “showing forth”, ‘shon
forth’ the triumph of the Lord–Victor, Christ.
The Shewbread is Sabbath’s offering
of ‘shining forth’ – figuratively and spiritually –, Jesus’ Triumph in resurrection, even “resurrection
from the dead”; “from”, shame and corruption, into, Glory and Incorruption. “So
also is the resurrection of the Dead – sown in corruption, Raised in
Incorruption; sown in dishonour, Raised in Glory; sown in weakness, Raised in
Power.” “Death is swallowed up in
Victory.” The Victory is Christ’s;
the Victory is Christ’s of the Sabbath
Day.
|
Mark 2:23 to 28 |
At that time On the Sabbath Pluck ears of
corn David, shewbread Not lawful to
eat Made for man Son of man Lord of Sabbath |
Math 12:1 to 8 |
At that time On the Sabbath Plucked ears of
corn David,
shewbread On the Sabbath days Not lawful for
(them) Greater than
temple Son of man Lord of Sabbath |
Luke 6:1 24–30 to 12: 1–8 |
On the Sabbath second after first Through corn
fields David,
shewbread Not lawful for
(them) Son of man Lord of Sabbath |
John |
– – – – – – – |
Jesus Christ is Lord, in fact “Lord of
the Sabbath”, and the illustration of David and the Shewbread–incident, of how “the
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath Day”, confirms the very
‘Lawful’ nexus the Word of God creates and makes fast between Sabbath and
Mercy; between Shewbread and Bread of Life – as on this Sabbath, like David,
first hand experienced by Jesus and his disciples.
David on the Sabbath did nothing
‘unlawful’ – things not stipulated in the Law. But he ‘kept’ the Sabbath the
unconventional way; he made the Sabbath a special day – a Feast! David without
even knowing, was doing the Great Work of the Law, to love so as to give one’s
own life for the life of one’s friends. Jesus said, no greater love has any!
Where is there greater sinner than David? Where is there a man God loved
dearer? Only the Son, whom the Father
delights in above any. God’s Sabbath Day – God’s Day of Rest – for David ‘came’
so naturally, so without questioning, so without doubt, so without anxiety, he
planned it, lived it, breathed it, sang it, ate it, so without fear as to walk
with his God, as to storm an enemy or scale a wall. David knew no fear, for God
first loved him. David was a Sabbath–keeper after God’s heart.
Fifty and two times a year and more the
LORD God of His People with the Shewbread every Sabbath Day showed them that
when His Christ had come He would raise Him from the dead on the Sabbath Day.
Visits to the tomb “on the First Day”
1) “Mary sees the stone removed”, “while
being early darkness still”, dusk. Then Peter and John go to the tomb to see
what Mary has told them. (Jn20:1–10)
2) “Earliest morning– darkness”,
just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain
others with them”, for the first
time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They
returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all
the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he
saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had
happened.” (Lk24:9–12)
3) These women to make sure, a second time came to the tomb “very
early before sunrise”. (Mk16:2)
4) Mary from after the others had
fled in fear (Mk16:8) “had had stood without at the grave” (Jn20:11). At the
time a gardener should begin work, about sunrise, Jesus “early … first appeared
to Mary”. (Mk16:9)
5) Soon after – after they a third time have visited the tomb
and “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection –
Jesus appears to the other women “as they went to tell his disciples”. (Mt28:5,
9)
Mary went to the
tomb, three times, Jn20:1,
Lk24:1, Mk16:2, and Mk16:9 when she “had remained standing
behind” until, Jn20:11, Jesus appeared to her, “first”, Mk16:9, and alone, “at
the grave”, Jn20:16.
The other women also
went to the tomb, three
times, Lk24:1, Mk16:2, and Mt28:5
when “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the
Resurrection, and Jesus, as “they went to tell his disciples”, appeared to
them. (Mt28:5, 9)
The answer to
the ‘Easter enigma’ (John Wenham) is simple: Each Gospel contributed to the
whole with one of several sources; each added a personal part that, put
together, will bring the whole story of the Resurrection into proper
perspective.
Tradition – that is, the Sunday–resurrection
approach – makes of these several stories of several visits, the one and
simultaneous occasion of Jesus’ resurrection. Contradictions, discrepancies and
total confusion are the inevitable result! It was bad enough that this
‘solution’ to a self–created ‘riddle’ was ever offered just to protect Sunday’s
presumed status of being the day of the Resurrection. It became a comedy of
tragic proportions when Sunday–protagonists began to defend their
presumptuousness through unlawful improvements on the Scriptures.
Tony Zbaraschuk in Conversation
with Gerhard Ebersöhn on the Subject of the Days of the Resurrection
and Appearances of our Lord Jesus Christ
GE:
I refer you to 'The Lord's Day in the
Covenant of Grace', especially the first three books, obtainable free from http://www.biblestudents.co.za
TZ:
I'm asking you for the short
version. Convince me, in ten pages or less, that the four Gospels, when
they refer very specifically to the dates of the Resurrection, are actually and
specifically saying that it was on Saturday.
If you can't, find an editor who can.
GE:
I don't need ten pages; Matthew in
Mt.28:1–4 has ‘edited’ it in one sentence.
‘Dates
of the resurrection’:
Day
one:
(Where had this day begun? In Mk14:12–17, Mt26:17–20, Lk22:7–14 and Jn13:1f – with the
Last Supper!)
John 19:14 says, “It was Preparation
of the Passover” on which Pilate “delivered Him unto them”. After
that He was crucified and died, says Luke, “everybody left and went home”,
leaving the scene of the crucifixion deserted . . . . until . . . .
Day
two had begun:
With Mk15:47 and Mt27:57, which say that
after He had died, and “after that evening had come” – the body still
being on the cross – “Joseph came” (Jn19:31).
Joseph came and “removed” the
body and “prepared” it, “after these things”.
After these things, referring to Jesus
who had “given up the ghost”, and, to “the Jews (who) therefore
besought Pilate”.
The Jews asked Pilate “because it
(now) was the Preparation” . . . “the Preparation which is the Before–Sabbath”
(or Friday), as Mark says. It was the seconf
day of Passover, beginning.
The Jews besought Pilate that the bodies
should not remain on the cross on that, still prospective, “sabbath day”.
Their reason for asking? “For that sabbath day was an 'high day' “. What
‘high / great day’? It was the Passover’s,
“Sabbath Day”. That
Friday, was that
Passover’s, ‘sabbath day’ . . . . ‘sabbath day’ just as the day before it had
been the Passover’s, “Preparation Day” (John).
So Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus,
and finished Joseph closing the opening “when day tended/turned towards the
Sabbath” (Lk23:54) on Friday afternoon.
Day
three:
“Then the women started to rest the
Sabbath Day according to the Commandment”, from its beginning, after
sunset. Until, “In the fullness of the Sabbath's Day when light
tended/turned towards the First Day of the week”, when “Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary went, intending to go have a look at the grave”,
“there suddenly was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descended
and rolled away the stone from the opening and
sat down upon it”. It was the moment of the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead! And of the opening of the grave, and of victory over death and grave once
for all.
_____
In a few sentences instead of ten pages,
telling you what all the Scriptures in essence has to tell as to “the
Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak” (Hb4:4–5) “through the Son”,
“in these last days”. “For I deliver unto you first of all (above
all else) that which I also received (from the Scriptures), how that
Christ died for our sins according to the (Passover–)Scriptures, and
that He was
buried (the second 'first day' of Passover), and that he rose again the
third ('first') day according to (the same Passover–)Scriptures.”
(Paul is the king of the ellipses!)
TZ:
Might I point out that the vast majority
of Christians, of whatever translation, were Sunday–keepers. It's not like the
KJV was a specifically Sabbath–promoting Bible and we all came along and
started keeping Sunday only after the NIV was invented.
GE:
Well answered! It explains a lot, does
it not? You remember what Tyndale had to say to the Sundaydarians?
TZ:
Not at all. Perhaps you could
enlighten me as to what he said, and where?
GE:
He said something to the effect that
Sunday sabbatharians had no case for Sunday in the Scriptures whereas the
Sabbath enjoys a much better Scriptural basis. I read it in a SDA–book. I
haven't got the time now to get the precise reference.
TZ:
This is another problem with your
approach –– you keep throwing at me things I've never heard, instead of
answering my statements at the Bible. You simply assume that I have read
everything you have, and seen it in the same light, and therefore that you
don't have to explain anything.
GE:
Sorry! I'll try to pay more attention to
detail.
Wonder if he (Tyndale) perhaps had some
Scripture–facts in mind he did not
disguise in his translation of Mt28:1–4, but rendered to his honest best. Said
he also, may God take his part in Christ away, were he to translate anything
against his conscience. The KJV is Tyndale's eventually. Also, changes started
to be brought in, only recently and since the translators have become aware of
the implications for Sunday–observance. Sunday
observance depends on the Resurrection on that day.
TZ:
This does not mean that everyone who
thinks that the Resurrection was on Sunday is therefore necessarily a Sunday–keeper.
GE:
Maybe; but do you know of Sunday–keepers
who don't? Only the Catholics claim they sort of 'possess' Sunday because of
the Church. The previous Pope though connected Sunday with the resurrection
like nobody before.
The official and collective decision of
the Bible Societies about the middle of the previous century was to translate
away from the literal and according to worldview
and the general understanding of contemporary
opinion and culture.
TZ:
I think you are vastly oversimplifying a
long and complicated debate.
GE:
No, they had the audacity to say without
blinking just what they had in mind. Here are some examples:
'Die Blye Boodskap' (The Glad Tidings),
'Preface', “The understandability of the translation has been considered of
greater importance than the literal rendering of the basic text.”
'The New Afrikaans Bible', 'Preface', “The purpose has been a translation that
keeps tract with the developments of recent years in Afrikaans and the results
of scientific investigation, that would as far as possible be faithful to the
ground text . . . . a translation that would appeal to Afrikaans speaking
people outside as within the Church . . . . within our present situation.”
These were the direct results of the
activities in
“At the session of the National Sinod of
the Reformed Churches, 1973, declares the Rev. J.T.M. de Jong van Arkel,
Secretary of the South African Bible Society, on behalf of the Society, that “.
. . . they don't desire a form–translation, but instead a dynamic and
contemporary Afrikaans, in agreement with the decision taken on 5 July 1968
during that translation seminar. An understandable translation is aspired,
which avoids theological–technicalities, traditional–institutional ('Kerklike')
concepts,
grandiloquence and literalness.”
So it fared right across the globe.
Thick books have been written on the issue.
Most important development to me though,
has been the latest critical re–evaluation of the priority given to the NA text
(later editions) to the detriment of the merit of the TR. Life hasn't allowed
me the time yet to make a study of this revolutionary return to the Reformation
values.
TZ:
Furthermore, you keep using the word “remember”.
Please remember that I am not God and my knowledge is not infinite, and
therefore I may not have read everything you have, so do me the grace to either
quote an adequate section of what was actually said on the occasion, or else at
least give me a direct reference so I can find it myself and judge whether it
says what you think it says.
GE:
‘Direct reference’:
First: One finds it
in texts with bearing on the Sabbath and the 'passion–week' specifically
(besides other aspects not of my immediate interest) – and is there for
everyone to see . . . . if they wanted. I won't unnecessarily repeat them all
here.
Next: Why so many
and radical changes exactly pertaining to the time and day of the resurrection?
TZ:
You have yet to establish that they
_were_ changes. You have yet to establish that, if there were changes,
they were changes for the worst. In particular, as far as I can see, you have
not even _begun_ to address the question of how to accurately translate the
passages (by which I mean, in enough engagement with the original language that
you can show me where the NIV –– and the several other translations I have been
known to use from time to time is wrong in its understanding of the critical
passages in question).
GE:
These are specifics. They are all dealt
with extensively in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'. They are dealt
with almost exhaustively from the sources that were available to me – which
included of the greatest and most authoritative. (Mostly obtained from the
'Hans Merensky Library' of the
I still maintain that 'you don't want to
accept it in each case was a conscious effort of the 'translators', “to change
time and law”’. But I still do. The Church turns most wicked when it acts to
what it thinks its best interest; they (we) are not angels.
TZ:
I agree with your last sentence, mostly;
but show me that this _is_ such a situation.
GE:
Please, it is exactly what I have been
busy with all along. It is the negative purpose of my studies. The positive
purpose was and is to Scripturally show the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ also as pertains to the Sabbath of the LORD your God.
TZ:
In any case, proof by assertion means
nothing. If you want to convince me that my translation of those verses
is incorrect, go ahead and show me how it works out from the Greek and how it's
best translated into English.
GE:
I have already answered you on this, but
do go read the old Versions and compare them with the newer ones.
TZ:
Which? KJV? Something else?
GE:
Simple and ready! I have on my shelves
'The Layman's Parallel Bible' – you probably too. Just read Mark 15:42 and
Mt27:57 and compare KJV, ML and RSV with 'Living Bible'. Well, they cannot all
be correct; one, or more, must blatantly be lying there! To me it is obvious
which one. So I could go on. And I could
have mentioned a number of the greatest scholars.
TZ:
Who, specifically? Where?
GE:
AT Robertson, 'Gr. Grammar', 'Word
Pictures'; John Calvin: Gospels Commentary. They all (like in addition Knoch
and Young) in effect say this, to be literal: 'Opse Sabbatohn tehi
epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn ...' : “In Sabbath's ripeness epi–daylight–it–being
(like in 'epicentre'– the very centre) towards/before the First Day –
Accusative, NEVER relinquishing or compromising the concept of “in” or “on”
in verses 1 to 4.
To illustrate:
Justin switched the concepts 'in/on' and
'towards/before' of Mt28:1 about, in order to be able to say “after Friday
which is Saturday”, and “on the Day of the Sun”. He compromised truth with the
lie for political and social expediency.
TZ:
Even the KJV translates Mt28:1 as “In
the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...”,
which doesn't agree with your translation at all.
GE:
Now I don't understand you at all! I say
the KJV says exactly what it should! And it does not say what the perverted
Versions say – it says its opposite. It does not, like in the New KJV, say: “After
the Sabbath . . . . on the First Day”, but it says just what it should and does
say, which translates correctly and in truth, “ON/IN Sabbath's fullness of
Day in the very light being (now) turned towards the First Day” which
simply and literally means 'afternoon' – “afternoon of the Sabbath”,
that is; “mid–afternoon”
in fact.
There's a myriad of other factors
involved, all unanimously supporting the idea of “ON the Sabbath BEFORE the
First Day”.
TZ:
What, so they were violating the Sabbath
by carrying a fairly heavy load of spices?
GE:
No. They did that on Sunday during night
after midnight.
TZ:
The whole point of the original hasty
burial was because the Sabbath is nearly upon them.
GE:
You mean Friday afternoon. How do you
get haste in there? The burial itself wasn't hasty; haste is the false
impression created by tradition: He must be buried before sundown, to get to
Sunday for the resurrection.
The burial started with Joseph's
initiative the evening before already – Mk15:42 / Mt27:57, and lasted until
Friday exactly the same time of day as described by the use of the word
'epifohskoh' in Mt.28:1. Here is one of the great faults in the traditional
view; it makes no provision for the second first day of the Passover Season,
the first day of Unleavened Bread or Feast or Sabbath or High Day of Passover.
TZ:
. . . . so they wait over the Sabbath
and they're going to the tomb _after_ the Sabbath,
GE:
Yes, but not in Mt28:1 though – only in
Mk16:1. So, in Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath's fullness of day BEFORE the First Day
– eis mian sabbatohn”, the women “set
out to (go) look”. These verses both, Mt28:1 and Mk16:1, mean the weekly Sabbath; Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 has
the Passover–sabbath in mind.
The three mentioned women did not, ‘get to the tomb’; they intended, quote: “to go have a look at
the tomb – theohrehsai”, Infinitive of purpose or intent.
They obviously were prevented to
actually ‘get’ to the tomb, by the “great earthquake” that “suddenly”,
occurred. They obviously were prevented to actually ‘get’ to the tomb through
having learned of the guard that –in any case– would have prevented them to
‘get to the tomb’.
TZ:
. . . . and they're going near dawn on
Sunday (instead of after sunset Saturday evening) because they (a) need light
to work . . . .
GE:
It was full moon.
TZ:
. . . . and (b) don't want to go outside
the city after dark.
GE:
The women anyway ‘after sunset Saturday
evening’ “while deep(est) darkness” went to and came from the grave –
see Luke and Mark. They experienced no hindrance then; why would they anywhere
else?
But why would the women not ‘want to go
outside the city after dark’? It was the festival of night–activities after
all, the Passover. Nothing safer; nothing more according to custom – which from
Mark 16:1 is as clear as daylight.
However, here in Mt28:1–4, it was, to
quote literally and exactly, “fullness of daylight being”. Who talked
about when it was dark or after sunset?
TZ:
Can we at least agree that the _women's
visit to the tomb_ is on Sunday morning?
GE:
No, because you presume one visit only;
I recognise several visits from the Gospel accounts. I cannot assent to any
realised visit to the tomb on the Sabbath Day before. For then the women had to
be eyewitnesses of the resurrection – which no mortal eye beheld. For then an
Indicative, finite, verb of accomplishment would be used instead of the
Infinitive in fact used. For then all the Gospels would have been in chaotic
disagreement. No, we cannot agree the women's alleged visit to the tomb
allegedly mentioned in Mt28:1–4, was on Sunday morning for no such thing is
mentioned there.
We, however, at least, can agree, that
the women's visit to the tomb on Sunday morning after sunrise, as nowhere being
mebtioned in Mt28:1–11, is being implied there undeniably, thereby
admitting two events that on two
consecutive days, occurred, the
first event being that of Jesus’ resurrection, the second that of His second
appearance.
To clinch it all, read how Justin
Martyr, had to, change, the Greek in
28:1 in order to say what is
nowadays 'translated' as Matthew 28:1, “meta” plus Acc. instead of the Gen.; and
“tehi hemerai hehliou”: Dative instead of Matthew's 'eis' plus Accusative
– a direct switch about!
In your words, It's me, ‘looking at the
Bible and seeing what it says and not what Gnostics and compromisers say’.
‘Discovery is seeing what everyone else has seen, then to think what no one
else has thought.’ Everyone has seen the ‘translations’; no one has thought
about the text or divine fulfilment.
TZ:
I'm going to suggest, as gently as
possible, that just maybe they had a better understanding of the Greek original
than you do, since they were native speakers.
GE:
You couldn't have said it gentler nor
clearer! That, exactly, was why Justin and almost everyone after him, had to
change the text in order to accommodate a Sunday–resurrection ideology (or
nightmare).
Very few of the 'native speakers' had
the Gospels at their disposal – if at all they were able to read them. The
'scholars' of the day, like Justin, could do with them just like they liked,
and no one else would be able to notice. (Chances were much better for
manipulation than with the 'old' Scriptures of the establishment.) So Justin
knew letter for letter and idea for idea how to word and phrase his apologies
to the emperor and please both sides Christian and secular. The methodology of 'translation'
then, resembled that of today ('dynamic equivalent'), closely. “The dynamic–equivalence
translation theory owes its influence and effect to the blending of modern
theological prejudices regarding the Bible with data borrowed from
communication theory, culture anthropology and modern sociology – rather than
to insights from linguistics.” Dr. J. van Bruggen (Rushdoony). Only, Justin had
such clear 'insights from linguistics', that he exactly knew how to persuade
all interested but equally ignorant parties.
TZ:
. . . . verse 2, Angel comes down and
goes to tomb, verse 3, he looks dazzling, verse 4, guards are afraid, verse 5,
angel speaks to women.
GE:
Not so smoothly and uninterruptedly
though did the angel speak to the women.
How does one explain the many and
drastically different source–materials both visible and invisible?
How does one explain the angel's
'answer' to the women? Where is their question or questions? They are all
clearly implied in the fore–going verses! Had the women just seen the
resurrection, they wouldn’t ask about it and the angel wouldn’t need to answer
them.
How does one clarify the contradictions–a–plenty
if of the one and only 'visit' it speaks in the various Gospels?
Besides, the guards were struck down
like dead before they could see anything happening – “like lightning” –
when it hits it's not noticeable. They knew NOTHING of the resurrection or of
its circumstance.
TZ:
I think that's going too far –– the
angel's appearance is that way, sure, but I think you're forcing it to say that
they were necessarily rendered unconscious immediately. KJV: “His
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow” –– this is a
description of his appearance, not of the way in which the men are rendered
unconscious.
GE:
You (intentionally?) leave unmentioned
what the text in clearest possible terms states for fact: that the guards fell
down “like dead”, when “like lightning” they were struck by the
angel’s “appearance”. They weren’t just ‘dazzled’! It says, “Then suddenly”,
and that 'suddenly' means everything that followed – the guard's falling down
like dead included. One doesn't go down and is 'rendered unconscious' slowly
when struck by lightning. There are survivors to tell; they without exception
suffered loss of memory, even of being struck, or of being struck down . . . or
to pieces for that matter, “like dead”!
Why will you argue and keep on
disagreeing on such detail even?
TZ:
In any case, the temporal implication of
the sequence still applies.
GE:
Exactly! The big issue here is, what are these ‘temporal implication of
the sequence’?
TZ:
I admit that it is POSSIBLE that the
resurrection happened earlier than the visit and the angel shows up just to
roll away the stone and meet the women, but I don't think that's the most
plausible interpretation of the text as I read it.
GE:
The grave is opened, the moment of Jesus
rising from the dead, the very moment of His defeating the grave as well; not
before or after. “There! Look!” (kai idou).
And nowhere is it mentioned or was it
possible “the angel shows up just to .... meet the women”! What next?!
To me there's no possibility things
could happen all at once or immediately following one another. It was all the
event of the single moment, 'in the twinkling of an eye', as Paul
describes the general resurrection. It also applies to Jesus' resurrection.
Again, it is explicitly stated: “Then suddenly”. Matthew describes the
event of Jesus' resurrection and gives the single time–span during which it
occurred: “It being afternoon of Sabbath's fullness of day there suddenly
was . . . .”. This is the literal and exact rendering of the text of
Mt28:1.
But where one is supposed to see things
happen in sequence, the one after the other during the relatively longer time–span
of the Saturday–night, everybody all of a sudden refuses point blank, and say,
no, it was one visit of all the women collectively on Sunday morning. That
baffles me uttermost.
TZ:
The natural implication of those verses
is that the women arrive at the tomb and see the angel there.
GE:
“Those verses” may, include verses from
three of the Gospels; it may, even include verses 5 to 11 from Matthew 28 – but
not from Matthew 28 verses 1 to 4.
Your observations are assumption – mine
are not.
First, the women did not “arrive”; they “set
out to go have a look” – Infinitive
of intent, and so on, as before pointed out.
TZ:
You need to look at all the parallel
accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb
and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am
trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four
versions we have. Luke 24 has the same sequence of events. Does
that not enter into your thinking at all?
GE:
It obviously hasn’t entered your
thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events “in Mark 16” at
all! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly,
'parallel accounts', but sequential in terms of time and development.
“For instance, in Mark 16, the (three)
women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is
risen.” Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be
read together with the ending of chapter 15.)
1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices,
after the Sabbath had gone through” (no
angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!
2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary
only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught
a glimpse only of the rolled away stone
only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone
into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran
back.
3) In Luke,
not only “the”, but more than “three
women” “arrive”, and “enter the tomb”,
and when (some of them) come forth
from the sepulchre, two angels outside,
confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had
told them.
4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the
grave, and fled and told nobody anything.
5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared
to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),
6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have had returned to the
grave, in detail what, without anybody's presence or knowledge, happened when
Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciples, Jesus
appeared to them.
“Deur engele Aanskou”; deur die engel
van Getuig
Mt28:1–7 is die retoriese en dramatiese, direkte vertelling,
verduideliking en getuienis, van die ooggetuie
van Jesus se opstanding— die “engel van die Here”.
A)
Matteus 28:5a, en 1–4 en
5b–7:–
5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan
die vroue:– .... 1 Op die
Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria
Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik
was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel
neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy
voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was
die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 5b Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een
wat gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê
het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar He gelê het! 7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy
dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na
Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!
Of:–
B)
Matteus 28:5, en 1–4 en 6–7:–
5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan
die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat
gekruisig was:– .... 1
Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het
Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar
skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die
hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan
sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir
hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 6 Hy is nie hier nie,
want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het!
7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou,
Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle
vertel het!
Of:–
C)
Matteus 28:5–6a, en 1–4
en 6b–7:–
5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan
die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat
gekruisig was; Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:–
.... 1 Op die Sabbatdag
laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en
die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n
groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en
gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was
soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte
geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. ....
6b Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê
het!
7 Gaan nou gou en
vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle
uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!
Of:–
D)
Matteus 28:5–6, en 1–4
en 7:–
5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan
die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat
gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het;
kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het!:– .... 1 Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die
Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na
die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n
engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die
deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad
wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies
neergeslaan. .... 7 Gaan nou gou en
vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle
uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!
Of:–
E)
Matteus 28:1–7:–
1 Toe op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die
week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk.
2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit
die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan
sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees
vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan, 5 het die engel aan die vroue verduidelik.
Moenie bang wees nie, het hy gesê, Want
ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie,
want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het!
7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou,
Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!
Hierdie streng volgens die teks vertelling, is maar nog die beste, en
maklikste om te verstaan. Mens sien voor jou geestesoog die vroue in die
grafkamer, en die engel besig om aan hulle te verduidelik wat gebeur het die
oomblik toe Jesus uit die dode opgewek was. Nou eers begryp hulle wat werklik
plaasgevind het! Nou is dit skielik ’n ander storie, van vroue wat versekerd en
haastig gáán om die Goeie Nuus van Jesus se opstanding aan sy dissipels te gaan
vertel. Nou is dit nie meer vroue wat uit ongeloof van die graf af weghardloop
en niemand iets vertel nie omdat hulle te bang was nie. (Markus) Die engel het
hulle alles verduidelik wat mens moontlik sou kon wou weet!
Soos wat hulle dit kon vat, só het die Here die misterie van Jesus se
opstanding aan die vroue opgeklaar; stap vir stap. Die Here het sy manier. ’n
Grootser geheimenis kan daar nie gewees het om aan sterflinge te openbaar nie.
Die vroue sou net verder verwar en dalk in ongeloof verhard geraak het, sou die
Here sy wonderdaad eensklaps aan hulle verstand gebring het. Daarom neem die
Here sy tyd.
Eerste, verhoed Hy hulle met ’n groot aardbewing
en die aanstelling van die wag, om
na die graf van die Here te gaan kyk. Hulle sou nie sy opstanding kon aanskou
het en bly leef het nie! Genadig is die Here, juis daar waar dit lyk of Hy ons
inperk en weerhou van ons eie voornemens en begeertes!
Toe stuur God vir Maria om nogtans te gaan kyk. “Op die Eerste Dag van die
week, synde nog vroeë donkerte, kom
Maria by die graf aan en sien die klip van die graf af weggeneem. Sy hardloop
daarom en kom by Simon Petrus en die ander dissipel vir wie Jesus lief was,
aan, en vertel hulle: Hulle het die Here
uit die graf uit weggevat, en ons weet nie waar hulle Hom gaan sit het nie!”
Die dissipels het na alle waarskynlikheid nie eers geweet dat Jesus
begrawe was nie – selfs nie eers dat Hy gesterwe het nie! Hier is die eerste
aanduiding in the Evangelies van hoedat die dissiples daarvan te hore kon gekom
het dat die Here – soos dit met gekruisigdes gegaan het – nie nog steeds aan
die kruis gehang het nie, maar inderdaad gesterwe het en begrawe was. Maria wat
by was toe Jesus gesterwe het en ook toe Josef sy liggaam in die graf neergelê
het, moes hulle daarvan vertel het. “Daarom het Petrus en die ander dissipel
dadelik uitgegaan en by die graf aangekom ....” natuurlik om vir hulleself te
gaan kyk wat gebeur het.
So, tweedens, deur ’n groot misverstand, vertraag God nogeens die
duidelike voorstelling en verstaan van die opstanding van Jesus. Maria vergis
haar; sy raai, “Hulle het die Here uit die graf uit weggevat”.
Maria het by die graf aangekom nadat Jesus opgestaan het, want die klip
was uit sy plek uit. Ons weet Jesus het toe al opgestaan, maar Maria het dit
nie geweet nie. Natuurlik kon sy nié geweet het nie. Sy dink nog steeds Jesus
is dood, want sy liggaam – so het sy gedink – was gesteel en elders heen
geneem. Altwee haar aannames was verkeerd; dis die beste wat Maria haar kon
voorstel. Hoe sou sy kón weet, al het sy in die graf ingegaan, dat Jesus uit
die dood uit opgestaan het? Nee! Net met die sien van die weggeneemde deurklip,
beluit Maria, die liggaam is na ’n ander plek weggevat.
Dit wil nie sê dat Maria in die graf ingegaan het nie. Johannes skrywe
niks daarvan dat Maria in die graf in ingegaan het nie; hy skrywe net wat sy
wél gedoen het. Ons mag ons nie dinge aanmatig wat Johannes nie geskrywe het
nie. Maria het nie in die graf ingegaan nie omdat Johannes nie skrywe dat sy
ingegaan het nie. Maria het nie in die graf ingegaan nie, ook omrede al die
onmoontlike aannames wat ’n mens saam met haar sou moes maak, soos dat “hulle”
(Meer as een mens; het Maria die wag verdink? Hulle was ook nie meer by die
graf nie, anders sou sy hulle gesien het.) .... dat “hulle” die liggaam sou
weggevat het; dat ‘hulle’ die liggaam elders gaan “neersit” het? Hoe sou Maria
dit kon geweet het? Ensovoorts; alles bespiegeling, en ongegronde en onjuiste,
bespiegelinge. So, ons moet ons hou by wat geskrywe is, dat Maria die klip –
nie die graf nie – gesien het; dat sy die klip wég van die graf af gesien het;
en dat sy daar en toe, volgens wat Johannes geskrywe het omgedraai het en
teruggehardloop het – nie eers in die graf ingegaan het nie.
Dit was die beste wat Maria na aanleiding van wat sy werklik deurgegaan
het of te wete kón gekom het nadat sy die klip eenkant toe weggegooi, gesien
het, haar kon voorstel.
Derdens vertraag die Here
presiese kennis omtrent die opstanding van Jesus die Sabbatdag al, deurdat Hy
dit voorbeskik het dat Salome nie
met Jesus se begrafnis by sou wees nie, en ook dat die vroue nie op die dag van
die teraardebestelling, hulle bydrae kon maak om die liggaam te salf nie. Net die twee Maria’s is
teenwoordig waar Josef die graf na alles sluit en vertrek. Net hulle twee gaan
daarna en nog die Vrydagnamiddag, speserye berei met die oog op die salwing van
die liggaam binne in die graf, met die eerste geleentheid wat hom sou voordoen,
ná die Sabbatdag. Die vroue het nie kon glo dat Jesus weer sou opstaan of dat
Hy na die derde dag nie meer in die graf sou wees nie. Daarom wou hulle Hom
later, ná die Sabbat om sou wees, gaan salf het. Maar Salome wat nie by die
begrafnis by was nie, het nie speserye of salf nie! “Daarom, nadat die Sabbatdag verby was” – dit
was direk na sononder – “het Maria Magdalena en Maria die moeder van Jakobus,
én Salome, speserye gekoop, sodat, wanneer hulle sou gaan, hulle Hom kon salf.”
Mk16:1.
Ons moet nog iets tussen die lyne gaan lees, tussen Mk16:1 en Mk16:2
verderaan in, van hoedat God die ontdekking van Jesus se opstanding aan die
vroue terúggehou het, omdat alles
volgens sy wil moes gebeur het, en sodat wat die vroue “wedervaar het, tot
bevordering van die Evangelie uitgeloop het.” (Fil1:12)
Daardie ‘iets’, was dat die vroue, terwyl hulle hulle speserye bekom het
en gereed gehad het, weens die wag
nie dadelik na die graf toe sou kon gaan nie. Want vir die Romeine het die
wagbeurt tot die einde van die dag, middernag, geduur. Solank die wag hulle sou
keer, sou die vroue nie eers náby die graf gegaan het nie.
Uiteindelik onderneem die vroue wat hulle hulleself al van Vrydagmiddag af
voorgeneem het om te doen:
“Baie vroeg / na–middernag–donker
op die Eerste Dag van die week, het hulle (die ‘twee vroue’) en (die) ander
saam met hulle, by die graf aangekom en die speserye saamgebring wat hulle
berei het.” Lk24:1. (Almal vermoed steeds – Maria se vrese ten spyte – die
liggaam is nog daar.)
“2 En hulle het gevind / bevind: Die steen van die graf afgerol.”
Dis immers wat Maria hulle vroegnag van vertel het.
Sou die liggaam regtig na iewers anders weggevat wees soos sy gedog het?
“2 En toe hulle ingaan, het hulle die liggaam van die Here Jesus nié gekry
nie.”
Nouja, dan’s dit seker so.
“4 En terwyl hulle” – soos wat hulle die graf uitgaan – “hieroor in verleentheid was, staan daar twee manne
in blink klere feitlik oor hulle. 5 En toe hulle vooroorgeboë en met oë
neergeslaan aarde toe, baie bang word, sê die manne vir hulle: Waarom soek
julle die Lewende by die dooies? 6 Hy is nie hier nie.”
Ja, Hy is nie hier nie – julle het reg vermoed. Maar Hy is nie na ’n ander
plek weggevat soos julle dink nie! “Want Hy het opgestaan!
Gaan onthou hoe Hy vir julle gesê het toe Hy nog in Galiléa was, 7
hoe die Seun van die Mens oorgelewer moet word in die hande van sondige mense,
en gekruisig moet word en op die derde dag moet opstaan.
8 En hulle het oor sy woorde (Jesus s’n en / of die engel s’n) gaan nadink; 9 met hulle terugkeer van die
graf af het hulle al hierdie dinge aan die elf en ook aan al die ander, vertel.
10 So was dit dan Maria Magdalena en Johanna en Maria van Jakobus en die
ander saam met hulle wat hierdie dinge aan die apostels vertel het; 11 maar in
hulle (almal se) oë was dit
dwaasheid, en hulle het die vroue nie geglo nie.”
Ook nie die vroue het geglo wat die engel hulle vertel het nie. Hulle moes
lank onder mekaar geredeneer het, en God se taktiek het gewerk. Wag maar, julle sal nog tot beter
insigte oor al hierdie dinge kom.
Nog, blyk dit, het die Here nie gedink dis al tyd dat die vroue alles moet
weet of sal glo nie; nogeens weerhou Hy inligting en vertraag Hy verligting van
hulle verstand. Gladnie snaaks nie dan, as die vroue ’n tweede keer na die graf toe gaan. “Want baie vroeg, kom hulle
(weereens) na die graf toe aan met dat
die son begin opgaan het. En hulle vra mekaar, Wie wil (kan / sou) vir mens
(ons) die klip uit die deur van die graf uit wegrol? Want toe hulle nogmaals
(mooi) kyk, merk hulle op dat die klip opdraend teruggerol was; trouens, dit
was geweldig groot!
Soos wat hulle die graf ingegaan het, het hulle ’n jonkman op die
regterkant sien sit, gekleed in wit klere. En hulle was verstom! Dié sê toe vir
hulle: Moenie so uitermate verbaas lyk nie! (Dis hoogtyd dat julle begin
verstaan!) Weer sê hy vir hulle, Kom nou, hou op om verbysterd te wees! Julle
soek tog Jesus van Nasaret wat gekruisig was; wel, Hy hét opgestaan (soos rééds
vir julle verduidelik is)! Hy is nié hier nie! (Hoeveel maal moet julle dit nog
vertel word?) Kyk, die plek waar hulle hom neergelê het! Maar gaan julle en
vertel vir sy dissipels – én, vir Petrus – dat hy voor julle uit na Galilea op
pad is; dáár sal julle Hom kry soos Hy vir julle gesê het.”
Dit was te veel vir die vroue se geloof ––– of ongeloof?
“Hulle het uit die graf uit weggevlug bewend en verwilderd! En hulle het
niemand, niks vertel nie, want hulle was bang.”
Het dit hulle gehelp om nog ’n maal na die graf toe terug te gekom het?
Mens sou nie sê dit het veel gehelp nie. Maar God het sy plan daarmee gehad.
Want God gee aan wie Hy wil, en weerhou aan ander, soos Hy wil.
“Hulle het uit die graf uit weggevlug bewend en verwilderd! En hulle het
niemand, niks vertel nie, want hulle was bang .... “Maar”, gaan Johannes aan met die verhaal van
die Sondagoggendgebeure; “Maar, Maria het buitekant by die graf gebly staan.” “Maria het buitekant by
die graf gebly staan en ween. So, terwyl sy dan huil, het sy oorgebuk en in die graf ingekyk, en
twee engele in wit gesien sit, die een aan die hoof–ent, en die ander aan die
voetenent van waar die liggaam van Jesus gelê het. Daar sê daardie engele vir
haar, Vrou, hoekom huil jy? Antwoord Maria hulle: Want hulle het my Meester
gevat! En ek weet nie wáár hulle Hom gesit het nie!
Terwyl sy dit sê, het Maria regop
gekom en na agter omgedraai (na Jesus toe): Daar sien sy Jesus staan, maar
sonder dat sy geweet het dit is Hy.
Jesus sê vir haar, Vrou, hoekom huil jy? Vir wie soek jy?
Maria wat gedink het hy is die tuinier, antwoord hom, Meneer, as u hom
weggevat het, vertel my waar u hom neergesit het, sodat ek hom kan gaan
haal?
Jesus sê vir haar: Maria! Terwyl Maria (van Jesus weg)draai, roep sy Hom
in Hebreeus aan: Rabbi! (dit is, ‘Meester’).
Spreek Jesus haar aan: Moenie vasgenael by My bly nie, want Ek het nóg nie
na my Váder opgevaar nie; maar gaan jy reguit vorentoe na my bróérs, en vertel
hulle: Ek vaar op na die Vader— (nou) Mý Vader, én, júlle Vader; en Mý God én,
júlle God.
Maria Magdalena het reguit vorentoe gegaan en die dissipels vertel dat sy
die Here gesien het en dat Hy hierdie dinge vir haar gesê het.”
“Verrese, het Hy (Jesus die Christus) vroeg op die Eerste Dag van die
week, eerste (van almal) aan Maria Magdalena verskyn.”
Wat van die ander vroue? Wanneer en hoe, verskyn Jesus aan húlle?
Terwyl Maria “gegaan en die dissipels vertel het dat sy die Here gesien
het en dat Hy hierdie dinge vir haar gesê het” – dit was vir Maria terug stad toe
om die dissipels op te soek om hulle te vertel – neem ek aan, kom die ander
vroue nog so angstig van onsekerheid soos toe hulle vroeër vreesbevange
weggehardloop het, asof deur die Here self nadergetrek, vir die derde en laaste keer terug na die graf
toe. Want die Here se plan gaan verder oor húlle. Maar eers moet hulle
georiënteer word; stadig, geleidelik, dat hulle nie weer kop verloor nie, maar
mooi sal verstaan en sal glo!
“So dan .... verduidelik die
engel aan die vroue, en sê: Laat Sabbat’s in die middel van die namiddag voor
die Eerste Dag van die week het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria vertrek het
om na die graf te gaan kyk. Skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing ....”
Nou wat leer ons aangaande Jesus se opstanding en sy verskyning uit die geheel
van al hierdie verhale in die Evangelies van die vroue se besoeke aan die graf?
Dít naamlik, dat geen mens of mense–oog of menslike begrip, Christus uit
die dood of graf gesien verrys het of in sy verrysenes kón aanskou het (en bly
lewe het) nie. Dat die mens by die Goddelike Teenwoordigheid van Christus se
opstanding uit die dode, aanwesig was, nie in eie hoedanigheid nie, maar
verteenwoordig deur, en teenwoordig in, die verteenwoordiging en
teenwoordigheid van die Gekruisigde en Gestorwe Verresene— deur, in, met, en by, Sy Opstanding: uit die dode, deur die graf, terug
van die dood.
Dít leer ons, dat enige interpretasie van die opstandings— en
verskyningsgebeure wat van die méns – óf as die vroue, óf as die apostels, óf
as die wagte, óf as wie ookal – wat van die méns waarnemer of eerste of oog–getuie
maak, op leuens en leuenagtigheid berus. Want die geloof is nie deur aanskouing
nie, maar “die geloof is deur die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die
prediking”: in die geval van die Opstanding, die gehoor deur die
verkondiging van die engel aan die vroue.
Dít leer ons, dat aangesien enige Sondagsopstandings–vertolking van die
Evangelieverhale noodwendig op
aanname van die teenwoordigheid, gewaarwording en getuienis van die mens berus,
enige Sondagsopstandingsvertolking van die Evangelieverhale by voorbaat
onbetroubaar en inderdaad van alle waarheid ontbloot is.
Dít weet ons verder, dat die Sewendedag–Adventiste wat hierdie dwaling
aanbetref, in geen opsig vir die Sondagaanbidders terugstaan nie. Hulle glo
presies dieselfde, en dwaal presies dieselfde.
Nogtans oorskry die dwaling van die Adventiste die dwaling van die
Sondagaanbidders, daarin dat die Sondagaanbidders aanvaar dat Christus in die
heerlikheid van die Vader, deur die Vader en die Heilige Gees, in die volle
Gemeenskap van God Drie–Enig uit die
dode, uit die dood, en uit die graf, in die vlees van sy verheerlikte
liggaam, opgewek, én, tot aan die
regterhand van God in hemelse heerlikheid verhóóg
was, terwyl die Sewendedag–Advantiste dit ontken, dit verloën, en vir hulle eie
leuen volgens hulle ‘gees van profesie’, verruil het – die gees van antichris
weens die ontkenning dat Gód in die vlees, die Mens Christus Jesus, sy Lewe
afgelê, en sy Lewe ter sondevergifnis en regverdiging van sondaars, wéér
opgeneem het.
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
18 November 2008
Mark 16:9–20
NR:
New Reformationist
SW1:
Sunday–worshipper
SW2: do.
SW3: do.
SW4: do.
SW6: do.
SW7: do.
SW8: do.
SW9: do.
NR:
Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark
16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used –
at least in part – to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as
a special day for rest and worship?
GE:
I have a library full!! I don't know of a 'pro–Sunday–worship'
book ––– 'theology', 'dogmatics', call them what you want ––– that does not
make use of Mk16:9 to support Christian Sunday–worship.
NR:
When you get some time I wonder if you might be so kind as
to identify one of the authors in your collection and the title of the
publication along with a quote from the pub regarding Mark 16:9 and first day
observance.
GE:
Do you believe Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath
(Seventh) Day?
NR:
I have no set belief with regard to the day of the
resurrection. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day
depending on when the crucifixion took place.
SW1:
Mark 16
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the
Original Greek in the New Testament, into English. Any help?
NR:
“Any help?” I’m afraid not. Thanks anyway.
SW1:
Amazing.... God is the author of all things including the
New Testament.
How could it be that he is no help for you? You sought the answer from a Published
Author, yet did you have eyes to see...... ?
NR:
Apparently not. I wonder if you might explain how the
quoting of Mark 16:9 is responsive to my OP?
SW1:
Scripture tells us the day is a sabbath..... God is the
published Author, now I guess the only question we are left to ask, is
scripture referring to the first day of the week? That could possibly be.... does not God have
the power to do anything, who ever said Sunday was the Sabbath ? tradition?
Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly
translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
NR:
I’m sorry, but I guess I will just have to continue to not
understand how your comments are responsive to my OP.
SW3:
I would hesitate to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards
in any kind of scholarly argument, as Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel were
added sometime later and do not reflect the writings of the original author.
Originally, Mark ended with the women running away when they were afraid. The
passages shown in 16:9 onwards are not present in the earliest manuscripts of
Mark and the passage about followers of Jesus picking up snakes and drinking
poison and not being harmed somewhat stand out as being alien to the rest of
the Markian gospel.
GE:
I would NOT hesitate in any manner to use any part of Mark
from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument because although Mark 16:9
to the end of this gospel was added sometime later it in no manner is in conflict
with the writings of the original 'author' ––– who obviously was no less of a
collector of 'sources' than was Luke. For what reason on earth can the later
addition of a portion of the Scriptures render it invalid? How much of the
Scriptures are we going to have left over if we take that route? All four
Gospels are compilations of 'texts', each to the preferences of the 'author' or
'authors' of each Gospel. What's difficult about that? Does that interfere with
the 'Inspiration' of the Gospels or whichever other book of the Bible? Are we
of so little faith?
SW4:
SW3 does make a point, but we are dealing with
translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into
consideration, mainly the use of the word “sabbath” in some Bibles. The word
'sabbath' or sabbaton can mean one of two things:
Strong's Ref. # 4521, Romanized sabbaton .... of Hebrew
origin [HSN7676]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from
secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a
se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all
the above applications: KJV––sabbath (day), week.
In order to harmonize with the rest of the Gospel books
(since none of the them support a sabbath resurrection) it would be proper for
the translators to insert the word “day” for clarity. So, we are looking at
[the first day of the interval between two sabbaths].
We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose
sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first
day.
NR:
What scriptures are you using to support your statement
that, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after
sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day”?
SW4:
Now for your question, “Does anyone know of a published
author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection?”:
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulchre.
Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of
the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early
in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they
had prepared, and certain others with them.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away
from the sepulchre.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me
ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good
cheer; I have overcome the world.
NR:
With all due respect, I do not see where Matthew 28:1,
Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 say anything with regard to the actual day
of the resurrection.
SW4:
Ok, let me bounce back on you. What day do you believe He was raised and why
are you looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath? Also, who said the day was changed in the
first place?
NR:
I don’t know. It could have been either the seventh day or
the first day. And I’m not looking for
proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath. I don’t see how you can get that from what I
say. Someone who was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the
book of Mark, said that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal
teaching in Mark 16:9–20
that
cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
Actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has
it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in
Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the
resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the
discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up,
first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to
justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote
Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done
that.” – I have not yet been able to come up with one, hence my query.
SW1:
9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
This is the correct word for word translation from the
Original Greek in the New Testament, into English
GE:
This, “9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath,
He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...” in fact is the wrong 'word for word’ translation from the Original Greek, “anastas
de ... efaneh”; it should be, “Risen,
He appeared”. A Participle that shows how
Jesus, “appeared”: “As the Risen (One)”. “Anastas” is no Verb; it does not tell that Jesus
(then) 'rose'. If it were a finite, Indicative Verb, it would have meant Jesus
then–was–rising from the dead.
In truth, “Now, rising in the morning in the first
sabbath, He appeared”, simply is telling a lie,
because it means that Jesus as–He–was–rising,
was–appearing–to–Mary, and she would
have been seeing Him— which of
course, she did not!
NR:
I’m afraid that I can not find where SW4 uses Mark 16:9 to
place the resurrection on Sunday. Strangely, though, he does reference Matt
28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, none of which mentions a
resurrection, much less the timing of it.
GE:
Some people rely on a sunrise reckoning of the day in
Mt28:1 in order to get the Resurrection on Sunday. But they are in every
respect confused.
It is a fact no Gospel in its 'passion–narratives'
mentions Jesus' resurrection directly. Only
Mt28:1, directly describes the circumstances and time of occurrence –– in other
words, implies the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, happening. It is the only Gospel that – by implication –
“mentions the timing” of when, Jesus
rose from the dead. Mk16:9, does not say directly or imply when the
Resurrection took place, nor does any other Gospel or NT book wherever, despite
the fact they all imply the Resurrection any
time before the first discovery of an opened
grave.
SW5:
Where in the Greek is 'protos' meant to mean 'first
Sabbath'? Where in the original Greek is the term 'sabbata’ used to denote the
first day? Where in Mark is it used except to denote the seventh day Sabbath?”
GE:
I cannot imagine anyone would say 'protos' meant 'first
Sabbath', really! 'Prohton' in Mk16:9c, means 'first' in Adverbial, chronological order: Jesus appeared–first to Mary –– alone –– before he appeared
to any other. “He appeared to Mary first, early on the First Day of the week” ––
Sunday. “First day of the week” from “prohtehi sabbatou”: “On the first ('day'
by Ellipsis). ‘First (day)’ means ‘first’ in Adjectival, sequential, numerical sense, “The First–Day” in the sequence of the days “of
the week”, “sabbatou”.
Note that the singular, 'sabbaton' – Genitive, 'sabbatou'
is used in Mk16:9 – not the Plural, 'sabbatohn', as in Mt 28:1. Then nowhere in Mk16:9–20, is 'sabbaton',
Plural or Singular, used to denote the Seventh Day Sabbath.
NR asked if anyone knew of a published author who has used
Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they
used – at least in part – to justify the establishment of the first day of the
week as a special day for rest and worship.
Virtually every author that believes in Sunday–sacredness and who has
'published', has “used (Mark 16:9) to justify the establishment of the first
day of the week as a special day for rest and worship” –– because of the wrong
assumption 'anastas' means 'rose' –– simply.
It is
the grand reason for Sunday–sanctity.
I think the principle as such of Jesus' resurrection why
the day of its occurrence should have special meaning for the Church, is sound,
and Biblical. The only problem is, Did Jesus rise from the dead on Sunday?
Calvin taught differently; and so must have thought differently the translators
of the KJV who translated Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath”; and other translations –––
all 'old' ones ––– “On the Sabbath”. Note how the 'new' 'translations' speak of
“After the Sabbath”! They must have realised the 'old' versions' destructive
implications for their Sunday–tradition!
SW1:
Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was
raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.
GE:
This is a hackneyed 'non–issue' if ever there has been
one. Be careful how you advertise your knowledge and mastery of the Greek
language. Yours is incorrect and very far
from “word for word Greek into English”!!
If it said “the first Sabbath day”, it would not have
said, “prohtehi sabbatou”,
but “prohtehi sabbatohi”. But
now by Greek 'style' or 'linguistics', it actually says, “prohtehi _hehmerai
tou_ sabbatou” ––– by Ellipsis as I said before. The concept 'day' is implied ––
unavoidably!
SW4:
We are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from
the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the
word “sabbath” in some Bibles.
GE:
I guess you are at a loss to explain how “we are dealing
with translations mainly interpreted from the TR” with regard to the word
'sabbatou' in Mk16:9. I may be wrong, and therefore would appreciate if you
could please show me these supposed discrepancies or just differences between
and in the different 'texts', because I am not aware of any!
Now I am surprised how many make of Strongs virtually
their first Bible, like here, where we must interpret the Bible according to
information given in Strongs while the Bible and the NT in particular causes no
problems in the understanding of its use of the word 'Sabbath' et al.
I could raise objections to the particulars here given by
Strongs, but it would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. Let me only say
Strongs' idea of the word 'sabbath' indicating “the interval between two
Sabbaths” in all of the Bible and particularly in the NT is unfounded and
totally imaginary. If an interval between two Sabbaths were meant, the Koine
Greek had the best of linguistic tools to convey and express the idea 'word for
word', literally, and exactly, just,
like it had the proper 'tools' to convey and express 'word for word' literally
and exactly the idea or concept of that reality called a 'Sabbath': by the
hellenised Hebrew word, 'Sabbaton'. (I cannot see why one should view this word
in the Greek of the Greek NT Scriptures, as a latinisation or “Romanised”
word! Strongs occasionally as shown here
can be very weak in fact! It goes to show, simply, no one is immune to that strong
power called 'tradition'. Strongs came to the fore with these strange
statements only because it (he /
they) had no answers to the enigmas of the Sunday–resurrection tradition. Were
it not for these unanswerable difficulties for Sunday–resurrectionists, Strongs
would not have published its nonsense.
Some claim, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He
rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first
day.” But, Quote please? They do not
know what they claim for fact so innocently. Nowhere else than in Mt28:1 will you read of anything implying the
resurrection ––– which is the only
place, where time and day are given ––– given for having been “In the Sabbath / On the sabbath”.
SW5:
Although St. Ignatius may not be using Mark 16:9 maybe if
not probably because the idea to celebrate the Liturgy on the day Jesus rose
predates the establishment of the cannon of Scripture.
St. Ignatius of
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient
order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing
the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our
life has sprung up again by Him and by His death––whom some deny, by which
mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the
disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master––how shall we be able to live apart
from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for
Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being
come, raised them from the dead.
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common
assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in
the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus
Christ
our Savior on the same day rose from the dead (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
You may be putting the cart before the horse they were
already celebrating the Liturgy on Sunday before they were even writting the
New Testament. For the reasons testified too above.
GE:
I guarantee you this is the falsest 'Ignatius' possible!!
It is so shameless I cannot think a Christian wrote it.
Ignatius says the OT prophets were disciples of Christ who
did not legalistically “sabbatized, but according to Lord's life lived” their
Sabbath–keeping, in other words, kept the Sabbath –– of the OT –– with NT–meaning, by celebrating
it because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
There are many
false Ignatius'; do not be deceived by them! The Lord's Day is the Day of
His Lordship – the day of his conquering death and grave ––– which the Bible foretold would be “the Seventh Day God
thus concerning did speak”, and Christ in actual resurrection confirmed was, “In
the Sabbath”, Mt28:1.
NR:
I see nothing in Matthew 28:1 that says when the
resurrection took place. What do you have in mind?
GE:
Can't you read? Everybody can see the word 'resurrection'
is not there, but just so must everybody can ‘see’ the resurrection happening,
then!
NR:
You ask if I can read. Indeed I can, and I do not read
where Matthew 28:1 says anything about a resurrection, much less the timing of
one. “Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
GE:
Jesus’ resurrection is in there. To mention just one
reason why: How and why did the women suddenly believe that He rose from the
dead? Because “the angel answered /
explained”, it, the Resurrection, “to
the women” ! The angel did not tell them about time and day for nothing! That is why the Gospel is believed by faith (and “seen of angels” only) –––
believed by the faith of hearing and
not by a believing because of seeing.
'See', with the eye of faith, and
all you can see, is Christ in the Glory of the Father being raised from the
dead “On the Sabbath Day” in Mt28:1.
NR:
I’m afraid that I am a bit dense here with regard to the
point made, Isn't it interesting that the word for ‘week’ in Mark 16:9 is
sabbaton? Somehow lots of people miss that. Could you please elaborate?
SW6:
Sure. In Mark 16:9 the word “week” is actually the Greek
word sabbaton – the sabbath. That taken into consideration it should be obvious
that Jesus didn't necessarily rise on the “first day of the week” but on the “first
day after the sabbath.”
GE:
It is not ‘actually the Geek word sabbaton’; it actually
is the Greek word ‘sabbatou’, “of the week”. If ‘sabbaton’ had been the case,
then the Greek would have used an Accusative and no Genitive, and most likely
with the help of Prepositions, like, “meta (mian) sabbaton”. So forget it;
you’re lost!
SW6:
Now, are both the same? Yes. Do both (the “first day of
the week” and “on the first day after the sabbath”) carry the same meaning?
That depends on whether one recognizes the sabbath I suppose. More importantly
I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually rose. After the
sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
GE:
Quite incomprehensible to me, and certainly nothing
explained! 'Sabbatou' in Mk16:9 means
'week', and it says “On the First Day of the week, early”, with saying, “prohi
prohtehi sabbatou”. There is absolutely nothing difficult about understanding
this. You create difficulties in your own mind only! Worse trouble starts with
people making of the Participle,
'anastas' – 'risen' / 'as the Risen One', a Verb, and saying it means, “He rose”;
Or people making 'anastas' a Present Participle, instead of the Aorist Participle it is, saying it means, 'rising' –– 'Rising He
appeared' ––– which is making it a lie
because – besides the Grammatical factors – Jesus simply did not appear as He was ‘rising’ : Nobody ever saw Him rising from the dead!
Therefore, “On Sunday morning early, Jesus, having been
raised from the dead, and risen, first of all appeared to Mary.” All,
‘problems’, solved once for all:
Jesus did not rise on Sunday
morning; he was or had been raised
from the dead already, “Late Sabbath's mid–afternoon before / tending / towards the First
Day of
the week”— Mt28:1.
NR:
“Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to
dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
GE:
It’s a false
'translation' (in other words, it is a corruption) of the correct, “Late Sabbath Day’s
mid–afternoon against the First Day of the week ...” ––– correct and
literal of “opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbaton”.
Next, the women “set
off to see / went to go have a look”; they did not ‘arrive’. It can be
categorically stated the women did not
'arrive', because they if they ‘arrived’ would have seen what then, was
happening. (That, judging by the way you see, you obviously too will be unable
to see.) But it is evident from all the
rest of all the Gospels, the two women had seen nothing, and it is evident from Mt28:5 the women were “told” these things that indeed had
happened about 15 hours before ––––
but what you say you do not read of in this Scripture.
SW7:
The Greek phrase “??? ??? ????????” refers to the first
(day) of the week in every context in the New Testament, and ALL translators of
whom I am aware (except the Concordant Translation), so translate it.
It becomes obvious that this is the meaning when one
considers Matthew 28:1
GE:
Beg to differ on some important detail:
In Mk16:9 we find 'prohtehi sabbatou' Dative, “On the First Day of the week”. (The
Singular is of no consequence) ––– it tells of the day “of the week”, upon
which Jesus “appeared to Mary”.
In Mt28:1 though, we do not find the Dative, but the Accusative, “eis mian sabbatohn”, “towards /
against / before the First Day of the week”. (Again, the Plural, sabbatohn,
is incidental and of no consequence; it simply means 'week – of the week''.)
What we do find besides this Accusative of: “towards the First Day”, is the Genitive
of: “In the Sabbath’s Day”! And that
is what in the phrase gives the time
of the event and events that “On / In the Sabbath” occurred; or, that were “OF the Sabbath's” occurrence –– which
of course entailed Jesus' resurrection, which nobody seems able to read or
‘exegete’ here, but without which, the whole passage would be absolutely
senseless and worthless.
SW8:
THE LORD'S DAY,
“This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice
and be glad in it.” The day of the
Resurrection: the new creation.
Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week”
because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ's Resurrection. It recalls the
first creation because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath. It
symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians
it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day
(he kuriake hemera, dies
“We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first
day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating
matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our
Savior rose from the dead.”
Sunday– fulfilment of the sabbath,
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which
it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance
replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the
spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God.
For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done
there prefigured some aspects of Christ.
“Those who lived according to the old order of things have
come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which
our life is blessed by him and by his death.”
The celebration of Sunday, observes the moral commandment
inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible,
public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.”
Sunday worship, fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its
rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his
people.
GE:
Everything above here claimed for Sunday, belongs to the
Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God, and has been stolen from it, and has
been given to the usurper–lord, Sunday – in fact all, on the assumption of this
one, false, claim: Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week.”
SW6:
More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as
to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.
GE:
Jesus did not rise “after the Sabbath” You will find this
only in translations made since the translators became aware of the truth of
the older translations that used to have “In”, or “On the Sabbath”. They feared
the consequences for their Sunday–dogma, but had no fear for the Word of God,
so nonchalantly just changed the Word of God, and 'translated' to, “After the
Sabbath ... on the First Day” – an impossibility for the Greek, 'opse sabbatohn
tehi epifohskousehi eis mian s.' It is horrific!
But what is far more horrific, is that you say that Jesus
rested in the tomb!! Death is the wages of sin;
how dare you make it Jesus' 'rest'? No! Jesus' 'rest' was to have been raised— from death and to have “Entered Into His Own Rest As God In His Own”
Victor, through resurrection from
the dead. “Then”, was it, that God
found and founded His Sabbath Day's
Rest, “As He raised Christ from the dead .... by the exceeding Greatness of His
Power Which He Worked In Christ.”
Re: “....depending on when the crucifixion took place”....
No text in Scriptures mentions
the resurrection as it happened,
whenever it happened. Only Mt28:1–4
describes the visible but not seen circumstances
that surrounded and accompanied the resurrection. The resurrection is undeniably implied in these text,
taking into account the angel “explained
to the women” in verse 5, what
indeed had taken place when there was an earthquake and while the Marys set out
to go and have a look at the grave, and the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven and rolled the stone away and sat on it. nowhere else in the NT is there such a direct explanation of the events which any believer will accept by
faith accompanied Jesus' resurrection from the dead. There is absolutely nothing too complicated to understand
and accept for the greatest Truth
ever recorded. Just so unambiguous is the time—
given: “In the Sabbath’s fullness of mid–afternoon
before the First Day of the week”.
NR:
I am sorry, but Matthew 28 does not say WHEN the
resurrection took place.
GE:
No sir, Matthew 28:1–4 does say ‘when’, the
Resurrection took place. You are questioning the Resurrection, because the time
clearly is stated there— for
even the unbeliever to see. It is only what
happened “then”, as Paul says in
Eph1:17f, “When God— raised, Christ from the dead and exalted, Him to (His) Right Hand”, that
you question because it does not stand there written in so many words. Do you
believe the Scriptures?
This is what you insinuate those who use Mk16:9 to show
Jesus' resurrection, cannot do, because His resurrection is not mentioned in
that verse. Now who does not know that? One should rather ask: Who does not believe it? in order to answer your
fishy questions and doubts. No sir, even the Sunday–sacredness adherents at
least believe Jesus in fact, rose from the dead; they at least, are real Christians despite they
misinterpret the text! Your cunningness is tangible!
I think, you are a New Reformationist
But, to answer your vague question as to the time–relation
between the day of the resurrection and the day of the crucifixion, there are a
hundred reasons why there can be no doubt Jesus rose, and had to rise from the
dead, on the Sabbath Day.
Here is one of them:
Luke tells the disciples who went to Emmaus late on Sunday
afternoon, told Jesus, “Today is the third day,
since these things happened”. Now to
which things did they refer? To the things they knew about – of no other things! And what was it they knew about?
They tell us themselves: They mention Jesus' suffering and crucifixion. Simply
count: Sunday, day 3 after or since the crucifixion; Saturday, day 2 since the
crucifixion; Friday, day one since the crucifixion; Thursday, day of, the
crucifixion!
Therefore, Jesus must have been crucified on a Thursday –––
against popular belief, as it is against popular belief He rose on a
'Saturday', “the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God”. It is against
popular belief although this name of
it already foretold God in Christ Jesus would on the Seventh Day His Sabbath
Day, and in it, rest. “God from all
His works, on the Seventh Day rested”
––– a NT Word! What can God's 'Rest' be – and have been – but His Triumph of
Lordship by having raised Christ from the dead?
Now who can deny the faith
that believes if God is “speaking”, “through the Son”, “in these last days” of
ours ––– in New Testament times, “Thus, concerning the Seventh Day: And God the
Seventh Day rested from all His
Works”, that God is speaking from God's Work of Redemption first and foremost:
In and Through the Son, ultimately,
finally, axiomatically, Victoriously, Triumphantly, in and through God the Son,
Jesus Christ: in and through
resurrection from the dead!
SW9:
Mark 16:9–20 appears in certain Bible manuscripts and
versions of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. But they do not appear in
the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and
In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the
Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short
Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither
can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed
Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.
Thus, Mark 16 ends with verse 8, with verses 9–20 and the
short conclusion as being added at a later date. Supporting this testimony of
the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius (bishop of
Bible scholars agree that the last twelve verses shown
with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by
snakes, were not written by Mark but were added by another. Samuel Tregelles, a
noted nineteenth–century English Bible scholar, states: “Eusebius, Gregory of
Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers,
especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark,
or not found in the best copies.”
(Source of information – Watchtower Library)
GE:
Alright; Eusebius might not have known of the longer
endings' existence; it doesn't prove:
1) it not somewhere else existed and was known and
accepted by other Christians. It doesn't prove
2) the longer ending is not genuine, or not 'Scripture'.
That it is not, is a subjective opinion at best.
The 'reasons' from the content for why not, always are
based on opinion and dogmatic prejudice, as if no other interpretation could be
given than the usual fantastic ones – snake bites and that stuff. Once these
things are understood for what they are:
1) Signs of apostleship, and,
2) Of figurative application to all other believers,
no
problems are left with believing them for the Word of God.
I have before made notice, that none of the NT texts
originated simultaneously; they are all from oldest to youngest –– we are only
here and there able to tell which is which.
The fact Mk16–20 got
preserved proves God's protecting hand over his genuine written Word.
Like in the Gospel of Luke – according to Luke himself –,
very little was written by himself – the Gospel is mainly a compilation made by
Luke of many unidentified sources –, so the Gospel of Mark contains as it seems
everything Mark was not himself the eye–witness of. So why make an exception of
the longer ending? Because it could not have been Mark himself who added it to
his Gospel because it was added too late? So you see we are back to personal
feelings, so that anyone could say, yes, indeed! But there's no proof for any
such conclusions under the sun!
SW9:
Eusebius was aware of the longer ending to the book of
Mark, saying that it was not in any of the “accurate copies” of early Bible
manuscripts. One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript
and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base
of
In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book,
with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning
of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended
with verse 8, and that verses 9–20 are not part of the Bible, but both the
short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240,
said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel
originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in
the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th
century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the
rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it.
. . . Mark 16.1–8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as
it declares Jesus’ Resurrection–prophecy to be fulfilled.”
The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written
these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God.
There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink
deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. (Compare 1Cor.4:6, to
follow the “rule” to “not go beyond the things written”)
GE:
No fine, I do not contend any facts you make mention of, only some deductions or inferences made.
“Eusebius was aware of the longer ending to the book of
Mark,” ––– accepted
“... saying that it was not in any of the “accurate copies”
of early Bible manuscripts.” ––– not
accepted.
“One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased
manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery
at the base of
“In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book,
with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning
of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended
with verse 8,” ––– accepted. Black
on white facts cannot be argued about.
Not accepted :
“... and that verses 9–20 are not part of the Bible, but
both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.”
“The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240,
said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel
originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in
the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th
century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of
the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark
16.1–8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’
Resurrection–prophecy to be fulfilled.” ––– accepted 100%.
“... The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have
written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of
God.” ––– Not accepted; the word
'proper' is subjective and predisposed.
“... There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were
commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse
18.” ––– Not accepted; the word or
idea that “Christ’s followers were commanded” anything in the 'ending', is
illegitimate for purely the absence of command. I believe these 'command/–ments'
must rather be understood for promises
of God's faithfulness.
And also, that they were to serve as marks or proofs of apostleship. No one after the apostles
have any right more to claim these assurances. That's where the trouble with
the interpretations of this Scriptures starts – when false claims of
apostleship, like by the charismatics or pentecostals are started being made.
“(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the “rule” to “not go
beyond the things written”)” –––– not
accepted, because not relevant in any way, not even in the sense of “the things
written” ––– which the 'ending'
certainly had been from its origin.
19 November 2008
Mark 16:9–20 Authentic I quote from an unknown source.
The
vv. 9–20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark
appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch.
16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: “But they reported
briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward
Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred
and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.” The longer addition appears in
English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an
elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a
disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and
from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from
Matthew 28:18–20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained
an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in
A Commentary on the
Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York:
MacMillan, 1927), pages 732–33.
9–20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second
termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that
had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter.
And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto
the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'
Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last
twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly
contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2)
The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's
usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and
expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start,
and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is
spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just
been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a
primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in
particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke
24:23f.
On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to
the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts,
versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and
it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub–apostolic
age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can
be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265–340 A.D.), but
certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal
evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of
St. Mark.
Bruce Metzger, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament (
16:9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to
Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly
received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian
manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the
seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin
k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts,
and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with
trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him
all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of
them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal
salvation.” All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9–20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and
other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of
witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28
33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are
Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was
acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that
occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του
λογου του
ισχυρου ον απο
ιερουσαλημ οι
αποστολοι
αυτου
εξελθοντες
πανταχου
εκηρυξαν).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated,
according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved
today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following
after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness
and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to
prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies
under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal
thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them,
'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible
things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death,
that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may
inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in
heaven.' “
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is
obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be
original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the
expansion contains several non–Markan words and expressions (including ο
αιων ουτος,
αμαρτανω,
απολογεω,
αληθινος, υποστρεφω)
as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament
(δεινος, ορος,
προσλεγω). The whole expansion has
about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second
or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the
Eleven in 16.14.
The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some
of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a)
The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non–Markan. (e.g.
απιστεω,
βλαπτω,
βεβαιοω,
επακολουθεω,
θεαομαι, μετα
ταυτα,
πορευομαι,
συνεργεω,
υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and
θανασιμον and
τοις μετ αυτου
γενομενοις, as designations
of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection
between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe
that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel.
Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject
in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been
mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1–8
are now forgotten; the use of αναστας
δε and the position of πρωτον are
appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill–suited
in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the
section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with
ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the
inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending
was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the
section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half
of the second century.
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against
its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non–Markan words,
its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.
Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the
shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the
omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the
Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would
have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized
summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to
that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong
internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the
Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to
the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual
tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part
of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that
they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of
the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269–270.
... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church
Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one
hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the
Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the
text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document
apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant
readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text.
Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi.
9–20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian
manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses
as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in
the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is
noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical
and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically
closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books.
Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include
all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that
emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents
while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of
written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for
example, the so–called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to
Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good
reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is
conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from
the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as
part of the canonical text of Mark.
F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London:
George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume
2, pp. 337–344.
Mark xvi. 9–20. In Vol. I. Chap. 1, we engaged to defend the
authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest
misgivings (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verse of
the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and
established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the
controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book miscome one who is conscious
of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may
fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the
elaborate and very able counter–plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28–51). This whole
paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles.
Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and
followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed
as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the
great manuscripts, the two oldest (א B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9–20 altogether. 1 Cod. B, however,
betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch
as after εφοβουντο
γαρ ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank
one in the whole volume 2), as well as the rest of the column containing ver.
8, which is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No
such peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive.
Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all
corrections in this manuscript seem prima manu: see p. 138), at the top of the
next column we read ... φερετε που
και ταυτα ...
παντα δε τα
παρηγγελμενα
τοις περι του
πετρον συντομωσ
εξηγγιλαν μετα
δε ταυτα και
αυτος ο ισ απο
ανατολησ και
αχρι δυσεωσ
εξαπεστιλεν δι
αυτων το ιερον
και αφθαρτον
κηρυγμα τησ
αιωνιου
σωτηριασ ...
εστην δε και
ταυτα φερομενα
μετα το
εφοβουντο γαρ ...
Αναστασ δε,
πρωι πρωτη σαββατ
κ.τ.λ.,, ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon's facsimile, facing his
page 113: our facsimile No. 21): as if verses 9–20 were just as little to be
regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement 3 which precedes them. Besides
these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices 4
and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No.
13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room
a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with
σωτηριας (k adding
αμην): the same subscription being appended to the end of
the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with αμην)
in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in
Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bishop Lightfoot above. Of cursive
Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the
passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below,
which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36
and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where
(of course) it is repeated. 5 Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia
respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199 has
τελος 6 after
εφοβουντο γαρ and
before Αναστας δε, and in the same
hand as τελος we read, εν
τισι των
αντιγραφων ου
κειται ταυτα,
αλλ ενταυθα
καταπαυει. The kindred Codd. 20,
215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some
(τισι) copies, adding εν δε
τοις αρχαιοις
παντα
απαραλειπτα
κειται, and these had been corrected from
All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, prima
manu) EFWGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem
and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains verses 17–20,
though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver.
20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already
named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except k
(though a prima manu and b are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian,
its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in
maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by
Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr 8 as
early as the second century; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the
Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the
Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the
third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table of
Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syraic Acts of the Apostles,
Leontius, Ps.–Ephraem. Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, 9 Epiphanius, Ambrose,
Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria,
Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius,
Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and
sixth. 10 Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (ubi supra,
p. 205), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly
in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were
honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (see p.
81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene's Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well
as by forming the third of the eleven
ευαγγελια
αναστασιμα
εωθινα, the preceding part of the chapter forming
the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful
authenticity. 11
The earliest objector to vers. 9–20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad
Marin.), who tells us that they were not εν
απασι τοις
αντιγραφοις, but after
εφοβουντο γαρ that
τα εξης are found
σπανιως εν
τισιν, yet not τα ακριβη:
language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying, 'in raris
fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non
habentibus.' A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is
μαλιστα ειπερ
εχοιεν
αντιλογιαν τη
των λοιπων
ευαγγελιστων
μαρτυρια. 12 The language of Eusebius
has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all
the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of
Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the
twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if
indeed he is not retailing to us at second–hand one of the fanciful Biblical
speculations of Origen. Jerome's recklessness in statement as been already
noticed (Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side,
both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for could he have
inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?
With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from
their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that
the same process might be applied — and has been applied — to prove that St.
Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the
Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those
prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may
detect, if he will, such minute variations as have been made so much of in this
case, 13 either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most
familiar with.
Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of
constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of
adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9–20 to the narratives of the other
Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we
believe) as 'a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment' (N.T. ad
loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any
critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty
was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of
Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and
the rest may have done, these assigned the
αντιλογια, the
εναντιωσις they thought they
perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a
reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with
εφοβουντο γαρ. Yet
in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St.
Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient
writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness? 14 This fact has
driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies: —
namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was
completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.
We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 15 are called for by the
state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the
paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of
אB. Let us accord
to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal
to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of
the second century; 16 to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts
excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that
many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are
content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired
record originally delivered to the Church. 17
Scrivener's Footnotes (renumbered)
1. I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that
six leaves of Cod. א, that containing Mark xvi.2–Luke i.56 being one of them, were written
by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape
of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I
know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now
arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in
these leaves, Codd. א B make but one
witness, not two.
2. The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion
of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.
3. Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, 'In style it
is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the
four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel' (Introduction, p. 298).
4. We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the
paragraph have the subscription 'Gospel after Mark' at the end of verse 8 as
well as of verse 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double
ending to the Gospel.
5. Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd.
538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right
hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is
not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter
α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.
6. Of course no notice is to be taken of τελος
after εφοβουντο
γαρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is
intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and
Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's
laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114–123).
7. The minute variations between these several codices are given by
Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288–90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to
Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve
Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319–23) has shown to be unwarranted by the
circumstances of the case.
8. Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College,
9. It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the
silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the
twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who
lived about A.D. 349, that his 'negative evidence is peculiarly cogent' (Notes,
p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he
reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he
would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is
the article of the Creed τον
καθισαντα εκ
δεξιων του πατρος.
He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.
10. Several of these references are derived from 'The Revision
Revised,' p. 423.
11. Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9–20
comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy,
for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the
Armenians. Vers. 12–20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy
(Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16–20 in the old Latin Comes
12. To get rid of one apparent
αντιφωνια, that arising from the
expression πρωι τη μια
του σαββατου (sic), ver.
9, compared with οψε
σαββατων Matt. xxvii. 1, Eusebius
proposes the plan of setting a stop between
Αναστας δε and
πρωι, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the
whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δε: Codd. 20, 22,
34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339,
340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).
13. The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses:
εκεινος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13;
πορευομαι vers. 10, 12, 15;
τοις μετ αυτου
γενομενοις ver. 10;
θεαομαι vers. 11, 14;
απιστεω vers. 11, 16;
μετα ταυτα ver. 12;
ετερος ver. 12;
παρακολουθεω ver.
17; εν τω ονοματι ver.
17; κυριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20;
πανταχου,
συνεργουντος,
βεβαιοω,
επακολουθεω ver. 20, all
of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive
plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's
pen, appeared in the Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the
signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from
the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth
chapter (pp. 136–190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his
conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology 'breaks down
hopelessly under severe analysis.'
14. 'Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of his
ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a
message baulked through the alarm of women' (Kelley, Lectures Introductory to
the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say, 'It is incredible that the
Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with
εφοβουντο γαρ, or
the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative
hanging in the air' (Notes, p. 46).
15. When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability
itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi
supra, p. 197) remarks upon it that 'With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a
demonstration.' We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from
mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very
early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a
learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them,
existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191–211), and noting that an
important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons); he supposes
that τελος, which would stand at the end of such a
lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an exemplar of the Gospels whose
last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9–20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only
vers. 16–20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein
St. Mark stood last.
16. The codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the
verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS.
of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than
negative.
17. Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf
containing vers. 9–20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus
would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49),
rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question
'manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded
on some tradition of the apostolic age' (ibid. p. 51).
Witnesses to agree or disagree?
SDA
You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For
instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure
who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical
evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have. Luke 24 has the same
sequence of events. Does that not enter into your thinking at all?
GE
It obviously hasn’t entered
your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events “in Mark 16”
at all! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly,
'parallel accounts', but sequential in terms of time and development.
“For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet
the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.” Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in
the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of
chapter 15.)
1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had
gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no
‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!
2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness
still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no
angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the
grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.
3) In Luke, not only “the”, but more than “three women” “arrive”, and “enter
the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels
outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what
Jesus had told them.
4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the
grave, and fled and told nobody anything.
5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where
Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week”
(Mk16:9),
6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have had
returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody's presence or knowledge,
happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And
while they went to tell the disciple, Jesus appeared to them.
SWA
And?
HB
.... and it is clear that the chronologies offered by the gospel
accounts conflict with each other.
SWA
And???
GE
Here is one guy bound for
glorification and everlasting life, and not for hell, believing the Gospels for
the Word of God, and that they contain no contradictions whatsoever, in the
least, and especially not in the greatest of all events this earth has ever
witnessed. Who approaches the facts of the Resurrection of Christ from the
viewpoint of faith, that He in human body of glorified flesh, rose from the
dead again, and was witnessed by many the Risen Jesus Christ, Mighty Lord, and
Saviour of their souls.
And it has been my purpose
with saying this,
1) to stop in this matter
the big mouths of people like hellbound's.
2) Now no single Gospel even
attempts to give the full chronological picture of times and events that
surrounded the Resurrection;
3) Each gives a part of it
which in every smallest particular is correct and true, and fits in perfectly
with the other Gospels’ accounts;
4) And that it is people who
make of these separate and different events, one and the same of one and the
same moment in time and place, who are the creators of the innumerable number
of contradictions.
I have already made this
clear for anyone with brains and eyes that can read, and, with a heart willing
and believing, reading and understanding.
SWA
.... and it is clear that the
chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other.
If you take 4 witnesses to a car accident, chances are very good that
their accounts will not match exactly. In fact, they can't because each person
witnessing is in a different position with different perspectives, so how can
they match exactly?
SWB
The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. John's gospel ends by
reminding us that none of these things concerning Jesus of Nazareth was done in
a corner. If the gospels were not
historically accurate then there would exist proof from that era. Your inability to understand the chronology
means only that you yourself don't understand it. It isn't proof of anything
other than your own personal lack.
SWA
It's a weakness of mine. I tend to run from those who claim to know the
mind of God. I will listen more closely to them once we get the basics down –
like how human thought works, or the power behind the heartbeat. First things
first, ya know....
SWB
I know that your thought experiment above doesn't apply because Jesus
told us that the Comforter would bring to remembrance of Jesus' followers all
that he had said. So, the remembrances of the gospels is the work of the Holy
Ghost and not the willy nilly work of men.
SWA
Let me guess.........your favorite cologne is......Calvin???
SWB
By the ability of the Holy Ghost the witnesses can agree
perfectly. Admit it...you aren't looking
at this from a position of faith. Such a position means you haven't the ability
to resolve any doubts that confront you.
HB
Do yourself a favor. Go to Noah's Lounge and take a quick glance thru
the CNN thread.
SWB
Your mind has been deceived by your master. As such you are blind and
simply stumbling around in darkness. Until you come to Jesus you'll find no
remedy. Because you say you can see your blindness remains.
SWA
Try one more little experiment for me, will ya. Place a plant in the
middle of a room. Invite 8 people over to your home. Now have the 8 people who
are in the SAME room talk about the plant. It will be IMPOSSIBLE to get 8
identical descriptions.
Why? Because for one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 8 people to be
standing in the exact same spot, angle, lighting, etc. They will all have an
entirely UNIQUE perspective because 8 people cannot occupy the same space. Not
to mention personal, emotional, and spiritual comprehension about the plant
they are looking at.
They are all looking at it from their own individual perspectives. Does that
make ANY of their descriptions wrong? No, of course not. They are all correct,
yet all different. That is how it is with the gospels. They are all correct,
but coming from 4 different sources, and backgrounds. God planned it that way,
Each addresses a different audience, yet all are truth. Very cool.
SWC
I'm with SWA on this one, any court room will show that witnesses are
not the ultimate reliable standard since everyone will have their own
perspective shaded with their own expectations, and filtered through their own
experiences.
In the book “Who Moved the Stone” the author takes the whole
resurrection incident into a hypothetical courtroom and examines the witness
testimony and comes up with his conclusion that there must have been a
resurrection. While this book is a rather old book (1930) the issue is even
older so it is still relevant.
Most remarkably Morrison, the author, started the whole process as an
atheist and was converted to Christianity through the examination that the
process of writing the book took.
GE
I have had to do with the
objection different witnesses will and must witness differently. I say it is
irrelevant; it applies not in the case of the Gospel records of Jesus'
resurrection. The four Gospels give the one witness of the Resurrection. The
Word of God it is, not the word of men.
It must be approached by
faith. But that does not mean one by faith excuse mistakes, discrepancies and
contradictions. In the court of Law of God, witnesses agree perfectly or are
judged liars. No Gospel contains lies or accidents, contradictions, or just
'mistakes'.
Now the solution to the
alleged cases of such things in the Gospels, the first we have had a look at
above, that God is the Giver of the record of the Gospels. He errs not. God is
One in his Word; He is not double tongued like the serpent devil.
Remember this is the
greatest and most trustworthy work of God He ever did: That He raised Christ
from the dead. Can we not absolutely trust God's Word on this, how can we trust
Him in anything else?
Next point:
There are not four witnesses
one from or in each Gospel. There is but the One Message of the Resurrection.
By this I am not repeating what I have just said, that the Gospels give us the
One Word of God on the event of Christ's resurrection. I am not repeating –––
this time I am referring to the only one event of the breaking news ––– of the
making known ––– of the Resurrection. That Event–of–Word, did not come from any
of the writers of the Gospels; not by any apostle; not by any woman–disciple;
by no human being. The only witness of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead,
is the witness–by–word of “the angel”, who “told / explained / witnessed to the
women”: the angel of Matthew 28:5.
Why an angel, and no living
eye–witness from among men? First, because that is what the Scriptures say:
“Without controversy great
is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto gentiles, believed on in
the world, received up into glory.” 1Tm3:16.
When Christ rose from the
dead, this was what happened, and these were the witnesses – the eye–witnesses:
“(When) in the Sabbath Day's
fullness, being mid–afternoon before the First Day of the week, (when) set out Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary to go look (at) the grave, (when)
suddenly there was a great earthquake: (then)
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone
from the door, and sat on it, his countenance like lightning, and his raiment
white as snow:– answered /
explained / witnesses and told
the angel the women .....”
The sole source of human
knowledge of the Resurrection was the angel
––– no mortal eye beheld the events and phenomena that accompanied the
Resurrection –– not even the guard who were struck unconscious and could see
nothing. So that faith shall come by hearing, and not by seeing; and so that
faith shall come by hearing from one source not capable of lying against
itself. So that no Gospel in any wise contradict another. And so that, if we do
still encounter contradiction, we shall surely know the trouble lies with us
and our understanding, and not with the Gospel accounts.
My purpose with this
discussion was to find out how the rest
of the Gospel accounts harmonises perfectly.
I take as a–priori
therefore, three things, not debatable:
1) Faith;
2) God's Word;
3) Believing by hearing what
is incontrovertible: The Good News of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead.
I wish this discussion to
deal with things that happened after, these presuppositions
already accepted.
SWA
The Gopels are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because
they differ (which they must) doesn't negate that the event happened.
SWB
The
gospels are not testimonies of accidents.
GE
The Gopels are 4 separate
accounts from the outset, is a false proposition as well as false supposition!
No, they are _not_ 4
separate accounts of _one_ significant event; they are 4 separate accounts of 4
or even 5 different events per se. Just because of that, they – the 4 accounts
– differ not (which they must not) in the smallest detail, and therefore, do
not negate in the smallest detail, the event per se, nor, that the event
happened, which one event in the end is presupposed,
Jesus' resurrection. But which 4 accounts were in each case of a different and
other event.
Straight forward:
Mark does not record the event of the Resurrection;
Luke does not record the event of the Resurrection;
John does not record the event of the Resurrection:
Matthew (28:6f) does not record the event of the Resurrection;
Only Mt28:1–5, does record the event of the Resurrection;
Mark implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Luke implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Jn20:1–10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Mt28:1–5 implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Jn20:11f records the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;
Mk16:9 implies that recording of the first Appearance, implying the
Resurrection way earlier;
Mt28:6f mentions the second Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier –––
according to Mt28:1–5, “On the Sabbath” the day before Jesus “On the First Day
appeared”.
That's the whole and full
story without a single minutest hitch!
Don't bring your
weak and sinful human witnesses stuff for witness against the trustworthiness
of the events and accounts from God Himself.
Now your “very
cool” beating about the bush irrelevancies are no more than meaningless,
without substance, beating about the bush irrelevancies.
Take your solution, and test it with this, the exponential truth test:
Take the differences to
prove your case – which you alleged are there and said must be there – between the records in Mark 16:1 and Luke 24;
multiply the number of differences with the number of differences between the
records in Luke 24 and John 20:1–10, and the resultant number of differences
with the number of differences between the records in John 20:1–10 and Mark
16:1–8, and the resultant number of differences with the number of differences
between the records in Mark 16:1–8, and Mark 16:9; and the resultant number of
differences with the number of differences between the records in Mark 16:9 and
John 20:11f, and get millions of contradictions, discrepancies and
irreconcilabilities that ‘must be there’—
and call it ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’? Then multiply the number of
differences with the number of differences between all these records together
and the record in Mt28:1–4, and the result once again with the number of
differences between Mt28:1–4 and Mt28:5–8, and
get the _true_ story from SWA! Then do yourself a favor. Go to Noah's
Lounge and take a good look thru the CNN thread and a thousand others, how this
‘true story’ is broadcast ‘daily’ and Sundays especially into the whole world
for a witness to be believed and obeyed.
Jesus’
Last Passover
GE:
The Lord’s Supper....
Open invitation:
Why would you say it was the
passover–meal?
I say it was not the
passover–meal.
DC:
“The
major historical and interpretive question is whether this meal was a Passover
meal. Major scholars have weighed in on both sides of the debate.
The
Gospels themselves appear divided on the question. Mark 14:12 (“prepare, so
that you may eat the Passover”), followed by Matthew (26:17) and Luke (22:8),
apparently understands the Last Supper (14:17–25) as a Passover meal, while
John 18:28 (cf. John 19:14, 31, 42) seems to imply that the Last Supper took
place the day before Passover and that Jesus in fact died on Passover, 15
Nisan.” Craig
A. Evans, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27–16:20, (2002),
370.
ES:
1 After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher
says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with
My disciples?”’ 15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”
16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just
as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.
17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate,
Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray
Me.” (Mk. 14:1, 14–18 – NKJV)
'Nuff said
WD:
It matters not what you say, GE. As ES pointed out, Scripture says it
was the Passover Meal. Case closed.
GE:
“The Scriptures say ....” Because ES has
spoken, it is Scripture .... For you, WD, not for me!
The elements of the Last
Supper are specifically described and they are not the elements of the Passover
or Seder; not even of the Bedikat Chamets meal.
The Last Supper which was the institution of the Lord’s Supper was
unique and new. And that is my conclusive evidence for believing the Last
Supper was not the Passover Meal regardless the proof all the many other proofs
it was not. It is what it was, and not what it was not, that weighs heaviest.
You people want a Passover
meal eaten before the Passover sacrifice was slaughtered;
You want the Passover Meal
of the Passover–sabbath, Nisan 15, on Passover–Preparation, Nisan 14;
You want “two days before
Passover Feast–(sabbath)”, one day before Passover Feast–sabbath;
You want Jesus say He ate while He said, Prepare so that I may
eat.
You want a Passover Meal of
a blood sacrifice that is the Seder, but that consisted of bread and nothing more.
You want a Passover Meal
with wine – which no Passover Seder for the life of you would have had on the
table or 'prepared'.
You want a Passover Meal of
'arton'— ordinary bread, and not of bread without yeast, 'adzymos–bread' (or
‘matsach’).
You want a Passover Meal
which the Jews had not partaken of, because they the next morning, would not
enter into Pilate's house, “that they (still) might eat the Passover”
the coming evening.
You want a Passover Meal the
Jews obviously must have eaten the following night after the Last Supper’s,
after sunset and before they went into Pilate's house without scruples about
the Passover Meal.
You want a Passover Meal
Jesus had eaten while it is not written once that He ate it, but that He ate
the Passover in that He was 'our
Passover Lamb' – Himself – slain before He could be 'partaken of' by faith.
That is your 'Scripture',
WD; you may have it for yourself; just don't spoon–feed innocent enquirers with
what is just _your_ 'Scripture' and not that of the Written Word.
TS:
Also the description of the meal resembles that of a Sader. “he who
dips his bread with me” dips it in the bitter herbs. Sader. Passover – meal.
I've celebrated Seder and there is wine. And Jesus had this seder on Shabbat.
Which makes sense to me and no the scriptures don't say what Jesus and Judas
dipped into but I do know that the Seder bread is dipped into bitter herbs in
water. Since the writer assumes that we know what he's talking about I can
assume it was a normal Jewish custom at the time.
GE:
“Jesus had this seder on Shabbat”?
You mean on passover’s ‘sabbath’; on Nisan 15? On Nisan 14, “the passover must be killed”!
Having celebrated Seder you
naturally also would have celebrated Bedikat Chamets, and should know the
differences between the two feast–meals. You should know that Seder has grape
juice; no wine. Bedikat Chamets has wine; no grape juice. Seder has meat – the
passover's sacrifice's meat; Bedikat Chamets does not have meat of sacrifice.
In any case, grape juice or
any drink is no constituent of the original, Scriptural, OT 'Passover'. 'The
Jews' much later only, introduced drinking of whatever fluid into the Passover
Meal.
Originally too, the Passover–Meal
was simply called “The Passover” Gr., 'to pascha' – a Hebraism. 'Seder' cannot even be said is properly the
'Passover'!
The Reformed Churches use
real wine for the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately the Reformed Churches have made
two 'ceremonies' of the Lord's Supper of the Gospels. They made of the one
‘Holy Communion’ a ‘Preparation Service’ on the evening of the night before,
and the Celebration of the Lord's Supper itself next day.
The Jews are a wonderful
people; but even they, cannot be trusted in matters of Christian religion.
ES:
Does that include when they recorded Scripture?
Most of the writers of Scripture surely were Jewish, including every
writer of the NT, likely apart from Luke, it would seem.
Sorry, GE. You simply are searching for a distinction that is not
there, and that Scripture does not support, as the Scriptures I quoted
previously would seem to suggest.
TS:
We actually had manischewitz wine which was drunk at different
intervals during the seder following of the passover Haggadah. No grape juice. Wine. Sweet new wine. They
didn't have any skins so I couldn't tell you if it was new wine in old skins.
Bedikat Chametz is the night before looking for leaven or yeast in the
house by candle light. I don't think this is what Jesus was doing.
GE:
So they ate unleavened
bread, but drank fermented wine?
I didn't say or suggest
Jesus was looking for yeast. I said and again say, Jesus did not 'do' any of
the Bedikat Chamets, or Seder, or, Passover–Meal. Have you not seen I said
Jesus did a New Thing? A thing He prepared his disciples through for this once
for all coming Passover? A thing that He himself would be prepared by for this
once for all coming Passover? This once for all coming Passover that He would
'eat' and would 'drink' Himself being its Sacrifice, Himself being its Cup? “This”,
says Jesus, “is MY blood”; “This” again, “is MY body” :
Not that of a passover lamb not slaughtered yet and not eaten yet, but to be slaughtered still and to be eaten still.
Quoting TS,
“The Seder bread is dipped into bitter herbs in
water. Since the writer assumes that we know what he's talking about I can
assume it was a normal Jewish custom at the time.”
GE:
The expression, “he who
dips his hand into the bowl with me” should not be assumed “a normal Jewish custom at the time”
for the Seder; but at the time was a normal Jewish idiom of the vernacular
for familiarity: ''He who knows me well”, who even may dwell with me;
who intimately, knows me.
Bring all the
factors into play; not only one doubtful one, Passover=Seder!
Over more, Seder is not
Lord's Supper! Lord's Supper is so
called (by Paul and all Christians after him) for being The Lord's Supper by
Title and right of His Lordship earned and obtained and received by Triumph of Victory – both in Suffering
and Resurrection!
It's purely Christian.
It's NEW, and covenanted,
New!
The Lord's Supper was nor is
the Passover!
AS:
GE – Can I ask about why you have such an obsession with Jesus' last
hours on earth? What about the rest of His life and after His death and
resurrection? His life wasn't just about those last hours.
GE:
Ah, AS, this is the most
wonderful question ever put to me, and in all Christian sincerity, thank you
for it!
For His whole life in truth,
the whole rest of His Life, since eternity before and for eternity after, and
since He was born a human baby and until He died God in the body of mortal
flesh, was all about those last hours and last three days and three nights
according to the Scriptures! His eternal existence is unthinkable without these
moments and events. Jesus' own words at the table confirm! His 'Intercessory
prayer' of John 17, shows!
Because here and now the
eternal Covenant of Grace really 'kicked in', to be established once for ever
in the Resurrection of the Crucified Christ of God. Here, like, or, nowhere
else, is God in His Glory revealed: as, He, is! If not for these hours God
would be as if even He, were transitory and of but of a moment's existence and
power. Which exactly these hours were: The Eternal Life of God in one event of
God who so loved the world that He gave His Only
Begotten Son, both into death and in
resurrection from the dead.
I fail to express the
reality or truth of it in words. But I am sure you get the drift of what I'm
trying to say.
DA:
For GE what the bible actually says is never good enough, it's got to
say what he wants it to say.
GE:
No, it's you.
You show me once, where as
you say, it says, Jesus “ate”. I
show where every time, it says, I mean the Scriptures says, “may / might / can ... eat”.
Any way you could possibly say it, “They prepared
for passover”. “They prepared for passover”, is Scripture; that's what I, GE,
say because it is Scripture, and not vice versa, that because I say it, it is
Scripture ––– like in fact, you, do!
But it's because GE once as
always took the given data to full consequences as far as possible, and because
GE does not take for granted popular opinion, that you say what you've said,
falsely and insultingly; which I shall boast in for Christ's sake.
AS:
Yes, what Jesus did in His last days were of utmost importance but
being so focused on the small issues, I feel you're missing the bigger picture.
GE:
Small issues?
EE:
Because it makes a difference if Jesus was raised up on the Sabboth
(last day of the week) or on Sonday (first day of the week).
Personally I worship God every day of my life.
GE:
Ja, 'personally' we all do –– or are
supposed to. But the Sabbath is not about 'me'; it never has been; it's about
God through Jesus Christ being worshipped by his People. This is the Christian
People of God: There: Where they worship their Lord together.
This is the Christian People of God: There: When they worship their Lord
together.
Christian worship is all
about this 'difference'. Without this difference, there will be no witness, no
proclamation, no praises, no prayers, no singing, no healing: basically because
two things will be and must be wanting : No “Sabbaths'“, “eating
and drinking” of Christ “in
Spirit and Truth”, “not holding the Head from Whom all
the Body (of Christ's Own) by joints and bands having
(spiritual) nourishment ministered”, no “increase (growth) with the
increase of God” but a getting “puffed up” to bursting point with
self–esteem and vanity of an own religion. (The like is described further in
verses 20–23.)
ES:
How is the Sabbath involved? ‘Nuf said.
GE:
We are still on track. We
are still dealing with the Passover Jesus that Nisan 14 ate and drank
Himself being the Lamb slaughtered and eaten and His Own blood being the Life
of Him drunk.
It only extended into the
Life of the Body of Christ's Own, and no longer is being celebrated a sacrifice
or therefore the day of a death merely, but that Passover is now being
celebrated the day of his life taken up, lifted up and exalted, “On the
Sabbath Day”.
He having “triumphed in it”–– having been raised from the dead ––, his
day of death and resurrection and Triumph is being observed and celebrated in
one with “Sabbaths’ feasting”!
Still, after the two
disciples who were sent before, found the room, and everything 'prepared', they
made no further preparations, but, “prepared for Passover”. Which means,
they enjoyed the passover preparation–meal. But this time, the first time, the
Providence of God, “prepared”, and “prepared”, not for the old
passover, but for the New, that He, “might
be eaten”. And so the disciple and Jesus “Prepared the Passover” ––
for “our Passover”, the Passover of the Lamb of God.
But what do I have this
diatribe with myself for? This is not my dogma; this is well known Protestant
teaching! What do you oppose me so for? Or why do you so disregard me, rather?
This is essential, Protestant doctrine! It contains the death of trans–substantiation.
It glorifies the Christ. It simplifies the Message. Only good can be said of
it. But no, this is me making me the Scriptures! I ask you, why? Is this
blasphemy? Is this insulting? Is this obvious, literal, confused, error?
I know what I believe! I
believe (here) the Lord's Supper; not the Jews' Passover Meal. It's good enough
for me.
We are still on track. We
are still dealing with the Passover Jesus that Nisan 14 ate and drank
Himself being the Lamb slaughtered and eaten and His Own blood being the Life
of Him drunk.
And now and here it struck
me first time, “Great, marvellous, wonderful, beautiful, is the
Mystery of Godliness”!
About half a century ago
already, I noticed the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Law and
the OT. I made thorough research of it, the fact that Exodus places both the sacrifice and the eating, on Nisan 14, for which reason, Exodus employed for the feast days, a sunrise
to sunrise reckoning.
All the subsequent
references to the dating of the sacrifice and the passover–meal, place sacrifice, on Nisan 14 (no exceptions), and meal, on
Nisan 15 (no exceptions). For this reason the sunset to sunset day–cycle was
instrumental – no exceptions.
I always thought this was a
difficulty.
I tried to find
explanations, and could only think of the old era of bondage being broken and
left behind, so that the 'old' first and day–halve of Nisan 14 fell away and
back into Nisan 13 and became its last and day–halve; and Nisan 14's 'old' and
last or night–halve, (now at the beginning of the new age of freedom), became
the beginning and first or night–halve of Nisan 14.
Thus in Exodus both sacrifice
and meal fell on Nisan 14. It was the first passover.
Now in the end–time once
again and for last and ever, both Sacrifice and Meal of Passover became one in
the One Who is both Sacrifice and
Meal of Yahweh's Passover. Once for all, the Lamb of God our Passover in his
own body and the sacrifice of Himself,
became both Sacrifice and Meal of Yahweh's
Passover on, and, within, Nisan 14. It would be the Last Passover.
After sunset after this
Nisan 14, the Jews on Nisan 15, would still eat their passover – which was
their own in every respect, and none of Christ's.
I saw it today through this
discussion; I have found what for me is a treasure of spiritual wealth, and I
sincerely want to thank everyone for his or her critique, without which I still
would have walked with blinkers on.
TS:
I would like to differ sir. Yours obviously is not well known
protestant teaching and I've visited many churches. You have a right to your
view. I have a right to oppose it. My view is this Jesus was Jewish and was celebrating
a Jewish holiday. However, you are right that he also was doing a new thing and
established a new covenant. But beyond that I may disagree.
GE:
Not well known protestant teaching? What do the Church every
‘Nagmaal’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’ do? Do we eat the Seder?
Nevertheless, At this hour
in His life, Jesus was less 'Jewish' than at any time in his earthly life. In
fact, reading John 17 Jesus is seen the Intercessor for his Elect, first, last
and only. Reading the passion–narratives, Jesus tells his disciples Now is the
hour of evil men and of the powers of darkness. He sided with no human
affiliation when He Institutionalised His Supper the Holy Communion
of Christian allegiance. Here is the point in
the life's history of Jesus Christ blood relation and nationalistic interests
were zero.
Here prophecy was being
brought to an end; here Jewish Covenantal commitment raged itself out in the
fury of the Jews and the judgments of a just God. Christ Triumphed and
introduced the Lord's Supper to commemorate Triumph through Victory. No 'Jewish
holy day' would do; no holy meal of it; He had to invent and create his own.
And I never denied Jesus
here 'observed' a day of God's institution: He observed, the Passover of
Exodus, Nisan 14, in both aspects of Sacrifice and Meal! No 'Jewish' ceremony or even OT ceremony or ‘holy day’
existed that could fulfil the requirements of God's Prophetic, Eschatological
Provision through Christ Himself— therefore, not on the sabbath of the
passover! Jesus was the Passover Lamb,
both in being Sacrifice Himself and Feast of Eating, Himself. He created out of
nothing.
Jesus did not observe the
Jewish Passover still observed by the Jews for nothing but a judgment over
themselves on Nisan 15, after, the True Passover Lamb of God had been
sacrificed and Himself by the sacrifice of Himself had eaten the bowl prepared
for Him and had drunk the cup destined for Him by God, that Nisan 14.
ES:
As to how Jesus could partake of the Passover meal (thus fulfilling
Scripture) and yet be crucified (as Our Passover) on the same Jewish day (again
fulfilling the Scripture), I have already made multiple comments, regarding the
fulfilling of the phrase, found in the OT of “between the evenings,” and how
that was when the Passover Lamb was to be slain, and the fact that that phrase
did not even seem to have any import attached to it, until our Lord was in
fact, 'killed' on 14 Nisan (or Abib), just as the Scripture demands. For over
1500 years, this merely seemed to be an oddity of wording, to all except the
LORD, who gave this prophetic command.
GE:
Ag, ES, you have said
nothing of the smallest worth. You have become the Scriptures unto yourself. I
cannot but answer you with disdain. If not ES were the inventor, all lightbulbs
give darkness.
ES:
I really do not know what I have ever done or said to invite such
vindictiveness from you. However, keep getting on my case, and thus give some
of the rest, such as DA a break, considering she is a lady.
Nor do I see why, when GE renders some phrase, it should be given more
import, than any other, for that matter, but when another renders one, it is
supposedly poor theology.
And especially from one who allegedly champions a particular English
version, and that is the version cited from, by some other??
The phrase, which I had previously commented on of “between the
evenings” is a literal rendering of the Hebrew in some of the passages in
Leviticus and other Pentateuch books, according to what I have seen.
Is that incorrect?
If not, apart from an oddity of the phrasing, what import was ever
given to this prior to the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus?
Incidentally, it would make zero sense, for the Lord to have not eaten
the Passover, considering that is what He said He
was going to do –
12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the
Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want
us to go and prepare, that You may eat
the Passover?”
13 And He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you
carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. 14 Wherever he goes in, say to the
master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 Then he
will show you a large upper room, furnished and
prepared; there make ready for us.”
16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He
had said to them; and they prepared the
Passover.
17 In the
evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate,
Jesus said, “Assuredly, I
say to you, one of you who
eats with Me will
betray Me.” 19 And they began to be sorrowful,
and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?” 20 He answered and said to them, “It is one of the twelve,
who
dips with Me in the dish. 21 The Son of Man
indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son
of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been
born.” (Mk. 14:12–20 – NKJV cp. Mt. 26:17–26 & Lk. 26:7–16)
The bold words, are for the point of emphasis and distinction,
incidentally.
And as I have previously said, IMO, the Lord was not just dipping his
hand into the dish, to play with food. [BTW, Judas could not have been dipping
his hand, along with Jesus, at the same Jesus gave him the choice morsel (“the
sop”) of which to partake. Kinda' hard to be fishing something out of the dish,
while simultaneously, receiving the mouthful of the morsel from another's hand,
I would say.]
Quoting ES,
“....it would make zero sense, for the Lord to have
not eaten the Passover, considering that is what He said He
was going to do....”
GE:
It would make zero sense for
the Lord to have eaten the Passover,
considering He said that, was
not going to be what He was going to do – “And He took
the cup .... and gave thanks .... and gave to them .... But I
say unto you, I will not
drink of this fruit of the vine”
Quoting ES,
1 After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher
says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with
My disciples?”’
15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”
16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just
as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.
17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me