5/10/02
Christian greetings!
I am a Calvanist who believes the Seventh Day Sabbath
: because of Jesus Christ!
Forgive me for writing in English – I haven't now got
the time to think the German.
I am very pleased to see your website!
Re: das Geheimnis des
Sabbats
Geschrieben von:
Neumann István <ujember@kajata.hu>
Datum: Samstag, 3
August 2002, um 16:46
Gerhard Ebersöhn
VERSUCHT Antwort zu geben auf den Schreiben des Herrn Neumann István – Ich bin
Afrikaans und kenne nicht die Deutsche Sprache, darum sage ich, ich versuche
nur.
Datum geschrieben: 24
Augustus 2002, 20 Uhr Abends
Sehr geehrter Herr
Neumann István,
Ihre Ideen gefallen
mir sehr und stimmt meiner eigenen Ideen in vielen Aufsichten überein.
Sagten Sie,
<< Uns Christen
scheint es manchmal unbequem,
<< den Sabbat
von den jüdischen Mitgläubigen
<< geerbt zu
haben. Darum probieren wir,
<< ihn vom
jüdischen Glauben zu lösen,
<< um ihn
Jahrhunderte zurück zu projizieren.>>
Ihre eigene Antwort ist wie folgt:
<< Also: es
soll uns nichts ausmachen, dass der Sabbat
<< historisch
gesehen mit dem Volk Israel beginnt. Seine
<< Wurzeln
reichen so gesehen ins Dunkle – und doch ist
<< er Zeuge des
Lichts, des Logos aus Johannes 1!>>
Amen! und danke Ihnen für diesen Wörter!
Also müsste der
Schriftsteller gedacht haben als er diese erste zwei Kapitel des ersten Buch
Moses geschrieben hat. Er müsste das Wort Gottes, Jesu Christus, dort gesehen
haben – dort an der Schöpfung und an dem Siebenten Tage! So dass der Anfang des
Sabbat's nirgends anders als in Jesu Christus zu finden ist.
Ich glaube der Sabbat
der Schöpfung ist eschatologischer Zeichen der Volendung Gottes in Jesu Christi
und durch ihn, ist der Volendung ALLER Schöpfung und ALLER Zeit. Die Ruhe des
Siebenten Tages kann nur die Ruhe Gottes sein – die Jesu Christus ist. Aber
nicht nur Jesu Christus als Gott in der Fleischwerdung aber als Jesu der
Auferstandene vom Toten. Hebräen 4:10 slagt auf Ihn – auf den Jesu – „wer zu
seiner Ruhe gekommen ist”, „gleichwie von diesen seinen eigenen Werken Gott”!
(Ich glaube dass ist die Meinung des Griechisches.) Luther hier zeige hin zur
Offenbarung 14:13, „denn Ihren Werke folgen Ihnen nach”. Christus ist der
Erste, und der Sabbat ist seines „Machen” oder Werk. „Der Sabbat ist gemacht um
des Menschen willen”. Darum: ERST IN DER ERLÖSUNG empfangt der Sabbat Deutung.
Also in der Geschichte Israels. Und entsprechend folgte der letzte und
volkommene Offenbarung des Sabbats in und durch den letzten und vollkommenen
Erlösung Gottes in und durch Jesu Christi in der Auferstehung von den Toten.
Weil der Sabbat
eschatologischer Zeichnung der Auferstehung Jesu ist, ward er Tag der
Auferstehung Jesu sein, und war er in Wirklichkeit und sachlich. Das ist
natürlich nicht die traditionelle Auffassung, aber das ist sicherlich die
genaue Punkt wo der Sonntag den Tage überwannte und den Siebenten Tage von
seinem göttlichen versprachte Segnung, Heiligung, Perfektion und Ruhe,
beraübte. Es begann bei Justinius der Märtyr und seine Verdrehung den
Griechischen in Matthäus 28:1.
Der Christ feierte
den Sabbat als den Siebenten Tag der Ruhe weil er Auferstehungstag Christi ist
und als solches den Sabbat der Schöpfung als den Sabbat des Gebotes gehorsam
ist!
Lesen sie bitte mein
Buch The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace auf der Website
www.biblestudents.co.za . Oder Sie können mir Ihre Post Adresse zukommen
lassen, und ich werde Ihnen Kostenlos eine Kompaktdiskette zusenden.
Neumann István fortgesetzt:
<< Die Torah
selbst tut uns dankenswerterweise den
<< Gefallen, den
Sabbat auf eine universelle Ebene zu
<< stellen, ja
die ganze Schöpfungsgeschichte spitzt sich
<< auf den
Sabbat zu! Der Sabbat, ein Geschenk des
<< Schöpfers an
die Menschen, das durch die Beziehung
<< zueinander
und zu Gott unserer Existenz erst Sinn
<<
verleiht!>>
<< Die Torah
selbst tut uns dankenswerterweise den
<< Gefallen,
den Sabbat auf eine universelle Ebene
<< zu
stellen>> ...
Das löst das Problem
auf wie wir Christen den Sabbat vom jüdischen Glauben lösen sollen, und er
Jahrhunderte zurück projizieren werden kann. Wir müssen <<den Sabbat auf
eine universelle Ebene ... stellen>>. Wir können es tun weil <<die
ganze Schöpfungsgeschichte sich auf den Sabbat zuspitzt!>>
Erlauben Sie mir
hinzufügen, Wir können <<den Sabbat auf eine universelle Ebene
stellen>> weil die ganze ERLÖSUNGSGESCHICHTE sich auf den Sabbat
zuspitzt! Indem ist die Schöpfungsgeschichte, Erlösungsgeschichte! Indem ist
auch die Schöpfungsgeschichte, Eschatologie, und weil Eschatologie, ist sie
Christliche Glaube. (Karl Barth: <<Christentum das nicht ganz und gar und
restlos Eschatologie ist, hat mit Christus ganz und gar und restlos nichts zu
tun.>>)
Der Sabbat, ein
Geschenk des Schöpfers an die Menschheit, das die Beziehung zueinander und zu
Gott unserer Existenz erst Sinn verleiht! ... Wir dürfen nie <<die
Beziehung zueinander und zu Gott>> vergessen (Hb.10:24-25). Erst durch
diese Beziehung nur, verleiht der Sabbat der Menschen Existentz das Sinn. Und
in was oder in wessen findet <<die Beziehung zueinander und zu
Gott>> statt? Nicht durch den Sabbat per se, aber in der Gelegentheit und
in dem Geschehnis dargestellt im gegebenen Tage des Sabbats im Zeit und Raum
des Schöpfers Gegenwärtigkeit durch und in Jesu Christo. Diese
<<Beziehung zueinander und zu Gott>> geschieht durch die
Proklamation und durch den Glauben auf den Jesu; genau gesprochen, sie
geschieht in Person Jesu als der Lebendige und lebendig machende Mächtige
Person der Beziehung zueinander die Menschen und Gott. Es findet statt, bereits
darauf, die Kirche, Leib Christi, entstehen. Erst HIER – in „Beziehung
zueinander und zu Gott”, wo sie bereit wahrhaft ist in Evangelium Christi –
kommt der Sabbat Tag zur Sprache. Aber auch HIER im ANFANG ist dasselbe
„Beziehung zueinander und zu Gott” und dasselbe Glauben von hier aus – von der
Kirche aus – nähmlich das Evangelium von Jesu Christus in dem Welt – zu finden.
Hier FINDET STATT der
Sabbat, der Siebenten Tag der Schöpfung und Ruhetag der NEUEN Schöpfung. Weil
Jesu Christus den Sabbat „um den Menschen willen” „gemacht” oder „erschaffen”
hat, ist dasselbe gesagt <<durch die Beziehung zueinander und zu
Gott>>.
Sagte Prof. Flip
Theron,
„Das die Kirche als
kaineh ktisis nicht von der Schöpfung aus, sondern von der Wieder-Schöpfung aus
versteht müssen werden, ist deutlich. Die Andeutung der Kirche als „Neue
Schöpfung”, ist aus und aus eine eschatologische Kwalifizierung. Deshalbs
treffen wir dasselbe Verhältnis (“Beziehung” – István) der Kontinuität und
Diskontinuität zwischen Kirche und Kosmos an – die Kontinuität und
Diskontinuität welche tiperend ist der Verhältnis des Eschaton zu Kosmos. Diese
Andeutung der Kirche als „Neue Schöpfung” von selbst stellt uns vor der
Aufvorderung Deutlichkeit zu finden betreffend die Relation der Kirche zu
Eschaton.”
Nirgendswo wird man
eine klarere Andeutung dieses Verhältnis der Kirche zu Eschaton finden denn in
die Schrifstellen Hebräen 4:13; 1-2: „Und keine Kreatur ist vor ihm unsichtbar,
es ist aber alles bloss und entdeckt vor seinen Augen. Von dem reden wir. . . . So lasset uns nun fürchten, dass wir
die Verheissung, einzukommen zu seiner Ruhe, nicht versäumen und unser keiner
dahinten bleibe. Denn es ist UNS AUCH verkündigt GLEICHWIE JENEN; aber das Wort
der Predigt (das gepredigte Wort Johannes 1's) half jenen nichts, da nicht
glaubten die, so es hörten . . . DA DIE WERKE (Gottes) VON ANBEGINN DER WELT
GEMACHT WAREN.”
Ja! <<Die
Torah selbst tut uns dankenswerterweise den Gefallen, den Sabbat auf eine
universelle Ebene zu stellen>>, sagt István. Aber: Erst bei dem Jesu
Christo ist der Sabbat der Geschenk des Schöpfers an die Menschen, das durch
die <<Beziehung zueinander und zu Gott>> DURCH IHN, <<unsere
Existenz erst Sinn verleiht>>! Erst dann sind die Mensche, Kirche; und
erst dann wird der Siebenten Tage der Sabbat eueres Gottes.
(Luther mit
„deines Gottes” verliertet die Mehrzahl. Gott ist Gott seines Volkes, nicht des
Individuums und darum auch ist er Gott des Sabbats anders wie er Gott der
Zeit-algemein oder Gott der kosmische Zeit ist. „. . . die Kontinuität und
Diskontinuität welche kennzeichnend ist der Verhältnis des Eschaton zu Kosmos .
. .”, Theron.)
Man kann NIE diese
oder solche Gespräch führen vom Standpunkt des Ersten Tages. Der Ersten Tage
der Woche tut sich eschatologisch nicht gütlich in den Schriften – durchaus und
überhaupt nicht. Durchaus und überhaupt aber <<Die Torah selbst>>
wie die Dichter und Weisheit und Propheten spricht von dem Siebenten Tage als
Tag und Ruhetag des Herrn. Streng denn es ist Gott der so spricht. Sie sind eschatologishe
Schriften und wann auch immer sie „sprechen”, „Sprach ER”, wie „an einem Ort
(der Schriften) von dem Siebenten Tage also: „Und Gott ruhte am siebenten Tage
VON ALLEM SEINEM WERKEN”!
Es ist Gott der also
„sprach” weil von SEINEN Werken gesprochen ist. Es ist Gott der also „sprach”
weil von seinen Werken wird gesprochen als von seinem WORT. ES IST JESU
CHRISTUS DER WORT UND WERK GOTTES der hier ist Subjekt wie Objekt
Predikationes. Auch von grosserer Kontekst (1:1 und überall) ist es deutlich
dass es in Hebräen um Jesu Christus das Wort Gottes geht. Und das Wort BETRIFFT
dem Sabbat des SIEBENTEN Tages. (“Gott sprach VON DEM” – griechisch: „irgendwo
betreffend also” – pou peri houtohs.) Dieses ist „Eschatologie”! Es gibt keiner
wie dieses „irgendwo betreffend also” dem-Ersten-Tage-Gottes-”SPRECHEN” in die
Schriften!
Mann darum sollt
ERWARTEN dass der Siebenten Tage und NICHT der Ersten Tage der Woche der Tag
ist und der Tag wird, in dem war „GEWIRKT” „die überschwengliche Grösse seiner
Kraft an uns . . nach der Werkung seiner mächtigen Stärke welche er GEWIRKT hat
in Christo, da er ihn von den Toten auferweckt hat und gesezt zu seiner Rechten
im Himmel”.
Diese
Ausspräche des Predikers an den Hebräen und des Paulus sind Ausspräche der
KIRCHE und auf diesen bildeten die Evangelisten ALS DIE KIRCHE ihre SPÄTERE
Aussprächen „betreffend” dem Sabbat. Und immer sind der Sabbattag in die
Evangelien „Christologisch” herinterpreteerd dieweil der Ersten Tage jeweil
einen Augenblick Andacht empfangt.
Sagte István,
<< Wir tun
allerdings m.E. einen großen Fehler, wenn wir
<< vor lauter
Buchstaben den tiefen Sinn der
<<
Schöpfungsgeschichte und des Sabbats nicht sehen, und
<< uns an
buchstäbliche (im historischen Sinn) 7 Tage
<< bzw. einige
tausend Jahre krallen. Das kann doch dem
<< Sabbat
keinen Abbruch tun, wenn Gott die Welt nicht
<< buchstäblich
in 7 Tagen geschaffen hat, oder?>>
Es ist ganz unnötig
die Bibel im 1. Buch Moses nicht <<buchstäblich>> oder wortwörtlich
zu verstehen. Ja doch ist von dem Mensch gegegenwärtig zu glauben und von dem
Glauben in Gott der Schöpfer aus, auch sein Wort der Schöpfung an zu nehmen und
zu verstehen. Der Voraussetzung und die Bedingung für die richtige verstehen
der Schöpfungsgeschichte ist die einzige, der Voraussetzung und die Bedingung
von der Glaube – von der Glaube in Gott, der Allmächtige Schöpfer Dreieinig.
Sieben Tage des Schöpfung ist es weil es so geschrieben steht und wir zu tun
hat mit Gott, mit dem Glauben und mit der WAHRHEIT DES GESCHEHNIS. „Da sprach
nun Jesus zu den ... die an ihn glaubten: So ihr bleiben werdet an meiner Rede,
so seid ihr meine rechten Jünger und werdet die Wahrheit erkennen, und die
Wahrheit wird euch frei machen.” Auch das Wort und die Wahrheit Gottes der
Schöpfundsgeschenis machen sie frei und offen für ihrer Zukunft und Erfüllung –
machen sie Eschatologische Wort und Wahrheit.
Man sagt oft dass die
Erschaffung der Welt nicht ‘wissenschaftlich’
sein können aber dessenungeachted geht verbissen an sie „wissenschaftlich” zu
ergliederen! Dort allein entsteht der Problem der „Buchstäblichkeit” oder
Wortwörtlichkeit. Die Christliche Glaube ist Imstande die Schöpfung
historisch-eschatologisch aus zu legen. „Oder” die Christliche Glaube soll
schweigen wann sie zur Sache kommt. Und das bedeutet die Christliche Glaube
wird immer schweigen weil die Bezieerhung und Verwandschaft zwischen der
Schöpfung und der Erlösung nie fehlt.
Es ist ein neues Ding
– seit die vielen neuen „Versionen” der Bibel von dem letzen hälfte des 20.
Jahrhundert – dass der erste Buch Moses – wie auch der ganze Bibel –
<<mit unserem modernen Weltbild übereinstimmen soll>>. Dass nun,
ist ein UN-wissenschaftliche Methode der Interpretation der Bibel! Wir müssen
UNSERE Verstehung der Bibel aber, beugen nach das Weltbild des Torahs und der
Evangelien. Tatsache ist, der Bibel als das Wort Gottes, wird unsere Verstehung
beugen sie recht und richtig zu verstehen und glauben. „Das Wort Gottes ist
lebendig und kräftig und shärfer denn . .” des Menschen Verständnis.
Darum, ja,
<<Auch das Weltbild der Genesis stimmt nicht mit unserem modernen
Weltbild überein, was die wenigsten stört>>! Und sicherlich, <<der
Urgrund des Bösen ist offensichtlich beschränkt auf eine angebissene Frucht und
eine sprechende Schlange, die ja als GEDANKENANSTOSS unseren Blick schärfen
wollen für das Unerhörte dieses Abgrundes.>>
Auch die
Schöpfungsgeschichte des Siebenten Tage muss <<als GEDANKENANSTOSS
unseren Blick schärfen wollen für das Unerhörte dieses Abgrundes.>> (Wäre
sie nicht ein <<Gedankenanstoß>> sie wollten nicht <<unseren
Blick schärfen für das Unerhörte dieses Abgrundes>>.
Jetzt die
Schöpfungs-geschichte des Ersten Tage – die Schöpfungsgeschichte des Lichts –
lässt <<als Gedankenanstoß>>, <<unseren Blick schärfen für
das Unerhörte dieses Abgrundes>>: Es erzählt jetzt von dem „wahrhaftige
Licht welches alle Menschen erleuchtet, die in diese Welt kommen”. Es ist
dasselbe Licht welches erleuchtet den Siebenten Tage und jeden Tage der
Schöpfungswoche. Aber den Siebenten Tag wie nicht die anderen – nicht eben den
Ersten Tage selbst. Gott sprach nicht von den anderen Tagen „also”, wie er „von
dem Siebenten Tag sprach”, indem er nicht auf den anderen Tagen wie auf diesen
den Siebenten Tag seinen Segnen, seine Heiligung, seine Vollendung und seine
Ruhe, niederbracht DURCH WORT GOTTES.
12/10/02
Jesus op Vrydag gekruisig? Geensins!
Verduidelik
asseblief Mk. en Mt wat se, "Toe dit AAND GEWORD HET, kom Josef van
Arimatea ..."
"... opstandingsdag .. de Zondag"?
Geensins!
Verduidelik
asseblief die KJV "Late IN the SABBATH ..."?
"Op Sabbat rustte Hij ..."? Geensins!
Verduidelik
asseblief :"Die loon van die sonde is die dood ..." ... die
Sabbatsrus?
"Dit zijn mijn reden om de sabbat te houden
..." omdat God in Christus Jesus "
15/10/02
HOW MUCH FALSITY BEFORE IT BECOMES
SUPERSTITION?
... If one depend on Pseudo-Ignatius, not much!
Dear Mr. Gascoigne,
The so-called <<Epistles to the churches>> you
refer to – <<to the Trallians>>, <<to the Magnesians>>
– are both "PSEUDODEPIGRAPHA": the FALSE use by FALSE author(s) of
Ignatius' name to give the FALSE impression of genuineness and of
"early" or "Apostolic" time to their writings.
I won't here show historical-critical findings on this issue. For
that you may consult my publications of 1993, "Die Sondag-Waarheid",
ISBN 620-17952-X, and "Lig op die Dag van die Here", ISBN
0-620-17951-1. I shall here just mention that as early scholars as John Owen already
agreed to the fact of the pseudepigraphical status of these Ignatius
"letters".
But for now, just notice the incoherencies, inconsistencies,
contradictions and GLARING MISTAKES AND INACCURACIES in the very short cuts
which you quote in your article, <<The Resurrection of Yeshua and the
Festivals of Firstfruits. Part I – A Biblical Overview>> ... paragraph,
<<Reference to the History of Christ>>:
<< ... On the day of the preparation, then, at the third
hour,
<< He received the sentence from Pilate,
<< the Father permitting that to happen;
<< at the sixth hour He was crucified;
<< at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost;
<< and before sunset He was buried.
<< During the Sabbath He continued under the earth
<< in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him.
<< At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead,
<< according to what was spoken by Himself,
<< "As Jonah was three days and three nights
<< in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man also
<< be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth."
<< The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion;
<< the Sabbath embraces the burial;
<< the Lord's Day contains the resurrection.
<< (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap IX)>>
Mistake: <<... On the day of the preparation ... at
the THIRD hour ... sentence from Pilate>>. John says Pilate sentenced
Jesus "SIX o'clock": "early" (<prohi>) = morning =
sunrise = Roman time.
Mistake: <<... at the SIXTH hour He was
crucified>>. Mark says, "It was the THIRD hour (Jewish time) and they
crucified him" = 9 o'clock Roman time.
Mistake – and lie! : <<... and before sunset [of the
same day] He was buried>>. Matthew and Mark say that "It was
evening" ("already" – says the Greek), when only Joseph turned
up to ask for the body. John (in the Greek) says, "The Day of (Sabbath's)
Preparation having started (with sunset and evening), the Jews ...", and
"AFTER THIS, came Joseph ...". Therefor Jesus had to have been buried
<<before sunset>> on the NEXT day, Friday.
HALF TRUTH: <<... During the Sabbath He CONTINUED [all
day] under the earth in the tomb>>. Half a truth it is – and therefore
fully a lie, for Matthew – as you yourself quote him – says Jesus' resurrection
occurred "IN SABBATH'S (TIME)..."!
FULL LIE : <<At the DAWNING of the Lord's day>>.
You'll ONLY find this in TRANSLATIONS – not in the Greek. The Greek here uses
the SAME basic word that Luke uses for the "AFTERNOON" where he tells
the time of Jesus' interment. Matthew only uses the word more literally and
emphatically to say "IN-THE-VERY BEING-OF-LIGHT" –
<epi-fohs-k-ousehi>.
Then this self-named "Ignatius" totally confirms
our findings so far while totally contradicting everything he has said himself!
:
<<The day of the preparation, then, comprises the
passion>>. [crucifixion]
14 Nisan. That is, "The Preparation of the Passover"
(John) – as you yourself also argue.
<<... the Sabbath
embraces the burial>>. That is, the "Great Day" or FEAST Day of
the Passover – as also you yourself argue.
<<... the Lord's Day contains the resurrection>>.
That is, THE (weekly) SABBATH CHRISTIAN = "THE LORD'S DAY"!
"THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS"
"Three days and three nights" cannot and may not
be interpreted IN THE SAME WAY as simply "three days" would be
interpreted according to Bible methodology. "Three days and three
nights" are the same and also not the same as "three days". Just
simple arithmetic and common sense is it that "three days and three
nights" comprise "three days"! We are NOT talking of hours –
neither does the Scriptures. But the Scriptures also doesn't speak of
"days" merely when it speaks of actually "three days and three
nights"! Where and when the Scriptures speaks of "days" it means
days represented whether by full OR, by part. Granted! But in saying
"three days and three nights", Scriptures speaks of "days"
as comprised of both day AND, of NIGHT = three days PROPER. THREE NIGHTS MUST
BE ACCOUNTED FOR! Don't try all the learned stuff. It isn't learned at all. It
simply is disobedience. Three proper AND CONSECUTIVE days encompassed the
period of Jesus’ suffering, death, burial and resurrection. That is the case,
just by reading 1Cor.15:3-4! That is the case "according to the Scriptures
..." THE PASSOVER SCRIPTURES! 14, AND 15, AND 16 Nisan ...
14 Nisan : "Passover always slaughtered"; "leaven
removed" – Synoptists; "Preparation of Passover" – John :
15 Nisan : Lamb eaten, its "remains", the FOLLOWING DAY
returned to dust;
16 Nisan : "The day after the (Feast) Sabbath" : First
sheaf wave offering.
Therefor, agreed :
<<Ignatius obviously considers "three days and
three nights" to mean the same thing as the "third day", same as
in the New Testament.>>
Therefor, NOT agreed : that
<<The early church consistently referred to the Sabbath and
Lord's Day as two different days.>>
<<The Sabbath is Friday night / Saturday (seventh day
of the week).>>
THIS VERY SAME DAY, AS BY CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS,
"observed" or "celebrated", IS “THE LORD’S DAY”. In the
words of Pseudo-Ignatius:
(Emphasis, bracketed words, and indicated changes CGE):
“ If, therefore, THOSE who were brought up in the
“ ancient [Jewish] order of things
“ have COME to the possession of a NEW hope,
“ no LONGER observing the Sabbath [Gr.: “no longer
“ SABBATISING” – that is, “no longer” like the Jews
“ keeping the Sabbath purely by the terror of the Law],
“ but living [the same day, like] in the observance of the
“ Lord's Day, on which [same day] also our life has
“ sprung up again by Him and by His death—
“ whom some deny, [but] by which mystery
“ WE [unlike the Jews who haven’t] have obtained faith [in
“ Christ], and THEREFOR endure, that we may be found the
“ disciples of JESUS CHRIST [and not of Moses any more],
“ our only Master [we haven’t got the Law as our master any
“ <longer>]—- HOW SHALL WE BE ABLE TO LIVE
“ APART FROM HIM [- Jesus Christ – KEEPING THE
“ SABBATH APART FROM HIM LIKE THE JEWS DO,
“ FOR THE SAKE OF THE LAW ONLY],
“ whose disciples – the prophets themselves – in the Spirit
“ DID WAIT FOR as their Teacher? And therefore
“ HE [JESUS CHRIST] whom they rightly waited
“ for, BEING COME, RAISED THEM FROM THE DEAD.
“ If, then, THOSE who were conversant with the
“ ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope,
“ EXPECTING THE COMING OF CHRIST,
“ as the Lord teaches US when He says, "If ye had believed
“ MOSES, ye would have believed ME, for he wrote of ME;"
“” and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see MY day,
“ and he (in fact) saw it, and was glad;
“ for before Abraham was, I am;
“ "HOW SHALL WE BE ABLE (THEN) TO LIVE
“ WITHOUT HIM?
“ The prophets were HIS servants, and foresaw
“ HIM by the Spirit, and waited for HIM as their Teacher,
“ and expected HIM as their Lord and Saviour,
“ saying, "He will come and SAVE us."
“ Let US therefore no longer keep the Sabbath AFTER THE
“ JEWISH MANNER, and rejoice in days of idleness; ...
“ But let every one of you KEEP THE SABBATH after a
“ SPIRITUAL manner,
“ rejoicing in meditation on the law,
“ not in relaxation of the body,
“ admiring the workmanship of God,
“ NOT [as if Sabbath-keeping means] to eat things prepared
“ the day before, not to use lukewarm drinks, to walk within a
“ prescribed space, to avoid delight in dancing and plaudits –
“ which [things] have no sense in them.
“ And [better: “BUT”) BUT after the [TRUE and CHRISTIAN]
“ observance of the SABBATH, let every friend of Christ keep
“ the LORD’S DAY as a festival, the resurrection-day,
“ the queen and chief of all the days.
“ LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS, the prophet declared,
“ "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life
both
“ sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in
“ Christ, whom the children of perdition [the Jews], the
“ enemies of the Saviour, deny ...”.
(Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. IX)
What doubt could possibly exist that this pseudo-Ignatius
writes and argues about the SABBATH AND THE SABBATH ONLY AS BEING THE LORD’S
DAY when kept by Christians and when kept in a Christian way? ONLY THE
PREJUDICE OF MUCH LATER TIMES AND TRADITION, changed the thrust of this document
into a CONTRASTING between the “Sabbath” and the “Lord’s Day”.
This pseudo-Ignatius even relates the Sabbath with the “eighth
day” of Jewish apocalyptic. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this document per se requires
that the Sunday or First Day of the week should be related to or be equated
with the concept of “the eighth day”!
NO BIBLE-<<prophet declared>> anything about “the
eighth day”.
But IF it really was the thought of this pseudo Ignatius to mean
the Sunday with “the eighth day”, it, despite, would STAY, a WORTHLESS
argument. It’s of NO USE OR VALUE whether to the Sabbath of the Scriptures or
to the “Lord’s Day” of later Christianity.
ALL borrowers of the “eighth day”-argument are parroting
TRADITION – nothing more.
THEREFORE: dear Mr. Gascoigne, your reasoning that
<<... the Lord's Day is Sunday (probably beginning on Saturday
night)>>, besides being incorrect, is simply irrelevant.
Thought you might find this interesting:
IGNATIUS (115 AD) PROPAGATES NOT THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, BUT
THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH CHRISTIAN, AS BEING THE LORD’S DAY.
The so-called <<Epistles to the churches>> of
Ignatius – <<to the Trallians>>, <<to the Magnesians>>
– are both "PSEUDODEPIGRAPHA": the FALSE use by FALSE author(s) of
Ignatius' name to give the FALSE impression of genuineness and of
"early" or "Apostolic" time to their writings.
I won't here show historical-critical findings on this
issue. For that the reader may consult my publications of 1993, "Die
Sondag-Waarheid", ISBN 620-17952-X, and "Lig op die Dag van die
Here", ISBN 0-620-17951-1. I shall here just mention that as early
scholars as John Owen already agreed to the fact of the pseudepigraphical
status of these Ignatius "letters".
But for now, just notice the incoherencies, inconsistencies,
contradictions and GLARING MISTAKES AND INACCURACIES in the following cut from
the “Trallians”:
<< ... On the day of the preparation, then, at the
third hour,
<< He received the
sentence from Pilate,
<< the Father permitting that to happen;
<< at the sixth hour He was crucified;
<< at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost;
<< and before sunset He was buried.
<< During the Sabbath He continued under the earth
<< in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him.
<< At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead,
<< according to what was spoken by Himself,
<< "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the
<< whale's belly, so shall the Son of man also be
<< three days and three nights
<< in the heart of the earth.>>
(Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap IX)
Mistake 1: <<... On the day of the preparation ... at
the THIRD hour ... sentence from Pilate>>. John says Pilate sentenced
Jesus "SIX o'clock": "early" (<prohi>) = morning =
sunrise = Roman time.
Mistake 2: <<... at the SIXTH hour He was
crucified>>. Mark says, "It was the THIRD hour (Jewish time) and
they crucified him" = 9 o'clock Roman time.
Mistake 3 – and lie! : <<... and before sunset [of the
same day] He was buried>>. Matthew and Mark say that "It was
evening" ("already" – says the Greek), when only Joseph turned
up to ask for the body. John (in the Greek) says, "The Day of (Sabbath's)
Preparation having started (with sunset and evening), the Jews ...", and
"AFTER THIS, came Joseph ...". Therefor Jesus had to have been buried
‘before sunset’ ON the SAME daylight following, which was Friday.
4. HALF TRUTH – read into this "Letter": ...
During the Sabbath He CONTINUED [supposedly ALL DAY] under the earth in the
tomb ... Half a truth it is – and therefore fully a lie, for Matthew 28:1 says
Jesus' resurrection occurred "IN SABBATH'S (TIME)..."!
5. FULL fledged LIE : <<At the DAWNING of the Lord's
day>> – or so we find it 'translated'. But one will ONLY find this in
inferior and duped 'TRANSLATIONS' – not in the original. Popular translations
usually improvise a lot.
The New Testament here –Mt.28:1 –, uses the SAME basic word
that Luke uses for the "AFTERNOON" where he tells the time of Jesus'
interment on the afternoon of the Friday. Matthew only uses the word more literally
and emphatically to say "IN-THE-VERY BEING-OF-LIGHT" –
<epi-fohs-k-ousehi>: <epi> means emphatic tendency; <fohs>
means “light”; <ousehi> means “being”: participle of <eimi> “to
be”/”is”.
6. ADDING INCOMPETENCY: The familiar noise: ‘... according
to what was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah was three days and three nights
in the whale's belly ...” ’
From Friday afternoon to Sunday “deep early morning” gives two
daylight-parts (Friday afternoon and Saturday day) and two night-parts (Friday
night and Saturday night).
“ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES THE THIRD DAY” the following
stands out IN CONTRAST with this “Letter to the Trallians”:
Jesus was crucified on FOURTEEN (14) Nisan, when, as the
Synoptists say,
“Having come the first day when they removed leaven” or, “came the
first day without leaven” ... “when they always slaughtered the Passover”.
John called it “the Preparation of the Passover” (19:14).
BUT: “Came the day of Preparation” (Jn.19:31),
“being the Before-Sabbath” (Mk.15:42)
(Its equivalent is Thursday-night-Friday-day),
“WHEN EVENING HAD COME”, “ALREADY”-<ehdeh> (Mk.15:42,
Mt.27:57),
BEGAN FIFTEEN Nisan ... Jesus still hanging on the cross!
“Went the Jews” and asked Pilate to have the bodies removed.
“Then after this”, “came Joseph of Arimathea”, and asked Pilate
for the body of Jesus.
“It was a Great Day that day”, says John – indeed the FEAST
Day of the Passover. Passover’s “High Sabbath”, 15 Nisan was.
15 Nisan had begun – it ended not!
Says Luke when Joseph near the end of this Passover Sabbath
Day of 15 Nisan closed the door on the sepulchre: “The sun/light towards the
(weekly) Sabbath declined” (“... the sun
dips down the west”, I hear as I write all by coincidence someone saying!) ...
“the (TWO) women sitting watching”.
Having left Rameses after midnight on 15 Nisan the
Israelites THIS SAME DAY, AFTERNOON – having travelled up to Succoth – there
burnt the “remains” of the Passover lamb.
The PASSOVER Sabbath of that FRIDAY, embraced the BURIAL – it was
the SECOND day “according to the Scriptures”, the Passover-Scriptures.
(1Cor.15:3-4)
16 Nisan when First Sheaf offering was waved before the
Lord: RESURRECTION from the dead! The Sabbath (“Seventh Day”), but CHRISTIAN,
is "THE LORD'S DAY"! The Lord’s Day is it BECAUSE of but one and
eventual REASON: because ON IT, “the Son of Man” by feat of victory was
Anointed, Christ and LORD, “LORD indeed of the Sabbath Day”! (Mk.2:27-28)
I SHALL NOW INDICATE THAT IGNATIUS’ LETTER TO THE MAGNESIANS WHILE
CONTRADICTING THAT TO THE TRALLIANS, CONFIRMS THE PASSOVER’S SCRIPTURES BY THE
FACT ‘THE LORD’S DAY’ IS THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH, CHRISTIAN!
(Emphasis, bracketed words […], are CGE’s):
<< If, therefore, THOSE who were brought up in
]<< the ancient [Jewish] order of things have come to
<< the possession of a NEW hope,
<< NO LONGER Sabbatising
[That
is, no longer LIKE THE JEWS keeping the Sabbath by the terror of the Law.]
<< but living to the spirit of the LORD’S Day (kata
kuriakehn
<< dzohntes),
<< on which [same day] ALSO OUR life has sprung up
<< again by Him and by His death –
<< whom some deny, [but] by which mystery WE
[unlike the Jews]
<< have obtained faith [in Christ], and THEREFORE endure,
<< that we may be found the disciples of JESUS CHRIST
<< our only Master.
[Not of Moses any more. We haven't got the Law as
our master any longer.]
<< HOW SHALL WE BE ABLE TO LIVE APART FROM HIM
[That is, how shall we keep the Sabbath apart from
Jesus Christ LIKE THE JEWS who live apart from Christ
yet FOR THE SAKE OF THE LAW ONLY keep
the Sabbath?]
<< ... whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit
<< WAITED FOR as their Teacher? And therefore HE
<< [JESUS CHRIST] whom they rightly waited for,
<< BEING COME, RAISED THEM FROM THE DEAD.
<< If, then, THOSE who were conversant with the
<< ancient Scriptures came to NEWNESS of hope,
<< EXPECTING THE COMING OF CHRIST,
<< as the Lord teaches us when He says,
<< "If ye had believed MOSES, ye would have believed
ME,
<< for he wrote of ME;" and again,
<< "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see MY day,
<< and he did see it, and was glad;
<< for before Abraham was, I am" –
<< HOW SHALL WE BE ABLE (THEN)
<< TO LIVE WITHOUT HIM?
<< [For] the prophets were HIS servants,
<< and foresaw HIM by the Spirit,
<< and waited for HIM as their Teacher,
<< and expected HIM as their Lord and Saviour, saying,
<< "He will come and SAVE us".
[They were Christians, Ignatius in effect says!]
<< Let US [who call ourselves Christians]
<< THEREFORE NO LONGER KEEP THE SABBATH
<< and AFTER THE JEWISH MANNER,
<< rejoice in days of idleness; ...
<< BUT, let every one of YOU, KEEP THE SABBATH
<< after a SPIRITUAL manner,
<< rejoicing in meditation on the law –
<< (not in relaxation of the body),
<< admiring the workmanship of God –
<< (not [as if Sabbath-keeping means] to eat
<< things prepared the day before,
<< ([not as if it means] not to use lukewarm drinks,
<< [not as if it means] to walk within a prescribed space,
<< or [not as if it means] to avoid delight
<< in dancing and plaudits
<< – which [things] have no sense in them.
<< BUT after the [TRUE and CHRISTIAN] observance
<< of the SABBATH,
<< let every friend of Christ keep the LORD'S DAY
[speaking of the Sabbath] as a festival,
<< as the resurrection-day,
<< as the queen and chief of all the days.
[– all things which the Jews called the Sabbath, but
did not live it!]
<< LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS
<< [dispensation AND day], the prophet declared,
<< "To the end, for the eighth day," on which
<< our life both sprang up again,
<< and the victory over death was obtained in Christ,
<< whom the children of perdition [the Jews],
<< the enemies of the Saviour, deny ...".
Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. IX – elaborately
paraphrased by some Sundaydarian? Very impropbable! What doubt could possibly
exist that this pseudo-Ignatius writes and argues about the SABBATH AND THE
SABBATH ONLY AS BEING THE LORD'S DAY when kept by Christians and when kept in a
Christian way – that is, by faith in Christ and by the Faith of Christ?
ONLY THE PREJUDICE OF MUCH LATER TIMES AND TRADITION changed the
thrust of this document into a CONTRASTING between the "Sabbath" and
the "Lord's Day".
This pseudo Ignatius because of his strong anti-Semitic
sentiments, ALL THE WAY CONTRASTS, NOT THE SABBATH WITH THE LORD'S DAY, BUT THE
SABBATH AS THE JEWS' SABBATH AND AS KEPT BY THEM, WITH THE SABBATH AS THE
CHRISTIANS' SABBATH AND DAY OF THEIR LORD AND AS KEPT BY THEM.
The Sabbath is Friday night / Saturday (seventh day of the
week). THIS VERY SAME DAY, AS BY CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, "observed" or
"celebrated", IS "THE LORD'S DAY". Therefore is it NOT TRUE
–as many Sunday-proponents claim– that ‘the early church’ consistently (or at
all) referred to the Sabbath and Lord's Day as TWO DIFFERENT days.
‘THE EIGHTH DAY’
This pseudo-Ignatius even relates the Sabbath with the
"eighth day" of Jewish apocalyptic. Although and despite the fact NO
BIBLE-prophet ‘declared the eighth day', ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this document
per se requires that the Sunday or First Day of the week should be related to
or be equated with the concept of ‘the eighth day’! The “Barnabas” document
also, may and should be understood the way we have here approached the Ignatius
Letter to the Magnesians.
ALL borrowers of ‘the eighth day’-argument are parroting TRADITION
– nothing more.
"THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS"
"Three days and three nights" cannot and may not
be interpreted IN THE SAME WAY as simply "three days" would be
interpreted according to Bible methodology. "Three days and three
nights" are the same and also not the same as "three days". Just
simple arithmetic and common sense is it that "three days and three
nights" comprise "three days"! We are NOT talking of hours –
neither does the Scriptures. But the Scriptures also doesn't speak of
"days" merely when it speaks of actually "three days and three
nights"! Where and when the Scriptures speaks of "days" it means
days represented whether by full OR, by part. Granted! But in saying
"three days and three nights", Scriptures speaks of "days"
as comprised of both "three days" AND, of "THREE NIGHTS" =
three days PROPER. THREE NIGHTS MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR! Don't try all the
learned stuff. It isn't learned at all. It simply is disobedience. Three proper
AND CONSECUTIVE days encompassed the period of Jesus' suffering, death, burial
and resurrection. That is the case, just by reading 1Cor.15:3-4! That is the
case "according to the Scriptures ..." THE PASSOVER SCRIPTURES! 14,
AND 15, AND 16 Nisan ...
14 Nisan : "Passover always slaughtered"; "leaven
removed" – Synoptists; John: "Preparation of Passover".
15 Nisan : Lamb eaten
"IN THE EVENING", its "remains", the SAME DAY FOLLOWING
returned to dust;
16 Nisan : "The day after the (Feast) Sabbath" :
First sheaf wave offering.
Therefore: Ignatius obviously considers "three days and three
nights" to mean the same thing as the "third day", SAME AS IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I repeat: This pseudo Ignatius because of his strong anti-Semitic
sentiments, ALL THE WAY CONTRASTS, NOT THE SABBATH WITH THE LORD'S DAY, BUT THE
SABBATH AS THE JEWS' SABBATH AND AS KEPT BY THEM, WITH THE SABBATH AS THE
CHRISTIANS' SABBATH AND DAY OF THEIR LORD AND AS KEPT BY THEM.
And this pseudo Ignatius, BECAUSE OF STRONG CHRISTIAN ANTI-SABBATH
SENTIMENTS, came to be interpreted as though he CONTRASTED the Sabbath with the
Lord's Day.
23/10/02
Gerhard Ebersoehn here, Greetings!
Where did this thread, "paradox", start? It isn't that
important to know. But I see the reason for the difficulties surrounding the
understanding of Jesus' death. You, my dear friends, try to explain it from the
wrong starting-point. You want to explain the "paradox" of Jesus'
death from the unexplainable – from death. Alright, the Scriptures does say a
lot about death, but it never has the objective of explaining it – of laying it
bare – to us. So it must be a futile attempt to understand Jesus' death as well
as its meaning for our salvation from this dark thing called death.
We shall only understand our 'paradox' from another approach –
from that of what has been revealed by it: Which is LIFE eternal, the SOURCE of life eternal, and the GIFT of
life eternal, namely, GOD HIMSELF.
GOD HIMSELF – HE explains it all.
Now don't confuse any human concept of God with God. Then trouble
starts. Then we'll never understand Jesus' death! The Scriptures does not say a
thing about the CONCEPT of God; it ALWAYS has the objective of revealing GOD –
of showing GOD SPEAKING and ACTING "to-us-ward" in mercy and love –
in Jesus Christ. We can only understand GOD, FULLY – THIS GOD in Jesus Christ!
God is NOT OUR CONCEPT of a god. We ONLY know God by his DEEDS – which is ONE,
even Jesus Christ!
Now mark: This God not only is able to DIE – He eternally PURPOSED
to die ... "for us"! This God DEFIES human understanding and MOCKS
every human concept of Him. THIS GOD THE ATHEIST CANNOT GRASP OR ACCEPT,
NEITHER THE ISLAM. The Christian believes in the ONLY God – He who DIED for sin
the DEATH FOR SIN and the DEATH OF SIN.
From this TRUTH OF GOD, sprang LIFE ETERNAL. And if life eternal,
then it must have been DEATH ETERNAL which He WILLED, which He PLANNED, which
He PROVIDENCED, which He suffered, which He entered, which He went through,
which He exited and which He CONQUERED. Or it's all fallacy and a lie.
The only answer for sin and death is GOD – NO LESS WHATSOEVER IN
HIS FULLNESS GOD DYING DEATH FOR US.
What, you think it any the less an impossibility the Word became
flesh than Jesus died? What, you think the Father died any the less than His
Son, Jesus, died?
We do not believe the divinity of Jesus unless we believe the
DIVINE Christ who DIED for our sins so that we – mortals – might have the
impossible: eternal life!
So, I am sorry if 'SOP' or any religion or any wisdom or power
says differently!
23/10/02
U het geskryf,
Jezus stierf op
vrijdag en op
Sabbat rustte Hij in het graf
omdat het De Rustdag was en op
de eerste dag der week stond Hij op om
Zijn werk weer te hervatten, als onze wegwijzer
naar zijn Heiligdom. Immers op
de Sabbat hield Hij zich aan
de geboden van Zijn Vader, Hij
rustte in het graf en op de eerste dag
der week ging Hij weer aan het werk, overeenkomstig Gods geboden.
Op de eerste opstandingsdag
zijnde de Zondag rustte Hij
niet, maar werkte Hij als
Gods Zoon ten gunste van het
mensdom, Soli Deo Glorie
27/10/02
For
an image of the north- eastern coastline of the
Below
(south) and to the left (west) – ‘inside’ the 7 – represents the sea.
Above
represents
The
right (east) from top to bottom represents
Enter
the following place-names:
Top
(north-west), near the coastline: Perga in Pamphylia;
Further
north:
Middle
above the top line of your 7, fill in:
North
and east on the northern shoreline, just left to the angle of your 7:
To
the right (east) of the south down-line of your 7, fill in:
Below
the angle of your 7 and on the western shoreline:
To
the right of it:
About
halfway down south and further inland (east):
In
between
About
3/4 way down south and inland:
Just
north of
On
western coast in
Below
(south) and to the right (east) of
In
the corner of your 7 in the Mediterranean Sea is the island
Now
the usual explanation of the historic developments of the Christian Church,
places Stephen’s death (Acts 6 to 7) about three and half years after
Pentecost. (Acts 2 to 4:4) Tradition also explains Stephen’s death as the point
in time when the proclamation of the Gospel was turned away from the Jews,
towards the heathen. Accordingly Stephen’s death is seen as the last beacon of
Daniel’s prophecy of “seventy weeks determined upon thy people”.
In
contradistinction to this usual explanation, it is here maintained that
Stephen’s death occurred very shortly after Pentecost. The only histories
inserted between Pentecost and Stephen’s martyrdom, are those of Peter and
John’s imprisonment (4:5 to 37), Ananias and Sapphira (5:1 to 16), and the
apostles’ (second) imprisonment (5:17 further). This whole period could have
extended over no more than a few months. The events all happened in
A
most dynamic but geographically limited phase in the history of the Church
started with the stoning of Stephen. The believers “scattered” as a result of
the persecution, AT THAT TIME went no further than “the regions of Judea and
Let’s
follow the story of Paul according to Luke’s Acts of the Apostles:
His
conversion:
On
the road to Damascus God turned Saul about to serve Him whom he thus far had
persecuted. (Acts 9:2) From this
experience Paul went to
Interval:
“After that many days were fulfilled”.
(9:23)
In
order to reconcile Paul’s own account of his life-story in his Letter to the
Galatians with that of Luke in the Acts, it is necessary to distinguish Luke’s
words, “After that many days were fulfilled”.
It implies much that happened during a certain period of time WHICH LUKE
DOES NOT INFORM THE READER ON.
First
rescue and first visit to
Rescued
from
Interval:
“And he was with them coming in and going out at
Second
rescue:
While
in
Interval:
“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and
Acts
9:31 must directly be connected with 11:1, “And the apostles and brethren that
were in
“Then
tidings of these things … (that) the hand of the Lord was with them (in heathen
territory) and (that) a great number believed … came to the ears of the church
which was at
Interval:
“… a whole year they assembled with the church.” (11:26)
Here
at
Paul’s
FIRST “official” missionary journey so to speak, took him and Barnabas from
This
was D-day! This was the moment “determined upon thy people” the Jews, the close
of the “seventy years determined”, the end of the “week” that the killing of
the Prince divided. “The Jews … expelled them out of their coasts, and they
shook off the dust off their feet against them, and set off unto Iconium” …
further north. (Acts 13:50-51)
So
HOW DOES THE “THREE YEARS” FIT IN, of which Paul speaks in Galatians the first
chapter – three years before he after his conversion went to
The
Jewish way of counting years is by representative portion or whole. If a person
becomes king in the last month of a certain year and dies in the first month of
the next year, the Jews would reckon he ruled for two years although it was but
one month that represented each year. By reckoning in this way we could account
for the mysterious three years, and reconcile Paul’s version of his own history
in Galatians with that of Luke in Acts.
March April 29 AD spring Crucifixion
May June July Aug 29 AD summer Stephen
stoned
Year ONE of Gal.1:18 begins here:
September October 29 AD autumn Paul’s
conversion, Acts 9:3
Nov Dec Jan Feb 30 AD winter Arabia,
. . . represents year ONE.
March April 30 AD spring Damascus Acts 9:23
May June July Aug 30 AD summer do do
September October 30 AD autumn
do do
Nov Dec Jan Feb 31 AD winter
do do
. . . year TWO
March April 31 AD spring do do
May June July Aug 31 AD summer To
. . . represents year THREE
September October 31 AD autumn
To
Nov Dec Jan Feb 32 AD winter To
March April 32 AD spring Barnabas finds Paul
May June July Aug 32 AD summer To
September October 32 AD autumn
In
Nov Dec Jan Feb 33 AD winter In
March April 33 AD spring In
= “WHOLE YEAR”
– Acts 11:26
May June July Aug 33 AD summer Sea
voyage to Pisidia
September October 33 AD autumn
“To the gentiles!” Acts 13:46
“FOURTEEN
YEARS AFTER” – 47 AD – to
27/10/02
From Gerhard Ebersoehn, biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za
Re: 'liturgy'
You can read this and much more by visiting www.biblestudents.co.za
Good Christians
have worshipped not knowing they worshipped liturgically, that liturgy was
their tool and horse for handling and carrying the Gospel message. Good Christians
have worshipped excellently while even underestimating the vital importance of
liturgy for their devotion to and veneration of the Lord.
Said Spurgeon, "Certain weaklings have said, "let us
have a liturgy!" Rather than seek divine aid they will go down to
The use and benefit of liturgy could not be described or defined
better. Liturgy is not a book of prayers. It is not "cold". It is the
sum of Christian worship in action outwardly. Therefor the strong who knows his
own weakness will certainly employ liturgy in his worship. He would rather say,
If you are filled with the Spirit, you will be glad to submit to all formal
upliftment, that you may commit yourself to the sacred current, to be borne
along till you find waters to swim in. Instead of images and icons your help
"if the supply of the Spirit be scant" will be nothing but the Spirit
in the invisible operations of its power.
Liturgy constitutes formal worship. It projects through order,
form and atmosphere the object and content of Christian Faith and Congregation.
Liturgy channels the thoughts and spirit to God the Holy Spirit
and Christ.
God chooses to so work and to be so worshipped.
He is not served nor honoured where the instruments He provides
for implementation in His worship are neglected, despised and discarded.
The moment the Body which is Christ's is realised, liturgy comes
into play.
Congregation of Believers immediately and primarily pre-supposes
liturgy.
Congregation of Believers in Worship of the Lord already is
liturgy.
Prayer, song, confession, praise, study, proclamation, are not
only enriched but conditioned by formal order, sacred nature, sequence and
recurrence.
Wherever The Church comes to life in the Name and Faith of Jesus
Christ, liturgy appears. It not only accompanies all aspects and events of
worship but is an indispensable aspect and in itself is the event of Christian
worship.
"If we are to be much in the spirit of prayer, we need sacred
oil to be poured upon the sacred fire of our heart's devotion; we want to be
again and again visited by the Spirit of grace and supplication", says
Spurgeon, not conscious that he actually pleads for the necessity of liturgy.
Christ Jesus' Death and Resurrection are the centre and gravity of
Christian Worship and therefor of Christian Liturgy.
For this very reason of its nature and essence, it is wrong to
identify liturgy with restricted ceremonies and rites of Christian Worship,
such as sacrament, confirmation and consecration.
Liturgy constitutes formal Christian Worship as a whole and in all
its forms, events and aspects.
Where and when Christian Worship celebrates its Lord's great deeds
of redemption, its celebrating is liturgical – its celebration is liturgy. Thus
when and where the Church proclaims the Gospel, teaches the people, makes
disciples, baptises, eats the Lord's Supper, or celebrates the Lord's Day,
liturgy is central and fundamental. Liturgy witnesses to each and every
practice of the Church as Christian practice and Christian Church.
The ancients were wise to expect of the simple as sufficient to
know by heart the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 and perhaps the Apostolic Articles
of Faith.
The ancients were wise to expect of the ordinary folk to attend
the sermon and the sacraments and no more.
The same thing each time by the power of the Holy Spirit makes of
it the blessed Tidings of Salvation to the poor in knowledge and understanding.
The simplest of liturgy each time becomes new and refreshing to
the wisest and greatest of believers.
The Spirit does it. "The Lord is the fortress of my
life" – that steadiness which is the variety and spice, "the strength
of my life".
Liturgy is what the Lord provides to transfer that help and
comfort of the Holy Spirit in real life to the soul of the believer in Jesus
Christ.
28/10/02
Von: Gerhard Ebersöhn <biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za>
An: Harald <Hawri@gmx.de> und <mail@sabbat.info>
Fragten Sie:
"Ist der Sabbat nach den jüdischen Gesetzen geregelt ?"
Ich antworte:
Ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen oder schreiben – nur lesen. Aber
erlassen Sie mir zu probieren, bitte?
Wenn Sie Englisch verstehen, können sie meinen Bücher von dem
Internet ausladen oder direkt lesen, www.biblestudents.co.za.
Ich habe eine Konfession, dessen der Artikel 'Sabbat' geht:
Ek glo
die Dag van die Here
die Sabbat van die Here jou God,
want God het van die Sewende Dag gespreek en daarin gerus
na die werking van die uitnemende grootheid
van die krag van sy sterkte wat Hy gewerk het in Christus
toe Hy Hom uit die dode opgewek het
en al sy werke wat Hy gemaak het, voltooi het
om te heers vir ewig en ewig.
I believe
the Lord's Day
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,
for God of the Seventh Day did speak and in it did rest
according to the working of the exceeding greatness
of his mighty power which He wrought in Christ
when He raised Him from the dead
and finished all his works He had made
to reign for ever and ever.
Protestierend:
12, Ons bely, betreur,
bestry, bestraf en verwerp die Kerk se deelagtigheid aan die ontkenning en
miskenning van die Bybel as die Woord van God en die openbaring van sy wil vir
sy Kerk deur volhardende misbruik van sy profetiese amp en onberouvolle
versmading van sy wordingsgeskiedenis deur verdraaide verkondiging (vertaling)
en sondige kompromis met die afgodery ten opsigte van Sondagsheiliging en
Sabbatsveragting.
Es ist auszumachen von dieser Artikel meiner Konfession ich glaube
dem Sabbat der Siebenten Tag des Woches da er Sabbattag der Herr Jesu Christus
ist durch Schöpfungskraft Gottes aber mehr da er Kuriakeh Hehmera – der Tag des
Herrn – ist durh Wiederschöpfungskraft Gottes.
Der Sabbat als solcher ist geregelt nach den Gesetz des Lebens –
welcher der lebende und lebendmachende Herr unseres Leben ist. Der Gesetz
"jüdisch" wisse ich nichts von. Im Alten Testament Gottes Gesetz war
auf den Steinen geschrieben – auch auf den Herze der Gläubigen. Im Neuen
Testament Gottes Gesetz ist derselbe, nur auf Papier, aber auch auf den Herzen
der Gläubigen. Und diesemahl – im Neuen Testament – ist der Gesetz geschrieben
mit dem Finger Gottes der der Heilige Geist ist, der von dem Christus und nicht
von ihn Selbst zeugt. Christus ist der Gesetz für den Christ. Beide Gesetze
sind nie in Konflikt, aber Christus vergrösst den Gesetz und der Gesetz verherrlicht
den Christus – das ist, er dient den Herrn des Gesetzes und ist ihm untertänig.
Rex Lex, und nicht lex Rex! Der Christ wirklich nicht mehr benötigt der alte
Gesetz seits er Jesus hat für seinen Gebot und als seiner Gebot. Und der Herr
Jesus is Herr des Sabbats durch auferstehung vom Tode. Kein stärkere Rede kann
man haben den Sabbat zu glauben oder zu halten. Das ist die ewige und einzige
Rede für den Menschen Unterhaltung des Sabbats. Weil Christus das Haupt des
Leibe ist und Herr der Gemeinde, gelt der Sabbat zu liebe von der Gemeinde und
dient er – nach den Herrn des Sabbats – die Gemeinde erstens. Der Sabbat dient
nicht den Gesetz und nicht den Mensch um den Gesetze wille, aber er dient des
Herrn Verehrung und Anbetung. Kein Herr, kein Sabbat; kein Gemeinde, kein
Sabbat. Die Ruhe Gottes ist der Herr Jesus Christus, und sie ist eigegeht durch
die Glaube – nicht durch Menschen Kraft. Als man die Ruhe Gottes aufgenimmt
ist, wird er in der Leib Christi die Gemeinde aufgenimmt. Ich glaube in Gott,
wir bekennen, darum auch in Christi, darum auch im Heiligen Geist – und darum
auch im Arbeit des Heiligen Geistes, der Gemeinde. Darum auch glauben wir dem
Sabbat der die Arbeitsruhe Gottes dient und unentbehrlich zu ihre Realisierung
in der Zeit und in den Menschen Leben ist. Alles auf Grunde der Auferstehung
Jesu von den Toten!
13/11/02
Mike Gascoigne,
13 November 2002
Dear Sir,
Re: Your post of a few days ago,
Please forgive me for having neglected your post to
'biblestudents'. My IT equipment was out of order and I am too old to
properly understand these things. Nevertheless I do remember you asked whether
I have the Afrikaans books in English. Unfortunately the book on Rv.1:10 and
the second century is not. I have re-written the book on the first century
though, and it at this stage has reached the format of seven books,
covering much of the Sabbath / Sunday question. These are available in
English for off-loading free of charge from website: www.biblestudents.co.za. At the
moment you will need Winzip to off-load.
If requested and your postal address supplied, I
shall forward you a CD of 'The Lord's day in the Covenant of grace', free!
I came across your web-page I can't remember how, and
found a lot of interesting information. I noticed that you argue for both the
Sabbath and the Sunday in Christian worship. As it happened I am at the moment
reviewing my own appreciation of the early documents' mentioning of
"the Lord's Day". (At the same time I'm also reviewing my own
appreciation of Paul's Letter to the Colossian believers, where I have also
reached an unheard of consequence directly ascribable to the same approach
which I have adopted to the understanding of all these different
sources. My approach is a-traditional, so that one goes to the source
without preconceived and ready-made answers, and without prejudice or animosity
towards any possible explanation. Let the sources speak for themself!)
My conclusion reached is that these first
instances of its mention associate "the Lord's Day" with the Seventh
Day Sabbath and not at all with the First Day of the week! You may at
first I am sure find it a rediculous speculation, never mind a rational
finding, and I understand anybody's recoiling from the idea, for I also
all my life have believed "the Lord's Day" in the first century
Christian documents means Sunday. These thoughts DV will be available
progressively on the forum <www.biblestudents.co.za.
Last time I wrote to you, I in a hurry proposed a few
thoughts on the dating of some important early Christian events. I herewith
post those thoughts once again, with a little further development. (Book:
'Pentecost' departs from these initial datings.)
I hope you may find it not only interesting but
persuasive reading.
Christian greetings
Gerhard Ebersoehn
FORTY AND TEN DAYS TO PENTECOST
Quote from
'The Arachim Torah Journal', which again quotes from the Passover
Haggadah, as follows:
"If God had brought us to
The question is: WHY could the Jews be so satisfied even though
had they NOT received the LAW?
It seems the Jews live more by faith than the Christians! But not
so: “... if we had not received the gift of the Torah from the Almighty ...
(w)e would have settled for the massive national assembly ... even without the
crowning Revelation.”
I shall try to show that according to the selfsame Torah, it is
because that on Mount Sinai and ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST (Shavuot), God showed
HIMSELF to them, even BEFORE He only TWO DAYS AFTER, gave them the Covenant of
Ten Commandments. According to God's one and eternal Covenant of Grace, MERCY
ALWAYS COMES BEFORE THE LAW, AND GRACE IS ENOUGH!
This finding is perfectly reflected in the New Testament in the
Sermon to the Hebrew Christians the twelfth chapter from the eighteenth verse
to the last of that chapter, and especially the last two verses of it. And it
mainly shows that what descended upon the mountain, and from it upon the
People, was God through his Holy Spirit.
Jesus ascended into the heavens on the fortieth day after his
resurrection from the dead, which was the Passover Feast Day of First Sheaf
Wave Offering. Ten days remained to Pentecost. Then, "When Pentecost was
FULLY COME", the Holy Spirit was "poured out" upon the WAITING
BELIEVERS.
Now it says in Exodus 19:1, "In the third month, when the
children of
In the 11th and 15th verses it says: "Be ready against the
third day" or, "be ready FOR the third day". "For (on) the
third day the LORD will come down upon mount Sinai in the sight of all the
People." (11b)
God gave the People the FULFILMENT OF THIS PROMISE exactly
so, according to verses 18 and 19. This is what the Preacher to the Hebrew
Christian tells us of in Hebrews 12 above referred to.
How did we get to this "THIRD" day from the first
day of the third month? It is clear and easy:
ON THE FIRST DAY "in the third month",
"And Moses went up ... ", verse 3, "and Moses
came (down) ...", verse 7, "and all the People answered ...".
That makes up DAY TWO of the month Sivan.
THE THIRD DAY of Sivan: "And the Lord said unto Moses
..." – for which reason Moses had to have ascended the mounted a second
time. "... And Moses told the words of the People unto the Lord".
"Moses reported to the LORD what the People had said (the previous
day)". "... and Moses went down (the second time) ..." (verse
14). "Then the LORD said unto Moses, Go to the People, and sanctify them
TODAY (3 Sivan),
AND, TOMORROW (4 Sivan):
for the THIRD day (5 Sivan) the LORD will come down IN THE
SIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE ... IN A THICK CLOUD (verse 9) ... And it came to pass
on the third day in the morning ...".
The remainder of this day is recorded up to verse 20A: "And
the LORD came down upon mount Sinai on the top of the mount" ... Not a
word about the Law being given! Compare Hebrews 12 the last two verses!
THIS, FIVE Sivan, is in fact the FIFTIETH DAY counted from
16 Nisan, and is the day of the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit, that is, the
pouring out of Himself in Power and Mercy!
From verse 20B, the NEXT DAY'S events are recorded, counted
to the same measure of the previous days' counting: To the measure of Moses'
going up to, and coming down from, the mountain:
Ex.19:20B: 6 Sivan:
"And the LORD called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up
...
Verse 24A: "And the LORD said unto him (Moses), Away, get
thee down ...".
This, 6 Sivan, is the fifty FIRST day after 16 Nisan.
Verse 24B and 25: Then on SEVEN SIVAN, and the fifty SECOND
day after First Sheaf Wave offering, TWO DAYS AFTER PENTECOST, CAME THE LAW!
This, 7 Sivan, is NOT Shavuot – the Fiftieth Day or
"Pentecost"! The “counting” of the “Shavu’os” has stopped two days
ago already. (Says Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, “... (C)ounting is a significant aspect
of Shavuot, notes the illustrious Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch ...”.) The giving
of the Law is no part of the giving of Grace.
Despite, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin observes: 7 Sivan is the day
"... the Midrash insists that the giving of the Torah on mount Sinai took
place on the Sabbath!"
All the confusion because the Day of Pentecost and Day of
God’s Gift of HIMSELF, is identified with the day of the Law's giving!
Derivation of 5 Sivan on the Sabbath:
Accept that the Midrash as far as the date of 7 Sivan
is concerned – for the giving of the Law and not of the Holy Spirit (God’s
descent in “thick cloud”) – is correct, then 5 Sivan was the day of the Holy
Spirit’s descent or outpouring.
Accept that the Midrash is correct as far as the
notable day of event is concerned – that it was the Sabbath –, then the Sabbath
was the day of the Holy Spirit’s descent or outpouring.
Yet that would be no more than Jewish tradition – it
is not the Holy Scriptures after all.
Yerachmiel Tilles of Ascent Seminars, “Countdown to
Shavuot”: “The first Shavuot took place on Shabbat, fifty days after the Exodus
from
Nevertheless it would be more reasonable to
expect the particular day of the week would have been ‘remembered’ correctly
rather than the date of its occurrence – seeing it was the Sabbath and the
event that gave the Sabbath so much meaning. Also the proneness of human nature
to confuse the fruit for the tree – to confuse the Commandment for the Gift (of
the Holy Spirit) – makes it more likely the Midrash mistakes the Event rather
than the Day. The Midrash delivers the Sabbath correctly but it mistakes the
Law instead of the Holy Spirit to have been given on the Sabbath.
Therefore
it is not a total contradiction with the Midrash to assume the Sabbath for the
fiftieth day after First Sheaf 16 Nisan, on condition the event on the fiftieth
day – Pentecost – wasn’t the giving of the Law but the giving of the Holy God
in Spirit and in Power, and on the further condition the date was two days
BEFORE 7 Sivan, namely 5 Sivan.
Reckoning backwards from Pentecost / Shavuot, Sabbath
5 Sivan, to First Sheaf, Sabbath 16 Nisan,
PERFECT AGREEMENT OCCURS with each and every other
date, day and event mentioned in the Torah:
1, With the express mention of “the fifteenth day of
the second month ... (till) the Seventh Day ... Sabbath” (Ex.16);
2, With the Exodus and Entering into the promised
land (Ex.12 to 15) and its (later) categorical placement in the Fourth
Commandment for reason of the Sabbath’s remembering and keeping.
John Lightfoot, in
'A Commentary on
the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica – Exercitations upon the Acts', Point “IV, 1”, in order to
induce that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies such as the Passover and
Pentecost in every instance one day after the original date, says,
“The ambiguity of the words themselves ... when the
day of Pentecost was fully come” may be either rendered, as we have done in the
English ...; or as they in the Italian, “when it was fully gone”. So that the
phrase leaves it undetermined ... and what is there could be alleged against
it, should we render it in the latter sense?”
One
could but marvel at such a great and dignified scholar reaching such
conclusions for such reasons. But much can be “alleged against it”, such as the
nature of the Sabbath Day, and its history, and its commandment; such as every
particular fact and implication of plain chronology; such as the “sure word of
Prophecy”! No! Pentecost / Shavuot HAD
TO fall on the Sabbath Day and in Jesus’ fulfilling of it, DID fall on the
Sabbath Day exactly and by no means after it.
As it happened to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, so the Shavuot
first happened in the revelation-history of the Saving God. The Sabbath Day
stands within that ESCHATOLOGICAL relationship to the history of Salvation and
to God’s Eternal Covenant of Grace in Jesus Christ. The LORD’S APPEARANCE in
Shavuot / Pentecost in saving and in judging GRACE, made of the Sabbath the
LORD’S DAY. Although the Sabbath is also Law, it was given before the Law – it
was given as GRACE, FIRST!
Says Lightfoot under point “III”:
“We can hardly invent a more fit and proper reason why upon this
day they (the disciples / believers) should be ‘all with one accord in one
place’, than they were so gathered for the celebration of “the Lord’s Day”. So
that although we have adventured to call it into question whether the Holy
Ghost was poured out upon the very day of the Jewish ‘Pentecost’, yet have we
not done it with any love to contradiction, but as having considerable reason
so to do, and with design of asserting to “the Lord’s Day” its just honour and
esteem for on that day, beyond all controversy, the Holy Ghost did come down
amongst them.”
I have thought before this that I have seen everything!
Hardly a more inventive and adventurous design could be imagined
than ‘the considerable reason’ Lightfoot claims of asserting to THE SUNDAY.
Lightfoot FULLY depends on NOTHING. The Scriptures
contradicts his assertions every inch! Quote:
“III. As to the year, therefore, we are now upon, wherein
Christ ascended, and the Holy Ghost came down; THE SHEAF-OFFERING WAS ON THE
SABBATH DAY (Emphasis CGE.) FOR THE PASCHAL LAMB WAS EATEN ON THURSDAY (the
night of the Sixth Day – ‘Friday’, CGE); so that Friday ... was the first day
of the feast, the sabbatical, or holiday. And the following day, which was
their Sabbath, was THE SECOND, on which the sheaf was offered whilst Christ lay
in the grave. ...”
I omitted: “... so that Friday (ON WHICH DAY OUR SAVIOUR WAS
CRUCIFIED) was the first day of the feast ...”, FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON that our
Saviour was NOT crucified on Friday, but on the PREVIOUS day of the week “WHEN
THEY ALWAYS SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER”, and the Paschal lamb – CONSEQUENTLY –, “was eaten on Thursday(night)”.
Says Paul: “... that He was buried, and that He rose again
THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES ...” THE PASCHAL-SCRIPTURES! It was
NOT “the second” day “on which the sheaf was offered”.
Lightfoot further unpretentiously goes on directly denying
every instance of prophetic fulfilment in and by Christ:
“IV. II. It is worthy our observation, that Christ the
antitype, in answering some types that represented him, did not tie himself up
to the very day of the type itself for the fulfilling of it, but put it off to
the day following. So it was not on upon the very day of the Passover, but the
day following, that ‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us; it was not on
the very day that the sheaf of the firstfruits was offered, but the day
following, that Christ became ‘the firstfruit of them that slept’. So also did
He institute the Christian sabbath not the same day with the Jewish Sabbath
wherein God had finished the work of his creation, but the day following,
wherein Christ had finished the work of his redemption. And so it was agreeable
to reason, and to the order wherein he disposed of things already mentioned,
that he should indulge that mysterious gift of the Holy Ghost, not upon the day
of the Jewish Sabbath, but the day following, the day of his own resurrection
from the grave; that the Spirit should not be poured out upon the same day
wherein the giving of the law was commemorated, but upon a day that might keep
up the commemoration of himself for ever.”
If Christ had not “tie(d) himself up to the very day of the
type itself for the fulfilling of it”, then He – according to Lightfoot –, tied himself up to the very “day FOLLOWING”,
which has no connection with the type itself left for the fulfilling of it.
I cannot argue against such flat rejection of the
Scriptures, of Prophecy, of Inspiration, of Eschatology, of Typology, of
Promise, of Covenant, of Order, of Faithfulness, of Faith, or of Hope. In the
end Christ fulfilled NOTHING OF GOD’S SWORN WORD OF ASSURANCE.
The Apostles’ repeated and emphatic insistence “according to
the Scriptures the third day” is hollow rhetoric if Lightfoot is not in error.
It is TOTALLY UNworthy ‘our observation’, and TOTALLY DISagreeable
‘with reason or order’, that Christ – THE ANTITYPE –, in ANSWERING EVERY type that represented
him, did not himself to the very ESSENCE of the type itself, fulfill it! And in
the case of days and dates being such “types”, their essence-typical lies in
their being days or dates “itself”.
One can hardly invent a more fit and proper reason why upon
this day of Pentecost the believers should be ‘all with one accord in one
place’, than they were so gathered for the celebration of “the Lord’s Day” AS
CO-INCIDENTAL WITH PENTECOST AS BEING FULFILLED BY AND IN JESUS CHRIST, and
with design of asserting to “the Lord’s Day” – the Sabbath Day –, its just honour and esteem. For on that
day, beyond all controversy, the Holy Ghost did come down amongst them! So that
WE VENTURE NOT to call it into question whether the Holy Ghost was poured out
upon the very day of ‘the Jewish’ Pentecost, yet not for love to contradiction,
but as having considerable reason to so believe, trusting the Word “thus
spoken” by God for its clear truth.
13/11/02
Mike Gascoigne,
13 November 2002
Dear Sir,
Re: Your post of a few days ago,
Please forgive me for having neglected your post to
'biblestudents'. My IT equipment was out of order and I am too old to
properly understand these things. Nevertheless I do remember you asked whether
I have the Afrikaans books in English. Unfortunately the book on Rv.1:10 and
the second century is not. I have re-written the book on the first century
though, and it at this stage has reached the format of seven books,
covering much of the Sabbath / Sunday question. These are available in
English for off-loading free of charge from website: www.biblestudents.co.za. At the moment
you will need Winzip to off-load.
If requested and your postal address supplied, I
shall forward you a CD of 'The Lord's day in the Covenant of grace', free!
I came across your web-page I can't remember how, and
found a lot of interesting information. I noticed that you argue for both the
Sabbath and the Sunday in Christian worship. As it happened I am at the moment
reviewing my own appreciation of the early documents' mentioning of
"the Lord's Day". (At the same time I'm also reviewing my own appreciation
of Paul's Letter to the Colossian believers, where I have also reached an
unheard of consequence directly ascribable to the same approach which I have
adopted to the understanding of all these different sources. My
approach is a-traditional, so that one goes to the source without preconceived
and ready-made answers, and without prejudice or animosity towards any possible
explanation. Let the sources speak for themself!)
My conclusion reached is that these first
instances of its mention associate "the Lord's Day" with the Seventh
Day Sabbath and not at all with the First Day of the week! You may at
first I am sure find it a rediculous speculation, never mind a rational
finding, and I understand anybody's recoiling from the idea, for I also
all my life have believed "the Lord's Day" in the first century
Christian documents means Sunday. These thoughts DV will be available
progressively on the forum <www.biblestudents.co.za.
Last time I wrote to you, I in a hurry proposed a few
thoughts on the dating of some important early Christian events. I herewith
post those thoughts once again, with a little further development. (Book:
'Pentecost' departs from these initial datings.)
I hope you may find it not only interesting but
persuasive reading.
16/11/02
it would be appropriate to first ask whether or not the context demands
the usual <<analysis>> by way of comparing the order of the three
“feasts”, “feasts ... new moon ... Sabbath” with every possible and impossible
occurrence of it in the Old Testament and other sources? The task of comparison
is created artificially ONLY IF it is PRESUMED that Paul meant Old Testament or
“Jewish” “feasts”.
Paul though with his admonition confronts no religious, ceremonial
or just a linguistic problem. He does not even tackle a social problem. Paul
has to do with a problem of dual nature: It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that
is under threat, first of all. Then it is the Church under the dominion of
Christ that is under threat. Arrogantly and menacingly the shadow of the
“worldly principles and powers”, “philosophy” and “wisdom” of the “kingdom of
darkness” envelopes the Enlightened, Congregating, Worshipping and Celebrating
“Body that is Christ’s”. Christianity – its purity, innocence and simplicity,
its freedom and sovereignty – is at stake. Christianity could fall prey to the
religion “after the tradition of men” and “vain deceit”, of “will-worship”,
“neglecting of the body” and “subjection of the flesh”! Paul for the sake of Christ
and his Body the Church moves in between: “Beware, don’t you be judged by
anyone regarding your eating and drinking, or regarding your eating and
drinking of your feasts – or of your new moon feasts, or of your
Sabbath-feasts!”
Thus understood in context there’s no need to make of the
“feasts”, Jewish or Old Testament feasts. They were Christian, and that settles
the question – so the thrust of Paul’s Letter demands. Thus understood, the
word “feasts” is the Collective Noun of ALL the Christian “Feasts”, NAMELY,
“Monthly (Lord’s Supper) Feasts”, and, weekly, “Sabbaths’ Feasts”.
Ultimately the very “Sabbath” meant to be “annulled”, vanquished
and “destroyed” by the anti-Sabbatharian onslaughts with this very INSTRUMENT
of Colossians 2:16, is THEREBY extolled, exonerated and confirmed: The Sabbath:
Indispensable, indissoluble, imprescriptibly and indestructibly INSTRUMENT unto
“nourishment ministered, and JOINING TOGETHER unto the cause of God” upon this
earth – His Church. (19)
21/11/02
Datum: 21.11.02
Herr Stephan,
Ich stimme zu ... Wort für Wort und ganz
herzlich ... mit Ihren Schrieben vom Mittwoch, 20
November 2002, um 12:31:
>Sind die 10 Gebote als Wegweisung für ein christlich orientiertes Leben noch aktuell? >Im Prinzip nicht! Ich sage mit Paulus, wir wissen, "daß für einen >Gerechten das Gesetz nicht bestimmt ist" (1.Tim 1,9). Auch sagt Paulus: >"Wenn ihr aber durch den Geist geleitet werdet, so seid ihr nicht >unter Gesetz." – das ist für ein "christlich orientiertes Leben" >entscheidend, daß man durch und durch mit dem Geist durchtränkt ist in >dieser Kraft wandelt. Wenn das Gesetz noch eine Bedeutung hätte, >dann wäre das ein "jüdisch orientiertes Leben". >Achtung! Damit mache ich das Gesetz nicht ungültig und löse es >auch nicht auf. Ich sage nur, daß ein Christ weder unter dem Gesetz >vom Sinai steht noch unter den anderen Gesetzen des AT, die auch >vielfach sehr sinnvoll sind und die man ohne das man es explizit >sagt auch tut, aber eben nicht alle z.B. sich beschneiden lassen, >oder Opferungen durchzuführen, oder oder oder... > >Christus ist des Gesetzes Ende, sagt Römer 10,4. Das kann aber >erst nach seinem Tod gesagt werden. Das Gesetz hat vollständig >ein Ende gefunden in dem Tod des Herrn. Und weil wir mit ihm >gestorben sind (Römer 6) hat das Gesetz auch auf uns keine Anwendung mehr.
Für mich das Leben ist Christus, sagte
Paulus, und darum ist Christus für mich auch der Gestezt – kein Mensch kann
ohne Gesezt leben – ich kann nicht ohne Christus leben. Als ich die Sünde tue
sündige ich weder meinen Jesu und tut es mir grosse Leide! Sagte Dawid, An dir
allein habe ich gesündigt und übel vor dir (allein) getan! Mann braucht nicht
dem Gesezt seinen Gewissen zu erwachen oder scharf zu machen. Der Gesezt ist
plötzlich lebendig den Gottesleugner zu verurteilen und zu töten. Aber nur Gott
kann verurteilen oder ertoten.
Wie es ist in unserer Zeit und Dispensation –
in der Königreich Christi – also darum war es auch in der Zeit Dawids oder
damals man lebtete „unter denn Gesezt“. Alle Menschen aller Zeit und Zeiten
leben unter den Gesezt. Und „das Gesetzt herrscht über den Menschen, solange er
lebt!“, sagte Paulus, weil der Mensch immer Sünder ist. Der Mensch lebt immer
unter Gott! Es ist immer dasselbe Gebot im Tiefste und am Ende. Der einzige
Unterschied zwischen den Gesezt auf dem Stein und den Gesezt als der lebendige
Gott Selbst, ist das der ersterer ganz kraftlos ist – ganz tot ist und tot
macht, und der letzterer der Almächtige ist, lebend ist und lebendig macht. Der
geschriebene Gesezt dient dem Lebendigen und Persöhnlichen Gesezt! Der Gesezt
in welchen Gestalt wie auch empfehlen dasselbe dem Mensch; er fordert dasselbe
vom Mensch. Dawid lebte durch und unter den Geist Gottes wie der Christ. Dawid
ergötzte ihn im Gesezt damit er ihn in Gott ergötzte. Der Christ gar nicht
anders. Derselbe Gott – derselbe Gesezt, vor und nach dem Kreuztod Jesu. Nie
aber ist der Erste Tag der Woche, mitten im Leben des Volkes Gottes und nie
regelt der Erste Tag die Anbetung des Volkes Gottes. Sonst forderte das Gebot
(der Torah und ganzes Alten Testament) den Ersten Tag vom Mensch und nicht den
Sabbat. Sonst „sprach Gott“ nicht „von dem Siebenten Tag also ...“, aber
„sprach er“ von dem Ersten Tag „also“.
Von wo kommt der Erste Tag in diesem Verband?
Wie geschah es das der Erste Tag Anbetungstag der Kirche Christi wird? Die
ganze Welt der Früh-christlichkeit war Religion und der Tag der Sonne und ihre
Anbetern regierte die ganze Welt und Zeit. Die Christen zu überleben benützten
den Anbetungstag zu komprimitieren mit ihrer Welt und mit der Regierung, der
Religion, und mit dem Herrn ihrer Welt. Es geschah schon am Anfang der
Geschichte der Kirche und man kann es ableiten in Galater 4:9-10, und später in
Jutinius wo er dem Kaiser die christliche Glaube abbittete. Bei Justinius aber
die Verzeihung war unverschämt für den „Sonntag“ – nicht für den „Herrn Tag“.
Der Tag des Herrn war erst mit dem Ersten Tag der Woche identifiziert in der
Apokryphische Brief Petrus. Die Dokumenten des früh zweiten Jahrhundert, aber,
„Didacheh“ und der Brief Ignatius an den Magnesianern verbinden NIE „der Hernn
Tag“ mit dem Ersten Tag der Woche, aber endgültig mit dem Sabbat und Siebenten
Tage.
21/11/02
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za
To: Dirk, Lesermeinung mailto:Lesermeinung; lesermeinung@wtal.de;
velten_berger@t-online.de; cd-schue@t-online.de
Betreff: "Break between Verse 1 and 2"
>> This assumes there is no break between verse 1 and 2 and
is then strongly
>> in opposition to the clear statements of Mark 16,9 and
Luke 24,21.
>> So we cannot accept these conclusions. Let drop your
predefined notion
>> of the Sabbath and 'you will see all things clear'.
Dear Dirk,
First, Thank you sincerely for really answering my post! It is
received with great humbleness and thankfulness.
Second, Statement of purpose: May every word serve the glory,
honour and grateful worship of our Lord Jesus!
Consider your saying:
>This assumes ...< – referring to my thesis
>"Afternoon" – Resurrected<.
Syntax:
1. "In late Sabbath's afternoon towards the First Day"
is the adverbial phrase of time that pertains to the verb of verse 2, "And
behold there was ..." <kai idou egeneto>.
2. The adverbial phrase of time is further comprised of the
clause, "set off Mary and the other Mary to see the grave", which
implies “late” <opse> also bears on this clause, in English idiom, thus:
“When late Sabbath's afternoon towards the First Day Mary and the other Mary
setting off to see the grave there suddenly was ...".
Therefore, syntactically it is impossible to suppose >a break
between verses 2 and 1<.
Stylistically:
Matthew employs the very common introductory “and” <de> at
the beginning of a new pericope in verse 5, as he does to begin the pericope
verses 1 to 4.
Many other features characterising the section verses 1 to 4
clearly separate it from the foregoing as well as from the following context.
See Par. 5.3.3.4 (Second book, p. 158-164)
It would be impossible for an honest translator to ignore these
aspects and to artificially create >a break between verses 2 and 1<.
Consider,
>... is then strongly in opposition to the clear statements of
Mark 16,9 and Luke 24,21.<
Consider, >Mark 16,9<
I must admit that in translations one will find >clear<
statement in Mark 16,9 of the Resurrection on the First Day. What can the
ordinary, sincere and well-meaning Christian do but take the Word of God as the
translator puts it into his hands and head? Yet Mark says nothing of the sort,
that “Jesus rose early on the First Day”. Dear friend and brother in Jesus
Christ, I plead with you, that it is us, the Church, that spoil and soil God’s
Written Word. How does God love his Church to allow it I cannot comprehend, but
the total structure of Christian Sunday worship rests on, frankly, the false
translation of these two verses in the Gospels, Mt.28:1 and Mk.16:9. Mk.16,9
says Christ “appeared on the First Day of the week early, first to Mary”. It
supposes Christ “as the Risen, appeared”. It does not say Jesus rose. It in
fact does not even use the name of Jesus, but supposes Him “the Risen” –
actually using the participle as the Name of Jesus: “He the Risen, on the First
Day of the week, early, first appeared to Mary Magdalene”. See Par. 6.1, p.
180f. Jesus’ appearance marks this day; his resurrection marked the day before,
having invested it with a meaning not before attached to it but
eschatologically.
Consider, <Luke 24,21<
“Beside all this (how the priests … delivered Him to be condemned
to death, and have crucified Him) today is the third day since these things
were done.” “Beside all this” – after Jesus’ crucifixion therefore – “today” –
Sunday – “is the third day”. So Saturday is the second day “since” or after
Jesus’ crucifixion. And Friday is the first day “since” or after Jesus’
crucifixion. Which makes it >clear< without a doubt Jesus was crucified
on Thursday and rose “the third day according to the Scriptures”. “According to
the Scriptures” means it must have been the Sabbath Day because “according to
the Scriptures”, “God concerning the Seventh Day thus spoke: And God on the
Seventh Day rested from ALL his works” – which He had finished and had rested
IN, BY and THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IN RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. See Par.
5.3.3.3. God BOTH in The Word, “spoke”, and, The Word, “rested” – which means
in Jesus did these TWO great things – to call into being, and to confirm by
“finishing” and by “sanctifying”, and by “blessing” – it ALL means but ONE
thing: God in Christ – in resurrection from the dead! It’s the whole Christian
message and doctrine and ethics and joy and enjoyment! “Therefore remains for
the People of God their keeping of the Sabbath Day”! It’s the celebration of
Jesus. (Excuse me for being so taken up by the Subject and only Subject and
Object of our Christian Faith! It also >predefine(s my) notion of the
Sabbath<.)
I pray this might cause you to rethink >your predefined notion
of the Sabbath<,
In the love of Christ,
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Request: Please! Would you be so very kind as to allow this
discussion to be published on Sabbath.Info.de? And then even a greater Favour:
Would you be willing to translate it into German for me? I find it excruciating
difficult to write in German.
23/11/02
Dear Stephan,
Forgive me for writing in English, but your zeal
compels me not to let the opportunity be lost for the sake of God's Truth. I
think I might be able to attempt – in English and not in German though.
You wrote:
>>... die augenscheinliche Abweichung
besteht doch wohl darin, daß man den Samstag,
>> den
siebenten Tag der Woche, in den Sonntag, den ersten Tag der Woche, zu
verwandeln
>> für
gut befunden hat.
>> Die
Heilige Schrift gibt nicht die geringste Anleitung dazu, sondern
>>
bezeichnet vielmehr den Unterschied ganz deutlich mit den Worten:
>>
"Aber spät am Ende des Sabbaths, in der Dämmerung
>> des
ersten Wochentages usw." (Mt 28, l).
>>
Keineswegs ist hier der siebente Wochentag in den ersten verwandelt.
>> Der Sabbath war vorüber, der erste
Tag der Woche begann.<<
You
ostensibly (<augenscheinlich>) don’t know it or don’t realise it, but you
do exactly what you say the Scriptures don’t do. You change
(<verwandeln>) the Sabbath Day into the Sunday (<den siebenten Tag der Woche, in den Sonntag>).
How do you do
it?:
You say,
„the Sabbath was past, the
First Day began“, or, „had begun“ (<Der
Sabbath war vorüber, der erste Tag der Woche begann>).
But
the Holy Scriptures gives not the least indication to it (<die Heilige Schrift gibt nicht die geringste Anleitung
dazu>), for it says:
"Aber spät
am Ende des Sabbaths ... usw." Tyndale’s rendering (KJV), is, „In the end
of the Sabbath ...etc.“
Whatever time
of day – whether after noon or after midnight – it says „IN“, <AM>, and
it says, Possessive / Genitif: „(time) of the Sabbath“ / „Sabbath’s-time“
(<des Sabbats>).
You
also say:
<in der Dämmerung des ersten Wochentages>. Thereby you
also change the Sabbath Day into the
Sunday.
How
can I say that? I can say it because the Greek – and Tyndale – do not say so.
The Greek – and Tyndale – used the exact words “towards the First (day)”
<eis mian sabbatohn>.
It
also uses the Accusative and not the Genitive as you do, “in the twilight of
the First Weekday” (in English “in the ...” is a Dative.)
Fact
is, the Greek in this phrase says the opposite of what you say. Fact also is,
that the Greek in the first phrase, “in the Sabbath”, uses the Genitive where
you use the Nominative, “The Sabbath was” with the effect of an Accusative in
the Greek, “AFTER the Sabbath”. So the “NEW Authorised Version” renders it.
You
have accomplished exactly what Justin Martyr had done at first: He switched the
cases of Matthew’s use – Genitive in the first phrase, Accusative in the second
– literally like the NEW Authorised Version does, into Accusative in the first
phrase, Genitive in the second.
Twenty
years before I first set eyes on Justin Martyr in the original I anticipated
the necessity for this switch for a reading of: “After the Sabbath, on the
First Day of the week”.
All
Christiandom has since Justin Martyr followed his perversion of God’s Holy
Scriptures. I will not, so help me God. God created the Sabbath Day, God
instituted the Sabbath Day, God employed the Sabbath Day, God confirmed the
Sabbath Day, God promised the Sabbath Day, God spoke concerning the Sabbath
Day, God swore the Sabbath Day by His Word of Oath Jesus Christ. For Christian
Faith the Sabbath Day HAS NO OTHER MEANING OR VALUE OR SERVICE BUT TO TEND TO
THIS WORD OF GOD. The First Day shall not overcome God’s Sabbath Day – not for
as long as God shall be God and Saviour of His Holy People the Israel of God
the Christian Church.
Darum, treu
übergesetzt, das Wort Gottes ist: "Spät, da des Sabbatszeites, im
Nachmittage hüben den ersten Wochentage." (Mt 28, l). Keineswegs ist hier
der siebente Wochentag in den ersten verwandelt. Der Sabbat war es, den ersten
Tage der Woche im voraus. „Am letzten in diesen tagen hat Gott zu uns geredet
durch den Sohn ... und zwar, da die Werke von Anbeginn der Welt gemacht waren,
sprach er ... von dem Siebenten Tag also: Und Gott ruhte am Siebenten Tage von
allen seinen Werken ... DURCH DEN SOHN!“ (Hb.1,2; 4:3-4) Seitdem, bezeichnet
der Sabbattag eine ganz neue Ordnung; er ist der Tag eines neuen nämlich des
der Auferstehung.
Here
is the Sabbath Commandment – not “repeated” as many require – but “given”, and
given at first, because given in Christ, and through Christ the Word of God!
“Because Jesus had given them rest”; “because He had entered upon His own rest
as God” Hb.4:8 and 10. In between verses 8 and 10 is written: “Therefore
remains for God’s People their keeping of the Sabbath Day” ... BECAUSE OF JESUS
CHRIST, my beloved brother in Jesus Christ!
Your’s,
God’s richest blessings in Jesus Christ!
26/11/02
Dear
Dirk,
Thank you for
showing interest – you could just as well have ignored my writing. Greatly
appreciated.
Never mind the
"predefined notion" statement. Unfortunately I also get annoyed with
Sabbatists who usually are not able to accept criticism in any form and just
repeat the refrain of the letter of the Law but fail to see so much spiritual
about it. With “spiritual” I mean the Law’s showing, serving and honouring
Jesus Christ and his Body the Church. The Sabbath in the Christian dispensation
is useless but for its primary use, virtue and value – its eschatological Christology,
as I would define it. The Sabbath’s lowly character demands its most elevating
respect. And it is nice to be able to
share with someone who might appreciate the fact … if the two might arrive at
an agreement.
So today I would like to deal on just one
point (time limits me):
Say
you,
>>
if Mary had been there during Matth. 28,2
>>
which should be, assuming no break there,
Whether we are aware of it or not, we
think the way we through all our life had OBSORBED AND ASSIMILATED THINGS TAKEN
FOR GRANTED. To break up those impressions, to fragment them into conceivable
detail, analyse them and weigh them … there the battle with OURSELVES is won or
lost! Therefor,
>> if
Mary had been there … assuming <<
Mary
had not been at the grave, regardless. She only intended to go to the grave.
The
Greek uses the COMBINATION: Nominative and Infinitive, in our phrase: “went”,
and, “to see”. The Infinitive in combination with the finite Nominative – as in
our example – will always be the determinative dominant. It is a STRONG
characteristic of the Greek language. This characteristic in our phrase
translates: “The women to go to look INTENDED”.
I have
in my dissertations usually rendered: The women “SET OFF to look”. But even
that is not exact. The true meaning of the combined predicative clause simply
is to indicate intention: At the time of the Mary’s intending to pay Jesus’
tomb a visit, their very INTENTION was thwarted by there THEN having occurred a
great earthquake.
So
Mary had NOT “been there” at the occurrence of the earthquake, but the
EARTHQUAKE had been there AT THE TIME WHEN Mary “set off to go have a look /
intended to go have a look”.
In
Afrikaans we have a saying: Die mens wik maar God beskik – man intends but God
disposes. Mary thought it was all over and so she will just go and pay the
grave a visit … when suddenly God intervened and interrupted her course and
that of all men. This divine intervention, Matthew tells us, occurred
“Sabbath’s afternoon”.
“Assuming
no break” therefore does not necessitate or imply “Mary had been there”.
”Assuming no break” does the opposite – it precludes “Mary had been there”.
Read Part 2 – it is the third book –
Resurrection, Par. 5.3.3.4, p.158f, from www.biblestudents.co.za
28/11/02
Dear Dirk,
Again
thanks for continuing our conversation. Your last post helped me to understand
your viewpoint because I was under the impression you held to the traditional
opinion of a Sunday morning resurrection.
We at the moment are occupied by just one factor of many that
concern the Day and time of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Although this
factor also stands upon its own feet, it receives many supporting factors.
You write:
>> I don't know why "came ... to" should have
>> here the meaning of "intended to come ... to".
>> That is really not what the verse says.<<
MANY distinguished researchers prefer "went" for
<ehlthen> in Mt.28:1. I could find one who does not fix the time phrase
that makes up verse 1 to the event of the resurrection. He fixes verse 1 to the
sealing of the grave in chapter 27: According to him the grave was sealed
"late in the Sabbath". For that conclusion he had to divide verse 1
before the word <ehlthen>. He naturally therefore is of the opinion the Marys
"Came", or "arrived at the grave" on Sunday morning – at
which conclusion he arrives not because Matthew so says, but because it is
inferred from the other Gospels.
You to my knowledge now have become the only other person that
does not fix the time phrase that makes up verse 1 with the resurrection
implied in verse 2.
In my last post I tried to show the idiomatic meaning of the
literal – and confirmed just what you here deny. It seems you agree the
Infinitive is one of Purpose in Mt.28:1. But where you insist the Purpose was
accomplished, I insist it was not accomplished, and treat the Infinitive as an
equivalent of a temporal clause – which significance it derives from the
context of its use: The earthquake occurred "Then, suddenly," just as
the women "went to go have a look at the grave".
Did the women "come and saw"? Or did they
"come", but did not see? If one maintains they "came and
saw", he maintains something >>that is really not what the verse
says<<.
If they saw, to translate the verb <ehlthen> with
"came" is nothing wrong with; If they did not see, to translate the
verb <ehlthen> with "set off with the intention to see" is also
nothing wrong with.
The question is whether the women in fact "saw", or just
"intended to go TO SEE", but eventually did not see. I am persuaded
of the last, because no one is able to protest that >>that is really not
what the verse says<<.
There consequently cannot be objection to translating the word
<ehlthen> (from <erchomai>) with "prepared". In
combinations such as in Mt.28:1 this meaning is in many cases attached to the
word. Some at random examples: Jn.21:13, Mark 16:1, Mt.10:35. And from here to
go to "intended" requires no disallowed step.
You wrote,
>> It is the same construction as in
>> Matth. 12,42! The meaning there is sure,
>> because of the narrative in 1Kings.<<
Matthew 28:1 has: <ehlthen Mariam ... kai heh alleh ...
theohrehsai ton tafon> "Came / Went Mary and the other Mary to see the
grave". Matthew 12:42 has: <basilissa notou egerthehsetai> "The
queen of the south shall be raised up". (<egerthehsetai> from
<egeiroh> "to rise")
In Mark 16:9 there appears a 'construction' of <anistehmi>,
a synonym of <egeiroh>, namely <anastas>, Participle:
"risen".
So I wouldn't know what to make of your reference to Mt.12:42.
In the last analysis and literally Matthew says "TO
see", not "saw". It consequently cannot be maintained the Marys
ARRIVED at the grave for that would be to presume. One is forced to look at
other factors like context and structural features, circumstance, motivation,
and comparison with the other Gospels.
Circumstance:
I have in a previous post referred to the guard. Matthew JUST
BEFORE, records the guard's appointment at the grave for the specific purpose
to keep Jesus' followers or "disciples" at bay – Mt.27:24. The women
would not be allowed to visit the grave. They would not have been able to look
at it, or to stand there >>a moment in devotion<<.
Structural and comparative:
You say:
>> For me the answer is clear:
>> The adverbial phrase of time in each
>> of the burial and resurrection events
>> in each gospel is connected with the visit
>> of persons and not with an event
>> concerning Christ.
>> The time is every time mentioned at first
>> to show the devotion of the women.<<
Consider:
>> The time is every time mentioned at first
>> to show the devotion of the women.<<
You say it as though this is characteristic of the Gospels
generally. It makes the women's devotion quite an important factor and reason
every time that time is mentioned!
Now John supplies the time of the day at the burial, yet he
doesn't mention any women or their 'devotion' during the whole burial episode.
>> The women even went to the grave on
>> Sabbath when they couldn't do anything.<<
If their devotedness were the reason for the women's supposed
Sabbath's visit, then surely Matthew would also have made mention of it.
In any case it asks for no great devotion if it brings one to do
something the while one >>couldn't do anything<<. So the women's
devotional attitude would make of a Sabbath visit by them no probability.
Far before in context, where the women attended when Jesus was
buried, Matthew seems to let them literally keep a low profile – he only says
about them that >>present were Mary and the other Mary, sitting over
against the sepulchre." 27:61
If the women had truly 'shown devotion' AT the grave, and in fact
had come to the grave being driven to it by their devotion, Matthew would not
only have said they "came to see", but he – while he had taken the
trouble to refer to the women – would have said something more substantial of
such an appreciated gesture.
Not before the women actually had come to believe, does Matthew
turn the attention to them and their devotional behaviour – verse 5 and on. He
does not in verse 1 pay attention to a supposed independent, isolated and quite
meaningless visit of theirs to the grave.
Mark seems to have harboured kinder concern for the women's
feelings than did Matthew. Mark's story stresses the women's actions. He tells
how they paid attention to the place where Joseph buried Jesus. He without any
connection yet without any disconnection, unlike Matthew, but immediately,
continues his narration concentrating on the women, who "when the Sabbath
was past bought spices". Next event he records is the women's
"arrival at the grave" in 16:3. Despite his keen interest in the
women, Mark supposes ONLY ONE event of real importance that must have occurred
since the women had witnessed the burial, but before they arrived at the grave,
namely Jesus' resurrection. Why would Mark not also have mentioned a Sabbath's
visit of the women, especially since it would have been such a 'devotional' act
of theirs?
Why also – like Mark – does neither Luke nor John tell of or just
hint at the Sabbath's afternoon visit which Matthew allegedly mentions if
>>the time is every time mentioned at first to show the devotion of the
women<<?
Luke obviously intended to describe the women's behaviour of the
Sabbath Day: "The women began to rest" (Inflective Aorist). It
implied what they would be doing for the remainder of the Sabbath Day, yet he
says nothing of a Sabbath's visit.
You employ my own argument against me, referring,
>>In your mentioned book you write:
Why would Matthew describe the time the women visited the grave on
Saturday so precisely and comprehensively, but say nothing of the time of the
important event, the opening of the grave? Why would Matthew at all, refer to
the women's visit to the grave on the Sabbath day?<<
I could repeat my question in support of my argument, and answer:
Matthew describes the time on Saturday so precisely and comprehensively,
because he interests himself in describing the time of the important event,
namely the Resurrection. For Matthew the women's never realised visit serves as
a further time-indication that eventually marked the Day and the time of the
day of Jesus' resurrection. Matthew simply says: "Late in the Sabbath,
afternoon before the First Day of the week, yes, just as Mary and the other
Mary had set out to go to pay the grave a visit, at that very moment, was there
a great earthquake ...!"
The very event of the earthquake compellingly explains why Matthew
used the Infinitive, and not the indicative Nominative, "they came and
saw". He uses the Infinitive because the women did not see, because there
occurred the earthquake so that they could not go and see. The connection
between verses 1 and 2 is absolute.
You say,
>> For me the answer is clear: The adverbial
>> phrase of time in each of the burial and
>> resurrection events in each gospel is
>> connected with the visit of persons
>> and not with an event concerning Christ.<<
You speak of more than one and different >>resurrection
events<< – events that surrounded the resurrection.
But you claim >>THE<<, SINGLE, >>VISIT of
persons<< to the grave, recorded in >>each<< or every Gospel.
In other words, the Gospels all tell of the one visit paid by all
the women together when Jesus appeared to them all together the first time on
Sunday morning – the traditional persuasion. You only say, no, the
>>event concerning Christ<< – the resurrection – was the evening
before, and, besides, there was this visit on the Sabbath. To me this sounds
rather incoherent and self-contradictory.
The great secret undiscovered by most, is that no visit-record of
the quite few we have in the Gospels, records the same visit to the grave! And
almost each time, each visit concerns a different person or different persons.
This secret contains the formula to solve each and every of the myriad of
objections to the trustworthiness of the Gospels' account of Jesus'
resurrection from the dead.
On the rest of your explanation of your own position just
three quick remarks,
1. Mt.8:2 – The reference of what follows is especially
connected with the last verse of the fore-going chapter where mention is made
of Jesus' authority. Look! Immediately is Jesus' authority tested ... and
follows the story of the leper's healing. <Kai idou> connects because it
interrupts, and introduces the unexpected in the very course of events.
2. The women
>>... went back home, having disappeared far
>> enough from the grave to be not able
>> to notice an earthquake happening there<<.
Matthew says it was a great earthquake – not just locally
therefore; In fact not of such insignificance it couldn't be felt say five
kilometres away? You think the women would have walked that distance on the
Sabbath? And so more such silly question are evoked.
Why do you insist on any infinitesimal of a day as long as it
brings one to after sunset? Why must it be on the First day of the week? Jesus
never said He would rise on the First day of the week? On the contrary Jesus –
the Word of God – throughout history has indicated prophetically and
eschatologically that the Seventh Day awaited the completion of all God's
works!
29/11/02
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn, biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za
To: Sdanet@Sdanet.org
Re: >>not even a scrap of Biblical evidence<<
Max Hatton came to the net on Nov. 29, saying,
>> There is not even a scrap of Biblical evidence
>> for the change of the Sabbath to Sunday.
>> Sunday observance is definitely not Biblical.
I constantly encounter people who actually are bored with the
'Sabbath question', objecting to any discussion of it because 'there's nothing
new to say'.
They are honest people, sincere Christians, and no Sabbath keeper
is entitled to judge them. I know them – they are my fellow-believers. What
they ask is for once to hear about the Gospel and not the Law when they are
confronted with the 'Sabbath truth'.
The Sabbath is not "The Truth". "The Truth" is
Jesus Christ, and if a believer could not find Jesus Christ when getting to
grips with the Sabbath / Sunday conflict, but finds instead that Jesus Christ
is on the 'Sunday' side, then good luck to him and sorry for the Sabbath!
I believe God will hold Sabbath enthusiasts accountable for not
exploiting the opportunity that every Sabbath discussion inevitably must create
for the Sabbath to do its job, and to witness to Jesus Christ and to serve Him
for being the Word of God through Whom and by Whom "God thus concerning
the Seventh Day spoke". I am not talking about the speaker's witness – I
say the Sabbath should be allowed its witness.
The Sabbath's opportunity to serve its Lord shall go wasted every
time it is obtruded the enquirer as the killing venom of the sting of the Law.
I say, that if Jesus did not rise from the dead "in Sabbath's
time", but "on the First Day of the week", then the Sabbath
itself not only IS DEAD, but KILLS both "the faith of Jesus" and the
believer in "the faith of Jesus".
We have not even started to think or to speak about "the
Sabbath OF THE LORD YOUR GOD" as long as we think and speak on it like the
Jews do – without Life, and in essence the "letter that killeth".
As for Max Hatton' statement – Yes you are right,
>> There is not even a scrap of Biblical evidence
>> for the change of the Sabbath to Sunday.
>> Sunday observance is definitely not Biblical.<<
Only begin to see Christ in the Sabbath, or you will be wrong, and
the Sabbath will have >>not even a scrap of Biblical evidence<< in
support of it, because, were Jesus' resurrection from the dead the support upon
which the Church's observance of the First Day of the week rested, then Sunday,
and not the Sabbath, would have received every bit of Biblical and Christian
faith support, for sure.
30/11/02
Dear Susan,
The website you refer replies to, sounds suspect. I
hope it isn't meant literally that "infidels" are the good guys.
However, For me your problem verse from Mt.24
simply means, that Jesus meant the Kingdom of heaven was to appear on earth in,
through and by his resurrection from the dead, and that some of the people He
was speaking to would believe in Him and so would become citizens of His
Kingdom – the dominion of Christ and of Faith – Christianity.
1/12/02
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn
To: Sdanet
Re: Ted Noel / Matthew 24:34 /Eddie Mwiinga
On: Fri Nov 29
I just want to say of Ted's explanation [- which he acknowledged
he got from Dick Davidson – and which David Conklin ACKNOWLEDGED – for the eyes
of those who have eyes but are unable to see – he got: >>from an e-mail
list I'm on<<). Good work, and agreement heartily.
May I add though, that one should not neglect to take note of
verse 9: "And then shall many be offended" – and the rest of it. You
will know – as will David Conklin – what I mean. For the attitude of the
unbelievers today is no different than what it was in Jesus' day – the believer
shall experience the brunt of it first hand! I see it a privilege and honour to
share Christ's suffering in every respect of the Christian Faith.
That leads me to the one point I think is actually passed by in
Ted Noel's explanation to Eddie Mwiinga, and it is the immediate and burning
issue of the Christ Himself in this eschatological crisis of eternal time.
Jesus with this statement of his – and He actually says it under divine oath:
"Verily, I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all things be
fulfilled ..." IN, BY, THROUGH AND UNTO ME!
Yes indeed, saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY
WORDS shall not pass away", Jesus speaks of His own dying and death but
also of His own resurrection from the dead and from death. For the whole
creation is under the sign of eternal death and damnation and virtually extinct
by reason of its own wickedness. The great eschatological moment in the Day of
the LORD awaits THIS Man of Nazareth – THIS MAN from the "
In one word: Christ says, 'Behold I AM: Divine Temple of God and
[The principle, that Jesus' own person and divinity are the actual
and real issue of the moment – that Jesus, is the crisis (and NOT the
"end" or "return" or whatever else per se), is discovered
in especially the "Sabbath"-incidents so stressed in the Gospels. It
is the principle by which the total content of the Gospels should be
interpreted and believed. It is the wisdom of God that is such foolishness to
the world of "infidels".]
8/12/02
From Gerhard
Ebersoehn
Sabbatharians
surrendered
everything of
faith the Sabbath's
when subjected
"Sabbath's feasting" was
to wisdom's
jest,
judged
"eating and drinking pertaining
to either
Feasts: of month's Lord's Supper, or,
of
Sabbaths", unbelievers' rest.
Sundaydarians
gloat,
Sabbath's heart
and soul they boast –
stole they did
Christ's Resurrection Day ...
and to the sun
offered up the Son.
14/12/02
From Gerhard Ebersoehn
To SDANET
Would SDANET place this? A question for the
Administrator.
SDA's, is there nothing more to learn about the
Sabbath?
Herewith a short paragraph from my current study, A
Positive Assessment of Colossians 2:16
I simply must share something about God's blessed Day
with others.
The consequences so obviated and confirmed by history explain what
sort of "Sabbaths" are involved in Colossians 2:16. They were not the
ceremonial Sabbaths of the Old Testament, but the Christian Sabbath Day taking
the brunt of apostasy and heretical assault.
It is urgently
necessary at this point – having noticed the fruit the disregard to Paul's
warning has yielded – to stress the gravity of it. He didn't mean to be gentle.
One could scarcely find Paul sterner. TAKEN THE IMMEDIATE, INDISSOLUBLE
CONNECTION of his warning with God's triumph through Jesus Christ in
resurrection from the dead over cosmic powers, the world and its principalities
and rule, and over the Law with its charge against us, Paul's admonition,
"Don't you be judged by anyone ...", is his zero-tolerance, final and
condemning word against downplaying of any kind of the Sabbaths' celebration of
the Church. Paul deals with the world without mercy, while his sympathy
unconditionally rests with the Church and with its freedom and the exercise of
its freedom in Sabbaths' celebration. He would defend it with his life – like
the hen her chicks. Gently, with God's own, relentless with their persecutor.
What greater Christian respect could the Sabbath be shown, what greater respect
than this its fastening onto God's finishing of all his works in the Son and
onto the enjoyment of his Body the Church?
28/12/02
Geachte Moin-Moin,
Ich habe deine Scriebe von 22 November 2002 an Stephan durch
Sabbat.Info gelesen,
>>... Ich selbst schätze zwar in der Zwischenzeit
>> den Sabbat sehr, gedenke unseres Schöpfers
>> in besonderer Weise, gedenke aber auch
>> am Sonntag des Auferstehungstages.
>> Es grüßt Moin-Moin
Ich hoffe du köntest in diesem neuen Jahr so daran denken: Ich
selbst schätze zwar in der Zwischenzeit bis die Wiederkunft Christi den Sabbat
sehr, gedenke unseres Schöpfers in besonderer Weise, gedenke aber auch noch
mehr am Sabbattag des Auferstehungstages "Wie Gott am letzen in diesen
Tagen zu uns geredet hat durch den Sohn – durch welchen Er auch die Welt
gemacht hat – (ABER) welchen Er gesetz hat zum Erben über alles"! Als
"Gott also von dem siebenten Tag sprach: Und Gott ruhte am siebenten Tag
von allen seinen Werken", hat Er Christus von den Toten auferweckt!
Lieber Moin-Moin, Gott hat NIE geruht, ruhtete er nicht durch die,
und in der Auferstehung Jesus Christi! Den Sohn hat Gott NIE zum Erben über
alles gesetz, hätte Er Ihn nicht "gesetzt zu seinen Rechten im Himmel”,
hätte Er Ihn nicht "VON DEN TOTEN AUFERWECKT" – Eph.1:20!
5/1/03
Robert Parker wrote, Fri, 13 Dec 2002,
>> What a
shame: it looks like I will have
>> to give up
Sabbath keeping since it is
>> declared
by some that God did not make
>> heaven and
earth, and all
>> that is in
them ... >>
Answered Tony Zedbaraschuk,
>> This is a valid theological concern:
>> what do we do with the Sabbath if there
>> was not a literal creation week?
>> I am not going to pretend I have an
>> answer to this question, except to note
>> that
>> (a) the Deuteronomy version of the Ten
>> Commandments doesn't quote creation as the
>> reason for the Sabbath, and
>> (b) we can still model ourselves after the
>> example of Jesus, who did keep the Sabbath
>> himself (and, indeed, "rested" on it in a
>> very profound sense after his death on the
>> cross.)
>> I don't know if you find those
>> satisfactory answers, but I'm not sure I
>> have one either."
I haven't read anything in SDANet so exiting for months! First,
Robert Parker showed the creation per se leaves at least some persons
dissatisfied with it as reason for Christian belief in the Seventh Day Sabbath.
Then Tony Zedbaraschuk proposed two reasons to supplement the creation-motive,
and astonishingly did not give the Law per se as reason at all! Instead of the
Law, we read he suggests the redemptive nature which the Sabbath received
through the Passover event and the example Jesus gave us.
For three decades I have been working on my thesis that The
Seventh Day Sabbath always had been and always will be a thoroughly Christian
institution – with everything that that is going to imply for the theology of
the Sabbath. For the past three months I have with the same purpose been
working on 'A Positive Re-Assessment of Colossians 2:16-17'. And I have found
that especially under the New Covenant – which is the Eternal Covenant of Grace
in historic reality by virtue of the Christ-event – the believer, who is the
Christian, is no longer going to believe or to keep the Sabbath Day because the
Law tells him to. If he would keep the Sabbath because of the Law he still does
what makes a person a Jew and not a Christian. But this fact and unassailable
truth doesn't mean the Christian no longer believes and keeps the Sabbath. On
the contrary it means for the first time in its history – that stretches from
the creation to the Second Coming of Christ and the New Earth – the Sabbath
from God's own working of love and righteousness in Christ Jesus, has received
its first and formal, primary, fundamental, essential and ultimate making,
meaning, worth, virtue, blessing, sanctification, completion and rest by the
working of God in Christ unto His Rest in Christ "to us-ward".
Centrally God finished "ALL HIS WORKS" "IN THE SON",
"IN SABBATH'S-TIME". The Christ-event is the Sabbath's creation and
institution – not the creation; not the Law; not the redemption from
Therefore I say to Robert and Tony: Don't rest on the Sabbath but
keep working on it! God will not forsake you in your quest for satisfaction and
peace and rest on His Sabbath Day THROUGH AND IN JESUS CHRIST ONLY!
11/1/03
Dear Moderator,
Kindly let your readers know they may now find an
Appendix to my dissertation on Colossians 2:16, 'A Positive Re-assessment of
Colossians 2:16-17on web, www.biblestudents.co.za.
They will also find the seven books ot "the Lord's Day in 'The Covenant of
Grace', and recent updating, of course.
I think people like Kevin Riley may find great
benefit from it. Also Seventh Day Adventists generally, I am convinced, will
enjoy this new approach to the interpretation of this text. I attempt – and
hope to have succeeded – to lift out the Christian-faith nature of this Scripture,
and to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in the Church,
celebrating its Sabbaths on the grounds of what God had done in and through
Christ, and, being confronted by a hostile 'world', will do through the
Body that is Christ's .
24/01/03
Dear Rick Miesel,
I was pleasantly surprised by your web-page and
Statement of Faith! I also hold dear the Calvinistic Protestant heritage of the
Christian Faith. May God bless you richly in your standing therein. It is
uplifting and encouraging to find such mutual belief and Faith in this wide
world of ours. It is scarce, I assure you. It's so scarce I think it is
impossible one will ever find complete agreement on every point of persuasion.
I have been raised in a modest and Christian home –
thank God for my parents and family! But when I was faced with joining the
Church through baptism (by immersion), I submitted, in my heart knowing I
wasn't joining the denomination, but simply following an urging of the
Holy Spirit and confessing my faith in Jesus Christ. I did not understand much
of my baptism – if anything! But there my path parted with the church of my
upbringing, and God's sovereign and gracious will began to unfold to my
spiritual understanding. Today I regret no moment of the path God has chosen
for my spiritual journey – not even my youth with its confusion and
disbelief. But ever since that clear unrest was born in my very being, I
have found my assurance in the sure mercies of David that have reached so
far as this mortal, me. God's mercy and love recovered me from, as John
Owen says, "the greatest distance that is
recoverable by grace". Praise His Name!
You will understand why I am so pleased with your
confession and witness. I do not however agree with you on the point of your
future expectation of the last things (shall I call it in brief). There I stick
to orthodox Reformed Faith, and believe simplicity is the key to correctly
understand the future. We as Christians have only one event yet future as the
last fulfilment of the full plan and eternal commission of God's salvation: It
is the return of Jesus Christ – wherein shall occur the judgement of all and
everyone that has not already entered into the final judgement of God in Jesus
Christ, and through Him, has gone through it. What awaits this world awaits
believers: Jesus' return and an ending with God's dealing with sin once for all
and absolutely, and the new creation of the earth and whole universe in the
moment of His Appearance on the clouds of the heaven of this earth to be seen
by all creatures of God's creating and judgement to their everlasting
punishment in the pool, or to their eternal glorification in the everlasting
Kingdom of Heaven ... upon earth!
Therefor I submit to you my Confession of Faith,
hoping you will have the interest and the time to consider it and this my
writing to you in the love of all fellow-believers in Jesus our Lord and
Saviour, Gerhard Ebersoehn.
Belydenis
van die Wese, die Woord, die Wil, die Doop, die Maaltyd en die Dag van die Here
Confession of Faith
I believe in God, the Almighty, Father, Creator of heavens and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only-begotten
Son, our Lord, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born
of the virgin Mary, who under Pontius Pilate suffered and
was crucified, who descended into hell, died and was
buried and on the third day according to the
Scriptures rose from the dead, who ascended to heaven and sits on
the right hand of the power of God, hence He shall come to judge the
living and the dead, I believe in the Holy Spirit; I believe one Christian Church of the
elect, the holy congregation of believers, the forgiveness of sin, the
everlasting life and the resurrection in the flesh. I believe the Scriptures, the true, only and closed canon of authority for faith, doctrine and
living. God speaks in the Scriptures through his Spirit in the
Congregation of the Son in Whom we have life. The Election of God, the reconciliation and justification
in Jesus Christ of those who according to God’s eternal
covenant of grace are predestined and elected
thereunto, also by the Holy Spirit to be sealed
and attested through regeneration and the
sanctification of repentance and conversion, of redemption from sin and of growth and perseverance in the
faith. Baptism of the
confessing as through faith sharing in the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ, in the Name of the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit, once for all in water. The Lord’s
Supper of bread, wine and the washing of feet, as through faith partaking of Jesus Christ, of his body and of
his blood, and of proclamation and expectation
of his return. the Lord’s Day the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, for God of the Seventh Day did speak
and in it did rest according to the working of the
exceeding greatness of his mighty power which He wrought
in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and finished all his works He had
made to reign for ever and ever. |
Geloofsbelydenis
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, wat neergedaal het na die hel,
gesterf het en begrawe is 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, vanwaar Hy sal kom om die lewende en
die dode te oordeel, ek glo in die Heilige Gees; ek glo een Christelike Kerk van
uitverkorenes, die heilige gemeenskap van gelowiges, die vergifnis van sonde, die ewige
lewe en die opstanding in die vlees. ek glo die Skrifte, die waaragtige, enige en afgeslote kanon van gesag vir geloof, leer en lewe. God spreek in die Skrifte deur sy Gees in die Gemeente van die Seun in Wie ons die lewe het. die Uitverkiesing van God, die versoening en regverdiging in
Jesus Christus van hulle wat volgens die ewige genadeverbond
van God daarvoor voorbeskik en uitverkies is,
om ook met die Heilige Gees beseël en
betuig te word deur wedergeboorte en die heiligmaking van berou en bekering, van verlossing van sonde en van opwassing en volharding in die
geloof. die Doop van die
belydende as deur die geloof deelagtig aan die dood en opstanding van Jesus
Christus, in die Naam van die Vader, die Seun
en die Heilige Gees, eenmalig vir altyd in water. die Maaltyd van
die Here van brood, wyn en voetewassing as deur die geloof deelagtig aan Jesus Christus en sy liggaam en
bloed, en aan verkondiging en verwagting van
sy wederkoms. die Dag van die
Here die Sabbat van die Here jou God, want God het van die Sewende Dag
gespreek en daarin gerus na die werking van die uitnemende
grootheid van die krag van sy sterkte wat Hy
gewerk het in Christus toe Hy Hom uit die dode opgewek het en al sy werke wat Hy gemaak het,
voltooi het om te heers vir ewig en ewig. |
|
1, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die Drie-Eenheid
van God |
|
2, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die enigheid,
Goddelikheid én mensheid van Jesus Christus |
|
3, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die historiese Christelike Kerk
as Die Een Algemene Heilige Gemeenskap
van gelowiges
|
|
4, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die wederkoms van Christus,
die opstanding van alle dode en een
algemene oordeel in daardie dag |
|
5, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die geopenbaarde wil van God in die
kennis van Jesus Christus in die Skrifte en die Skrifte alleen,
die Bybel as die enigste gesag en norm in leer
en lewe vir die
gelowige en vir die gelowiges as die Kerk van Christus |
|
6, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning van die soewereine uitverkiesende
genade van God na sy vrye en ewige Raad, Voorneme en
Keuse om te red wie Hy Wil; of om te Verdoem alle sondaars buite
hierdie sy enige
Genade in Jesus Christus |
|
7, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning van die erfsonde, alle mense se
totale erfsondigheid, en die onmag en gebondenheid van die wil
tot die kwaad – in wie
ook al, natuurlik mens of wedergeborene |
|
8, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning deur die
lering van verlossing deur en op grond van eie
werke, verdienste en geregtigheid, van
die regverdiging, verlossing,
redding en ewige lewe in
Christus Jesus deur die geloof in Hom alleen |
|
9, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en miskenning deur die lering
van heiligheid, volmaaktheid en sondeloosheid, van die heiligmakende werking van
die Heilige Gees daarin dat Hy ’n mens bring tot
gedurige en dieper besef, berou en belydenis van sonde en tot bekering en verlossing
daarvan, en tot
volharding in die stryd van die geloof tot die einde toe |
|
10, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en
miskenning deur geesbiddery,
geeskryery en geesdrywery, van die gawes en vrugte van die
Heilige Gees in die
wedergeboorte en geloof in Christus Jesus |
|
11, Ons verwerp die (sektariese) ontkenning en
miskenning deur lering
van die wetteloosheid en soewereiniteit van die mens, van die geopenbaarde
Wil en Wet van God in die Skrifte |
|
12, Ons bely,
betreur, bestry, bestraf en verwerp die Kerk se deelagtigheid aan die
ontkenning en miskenning van die Bybel as die Woord van God en die openbaring
van sy wil vir sy Kerk deur volhardende misbruik van sy profetiese amp en
onberouvolle versmading van sy wordingsgeskiedenis deur verdraaide
verkondiging (vertaling) en sondige kompromis met die afgodery ten opsigte
van Sondagsheiliging en Sabbatsveragting |
10/02/03
Von: Gerhard Ebersöhn, biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
10 Februar 2003
An: Jakob Neon
Hrmlngmrneo@aol.com
Geachter Freund Jakob Neon,
Ich bin Afrikaans, so bitte erschöhnt meine Deutsch!
Du hältest eine irrige Meinung betriffs die Auferstehung Jesu. Die
Kirche übersetzt die griechisch fälsch daß es scheint Jesu war gekreuzigt am
Freitag und stand auf am Sonntag. Die ganze Geschichte des Sabbats deutet den
Siebenten Tag für zu sein der Tag auf jenen Gott all seinen Arbeit vollendet
wird – wie geschrieben war in den Schrift seit den Anfang aller Werken Gottes.
Der Pascha deutet an der Lamm Gottes zum Holz gehen 14 Nisan, zum Erde gehen am
nächsten Tag, und am "dritten Tag nach den Schriften" und Tag der
ersten Garbe (16Nisan) auf zu stehen und zur Herlichkeit zu kommen. Die griechisch
unzweideutlich sagt in Matthäus 28:1 dass "Spät am Sabbattag die Uhr
langsam neigend den Ersten Tag gegen ... da war's ein grosser Erdbeben
..." und war Christus auferweckt. Von diesem Ergebnis der Vollendung aller
Gottes Werken empfängt der Sabbat unwiederruflich gewissermaßen die Steigerung
aller Tagen, und sofort ohne den Sabbat abzuwerten aber aufzuwerten trat in
Kraft der Feier des Herrntages un beginnt einer neuen Zeitrechnung. Die
Verheissung war wahrhaft und auch das Gebot – so auch Gottes Wort da Er "sprach
von dem Siebenten Tag also" (Hb.4:4). Und Jesu ist geworden
"Herr" – "Herr des Sabbats" – nach Mk.2:27. Wir Christ sind
die Liebe und Gnade Gottes ungehorsam and verachten seine Schenkung Jesu
Christi – darum zagen wir nicht selbst den Wort Gottes zu ändern unsere
Ungehorsamkeit zu vertuscheln. Gott ist nicht verehrt durch unsere
Sonntagsunterhaltung – wir tuen Ihn Leid!
Lesen Sie bitte www.biblestudents.co.za.
Gross ist der Herr und gross seine Güte!
20/02/03
To: Sdanet
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za www.biblesudents.co.za
Re: Law in Galatians
A.Leroy Moore came to the web
like a fresh breeze, saying,
<<What a blessing when discussion forces us
<<to re-study the Word.>>
Due to lack of time I shall be very brief,
and would like to add just a few remarks
from a Calvinistic point of view-
not to differ but to invite further thinking.
<<Galatians deals with the whole law...
<<both moral and ceremonial...>>
The whole and all "Law" is "moral".
The Law confronts the believer
as "the Scriptures". Law as the Scriptures
<<promises>> Jesus Christ.
Natural law / "moral law" cannot
make the Law "moral" or "holy".
If the Law has Jesus Christ in the eye
it is "moral", "holy", "good" and
"righteous".
If the Law has Jesus Christ in the eye
therefore, it is <<against "the promises">>
as it is against The Promise.
The Law has Jesus Christ in the eye
to kill Him... "for us".
Paul calls the Law good, holy and just
by reason of this ONLY...
"The Law is not against the promises".
A contradiction? Not at all!
In fact it makes the "ceremonial law"
more "moral" than the "moral law"-
so directly to have Christ its object.
For that reason I say,
"the ceremonial law" had never been
<<done away (with) at the cross>>.
If any law had been "transferred",
it wasn't the "moral law" (the Ten Commandments),
but "the ceremonial law".
We are still the ones who must but don't
keep the Ten Commandments-
but only Christ
was obliged and was able to obey
"the ceremonial law".
So our priestly office to make sacrifice
was transferred from us upon Christ,
and the sacrifice(s) which had to be us
was transferred from blood offering by us
to blood offering by Christ.
What could be holier, yet more unjust?
What could be better, yet more awful?
It is our sins He took upon Himself
and it was our death He died for us.
God calls it the Gospel, "the Good News"...
How could it be "the Good News" to us
but by grace? By grace
The Righteous is made the unrighteous,
the unrighteous, the righteous.
It is of God, "it is wonderful in our eyes"!
The inference is inevitable:
Colossians 2 as well as Ephesians 2
<<refer to the law ("nomos")>>
whether the word "nomos" appears there or not
because both refer to Christ.
To close with:
Why have trouble to see the Law destroyed
on the Cross if is "God for us"?
As an old friend of mine now deceased
has always said,
"They tell us the Law was nailed to the Cross...
they don't see WHOSE Cross it is;
nor do they see Him lifted FROM the Cross
nor RAISED from the dead... it is THE LAW!"
21/02/03
Van: Gerhard Ebersöhn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
www.biblestudents.co.za
Aan Guy Cauwels
guy.cauwels@belgacomnet.be
Aangaande: <<Maar heeft U nooit de Galatenbrief
gelezen ???>>
Geagte vriend in Christus,
Ek versoek u vriendelik om in te gaan op bogenoemde webruimte, en
dan op die vierde boek daar aangestip, "Paul". Lees asseblief die
laaste gedeelte van Paragraaf 8.3, "Galatians", veral van bladsy 172
af. U sal daar verduidelik vind (lees dit in u Bybel, hoofstuk 4:10) dat die
Galasiërs, "nou, nadat (h)ulle deur God geken was",
"teruggekeer het" tot hulle eertydse en
paganistiese "nie-gode" of afgode
"volgens-natuur die elemente-gode van die wêreld",
dié "kosmiese" "nie-gode" naamlik, van
"dae, maande, seisoene en jare",
om hulleself "weereens", en "van voor af",
aan hierdie "armsalige beginsels"
te "verslaaf" –
deur "wiggelary" of die toekoms-spekulatiewe
"observasie" daarvan.
Tot vandag toe verraai die naam van een van hierdie
"kosmiese afgode" dat hy nie in die Christelike aanbidding tuishoort
nie, die naam naamlik, van die dag van die afgod Helios, "Sondag"!
Die afgod Helios het beheer gevoer oor "dae", oor
"seisoen", en oor "tye" van kosmiese siklusse. Daarom was
die Son die grootste afgod van almal.
Met streng vermaning in sy Brief aan die Galasiërs het
Paulus hierdie afgodery vir eers besweer. Maar Justinus die martelaar het dit
weer aan die einde van die tweede eeu suksesvol in die Kerk ingevoer.
Paulus veroordeel afgodery, nie geloofsgehoorsaamheid aan die wet
nie, want vir die Christen – net soos vir die Wet – het gehoorsaamheid aan
Jesus Christus ook gehoorsaamheid aan die Wet geword. Die Wet het kragteloos
geword in vergelyking met die allesoortreffende krag waarmee Christus tot
gehoorsaamheid oorreed. Die wet het egter geensins kragteloos geword ten
opsigte van die oortredinge nie. Trouens, Paulus sê, "Sonde is die
doodsteek; maar die Wet is die gif van sy angel." "Die siel wat
sondig moet sterf!" is die Wet se krag – vir u en vir my soos vir elke
mens voor ons. Daarom, God sy dank vir Jesus Christus deur wie ons die
wederopstanding uit die dood geskenk word deur die geloof in Hom alleen.
22/02/03
Dear Ted Noel,
I absolutely agree with what you say. Just look again
at what I have said, I said 'The Law confronts the believer as The Scriptures –
from this very Scripture in Galatians. And I concluded one should understand
Christ as the Law in both Col. 2 and Eph. 2 – If Christ be the Law all Law must
be one. All Law is eschatological : it points to Christ, and He comprehends it
all. Therefore to talk about a ceremonial and a moral law as opposites is
nonsense.
Thanks for responding!
Enjoy your walk with Christ!
Gerhard Ebersoehn
23/02/03
Dear Dr Shoemaker,
Thank you sincerely for the Christian manner in which
you have answered my question. Thank you just for returning my post – it means
much to me.
You said I may comment, and so I would like to do
just that.
We know Matthew 12:40 is the only instance of the
words "three days and three nights". I don't know how many times the
New Testament simply speaks of the "third day" or "three
days".
Now I agree the part represents the whole when
representing "day" without distinguishing between so many nights and
so many days. But I still feel in this case something different is meant: that
we must look for three nights as well as for three days of light.
I have discovered Dr Montgomery Boyce – you will find
his school of thought in the James Kennedy television network in the
What do you think about that?
23/02/03
Dear Dr Shoemaker,
Thank you sincerely for the Christian manner in which
you have answered my question. Thank you just for returning my post – it means
much to me.
You said I may comment, and so I would like to do
just that.
We know Matthew 12:40 is the only instance of the
words "three days and three nights". I don't know how many times the
New Testament simply speaks of the "third day" or "three
days".
Now I agree the part represents the whole when
representing "day" without distinguishing between so many nights and
so many days. But I still feel in this case something different is meant: that
we must look for three nights as well as for three days of light.
I have discovered Dr Montgomery Boyce – you will find
his school of thought in the James Kennedy television network in the
What do you think about that?
25/02/03
Geagte Professor König,
Ek is verheug om te verneem u
is steeds lerende. Die Evangelie roep manne op wat nog in Jesus die Here en in
sy opstanding uit die dode glo. Die Here se rykste seën oor u!
Ongeag twee vorige
onbeantwoorde e-posse aan u, waag ek dit nogmaals om aan u 'n versoek te rig.
Hierdie keer is my versoek heel van toepassing, en daarom glo ek sal u nie
omgee om vir my daaraan te voldoen nie. U skrywe in 'Die Beeld' 24 Februarie
betrekking, waarin u melding maak van die sogenaamde teenstydighede in die
Evangelies se verhalings. Soos u sekerlik self weet konsentreer hierdie
probleem in die verhale van die laaste en lydingsgebeure van Jesus en sy
opstanding uit die dood. My verklaring hoekom daar teenstrydigheid of
teenstrydighede gevind word, lê in een faktor opgesluit – die faktor van
benadering van die leser: Lees hy die verskillende verhalings as een verhaling
van een gebeurtenis, dan moet daar teenstrydigheid ontstaan. Die oplossing van
iedere oënskynlike teenstrydigheid lê daarom eenvoudig daarin om elke verhaling
te lees as die met goeie rede keuse van elke 'Evangelis' van gebeurtenis vir
vertelling. Soveel verskille, soveel gebeurtenisse, soveel vertellings.
Merkwaardig van die aan die hand gaan van soveel gebeurtenisse soveel
vertellings, is die soveel oomblikke in tyd en dae. Met een woord is die
oplossing van en vir al die 'teenstrydighede': die TYDsfaktor!
Nou wil ek u
goedgunstiglik vra, Verneem asseblief, en gun u studente die geleentheid om
kennis te neem van hierdie siening van my. U sal dit geredelik beskikbaar vind,
gaan eenvoudig in op www.biblestudents.co.za. Daar sal u sewe boeke vir insae
vind. Die Opstandingsgebeure en veronderstelde teenstrydighede daaromheen en my
verduideliking daarvoor sal u egter die volledigste uiteengesit aantref in die
derde boek van bo af, 'Resurrection'. Maak hierdie boek oop deur die
muis-handjie daarop te kliek; kliek dan op 'Edit', dan op 'find', vul in
'5.3.3.' in die ruimte wat verskyn, en 'enter'. Dit bring u na bls. 112 en die
Paragraaf, "The Women Went to See the Grave". Die volgende honderd
bladsye neem omtrent elke moontlike 'teenstrydigheid' waarvan ek of u al gehoor
het, onder oë. En die eenvoudige 'formule' hierbo genoem, los elkeen in
besonderheid op terwyl geen ons in gewig van die geheel en essensie van die Evangelieverhaal
verlore gaan of daaronder ly nie. Maar dit gaan u in u 'fondamente' skud en
uitdaag met uitdagings waarmee u of u studente waarskynlik geensins verlief
gaan neem nie.
U het nog nie die saak van "die verskille tussen die
Evangelies" aandag gegee alvorens u hierdie werk bestudeer het nie, en ek
is oortuig dit sal 'n onreg aan uself sowel as aan u studente wees om uself nie
daarvan te vergewis nie. Ek bedoel dit nie as 'n afdreiging nie maar as 'n
smeking in die Naam van Jesus Christus.
27/02/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: The Moderator, Sdanet
RE: Galatians – Law
This was not my original post where I stated the Law
is all Law and Paul calls it the Scriptures in Galatians. Where also I pointed
out Ephesians 2 and Philippians 2 speak of Christ the Law – wherefore the Law
there is 'moral' having pointed to Christ!
Nevertheless, here is the post you sent back,
reviewed,
There is no such thing
as >"Righteousness by Faith in Jesus Alone"< – not only because
it in principle CANNOT work, but because it in practice DOES NOT work like
that. You see, there is no righteousness in the one Person of the Godhead only,
but only that righteousness that God as Father, Son AND Holy Spirit EFFECTS
through faith. (This was Calvin's stronghold)
Therefore the only righteousness by which a man shall live in the
sight of the holy God is that righteousness reckoned him "through
FAITH" ... "alone" – as Luther has coined the phrase. Seen in
its full capacity AND effect as from God-Tri-Une, the righteousness that saves
God "alone" operates and effects as sure and as final as He is the
Only.
Paul uses these words I so love: "the exceeding greatness of
His Power: which HE WORKED: TO-US-WARD"! "TO-US-WARD":
Righteousness is: "Of God"; "By grace"; "Through
faith" – the three operational elements of "the righteousness that is
OF GOD".
Justification of the sinner implies as well as requires – it is
result and condition AT ONCE – the REGENERATION of the sinner, the new creation
of the new man IN THE NEW HUMANITY of Jesus Christ.
Righteousness by faith isn't a job half-done. It is the complete
work of the full Godhead that reaches every elect to the building of the
CHURCH. The righteous SHALL live by faith. He IS a saved man. He HAS eternal
life because God HAD taken hold of him through, AND IN, Jesus Christ and HAD
grafted him in His Body the Church.
Christianity has no other word to proclaim than "Christ our
righteousness". (Christianity lives by the same principle the previous
dispensation lived by: that of faith by grace, for it is one and the same thing
to believe what God HAD done than to believe what God SHALL do.)
When we have said >"Righteousness by Faith in Jesus
Alone"< we have already said one word too much and already have
confused the issue.
28/02/03
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za,
www.biblestudents.co.za
To: Sdanet
Re: The Law in Galatians 3, in Ephesians 2 and in Philippians 2 is
Christ Jesus
Refer: Lester A. Ortiz
Sent: 28.02.03
The Law in Galatians is not against the Promises of God (3:21)
The Law does not annul the covenant (3:17)
The Promises, the Covenant, and the Inheritance (3:18), are one
and the same.
These are contained in the One, Jesus Christ (3:17).
Therefore, if the Law is not against this One and cannot
annul this One, it confirms Him (3:17 and 19), or rather is confirmed by Him.
The Law "being by reason of" Jesus Christ therefore,
"was added by reason of sin" with the eye to Christ – "till the
Seed should come".
Which means: Both the origin and the aim or end of the Law is
Jesus Christ!
Is it true that the Law draws one to Christ? "If the promise
be of the Law the promise ... is of no effect"!(18 and 17) "Christ
has redeemed us from the curse of the Law" (3:13), and therefore HE is the
One who really "is our schoolmaster who brings us unto (Himself)".
Christ has for us become the Law! He has taken every function and symbolism of
the Law upon Himself. Christ has completely annulled the Law in Himself.
But Christ has never annulled the Law for the unbeliever. For the
unbeliever the Law is still out there, ready to pounce upon him at every
transgression. To the believer however the Law is as if no longer existing
because he is "in Christ" – "right within the Law" in legal
terms as well as in the language of faith!
The perspective in which one views the Law is what makes the
difference. The perspective should not be from the humanistic concept of
'moral' and 'ceremonial' law, but from the involved perspective of faith: What
is the Law TO THE BELIEVER or to the UNbeliever? Do I have the Law against me,
or for me? Am I within the right of the Law being in Jesus Christ, or am I
outside Christ where the Law's pitiless stipend rules?
Paul maintains this holistic impression of the Law, and therefore
is NOT, as Lester Ortiz thinks, <<a wholehearted Jew>>. Paul is a
wholehearted Christian – read 3:28. He therefore, in 3:22, unambiguously views
all "the Scriptures" as the Law, "the Scriptures" having "concluded all under sin",
which is the precise function of both the Law and Christ!
To conclude from which all: That if the Law is nailed to the cross
it is Christ nailed there, and if the Law be 'moral' it is because it is nailed
to the cross in Christ. Christ took with Him and in Himself all Ten the
Commandments like He took with and in Himself each 'ceremonial' law and made
both 'moral', that is, "holy and just and good" (Ro.7:12). Christ has
"removed the partitioning wall" even that separates "Law"
and "Law". Not the Ten Commandments, till taken up in Christ and
nailed to the cross with Him, are 'moral', or, "holy and just and
good". All Law receives its holiness, justice and goodness in and by Jesus
Christ – it possesses it not of itself.
I say again, "natural law" cannot make Law 'moral'.
"Natural law" is humanism already contaminated by man's inherent
sinfulness – so how can it be the judge = separator of the 'morality' of God's
Law? The Law must be judged = distinguished in and by Christ. The law has no
lustre outside Him.
09/03/03
Dear Dirk,
It is really kind of you to have responded. And I
thank you for the Christian manner in which you have done so.
I ask myself the purpose of our discussion, and
believe we may say we try to do honour to the Scriptures. From this assumption
I take the liberty to once again return your post. We might just reach
concensus – and what could be better for one's faith? We might even hope
Jesus Christ our Lord notices it! And then we may pray the Church will also
take notice.
I present your return-post as it came to me, and
under your *** . . . *** comments, shall insert my new comments, in
>...<.
Dear Gerhard, due to very much work during
the last months, I delayed to answer you. Sorry! Please find my comments
between ***. Dirk
-----Ursprüngliche
Nachricht-----
Von: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. November 2002 04:07
An: velten_berger@t-online.de; cd-schue@t-online.de
Betreff: "break" cntd.
Dear Dirk,
Again
thanks for continuing our conversation. Your last post helped me to understand
your viewpoint because I was under the impression you held to the traditional
opinion of a Sunday morning resurrection.
We at the moment are occupied by just one factor of many that
concern the Day and time of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Although this
factor also stands upon its own feet, it receives many supporting factors.
You write:
>> I don't know why "came ... to" should have
>> here the meaning of "intended to come ... to".
>> That is really not what the verse says.<<
MANY distinguished researchers prefer "went" for
<ehlthen> in Mt.28:1. I could find one who does not fix the time phrase
that makes up verse 1 to the event of the resurrection. He fixes verse 1 to the
sealing of the grave in chapter 27: According to him the grave was sealed
"late in the Sabbath". For that conclusion he had to divide verse 1
before the word <ehlthen>. He naturally therefore is of the opinion the
Marys "Came", or "arrived at the grave" on Sunday morning –
at which conclusion he arrives not because Matthew so says, but because it is
inferred from the other Gospels.
You to my knowledge now have become the only other person that
does not fix the time phrase that makes up verse 1 with the resurrection
implied in verse 2.
In my last post I tried to show the idiomatic meaning of the
literal – and confirmed just what you here deny. It seems you agree the
Infinitive is one of Purpose in Mt.28:1. But where you insist the Purpose was
accomplished, I insist it was not accomplished, and treat the Infinitive as an
equivalent of a temporal clause – which significance it derives from the
context of its use: The earthquake occurred "Then, suddenly," just as
the women "went to go have a look at the grave".
Did the women "come and saw"? Or did they
"come", but did not see? If one maintains they "came and
saw", he maintains something >>that is really not what the verse
says<<.
If they saw, to translate the verb <ehlthen> with
"came" is nothing wrong with; If they did not see, to translate the
verb <ehlthen> with "set off with the intention to see" is also
nothing wrong with.
The question is whether the women in fact "saw", or just
"intended to go TO SEE", but eventually did not see. I am persuaded
of the last, because no one is able to protest that >>that is really not
what the verse says<<.
There consequently cannot be objection to translating the word
<ehlthen> (from <erchomai>) with "prepared". In
combinations such as in Mt.28:1 this meaning is in many cases attached to the
word. Some at random examples: Jn.21:13, Mark 16:1, Mt.10:35. And from here to
go to "intended" requires no disallowed step.
*** Why don't translate come in these verses also?
***
>That is what I have been trying to
explain all the time. Nevertheless, one could say "came" in stead of
"went" (for
<ehlthen>, and it still would not mean the women actually arrived
and looked at the grave. Mark, who expressly states that the
women arrived at the grave, uses the preposition "on" <epi>.
Matthew allows another impression because he
does not use such a tool that demands actual realisation of
intention. Because Matthew says "to see the grave" it
implies no more than
that the women "came to see", that is, "left to see". But
as soon as they "left to see, there
suddenly was a great earthquake". No visit realised.
The text says it. Therefor I ***prefer not to translate come in these
verses also***.<
You wrote,
>> It is the same construction as in
>> Matth. 12,42! The meaning there is sure,
>> because of the narrative in 1Kings.<<
Matthew 28:1 has: <ehlthen Mariam ... kai heh alleh ...
theohrehsai ton tafon> "Came / Went Mary and the other Mary to see the
grave". Matthew 12:42 has: <basilissa notou egerthehsetai> "The
queen of the south shall be raised up". (<egerthehsetai> from <egeiroh>
"to rise")
In Mark 16:9 there appears a 'construction' of <anistehmi>,
a synonym of <egeiroh>, namely <anastas>, Participle:
"risen".
So I wouldn't know what to make of your reference to Mt.12:42.
***I thought on the second part:
"elthen ... akousai".***
>Surely common knowledge is the presupposed
here. Everybody knows from the OT the queen visited Solomon. But
common knowledge accrued from the
Gospels contradict the idea of a visit on the Sabbath. For example the
other women are
astounded to hear Jesus' body might have been stolen obviously not even
having known that he had been buried! So
also the three disciples on their way to Emmaus. I cannot think of a single
event recorded in any Gospel that could be reconciled with
the idea of an actual visit paid to the grave on the Sabbath.<
In the last analysis and literally Matthew says "TO
see", not "saw". It consequently cannot be maintained the Marys
ARRIVED at the grave for that would be to presume. One is forced to look at
other factors like context and structural features, circumstance, motivation,
and comparison with the other Gospels.
Circumstance:
I have in a previous post referred to the guard. Matthew JUST
BEFORE, records the guard's appointment at the grave for the specific purpose
to keep Jesus' followers or "disciples" at bay – Mt.27:24. The women
would not be allowed to visit the grave. They would not have been able to look
at it, or to stand there >>a moment in devotion<<.
*** Why not? They were only week women, without
weapons. ***
>They were disciples though and the Guard's
duty was to prevent any disciples. That was their military instuction from
the Roman governer, and the neglect of which would have been
impossible and severly punishable. One hundred men
under the command of a centurion and the watchful eye of the
Jewish leaders (Gospel of Peter) ... What would they in any
case have cared for the feelings of women-folk?<
Structural and comparative:
You say:
>> For me the answer is clear:
>> The adverbial phrase of time in each
>> of the burial and resurrection events
>> in each gospel is connected with the visit
>> of persons and not with an event
>> concerning Christ.
>> The time is every time mentioned at first
>> to show the devotion of the women.<<
Consider:
>> The time is every time mentioned at first
>> to show the devotion of the women.<<
You say it as though this is characteristic of the Gospels
generally. It makes the women's devotion quite an important factor and reason
every time that time is mentioned!
Now John supplies the time of the day at the burial, yet he
doesn't mention any women or their 'devotion' during the whole burial episode.
*** I should have written "of the
disciples" ***
>> The women even went to the grave on
>> Sabbath when they couldn't do anything.<<
If their devotedness were the reason for the women's supposed
Sabbath's visit, then surely Matthew would also have made mention of it.
*** I cannot follow this ***
>I meant Matthew would have said
something like "because the women so loved Jesus they went ...". But
I am in the wrong here – see next
lines.<
In any case it asks for no great devotion if it brings one to do
something the while one >>couldn't do anything<<.
*** For my feeling it's just the opposite ***
>Did the women act because they were
bored, or were so devoted? Yes, you are right. They did what they did
bacause they cared, I should not have tried to evade the
truth of it. But God overruled their pure intentions.<
So the women's devotional attitude would make of a Sabbath visit
by them no probability.
Far before in context, where the women attended when Jesus was
buried, Matthew seems to let them literally keep a low profile – he only says
about them that >>present were Mary and the other Mary, sitting over
against the sepulchre." 27:61
*** It' s the typical style of allf our evangelist to
write with a certain emotional distance. They do this also with the
sufferings of the Lord. ***
>My mistake continues. But my legitimate
inference remains – that no Sabbath-visit realised, which implies the
unity of verses 1 and 2.<
If the women had truly 'shown devotion' AT the grave, and in fact
had come to the grave being driven to it by their devotion, Matthew would not
only have said they "came to see", but he – while he had taken the
trouble to refer to the women – would have said something more substantial of
such an appreciated gesture.
Not before the women actually had come to believe, does Matthew
turn the attention to them and their devotional behaviour – verse 5 and
on.
*** but even there he does not directly mention
anything of their devotion ***
>Matthew does mention the women's positive
obliging of the angel's commision though . Read in Prt 2 how it came
about they changed their attitude.<
He does not in verse 1 pay attention to a supposed independent,
isolated and quite meaningless visit of theirs to the grave.
Mark seems to have harboured kinder concern for the women's feelings
than did Matthew. Mark's story stresses the women's actions. He tells how they
paid attention to the place where Joseph buried Jesus. He without any
connection yet without any disconnection, unlike Matthew, but immediately,
continues his narration concentrating on the women, who "when the Sabbath
was past bought spices". Next event he records is the women's
"arrival at the grave" in 16:3. Despite his keen interest in the
women, Mark supposes ONLY ONE event of real importance that must have occurred
since the women had witnessed the burial, but before they arrived at the grave,
namely Jesus' resurrection. Why would Mark not also have mentioned a Sabbath's
visit of the women, especially since it would have been such a 'devotional' act
of theirs?
Why also – like Mark – does neither Luke nor John tell of or just
hint at the Sabbath's afternoon visit which Matthew allegedly mentions if
>>the time is every time mentioned at first to show the devotion of the
women<<?
*** There are many more differences between the gospels
***
>I do not deny differences in the Gospels; I deny differences between them.
There are no contradictions. And especially not in the last
episodes – in the heart of the Gospel. There is not a single so called contradiction
or even difference as traditionally
identified as pertains the suffering, death and resurrection and visits to the
grave that must not directly be blamed on
the presuming of a Sunday Resurrection (whatever time of day).<
Luke obviously intended to describe the women's behaviour of the
Sabbath Day: "The women began to rest" (Inflective Aorist). It
implied what they would be doing for the remainder of the Sabbath Day, yet he
says nothing of a Sabbath's visit.
You employ my own argument against me, referring,
>>In your mentioned book you write:
Why would Matthew describe the time the women visited the grave on
Saturday so precisely and comprehensively, but say nothing of the time of the
important event, the opening of the grave? Why would Matthew at all, refer to
the women's visit to the grave on the Sabbath day?<<
I could repeat my question in support of my argument, and answer:
Matthew describes the time on Saturday so precisely and comprehensively,
because he interests himself in describing the time of the important event,
namely the Resurrection. For Matthew the women's never realised visit serves as
a further time-indication that eventually marked the Day and the time of the
day of Jesus' resurrection. Matthew simply says: "Late in the Sabbath, afternoon
before the First Day of the week, yes, just as Mary and the other Mary had set
out to go to pay the grave a visit, at that very moment, was there a great
earthquake ...!"
The very event of the earthquake compellingly explains why Matthew
used the Infinitive, and not the indicative Nominative, "they came and
saw". He uses the Infinitive because the women did not see, because there
occurred the earthquake so that they could not go and see. The connection
between verses 1 and 2 is absolute.
You say,
>> For me the answer is clear: The adverbial
>> phrase of time in each of the burial and
>> resurrection events in each gospel is
>> connected with the visit of persons
>> and not with an event concerning Christ.<<
You speak of more than one and different >>resurrection
events<< – events that surrounded the resurrection.
But you claim >>THE<<, SINGLE, >>VISIT of
persons<< to the grave, recorded in >>each<< or every Gospel.
In other words, the Gospels all tell of the one visit paid by all
the women together when Jesus appeared to them all together the first time on
Sunday morning – the traditional persuasion. You only say, no, the
>>event concerning Christ<< – the resurrection – was the evening
before, and, besides, there was this visit on the Sabbath. To me this sounds
rather incoherent and self-contradictory.
*** Please excuse my bad english,
the "s" behind "visit" is surely missing. I aggree
with you about the different visits. (English is not my mother tongue) ***
The great secret undiscovered by most, is that no visit-record of
the quite few we have in the Gospels, records the same visit to the grave! And
almost each time, each visit concerns a different person or different persons.
This secret contains the formula to solve each and every of the myriad of
objections to the trustworthiness of the Gospels' account of Jesus'
resurrection from the dead.
On the rest of your explanation of your own position just
three quick remarks,
1. Mt.8:2 – The reference of what follows is especially
connected with the last verse of the fore-going chapter where mention is made
of Jesus' authority. Look! Immediately is Jesus' authority tested ... and
follows the story of the leper's healing. <Kai idou> connects because it
interrupts, and introduces the unexpected in the very course of events.
*** But that means first of all a stylistic feature and
must not have anything to do with a direct immediate time
connection. ***
>The fact the "feature" is
"stylistic" does not mean it "must not have anything to do
with a direct immediate time
connection". Literal meaning should not
unnecessarily be sacrificed. Expression – "stylistic" or not –
if making sense literally, should be
interpreted literally. "Stylistic" does not mean symbolic or even
idiomatic.<
2. The women
>>... went back home, having disappeared far
>> enough from the grave to be not able
>> to notice an earthquake happening there<<.
Matthew says it was a great earthquake – not just locally
therefore; In fact not of such insignificance it couldn't be felt say five
kilometres away? You think the women would have walked that distance on the
Sabbath? And so more such silly question are evoked.
Why do you insist on any infinitesimal of a day as long as it
brings one to after sunset?
*** because Luke's account ***
>You make it seconds or so after sunset.
The time of day which Luke gives us is "very early morning on the
First Day of the week". You suppose the Resurrection.
The event which Luke gives us is one of several visits to the grave – not
the Resurrection.<
Why must it be on the First day of the week? Jesus never said He
would rise on the First day of the week? On the contrary Jesus – the Word of
God – throughout history has indicated prophetically and eschatologically that
the Seventh Day awaited the completion of all God's works!
09/03/03
From Gerhard Ebersöhn
To: Sdanet
Re: Law in Galatians
Argument about the Law in practice is reduced to one or
either of two causes:
1, What is the relation of Law in general to justification;
2, What is the Christian's relation to Law in particular the
Fourth Commandment?
The word, "It is finished", poses the single greatest
challenge surrounding the Law and its validity for Christians. The Sabbath
Commandment is the thorn in the flesh, the stone of stumbling in the way of
sincere Christians on either side of the conflict about the Law.
Answering David then who came to the net saying,
<< As He says
in Luke it would be "easier" for Heaven etc.
<< to fail than for His fulfilling work to be thwarted.
<< Jesus as Gal. says was "under the law" i.e.
<< the old covenant and the Torah
<< to perfectly fulfill it for us.
<< Thus He cried out on the cross "it is
finished".
This recollects earlier discussions on SDANET.
Jesus not only referred to the LAW being at and in this moment
"finished". In his dying the moment of his rising from the dead is
pronounced – and the ultimate INSTITUTION of the Law. 'I die, BY THIS is my
resurrection – the ultimate finishing of all God's works – accomplished!' Thus
Jesus cried out (in effect) 'This is the DAWN of the Sabbath Day of the LORD'.
Reformed thinking thus interprets this Word from the cross, saying, "It is
the dawn of the Yom Yahweh". But Reformed thinking enigmatically goes on
to explain that Sunday is implied! This to me is where Sunday observers have
the Gospel wrong and Sabbath-keepers have the Law wrong – at this CRUCIAL point
pitting Law and Gospel one against the other, in stead of to see Law and Gospel
meeting and complementing one another. At this very moment of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ Law and Gospel become ONE "in Him" and
Christ becomes The Law "for us" – HE in dying and rising,
"having demolished the dividing wall in his flesh". HE, having "finished"
and being "raised from the dead", is the Law and Redemption having
become the ONE.
Both the Law and Jesus were nailed to the Cross – both coming from
the past and both in having arrived in the New Present, being lifted up and
dying on the cross – and both being revived by the power of God: One, "in
Him"! From the day of His resurrection from the dead Jesus is God's Law.
He having been raised from the dead "the third day according to the
Scriptures" – the Passover Scriptures or "Gospel"-Scriptures,
the Bible – "finished" and was the finishing of all the works of God.
The Day of "It is finished", had to be and in fact had been,
"the Sabbath". Reformed thinking describes the moment of this event
as "the turning (or 'noon') of the Yom Yahweh". But Reformed thinking
again fails to see this for being "the Lord's Day", "My
Holy", "the Sabbath of the LORD your God": "the Seventh
Day". And the Sabbatharians also fail to see it. But the Gospels did not
fail to see it. Matthew says "In Sabbath's time, its slow hours and in the
turning towards the First Day of the week."
11/03/03
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn, biblestudents@imaginet.co.za;
www.biblestudents.co.za.
To: Sdanet
Answering: Conrad Thomas Lenhardt and Ben Tupper
Re: Law in Galatians
Dear brothers in Christ,
Rather don't try to explain to me how you conclude that if Christ
is the Law to a person that person <<then might as well go ahead and live
like the rest of the world, lie, steel, have many wives, worship stone and wood
images, it is all ok>>.
<<What then of the repeated injunctions in the NT for
obedience to the law, for works?>>
I would reply and advise you to think what prompted the prophets
who wrote the laws presupposed by your conclusion. Who had been – or IS – the
true Giver of those laws? Is there not only ONE Who is the Lawgiver? (You will
know where to find this Scripture.) So who – before Christ had come or even
before 'the Law' had "come after" – had been the Law – the Ultimate
Reason that man should not <<as well go ahead>> and do all the
horrible things you list? Then that same God came and tabernacled among us
mortals, and He 'real life' acted God the Law Himself. Then He even went
further and died and triumphed over sin, death and devil, vindicating Himself –
vindicating whom and what He from eternity had been – God Himself "the Law
of Life". (Again you won't have trouble to find that Scripture.)
What could be plainer than that if Jesus is the Law to a person,
the only Law he would strive to obey would be the Law to love God above all
else and man like himself and thus obey every point or comma of every law ever
written by the servants of God?
But what would be more plain than that if Jesus is the Law to a
human being he would NEVER obey that Law it being so infinitely above all human
ability or capacity to obey? (We never obey the law unless we obey it
perfectly, someone wrote in the recent Sdaily post.) So that the human being is
driven to Christ BY CHRIST who is not only the Law to him, but also the Law's
satisfaction to him ... and that wretched human being may find the rest and
peace of God in his heart and life and eternal destiny.
So I'll proclaim Christ and Him crucified and raised for our
justification . . . and celebrate, spiritually eating and drinking the Bread
and Drink of Life which is the eating and the drinking as by faith partaking of
the body and of the blood of Christ our Passover Lamb ... and FEAST our
Christian Passover Sabbaths. (You know this Scripture I'm sure, as well.)
30/03/03
The
Honourable Professor Bacchiocchi,
I cannot
avoid crossing paths with you; it is because we both believe God’s Sabbath Day
but for such different reasons!
Refer your
End Time Issue 97. Here you repeat your very valid argumentations for God’s
Sabbath for his Church. But at the same time I say they are all totally useless
unless taken to the Reality of their symbolism. For all and every of your
arguments are no more than pointers to the Truth of them: Christ in vindication
of them all! You never neglect to refer to Christ’s miracles – no objection!
But you even more insistently refuse their pointing to the miracle from which
they all derive their strength: The ultimate of God’s power in raising Christ
from the dead.
Now I
can’t remember how many times I have tried to bring this to your attention, but
it seems you hate the idea of it or are too coward to face it. I’m saying
nothing Jesus ever did is of any value or worth had He not been raised from the
dead. Therefore nothing He had ever done is worth anything to the Sabbath Day
were He not raised from the dead on the Sabbath Day! Had Jesus never done a
miracle on another day than the Sabbath Day, it would have availed the Sabbath
nothing were He not raised from the dead on the Sabbath Day.
The
Christian Church is right in that it regards the Resurrection of Jesus as the
Christian motive, reason and commandment to celebrate the very day of His
resurrection. The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is God’s finishing of all
his works – not the Sabbath per se; the Sabbath was only the day of God’s
finishing and of his resting in his finishing. By this association ONLY does
the Sabbath derive every bit of its meaning, validity and honour.
Now here’s
the difference between the old way of things and the new way of things since
the death and resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The type has met its
Anti-type, the symbol its Reality, the pointer its Object.
And here
becomes clear the stupidity of arguments of ‘abolishment’ of the ‘law’ –
whatever ‘law’! For example the Passover sacrifice. What was its ‘institution’
or ‘law-giving’? The event of its sacrifice and nothing short of it. The
(formal) “commandment” “came after” – followed and not vice versa. Speaking
like a human I say even God’s commanding before would not have been a
commandment or an institution had the actual slaughter not been made. But this
was still only the typical and not the Real or the Reality. All God’s speaking
of before – of the ‘Old Covenant’ – would have been empty words had the true
Passover Lamb not be slain, so that ultimately the FIRST institution and the
FIRST giving of the Law in Truth was Christ Himself and IN THE SACRIFICING of
Christ – not and never before! Now who any longer needs the Law according to
the ‘Old Covenant’ of types? I don’t – I have Christ for God’s Law of
Sacrifice. The same argument applied 100% the same way for the Sabbath applies.
Talk of Law – Christians are the ones who no God’s Law because it is Christ to
them that is! Christians are the ones under obligation to keep God’s Sabbath
Day because they are the FIRST ones to have received the Sabbath through the
Law which is Christ! Because “He is our rest”, “we who believe do enter into
(His) rest”, : “BECAUSE JESUS HAD GIVEN THEM REST”, and, : “HE LIKE GOD HAD
ENTERED INTO HIS OWN REST FROM HIS OWN WORKS”. These two texts envelope verse 9
– we should never forget. “That is why <ara>: there for the People of God
remains valid a keeping of the Sabbath Day” “the Seventh Day CONCERNING WHICH
God THUS SPOKE” (4:4).
Please
Professor Bacchiocchi, open your eyes to seeing how God “finished”, “blessed”,
“sanctified” and “rested” “on the Seventh Day”? HE NEVER DID BUT IN, BY AND
THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE?
I have
recently sent you by registered post my re-appraisal of Ignatius and Barnabas.
(You have not acknowledged receipt though.) From the above as well as from
these re-considerations it has become clear how Sunday observance really
started in the Christian Church: It was through deception! Justin changed the
language of Matthew 28:1 and since then Sunday received the honour due the Sabbath
for being the Day of God’s rest of the completion of all his works.
The enemy
of truth the devil will permit every defence of truth as long as it doesn’t
reveal the heart of the corruption the gnawing worm. Ja, he will acclaim and
decorate it as long as such defence of truth reveals the lies about the Lie but
protects the truth about the Lie.
With remorseful heart I must repeat your own
words against yourself: I only wish that Bacchiocchi could exercise more
common sense. While reading Bacchiocchi's books on The Sabbath, time and again
I have been deeply distressed by his inability to think things through. It
is evident that what is in crisis is not the Sabbath – which after all is
Christ’s institution by strength of the only strength of Christ, his death and
resurrection from the dead – but Bacchiocchi's common sense which is reflected
in his arbitrary methodology. It is most unfortunate.
31/03/03
Dear brother in Jesus Christ,
Have you taken notice of my answer to your treatise
on Colossians 2:16-17? Please see on www.biblestudents.co.za,
file "Paul", Appendix. Please read this in conjunction with file
"New" – second century. See there the total lack of reason for
regarding the Lord's Day as being the First Day of the week, and every reason
possible the Lord's Day means the Seventh Day Sabbath! See the BIG reason – the
ONLY – why the Church believes the basic lies underlying its rejection of God's
Sabbath Day, namely pure and presumptious assumption – NOTHING more!
31/03/03
Dear Professor,
Thank you for replying, I appreciate your vauable
time!
I mean the Christian believes God's Sabbath Day
(Seventh Day) because Christ rose from the dead on it, and keeps it for the
same reason. I mean all the Old Testament as far as the Sabbath Day is
concerned pointed this way, and that it literally is so confirmed in the
Christ-history of the new Testament. I mean The Christian believer does not
believe or keep the Sabbath Day for reason of the LAW (just, holy and good),
but for reason of Jesus Christ – whose glory is such the glory of the Law is
like no glory at all!
10/04/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
Subject: Support for dissidents
Tony Zbaraschuk came to the net, Mon, 7 Apr 2003 saying,
<<the natural human tendency (is) to oppose an error by backing away from
it.>>
He also wrote,
<<It wouldn't be the first time we'd made a mistake about a verse of the
Bible. And where are we left in relating to dissidents when we are warned
that not all our beliefs and expositions of truth are free of error? How
does such error come under scrutiny if someone does not step outside old
beliefs and doctrinal interpretations? It's _very_ important to remember
that truth has nothing to fear from close examination. Indeed, it urges and
rejoices in such study.>>
Tony, congratulations and thank you from my heart!
I am not a SDA, but I also believe the Sabbath. I came to a knowledge of the
Gospel-Sabbath from a Calvinistic background and via the Gospel – all by
myself, with the help of my Calvinistic theologians and I believe the Holy
Spirit. This means I made my discovery through the Bible.
So I put my views to Prof. Bacchiocchi with whose writing no serious student
of the Sabbath can avoid acquaintance. I put before him one point of basic
difference. I don't want to go into detail of how I pleaded with him to just
give me simple answer, with no avail. Therefor I want to ask you these
questions – the questions of a 'dissenter' in good faith:
I include here, questions on just this point – the point of Jesus'
resurrection from the dead "in Sabbath's time" (Matthew) and your
interpretation of the phrase in Mt.28:1, "In the end of the Sabbath".
First Question: Professor Bacchiocchi, How can you claim "numerous
evidences" (The Time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, p. 49, 84 et
al.)
that Matthew uses the sunrise day-reckoning and not the sunset day-reckoning
in chapter 28:1 while you fail to present a single example of his use of the
sunrise reckoning – but 28:1 itself? (Professor Bacchiocchi most probably
will explain with reference to the Greek word opse which in most
translations of Mt.28:1 is rendered "after".)
My Second Question is: Professor Bacchiocchi, You claim the Greek word opse
in Mt.28:1 should be understood to mean "after", and not "in the
end of the
Sabbath" as in the King James Version or "late on the Sabbath"
as others
explain it. In 'The Time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection', your
statement reads as if A.T. Robertson is saying, " Later Greek authors,
like
Philostratus, use the word in the sense of "after", like opse
toutohn
"after these things" ". Mark the quotation marks – the emphasis
and
underlining are mine. But the quotation marks are Bacchiocchi's!
The question is, 1, Does A.T. Robertson simply say that "Philostratus
shows
examples where opse has the sense of "after", like opse toutohn –
"after
these things" " – as you, Professor Bacchiocchi, assert he does?
(Robertson
says, "Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the
sense of "after", like opse toutohn – "after these things"
". Bacchiocchi
keeps Robertson's consideration of the Ablative, mum. If the use of opse in
Mt.28:1 is regarded as a case of the Ablative, the KJV supplies the perfect
example, "In the end of the Sabbath"!)
The question further is, 2, Does A.T. Robertson say, "later Greek authors,
like Philostratus" – as you, Professor Bacchiocchi, assert he does, the
plural?
(Robertson says, "Philostratus shows examples", "Philostratus
uses it (the
word opse) also in the sense of ...". Robertson speaks of no other
author.)
The question further is, 3, Does A.T. Robertson say, "Philostratus use(s)
the word "in the sense of "after" " – as you, Professor
Bacchiocchi, assert
he does?
(Robertson's exact words are, "Philostratus uses it (opse) also in the
sense
of late on" – directly the opposite of what Bacciocchi pretends Robertson
says!)
My Third Question is: Professor Bacchiocchi, In your 4th paragraph on page
87 of The Time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, you state, "...the
term
opse is used in the New Testament and in contemporary Greek literature as
meaning not only "late" but also "after" ". (Emphasis
as I supplied it.) I
take it you mean with "contemporary Greek literature", first century
"Greek
literature" – that is, "Greek literature" "contemporary"
with "New
Testament" "Greek".
Now, Professor Bacchiocchi, please supply us with just one example from THIS
Greek of the incidence of the "use", of opse, with the "meaning
...(of)
"after"? Will it be Mt.28:1, perhaps?
(((
Dear SK, I mean that Bacchiocchi certainly will present Mt.28:1 for his
example, and no other. )))
Then, Professor Bacchiocchi, please explain to us how you "... have ...
(done) justice to Matthew 28:1" by applying to the word opse in Mt.28:1,
your, alleged meaning from Philostratus of two centuries later than the time
of the New
Testament's composition?
Then, Professor Bacchiocchi, please explain to us how your
"conclusion" is
lauded with such startling nonchalance, that, 1, To say that opse means
"late in / on the Sabbath" in Mt.28:1, is an "ignoble and
baseless attempt"
that "lacks both Biblical and historical support", and, 2, that your
meaning
for opse, "after", (60d TCR) is "clearly support(ed)" by
"the cumulative
witness of the Gospels and of history"?
My fourth question for you, Professor Bacchiocchi, today is on your use of
Walter Bauer's interpretation of the phrase "In the end of the
Sabbath" in
Mt.28:1.
In The Times of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, p. 51-52, you assert,
"The
same explanation ... "after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was
dawning", is given in several standard Greek lexicons of the New
Testament.
Walter Bauer's lexicon, for example, points out that opse is "used as an
improper preposition with Genitive [meaning] after, (opse sabbaton) after
the Sabbath ... Bauer gives several examples of this usage ("after")
including one ... where the following phrase occurs: "later than the hour
decided upon"."
The question in the first place must obviously be, Professor Bacchiocchi,
How can you say Walter Bauer "gives several examples of this usage
"after"
", when the phrase that occurs in the very example you quote from him,
reads, "later than the hour decided upon"?
But, the question in the second place, Professor Bacchiocchi, for any person
who has not checked your references, is less obvious. It is this: How can
you say Walter Bauer "gives several examples of this usage
"after" ", when
he gives but four examples, and all four of opse meaning "late", and
none
but Mt.28:1 itself as an example of opse meaning "after"?
The question in the third place, Professor Bacchiocchi, is: Where does Bauer
ever state or imply that opse means "after ... as ... day ... was
dawning"?
(While Bauer favours "after the Sabbath" in Matthew 28:1, he would
think of
opse with regard to Mt.28:1 as representing the "evening". He defines
opse,
a "late hour of day". Bauer never defines opse in terms or concept of
the
early morning "dawning"! Neither does A.T. Robertson, or any
"Greek author"
of any period of
history!)
My last question, Professor Bacchiocchi, on Mt.28:1, is: Kindly tell us
Robertson's final conclusion on this matter?
( "It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has
in
mind just before sunset, "late on" would be his idea; if he means
after
sunset, then "after" is correct." Robertson allows the
"morning" or "dawn"
no consideration! The time of day involved revolves around sunset, according
to Robertson! )
Then, Professor Bacchiocchi, in your End-Time Issue No. 73, you claim, I
quote, "... were the Gospels' writers alive today, I have reason to
believe
that they would appreciate help in correcting some of their inaccuracies.
Incidentally, some of the inaccuracies are very glaring. For example, the
Synoptic Gospels place Christ's crucifixion on the day after Passover (Nisan
15), while John on the actual Passover day (Nisan 14). It would be nice if
we could ask them to reconcile their differences and give us the exact date
of the Crucifixion."
Dear Prof. Bacchiocchi, you say John places Christ's crucifixion "on the
actual Passover day" (that is, on the actual Feast Day), which is plainly
untrue, because John says "it was the Preparation of Passover". This
day,
you say, "the Synoptic Gospels place on the day after Passover" –
while they
say it was the very day "the passover should be slaughtered"!
I wrote on my book, The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace, over twenty
five years. I had the arguments of Paragraphs such as 5.3.2.3.2.1 p. 60,
5.3.2.5.3, page 102, 5.3.3.4.3.2, p. 155 of Part Two, etc., fully formulated
when for the first time only I took Justin's reference to Mt.28:1 under
scrutiny in the original. I as it were anticipated what I discovered,
that
the grammatical and syntactical factors of the text are exactly switched
about in order to arrive at Justin's desired meanings essential for a
Sunday-resurrection. Modern "versions" of Mt.28:1 do no different,
like The
New Authorised Version and this modern Greek translation,
molis arxise na photidzehi heh proteh hehmera tehs hebdomados – "After the
Sabbath ... with dawn (being – nominative) the First Day". This, as Emil
Brunner would have said, is dishonest! It is no translation, but typical of
manipulations of the text. To call the rejection of such methods and the
insistence on the only grammatically correct translation and interpretation
of the original, "hair-splitting", does not solve the problem. One
should
rather with the courage of one's Christian conviction come to conclusive
grips with it.
11/04/03
Dear Tony,
Thank you very much for responding. I should have addressed my
post to your personal e-mail address, but did not have the time to search for
it – I cannot remember where I stored it. I do not care about having the
subject discussed on SDAnet. You are welcome to do so, however it would please
me greatly if you could only look at the issue. This now reminds me that when I
looked up your web-page at La Sierra I noticed you haven't got my book, 'The
Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', on your library-lists. Prof. John Webster
assured me he handed the volume over to your 'Heritage Library'. He also owns
the books. The volume though is old, and the newest available can be off-loaded
free of charge from www.biblestudents.co.za.
Forget about Bacchiocchi, and imagine him simply the
contra-thesis, and mine the pro-thesis. What would you make out of it? Does
Matthew 28:1-4 state that Jesus was raised from the dead "in the slow
hours of Sabbath's-time ... before the First Day of the week", or
"after the Sabbath ... on the First Day of the week"? It is as simple
as that! Then ask yourself an even more important question: Was it according to
God's Promises the Day of the Sabbath should witness the completion of all His works
in the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead, or the First Day of the week?
This is what spoke to me as being a 'Gereformeerde Calvinis'! Basic, simple,
true to nature stuff, no frills, no haughty academic stubbornness. Just follow the dictates of God's Word and
Will! Where should one end up? 'On the First Day' or "on Sunday" as
Justin perverted God's Word, or 'On the Sabbath'? I cannot think of how a Jew
would have answered the question, but I do know how a Christian would. And I
can clearly imagine how a Jesuit would have manipulated the answer: exactly as
they do in the New World Versions of the Bible! I assure you without any fear
of contradiction there is in them no single New Testament text regarding the
Sabbath and the First Day of the week that is not the raping of the Word of
God. I cannot express myself strongly enough. I dare you in the Name of Christ
to expose this and be sure to be thrown out of the Society of the Church. Ask
me.
11/04/03
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Scorpiostraat 26
Van Riebeeckpark
Kemptonpark
1619
Tel. 011-976-4590
11 April 2003-04-11
Rapport Briewe
e-pos: briewe@rapport.co.za
Ons vier die Sondag voor 'Pase' vir 'Palmsondag'? Reg so! Nou,
volgens Johannes se Evangelie, 12: 1 en 12, was die oorspronklike 'Palmsondag',
die vyfde dag voor die Vrydag waarop Jesus – volgens Kerklike Tradisie –
gekruisig sou gewees het. Dus, Sondag
dag 5 voor, Maandag dag 4 voor, Dinsdag dag 3 voor, Woensdag "oor twee dae
die Pasga" (Mt.26:2), Donderdag die dag "voor die Fees" (Joh.
13:1). Op Donderdag, "die Voorbereiding van die Pasga" (Jh.19:14),
was Jesus dan ook gekruisig – nie op Vrydag die "Fees(dag)" nie!
Daarom, omdat Jesus "vir drie dae" dood was, en "op
die derde dag opgestaan het", dan het Hy op die Sabbat (Saterdag)
opgestaan en is Sondag die dag wat die Jesuiete ons met 'New Age Versions' wil
wysmaak!
Let maar op hoe die Jesuiete Matteus 28:1 vertaal. Die KJV het
"(time) of the Sabbath ... against the First Day"; die NIV gee
"After the Sabbath ... (time) of the First Day"; die NAV "Na die
Sabbatdag ... die Sondag..." – agter Justinus die Martelaar aan wat die
eerste een was om te gesê het: "Na Saterdag ... op Sondag".
Wie lieg: Die KJV of die Jesuiete? Waar is al die Dominees en
Pastore en vertalers van die NAV?
12/04/03
From Gerhard Ebersoehn,
You wrote:
<<Gerald,>>
Not much worried about it although my name is
Gerhard.
<<Briefly,
1) The "New World Version" of the Bible is done by the Jehovah's
Witnesses,
who are about as far from being Jesuits as it is possible to conceive anyone
being and still remain a Christian. Did you have some other version in
mind?>>
For clear distinction between good and bad
'translations' see avpublication – Riplinger / James White controversy
<<2) As far as I can see, the general testimony of all the Gospels is
that
Jesus' resurrection occurred not long before dawn on what we would now
call Sunday morning. >>
As for the word "dawn" – see Luke 23:54.
was that not Friday "afternoon"? Then how could here be
"dawn"? And how do you reconcile "late" opse with
"dawn"? See www.biblestudents.co.za,
the third book there mentioned 'Golgotha to
But that is not my concern at this point.
You further wrote:
<< Matthew 28:1: at dawn on the first day of the week
Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over... very early on the first day
of the week
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still
dark
Now, admittedly, most of these refer to the arrival of the witnesses at
the tomb, not to the actual moment of the Resurrection (to which there
do not seem to have been any witnesses), but Matthew certainly narrates
the women setting out first, then the earthquake and descent of the angel
from heaven. Which certainly suggests that the Resurrection happens after
the setting-out.
You could, of course, argue that the actual Resurrection happened well
before the stone was rolled away, but as far as I can see there's no
Biblical evidence for such a picture at all.>>
Dear Tony, you have just read, considered and
admitted that <<Biblical evidence>> – don't you see? The
Resurrection happens not <<after the setting out>>, but, quote,
"at that very moment / then suddenly" kai idou!
<<3) As far as Bacchiochi goes, I have some agreements with him, and some
disagreements, but if he thinks the resurrection took place on Sunday
morning I'm completely in agreement with him.>>
You haven't even looked at my questions, Tony.
You may beg me to get out of your life like Bacchiocchi did, but you won't be
able to escape these question for the rest of your life. Not if you're an
honest Christian.
You 'retaliate' in admirable spirit:
<<In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me --
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on!
--Julia Ward Howe>>
Dear Tony, How much I yearn you could taste the
Sabbath rest that God provided His People in Christ by virtue of His Resurrection
from the dead! I shall also end with a quotation: "Christlicher Glaube,
der nicht Auferstehungsglaube ist, kann weder christlich noch Glaube genannt
werden. ... Das Christentum steht und faellt mit der wirklichkeit der
Auferstehung Jesu von den Toten durch Gott. Es gibt in Neuen Testament keinen
Glauben, der nicht apriori bei der Auferstehung Jesu einsets" – Juergen
Moltmann. I cannot think of the beauty of Christ other than of the Christ
resurrected from the dead, or of the Sabbath other than for the beauty
of Christ resurrected from the dead, and if without the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, then without glory or beauty, and without peace or rest.
The peace of Christ be with you, this being the Day
of His finishing all the works of God in having been raised from the dead
"in Sabbath's time" – this is the Word of God. This is the Word of
God the Jesuits slander! Join God – no man – in the Faith of His Word!
14/04/03
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Scorpiostraat 26
Van Riebeeckpark
Kemptonpark
1619
Tel. 011-976-4590
14 April 2003-04-11
Beeld Briewe
e-pos: briewe@beeld.com
Ons vier die Sondag voor 'Pase' vir 'Palmsondag'? Reg so! Nou,
volgens Johannes se Evangelie, 12: 1 en 12, was die oorspronklike 'Palmsondag',
die vyfde dag voor die Vrydag waarop Jesus – volgens Kerklike Tradisie –
gekruisig sou gewees het. Dus, Sondag
dag 5 voor, Maandag dag 4 voor, Dinsdag dag 3 voor, Woensdag "oor twee dae
die Pasga" (Mt.26:2), Donderdag die dag "voor die Fees" (Joh.
13:1). Op Donderdag, "die Voorbereiding van die Pasga" (Jh.19:14),
was Jesus dan ook gekruisig – nie op Vrydag die "Fees(dag)" nie!
Omdat Jesus "vir drie dae" dood was, en "op die
derde dag opgestaan het", het Hy op die Sabbat (Saterdag) opgestaan en is
Sondag die dag wat die Jesuiete ons met 'New Age Versions' wil wysmaak! Let
maar op hoe hulle Matteus 28:1 vertaal. Die KJV het "(time) of the Sabbath
... against the First Day"; die NIV gee "After the Sabbath ... (time)
of the First Day"; die NAV "Na die Sabbatdag ... die Sondag..."
– agter Justinus die Martelaar aan wat die eerste een was om te gesê het:
"Na Saterdag ... op Sondag".
Wie lieg: Die KJV of die NAV? Waar is al die Dominees en Pastore
en vertalers van die NAV?
18/04/03
van
1619
email: biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
18 April 2003-04-18
Philip B.
Brown
Dear Sir,
I do not doubt your words, “Christ's
love in me”, in answer to Val Borum on the subject of “The Crucifixion on
Thursday”. I do not doubt the sincerity of your conviction, but have deepest
sympathy with it, the love of God constraining me! Will you forgive me then for
speaking to you as with my brother in Jesus Christ? Will you in the same spirit
then bear with me while I shall try to convince you otherwise than your opinion
expressed in your answer to Val Borum? I beg you have patience with me, since
God is not the God of confusion, but wills his children come to the unity of
the faith – all to Christ’s honour!
I would like to progress along your
lines in “…”, indenting my comments in <…>:
“The
Jewish day begins at sunset and is today called "twilight." Sunset is
about 6:00 P.M. After 6:00 P.M., a new calendar day begins.”
<Agreed>
“The term
"twilight" in Exodus 12:6, however, was understood by the Pharisees
and rabbis to be from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., when the sun begins its setting.”
<Agreed. The sun in fact begins
to set from noon. For the Jews though, the sun no longer sets after sunset – it
virtually stops to exist. For the Romans it keeps on setting till midnight
when, for them, it starts to rise again. The
“During
the crucifixion, from noon to 3:00 P.M., darkness, or "twilight," came
over the land. (From the sixth to the ninth hour in Matthew 27:45 corresponds
to from noon to 3:00 P.M. on our clock.)”
<Agreed, although I would
rather leave out the idea of “twilight” in this context.>
“Christ
died at about 3:00 P.M.”
<Undeniable! God be the glory and
the power!>
“His body
was placed in the tomb before 6:00 P.M.”
<Agreed. Only question is:
Before 6.00 P.M. on which Day of the week? Clearly it was Friday – agreed:
“since the Sabbath officially began at 6.00 P.M” as you say. But NOT:…>
“… _that
night_, since the Sabbath officially began at 6:00 P.M.”
<”that night” you with
reference to Luke 23:54 refer to, and which belonged to the Sabbath, came after
the burial – it did not precede it.>
“Traditionally,
the crucifixion is believed to be on Friday.”
<Admittedly, no one can deny,
“traditionally”!>
“We know
the resurrection was very early Sunday morning.”
<Here is where confusion
starts! Here is the a priori indisputable! And I understand why: This is how we
read the NT translated for us poor souls. God will forgive us – but not those
in places of absolute power who so wrangle his Word.>
“John says: (NIV John 20:1) Early on the first
day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdaline went to the tomb and
saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.”
<Agreed! Just be careful to
read what we read – don’t add a thing! This is what John says – no more. Is
this Jesus, rising from the dead?
‘Prohi skotias eti / skotias eti ousehs’ – which is, precisely
and literally: “Early darkness being”, and this, “was / being”, “on the First
Day of the week”. Now, according to your own definition of the reckoning of the
day above, it was the First Day _starting_. Now read the verse again. Do we
read anything about Jesus’ resurrection? Not a word! Not an insinuation!>
“Mark
says, "just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb" (Mark
16:2 NIV).”
<The time of day was _before_
sunrise, ‘anateilanto tou hehliou’ – for the Jew, again, the “new”-‘ana’,
“coming”-‘teilantos’ of the sun, but, “very early” – ‘lian prohi’. Compare Mark
with John and it leaves the resurrection at least one full night behind!>
“Luke
says, "very early in the morning" (Luke 24:1).”
<’Orthrou batheohs’ – “thick
darkness”, only possible during after-midnight darkness of solid night, “on the
First Day of the week”. Luke’s time fits in neatly between that of John 20:1
and Mk.16:2. Therefore: Three different visits to the tomb – no
resurrection!>
“Matthew
says, "at dawn" (Matthew 28:1).”
<Matthew says nothing of the
kind. Do you know what Matthew really says? He says ‘tehi epifohskousehi’. What
does ‘tehi epifohskousehi’ mean? Read Luke 23:54. It means exactly the same
time of the day spoken of there – literally, “afternoon”, in fact _stressed_:
“in the very being of light” – “actually noon” is what it says! Did Jesus rise
from the dead Sunday afternoon? No! Then when? “On noon / early afternoon”, the
day before – “In Sabbath’s-time late” – ‘opse Sabbatohn’. That is what Matthew
28:1 says, and may God destroy my soul in everlasting hell if I lie.>
“Since
John says it was still dark and Mark says it was just after sunrise, the light
of the new day probably started to appear during the walk.”
<Yes, this is what we are made
to believe, “it was …” the resurrection. But there is no ounce of truth in
it.>
“All four
tell us that the women went to the tomb early on the first day of the week,
which is Sunday.”
<Only three Gospels give
different times of different visits to the tomb. Matthew gives no time of the
visit to the tomb he speaks of. Matthew only gives, and only Matthew gives the
time of Jesus’ resurrection, and that time he says, “belonged to the Sabbath” –
Genitive, ‘sabbatohn’. He also says it was “_before_ ‘eis’ plus Accusative, the
First Day of the week”, _not_ “on the
First Day”, Dative, as 28:1 is translated _falsely_.
“Backing
up a bit, it seems as if the crucifixion was on Friday from verses like the
following: (NIV Luke 23:52-56) Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. Then
he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the
rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the
Sabbath was about to begin.”
<Which is the action or act
intended here, and which are the time-supplying words? “Going to Pilate”,
“Joseph asked”. No problem. “Going to Pilate”, “Joseph took the body down”, is
untrue though, also, “going to Pilate”, “Joseph wrapped the body”. Therefore it
also is untrue that Joseph “placed the body in the tomb” at the
time-approximate that he “went to Pilate”. Then it is totally wrong and totally
untrue to say, _suggesting the event of the resurrection_, “It was Preparation
Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin”. It would be as far fetched to place
the event of the resurrection within the time-bounds of this day as would be to
place the event of the “tomb cut in the rock” within the time-bounds of this
day. The adverbial time-phrase, “It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was
about to begin” only has bearing on the action of Joseph at that time, which
was to “place (the body) in the tomb”, and to “close” it, and to “leave”. It
also had bearing on the women’s actions at that time of that day, that they
“left”, “went home”, and “prepared spices and ointments”. Joseph did not do
those other thing at this time on this day. He did those things during the
previous night, which is crystal clear from a reading of the Gospels. The
implication is just as clear, that the crucifixion took place on the day before
the previous night – on Thursday!>
“The women who had come with Jesus
from
<No
problem.>
“The very
next verse is about the women, very early on Sunday morning, going to the tomb.
The Sabbath begins at 6:00 PM on Friday and goes through 6:00 PM on Saturday.”
<The Sabbath does not “go
through 6:00 PM on Saturday” because that is _past_ the (Jewish) Sabbath, which
_stops_ “at “6:00 PM on Saturday”.>
“Jesus was
buried just before the Sabbath began. There is a problem, however, with this
view.”
<I cannot see why? Only with
the shortness of the time allowed, perhaps because the women had quite a few
things done before they “began to rest the Sabbath” – Ingressive Aorist.>
“(NIV Matthew 12:40) For as Jonah
was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man
will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
“Friday night and Saturday night
are only two nights. If Jesus was "in the heart of the earth" for
three nights, he had to have been crucified on Thursday.”
<Quite logical, isn’t it? And
matter of fact and very, very simple! But most important, it is “according to
the Scriptures” and according to the gist of the prophetic Word (Passover-Word)
of God! Why tradition had to come and spoil the purity can be attributed to the
design of the devil himself only.>
“We know the Last Supper, the meal
Jesus had on the evening before his crucifixion, was the Passover meal (Matthew
26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, and John 13:1).”
<The Passover eaten before the
Passover? Plainly impossible. Throughout each and every reference to the Last
Supper the Subjunctive or Infinitive is used to indicate the “preparatory”
nature of the occasion “_for_ the Passover”. It was _not_ “_the_ Passover”,
“eaten”.>
“The very
next day after Passover is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.”
<Wrong. The Feast Day of
Passover is the Day of the _eating_ of the sacrifice which was accompanied by
and which was the day of the first eating of Unleavened Bread. But the
“first day” of the Feast Period or Feats Days, was its “Preparation of the
Passover” (John), defined as “the Day on which they always slaughtered the
Passover”; “the Day on which leaven was removed / the Day of de-leaven” –
‘adzumos’ (Synoptists).>
“This
first day, Nisan 15, is a Sabbath.”
< The first day, _14_ Nisan,
was no Sabbath. The _second_ day, “Nisan 15, is a Sabbath” – “the Sabbath”, or,
“the Feast” (‘eaten’) proper – its ‘High Day’.>
“The word
Sabbath does not mean the seventh day of the week.”
<What nonsense!)
“The word
Sabbath simply means to cease work or to rest.”
<It means a great deal more.>
“We get
our word 'sabbatical' from this Greek word. The word in Hebrew is 'Sabbath.'
The seventh day of the week is declared to be a Sabbath. Likewise, other
specific days of the feasts are declared to be a Sabbath.”
“When
Passover is on a Thursday, Friday is a Sabbath. Saturday is also a Sabbath.
When Passover is on a Thursday, two days of rest follow Passover.”
<Agreed, provided “Passover”
means 14 Nisan, day of slaughter. Provided further “rest” is qualified as
different rests for the different kinds of ‘Sabbaths’. Certain things were
allowed as well as prescribed for the Passover Sabbath which did not apply to
the weekly Sabbath. That’s a fact not disputable.>
“If we
were to rest for two days, how many 'rests' would there be? If we rest for two
days, we do not rest for one day, stop resting, and then immediately rest for
another day. It is one rest for two days. When Passover is on Thursday, Friday
and Saturday are one large Sabbath.
<Which both historically and
logically is nonsense. The fact we rest for two days do not do away with the
two days. The fact we rest is not the day we rest on. When Passover Preparation
Day or 14 Nisan is on Thursday, Friday and Saturday are two Sabbath Days,
Friday being the Passover Sabbath Nisan 15, and Saturday being the weekly Sabbath
Day.>
“(KJV John 19:31) The Jews
therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain
upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high [megas]
day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be
taken away.”
“The Greek
word used in John to describe this particular Sabbath is 'megas.' Today, we use
the prefix 'mega' to mean large. The Greek word 'megas' means big, exceedingly,
great, high, or large. A large, two day, Sabbath fits the meaning.”
<One might imagine it that way,
but it doesn’t change the Scriptural practicality of the event. An ordinary
Passover Feast Sabbath per se fits the meaning perfectly in its own right.>
“Also, the
word 'day,' appears three times in the above King James verse, but it is not in
the Greek. The King James translators were interpreting when they added 'day.'
They were incorrectly assuming an individual day.”
<You are alleging incorrectly.
John in 19:31 refers to “the Sabbath (day)” that “was the Prepartation (day)”,
and says that “it was a great _day_(‘hehmera’) that specific (‘ekeinou’)
Sabbath (day)”.
“Jesus was
"in the heart of the earth" for three nights: Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday nights.”
<You only assert; you don’t
indicate. Therefore I am allowed to say you assert wrongly, and counter: Jesus
was "in the heart of the earth" figuratively for three literal
nights: Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night, and three literal
days, Thursday day, Friday day, and Saturday day, while TRULY “tasting death”,
experiencing the woes of hell. It means not that He was _buried_ during those
three nights and three days. Jesus compares Himself with Jonah who lived
through his anguish of death, while He, living, conscious and willing, would
TRULY enter death, for us. He would be “released from the pangs of death”, only
“on the third day”.>
“He was
buried for three days: Friday, Saturday, and the beginning of Sunday.”
“No, He was raised “In
Sabbath’s-time”, and, “according to the Scriptures” concerning the Passover
Lamb of God, “on the third day” both according to inclusive reckoning, ‘part
for the whole’, and literal reckoning, “day” for “day(light)”.
“The
resurrection was at the "dawn" of Sunday, the third day.”
<I believe which I have shown
completely refutable through the Scriptures.>
21/04/03
Gerhard Ebersöhn answers Philip Brown
Dear Philip,
You wrote:
”Thank you for taking the time to write your long response to my thesis about
the "Crucifixion on Thursday."
This was my thesis, but I am having some trouble understanding how it
apparently got sent to Val Borum. I do not recall sending such an
email. And I cannot find it in my sent folder. Anyway, this thesis
of mine came from my web site at www.newwine.org
You said a lot of things. But the primary issue is the "three days
and three nights" verse. Without that verse, I believe most people,
including me, would place the crucifixion on Friday. You said about this
verse (emphasis mine):
I answer:
Again, thank you for answering so patiently.
First, please consult 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant
of Grace', Part One, 'Goshen to Golgotha', e.g., Par. 5.1.1.6.2.4,
5.1.1.6.2.7.3, 5.1.1.6.3.6 on the meaning of the 'sign'; Part 1/2, Appendixes
from p. 209 on the meaning of Jesus' suffering of death for us; see especially
p.246, letter to Lottie, which I herewith post:
<<... Jesus entered into his final atoning
suffering already at the Table and through Gethsémané. John 13:1 states that
Jesus “knew that his hour was come”, “before the feast (day) of the passover”.
“The day that they always sacrificed the passover on” – as the Synoptists say –
in fact started with its evening of after sunset. Jesus “within an hour” after
evening had begun, says Luke, joined the disciples at table for the Last
Supper. As soon as Judas had left, Jesus pronounced, “Now is the Son of Man
glorified, and God is glorified in Him” – which is a reference to the
glorifying of God of and through Jesus’ suffering. The expression “in the heart
of the earth” is figurative language of this suffering of Jesus the second
death for sinners. The first of the three days of Jesus’ being “in the heart of
the earth”, starts here. It was the day of his crucifixion and death already:
its first and night-part literally as well as symbolically. The event makes the
day – not the day the event! Remember what Luke says, that Jesus would be
delivered into the hands of evil men, yes, but also that He would be given over
to the powers of darkness! That most intensely started in this
evening-beginning of the day of Jesus’ final suffering, crucifixion and death.
You are right, the expression “in the heart of the earth” does not refer to
being buried, but to the anguish of Jesus’ suffering the death of sinners for sinners.
But there’s a great deal more to tell about this night for Jesus Christ of
into-hell-descending. >>
Then, dear Philip, you underlined some words, and I
must agree, my word-order is confusing: Therefore instead of saying,
< Jesus was "in the
heart of the earth" figuratively for three literal nights:
Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night, and three literal days,
Thursday day, Friday day, and Saturday day, while TRULY “tasting death”,
experiencing the woes of hell. It means not that He was _buried_ during
those three nights and three days. Jesus compares Himself with Jonah who lived
through his anguish of death, while He, living, conscious and willing, would
TRULY enter death, for us. He would be “released from the pangs of death”, only
“on the third day”. >
I should rather say:
Jesus
figuratively was "in the heart of the earth", for literally “three
days and three nights”. That does not say that He ‘was _buried_ for 72
hours’ as some people assert. No! He _experienced_ the reward for our sins
during the “three days and three nights of the Prophetic Word, 'live'. He
_experienced_ death and hell _before_ he actually "gave the
spirit", _as_ He "gave the spirit" actually dying, and
_after_ He had died and while He was dead truly _until_ He rose from
the dead really and triumphantly – so that He in fact _died_ triumphantly!
Jesus on the _cross_ could say: "It is finished!"
You wrote:
“It seems to me that you are spiritualizing the
verse.”
Answer:
I believe you will now agree I do not
"spiritualize" the verse".
You wrote:
“If I understand what you are saying correctly, you
believe that some of these three days and three nights Christ was literally
buried, and others he was not yet literally dead.”
Answer:
I believe, _first_, That for three of these three
days and for three of these three nights Christ physically and spiritually
suffered everlasting death of sinners for sinners; _two_, That He was literally
‘dead’ from the afternoon 3 o’clock of the first of these three days, Nisan 14;
_three_, That He was buried, “according
to the (Passover) Scriptures” “the day after” (Lv.23:5-6, Mk.15:42, Mt.27:57,
1Cor.15:3-4) and _four_, That with breaking the bonds of death He also broke
the hold of the grave, “the third day”, Day of the finishing / perfecting,
sanctification, blessing and rest of “all the works of God”, the Sabbath of the
LORD your God, “the Seventh Day” of God’s creating as well as of His New
Creation – Eph.1:19-22.
You wrote:
“But Christ gave this verse as a sign.
How could it be a sign if he was not literally dead for a full three days and
three nights? People would simply say the sign was wrong. Figurative
death is not a sign.
Answer:
I appreciate your concern! The only thing wherein we
differ is a nuance of interpretation wherein Jesus “was dead” not only in the
sense of the unknown: ‘death’ (which we know nothing about), but that He also
“was dead” in the sense of ‘living’ death: actually dying it … for us (which we
also know nothing about), suffering it, experiencing it, from His “hour had
come” and from His word: “Now”, until his word of triumph: “It is done” – the
prophetic sounding of His resurrection from the dead “on the third day”.
Maybe another aspect we might differ about is the
nature of the “sign” Jesus gave. See Par. 5.1.1.6.2.5.1 (in Part One).
You further wrote:
“The comparison to Jonah as not being literally dead,
implying that Christ was not literally dead during part of the days, does not
hold because Jonah was not literally dead for any of the three days and three
nights.”
Answer:
The comparison with Jonah and the fact he wasn’t
really dead with the experience of Christ wasn’t meant to ‘prove’ “that Christ
was not literally dead” – it shows both the similarity and the dissimilarity.
Remember it is a similitude – not the identical – of Jesus’ death. It cannot be
denied the part of the significance of the “sign” was the fact that as Jonah
figuratively experienced death _while alive_, Jesus experienced death
absolutely realistically _while alive_. That is what made Christ’s death His
anguish. That great Calvinist theologian Klaas Schilder’s three books on
Christ’s atoning and justifying suffering treat on ‘Christ entering into His
suffering’, ‘Christ in His suffering’, and ‘Christ going through His suffering’
– all ending where He gives over His spirit to the Father! This is the meaning
of the Confession: “descended into hell”. Gethsémane night is the beginning of
Christ’s suffering of the death of sinners for sinners.
You wrote:
“Jonah was figuratively dead for the full three days
and three nights. Jonah's figurative death is representative of
Christ's literal death. So Jonah's full three days and three nights of
figurative death must be representative of a full three days and three nights
of Christ's literal death.”
Answer:
So it is! Just realize what Jesus’ “literal death”
literally was! It was His Death, but more: It was His DYING of death, literally
nevertheless divinely – unfathomable for us.
And Jesus’ actually giving up the spirit, ‘marked’ or
‘signed’ the first day of Jesus’ actual death, the second day ‘marked’ or
‘signed’ the second day of His actual death, and “the third day” ‘marked’ or
‘signed’ “the third day of His death: “according to the Scriptures”. Not even
with Jonah is the idea to tell that he had been swallowed exactly as the first
day began and got spit out exactly as the third day ended. In the case of Jesus
such an explanation is far more impossible. But one may freely express it the
way in which John 13:1 does: “Now before the Feast Day of the Passover Season,
when Jesus realised …”; or Luke 22:1 and 14: “Then, having come the Day of
de-leaven (‘a-dzumos’) … and when the hour came” … (“when the right, and
prophetic, moment arrived …”). This leaves an undefined period of time between
the start of day (sunset) and the first events of Jesus’ living anguish of
death of His final and finalising suffering. So with His resurrection – it left
an unknown space of time before the ending of the day when the sun would set. A
“sign” “marks” the road – it is not the road; a “sign” marks the gold coin – it
is not the coin. With the coin the identity is much closer than with the road
sign. It shows the relative nature of a “sign”. So to insist like you do that
“Jonah's full three days and three nights of figurative death must be
representative of a full three days and three nights of Christ's literal death”
– is to require too much of the ‘sign’. After all Jonah was not Jesus.
You in a next letter wrote:
“I thought of
one more point about your view of "three days and three nights"… The
night before the crucifixion was the night of the Lord's Supper. Jesus
broke bread with his disciples, including Judas. If the crucifixion was on
Friday, then the Lord's Supper was Thursday night. Yet you say Jesus was
figuratively "in the heart of the earth on Wednesday and Thursday nights.
Was Jesus figuratively "in the heart of the earth" before Judas
betrayed him?
I
answer:
Let
us take it from your words, “If the crucifixion was on Friday…”.
My
point is there is no doubt Jesus was crucified the day before Friday, 14 Nisan,
called “Preparation of the Passover” (Jn.19:14), while Friday itself was the
Feast Day of the Passover, 15 Nisan – the day on which, during its night-hours,
the Passover lamb had to be eaten and during its daylight hours “the remains”
had to be returned to the dust of the earth (by burning).
Now
take your words, “Yet you say Jesus was figuratively "in the heart of the
earth on Wednesday and Thursday nights”. If you consider what I have said
above, you won’t find it strange. “In the heart of the earth” is figurative
language; “for three days and three nights” is literal language. Therefore
Jesus since the Fifth Day of the week had begun (on Wednesday evening) had been
entering upon the final episode of His whole life’s ‘Erniedrigung’ –
debasement, that eventually ended in His being “lifted up” on the cross of
shame – His _suffering_ of death … for us! That should answer your question,
“Was Jesus figuratively "in the heart of the earth" before Judas betrayed
him?” Luke says it so austerely in 22 from verse 19 further. The breaking of
the Last Supper’s bread for Jesus already had been the breaking of his body –
it for Him was the experiencing of his dying for us the death we should have
died. Just look at verse 22! Judas’ betraying Jesus was like a dagger through
his heart. Judas even the day before had sold Him out to the Jews. Of course
Jesus knew. Now intimately together at table He must have felt the pain more
acutely; and when Judas with a kiss betrayed his Master – what unthinkable
disappointment must it have been. Yet – and here is even greater mystery –
Judas was instrumental in God’s design – and Jesus willingly accepted God’s way
for him. What gave greater pain than even Judas caused, was Peter’s actions that
would _prevent_ Jesus from obeying God’s will for Him. The temptation not to
fulfil the Law was the sting from Satan. Jesus suffered more at the hand of the
Tempter than He suffered at the hand of Death itself. This was Jesus hour, yet
He says it is the hour of the betrayer. “This day, even this night”, Mark
14:30, and Jesus said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death”.
My
mother showed me this, but I for the best part of my life refused to accept.
What great loss had it been to my soul!
21/04/03
Dear
Philip,
You
wrote:
“… the primary issue is the "three days and
three nights" verse. Without that verse, I believe most people,
including me, would place the crucifixion on Friday.”
I answer:
This text is but one of many, and by far not the most
important why the Friday-crucifixion tradition must be suspected of gross
inconsistency. In fact, the fickleness of tradition is the basic reason behind
each and every manipulation of the Scriptures that pertains the dating of
Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. This is a serious matter; it is of such
importance to tradition that it defies the fear of God and sees fit to twist
His Word in order to protect its own fallacies. I have become convinced that
anti-christ is the guru behind the false readings of the Scriptures, especially
of the NT Scriptures that have to do with the issue. I have said this to many,
and now tell you the same – and invite you to show me wrong, please – that
there is no Scripture-text regarding the dating of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection
not falsified so that it would indicate His resurrection to have occurred on
Sunday, and His crucifixion to have occurred on Friday. It is meant to distract
the believer’s attention from the fact that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection
was the divine fulfilling – true and real fulfilling – of the eschatology of OT
prophecy, symbolism and Law.
Allow me to here refer you to but one such Scripture,
Dt.21:22-23 (Par. 5.2.1.4, from p. 106 of Part Two. You will notice there how I
argued on this text that it was irrelevant to the situation of Jesus’
crucifixion. Now these arguments or at least some of them may still stand, but
have become rather pointless when I after almost three decades only, discovered
the true meaning of the text – which is exactly the opposite of what you will
read in translations. I never could apply any prophetic significance to this
text – until I saw that it is exactly its prophetic merit misapplied to justify
a Friday-crucifixion. So please refer from this Paragraph to the Appendix to it
on p. 259 of the same book.
Tradition (Roman Catholic Tradition) has always used
Dt.21:22-23 to ‘prove’ Jesus was buried the same day on which He was crucified.
He allegedly had to be buried before sunset because this text would have said
anyone killed on the pole should be taken off before sunset and be buried
before sunset. This has been the text, which the Roman Church has used to align
the (Jewish) Passover to the heathen Easter – to fasten the day of Jesus’
crucifixion and death to the heathen Friday Easter Feast. But you will notice
in the Appendix that this text says the opposite of what RC tradition says. It
says namely that any dead person – any already killed person – should after his
killing, be hung on a pole (or ‘tree’) “before night” or “before sunset”. He
_then_, _afterwards_, should not be allowed to stay on the tree any longer than
_that night_, but should, before night ends with “sun” or “sunrise”, or
“light”, be taken off, in order to be buried the same, “following day” (like in
the Greek ‘epaurion’). See it explained in the Appendix there. Now this text
obtains its rightful prophetic meaning! Now it gets eschatological meaning –
pertaining to Christ. God be the honour and the majesty of such richness of His
Word! And woe and shame on any who without fear of Him go their own way with
His Word! If such person be me, then woe unto me, or God be merciful upon a
sinner such as me!
30/04/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet@sdanet.org
Re: Women at the grave
In answer to Tim Veach April 22,
If I had a million dollars,
I would have offered it as prize for anyone who could show from the Gospels
that the mother of Jesus visited the grave on Sunday morning,
Or, that she was present at the grave when Jesus was buried,
Or, that she was present when Jesus died on the cross.
If I had ten million dollars, I would have offered it as prize for
anyone who could show from the Gospels' Greek text Jesus' "early Sunday
morning resurrection".
I will, in all seriousness and with no "if's" but had I the
destiny of my soul in my own hands, give it for eternal damnation in hell if I
lied, that the Bible does not teach or show any of these claims, but says in
express words, that John "took Mary to his home" (<lambanoh>
"to (lead by) hand/ling" and "chez lui" in French the
equivalent of <eis ta idia>) before Jesus died, and that she is
never heard of again in the Gospels, and never again in Christian
worship except in the Mary worship of Roman Catholic idolatry.
01/05/03
From:
Gerhard Ebersoehn
Re: Easter
To: Sdanet
Answering Beryl Carpenter who wrote,
<<While the date for Christmas is wrong, the date for Easter fits in with
=
the Jewish calendar for the celebration of the Passover,
which occured =
at the time of Christ's death. Therefore it is very
appropriate for us
=
to spend time at Easter celebrating what Christ did for us
all those =
years ago.>>
Easter does not fit in with the Jewish or Biblical calendar for the
celebration of the Passover, but with the Roman Catholic wangling of the
original Christian feast to fit in with the idolatrous "Easter" of
that
power. Till today the Greek Orthodox Church celebrates Passover to the
so-called quarto-decimal dating 'with the Jews'.
I won't be surprised if Sdanet won't place this post of mine, because it
seems every time I write about that anti-Christ the Roman Church my posts
are rejected.
02/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersöhn
Re: "Evangelical" and "Reformed"
In answer to: John Rayner, Sdaily 01.05.03,
Who wrote:
<< Does the
Bible teach (using this meaning of 'aquittal") that we were universally
acquitted at the cross? Reformed theology would say no. I think that
evangelicals would also say no with this narrow definition of the word.
>>
Please note that 'Reformed' or 'Reformation theology' first
obtained the designation 'Evangelical theology' – long before the modern
application for any theological discipline other than the 'Reformed' or the
'Catholic'. Yes, even 'Catholic theology' claims to be 'Evangelical' for quite
some time now – I would say for about a century long already. The depicting of
a 'theology' to be 'Evangelical' has become quite pointless.
Then, as a
Calvinist – of fanatical proportion – allow me to advise for better
acquaintance than through myself with 'Reformed theology', the works of the
Puritans, especially the works of John Owen. Actually I should not make
distinction because men like John Flavel or John Bunyon all put the doctrine of
free Grace forward equally augustly. ('Free Grace' over against 'Universalism'
can only mean Divine Election over against human election or decision.) Then
what about Calvin, of course, and 'the last of the Puritans', Charles Spurgeon?
How much poorer would 'Evangelical theology' have been without these humble
giants of Biblical Truth!
02/05/03
Dear Moderator,
Please correct my spelling of John Bunyan' name!
Thanks a million,
Gerhard Ebersoehn
04/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
Subject: Easter –
In response to: Tony Zedbaraschuk
who came to the net, saying:
<< Quartodeciman, the custom of celebrating Easter on the
14th of Nisan. >>
I wrote, “quarto-decimal _dating_”.
Tony further wrote:
<< strictly speaking Easter (the celebration of the
Resurrection) >>.
Strictly speaking, Easter is the pagan celebration of the re-birth
of the sun-god and of anything but Christ’s resurrection.
And Passover, according to Dt.5, is the celebration of the Exodus
– for _Christians_ the celebration of the _Sabbath Day_, on the grounds of
Christ’s resurrection – “our Passover” – and of His salvation and new life!
Tony further wrote:
<<the custom of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan.
This appears to have been the custom from a very early time in
Passover on Nisan 14 appears to have been the _universal_ and
yearly Christian custom from Apostolic times and as widely accepted as in
Here in
Our ‘Christian’ celebration of ‘Easter’ therefore not in the
least is truly Christian, but in every particular spells the idolatrous
creation of the RCC.
Tony also wrote:
<<the Orthodox and the Catholic Easter do not always
coincide, but in neither case do they celebrate on Nisan 14 except by
accident.)>>
Apollinarus Bishop of
The Friday of Jesus’ burial having been Nisan 15, Apollinarus
reveals the (wrong) reasons why we nowadays ‘celebrate’ both Jesus’ crucifixion
and burial on Friday:
1, The Scriptures are disobeyed;
2, The 2 days are made one by moving 14 Nisan into 15 Nisan, so
that,
3, “the third day according to the scriptures” are pushed one day
ahead, from Sabbath 16 Nisan day of First Sheaf Wave Offering, to Sunday.
Thereby the very religious “Holy Saturday”, or, “Still Saturday” is being
created for every unlawful and abominable subtlety of Roman Catholic apostacy.
07/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet
Subject: Re: Easter
The Word of Tony Zdbaraschuk came to the Net, Sun, 4 May
2003, saying:
<Is it too much
to ask that you spell my name accurately?>
Sincerest apologies, Tony. (You know I don't even know how
to address you: Sir, Pastor, Dr, ...? I'm sorry, in any case. I'm a plumber, so
"you" will do to address me. There are people who even call me
"brother" – "brother in Jesus Christ" – how undeserved: me,
saddest of sinners!)
< Quartodeciman,
the custom of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. >
I did not refer to 'the custom', but to the method of dating
the 'Quartodeciman custom'. But what do I _care_ about the grammarians – they
don't care about what the Bible says, so why should I?
<Strictly,
strictly speaking, it's the name a bunch of Anglo-Saxons came up with for the celebration of Christ's
resurrection when told about it by the
missionaries who converted them.>
I'm no etymologist or philologist or whatever, and I cannot
make of what you're at here. Again I could not be concerned too much. I just
know "Easter" is, 1, not a word or concept one finds in the Bible
except perhaps in connection with the "east", 2, that sometimes
undeniably within that relation, in the Bible connotes or implies Sun-worship;
3, has a history of Roman Catholic religious intimidation – like Peter, holding
the keys to heaven, holds the keys to perdition. (
<Why should
I _care_ what some pagans called something?
Words mean what the speaker
intends and the listener hears -- and when I speak about Easter, I mean the resurrection of
Christ.>
These were not pagans. This was anti-Christ in the Name of
Peter in Jesus' stead, calling pagan things Christian. This wasn't merely
'calling' things pagan, but making them pagan – making the worship of the true
God the worship of idols and of anti-Christ. I would care a lot if I were you.
Besides, you obviously prefer that school of thought for the translation of the
Bible – I cannot think of the academic name for it now – but here in South
Africa Nida was its promulgator in the seventies it was I think. Can you
perhaps help refresh my memory? But that school exactly teaches what you here
profess, that <Words mean what the speaker intends and the listener
hears>. Well, I don't hold the opinion and believe it is the recipe for the
perversion of the Bible.
<I'm pretty sure none of that (... Passover, according to
Dt.5, is the celebration of the Exodus – for _Christians_ the celebration of
the _Sabbath Day_, on the grounds of Christ's resurrection – "our
Passover" – and of His salvation and new life ...) is in Deut. 5.>
Quote, "The LORD covenanted with us in Horeb. The LORD made
not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, yes, us, who are all of us
here alive this day." (That is you and me, Tony, Christians!) Yahweh
talked to YOU face to face." (That is, He talked to YOU in and through
Jesus Christ, Tony!) Moses there, speaking as a type of Christ "the One
Mediator between men and God", says, "I stood between the LORD and
you at that time, to show you the Word of the LORD". So this comes as
Jesus Christ saying: "I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the
But I am utterly
surprised, Tony, brother in Jesus Christ, that I have to remind you of this,
seeing you are a Sabbatharian? My Calvinist brethren and hero's who are
Sunday-keepers even believe this – and teach this, but you assert,
<I'm pretty sure
none of that is in Deut. 5>!
I must close now, but will present the evidences you have
asked for, DV, on a next occasion.
07/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet
Subject: Re: Easter, continued
The Word of Tony Zdbaraschuk came to the Net, Sun, 4 May
2003
<We might
note that on the weekend in question, the disciples spent Saturday mourning,
not celebrating.>
Sure we don't. They were unbelieving and bewildered,
"scattered sheep". Only when having received the Promise of the Holy
Spirit on Sabbath of Pentecost, could they perceive things in the light of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus.
Said you
<I'm
going to have to ask you to produce your evidence here>,
concerning my saying, "Passover on Nisan 14 appears to have
been the _universal_ and yearly Christian custom from Apostolic times and as
widely accepted as in
First evidence is Paul of Tarsus. Source: The New Testament
Scriptures of the Christian Faith. Then I have in my last post referred to the
Synod of Whitby in 664 AD. About later times, I many years ago read in a SDA
book of someone else, "Bybellesings vir die Huisgesin" (it should
have been something like "Bible Studies for the Family" in English)
about a certain Irish queen who would not budge for the English king who would
have her renounce Sabbath-keeping and the Quartodeciman way of celebrating
'Easter'. That was somewhere in the thirteenth century if I remember correctly.
You would be in a better position to unearth that book. I would very much
appreciate if I could find that information again. It is there, I assure you.
But that information regardless, this very day some Scots and Irish observe
"wee Sabbath" alongside Sunday the "Sabbath". Again, I
haven't got the documents to prove it. My brother, who is a SDA, travelled
there, and can tell you. In any case I have never been challenged to produce
this 'evidence' that I'm sure can be found in archives and on many shelves of
libraries unreachable to me.
"The Britons preserved the faith which they had received,
inviolate and entire, in peace and quiet, until the time of the Emperor
Diocletian." (Bede)
"Wilfred replied, ... Anatolius ... followed a correct rule
in celebrating Easter ("Easter", translated from the Latin
"pascha"!) ... which you are either unaware of, or, if you do know of
it, you despise it, even though it is observed by the whole
07/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet
Subject: Easter
Answering Tony, continued:
To continue with Bede and Wilfred who, speaking for
Anatolius, had "Yahweh's Passover", "pascha
What followed – Wilfred referring to Columba ("So far as your
father Columba and his followers are concerned ...") – indicates there was
a difference between _this, Celtic_, observance of "Yahweh's
Passover", and _another, Celtic_, observance of "Yahweh's
Passover". The issue did not concern a difference between the Celts' and
the RCC's way of keeping "Easter".
The other, Celtic, observance of "Yahweh's Passover",
Colman had explained (Bede recording on p. 305 the paragraph above quoted
preceding),
"Colman replied (Wilfred), "Did Anatolius, a man who was
holy and highly spoken of in the history of the Church to which you appeal (the
RCC), judge contrary to the law and the Gospel, when he wrote that Easter
should be celebrated between the fourteenth and the twentieth day of the moon?
(Latin: "... qui a quarta decima usque ad uicesimam pascha
celebrandum scripsit" ... "quarta decima" ---
"quortodeciman" ...")
Or must we believe that our most reverend father Columba and his
successors, men beloved of God, who celebrated Pascha IN THE SAME WAY, judged
and acted contrary to the holy Scriptures? ... I shall never cease to follow
their way of life, their customs, and their teaching".
Wilfred the shrewd RC capatalised on Colman the Celt's naïve
trust in the uniformity of Celtic Christianity, by showing him how divided in
opinion his forerunners actually were.
Whichever way the Celts might have reckoned their Pascha, it
'floated' through the week, and was not the RC "Easter": always on
Friday and Sunday! The Faith of "a handful of people in one corner of the
remotest of islands is to be preferred to the universal
18/05/03
Dear
fellow believer in Jesus Christ,
Your web-page referring, "Know your Bible Tracts, The Sabbath Day and the
First Day of the Week",
to which I would like to offer the following comment:
I agree with what you say up to your "Summary, What have we found?"
There is no difference today. God elected only
believe in Jesus God's Christ you are of his
given His Israel, God has given you – privileges as well as duties. How
long, God asks, will you be in doubt? If God is God, then worship Him; if
Baal, then worship him! God gave his
Him. That is all there is about the Seventh Day Sabbath in the Old as well
as in the New Testament – Hb.4:9; and the only reason God gives there twice,
is: "If Jesus gave them rest" – which He did; and, "For He Who
has entered
into His Rest as God rests from His own works" – which speaks of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead! Now seeing "God thus
concerning
the Seventh Day spoke" – and "in the Son" "in these last
days" did speak -
stop argueing with God and just enjoy your Christian liberties He for you
thus obtained.
See the Body that is Christ's – Col.2:17 – and see it as there Paul portrays
it, as in Jesus Christ perfected, and free and sovereign on the grounds God
in raising Christ from the dead vanquished all dominion and principalities
that oppose His, verse 12 and 15 – and see her, God's Israel, growing with
the increase of God (verse 18), her Sabbaths celebrating, her monthly
Suppers of the Lord enjoying! "Let no one judge you"! You are Christ's;
your
Sabbaths are the Lord's!
Jesus did NOT rise from the dead on the First Day of the week – it is the
false prophet who so corrupts God's Word for you to understand. Jesus rose
from the dead "in Sabbath's fulness day having turned toward the First Day
..." (Mt.28:1) "in accordance with the Scriptures" of Prophecy,
of Promise
and of God's eternal Covenant of grace!
18/05/03
From Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet
Re: Easter
Subject: Tony
Dear Tony,
I am in error having tried to indicate something that
might suggest Easter in the Bible. Maybe the goddess Diana and Astartes have
something in common – queens of fertility or something. Outside my field of
interest!
Then of course I also made a blunder saying the break
between east and west Church occurred in the thirteenth century. You gave the
right date, 1054. In the thirteenth century that queen and king crisis
concerning the Sabbath it was?
Nevertheless – Easter to me as a Calvinist remains
the idolatrous practice of
I did give you the 'proof' from Bede on other
aspects. What was there else again?
I'm sorry I lost the last few Sdailys in which you
answered me. Please send them again?
18/05/03
----- Original Message -----
From: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
To: <joel.wms@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Sunday / Sabbath
> Dear fellow believer in Jesus Christ,
> Your web-page referring, "Know your Bible Tracts, The Sabbath Day and
the
> First Day of the Week",
> to which I would like to offer the following comment:
> I agree with what you say up to your "Summary, What have we
found?"
> There is no difference today. God elected only
only
>
> believe in Jesus God's Christ you are of his
> given His Israel, God has given you – privileges as well as duties. How
> long, God asks, will you be in doubt? If God is God, then worship Him; if
> Baal, then worship him! God gave his
> Him. That is all there is about the Seventh Day Sabbath in the Old as well
> as in the New Testament – Hb.4:9; and the only reason God gives there
twice,
> is: "If Jesus gave them rest" – which He did; and, "For He
Who has entered
> into His Rest as God rests from His own works" – which speaks of the
> resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead! Now seeing "God thus
concerning
> the Seventh Day spoke" – and "in the Son" "in these
last days" did speak -
> stop argueing with God and just enjoy your Christian liberties He for you
> thus obtained.
> See the Body that is Christ's – Col.2:17 – and see it as there Paul
portrays
> it, as in Jesus Christ perfected, and free and sovereign on the grounds
God
> in raising Christ from the dead vanquished all dominion and principalities
> that oppose His, verse 12 and 15 – and see her, God's Israel, growing with
> the increase of God (verse 18), her Sabbaths celebrating, her monthly
> Suppers of the Lord enjoying! "Let no one judge you"! You are
Christ's; your Sabbaths are the Lord's!
> Jesus rose from the dead NOT on the First Day of the week – it is the
> false prophet who so corrupts God's Word for you to understand. Jesus rose
from the dead "in Sabbath's fulness day having turned toward the First Day
> ..." (Mt.28:1) "in accordance with the Scriptures" of
Prophecy, of Promise
> and of God's eternal Covenant of grace!
23/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Tony Zdbaraschuk
Re: Easter
Dear Tony,
The quotes I gave you from Bede were from Bede, left
hand Latin, right hand English.
Then, here's that other matter you advised me to ask
the Greek Orthodox about – they provided this invitation for this year's
Easter, and you may check up the webpage yourself, word for word:
"Welcome to the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the
Ascension. Palm Sunday April 20, Holy Thursday – Crucifixion April 24, Holy
Friday – Taking Down, Burial April 25, Holy Resurrection – Pascha April 27
www.ascensioncathedral.org. Note
that Resurrection was celebrated on Sunday – fourth day – which is not the
Biblical Passover day, "the third day"!
Please note that I shall not use my Hotmail e-mail
address any longer.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
24/05/03
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: Sdanet
Re: RCC worship
Answering: Tony Zbaraschuk who came to the net, saying,
<<I am curious.
<<How do you distinguish between cases where
<<and cases where
<<so does Pope John Paul II.
<<You believe that Christ died and was resurrected;
<<so does the Pope.
<<Surely you're not going to give up on those beliefs,
<<which are rather strongly supported by the Bible
<<(not to mention the commentaries of John Calvin),
<<just because the Bishop of Rome happens to believe
them.
<<If you define someone else as ultimately evil and
always wrong,
<<you run the risk of letting them determine your
theology --
<<"if they're for it, I must be against it"
<<regardless of where the truth of the matter actually
lies.>>
Dear Tony, I say,
The truth is not the truth if not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Pope also believe and proclaim <the
Sabbath> (E.g., refer the Pope's Letter 'Dies Domini'.) You know as well as
I do they don't believe the Sabbath that is <<rather strongly supported
by
the Bible>> but a false 'Sabbath'.
Just so, <<you believe in one God; so does Pope John Paul II>>. The
RCC
neither believe nor worship the Tri-Une God but Mary, saints,
crucifixes – whatever abominations greatest of which the Pontive himself.
In no respect <<regardless of where the truth of the
matter actually
lies>> do I or Calvinists <<believe that Christ died and was
resurrected>>
like <<the Pope>> believes it – who actually knows where the
truth of the
matter actually lies in order that he may actually fight and pervert it. The
RCC and the Pope make Mary their intercessor – not Christ etc.etc. So how
can a Protestant and a Roman Catholic both and in the same way <<believe
that Christ died and was resurrected>>?
All above applies to Easter, and more, because I or
Calvinists don't believe Easter. The Hervormde Kerk here in
25/05/03
Dear Tony,
I told you at first I don't know how the GOC
correlate their observance of 'Easter' with the Council of Nicea – or for
that matter with the quarto-deciman (spelling?) issue. Of significance is the
fact Jesus' crucifixion and interment weren't on the same day – which
makes the OT Passsover "according to the Scriptures" make sense in
the instance of Jesus' fulfilling of it – which also brings everything in
line with the resurrection as KJV says, "In the end _of the
Sabbath_", and, "in the afternoon" of it, as common sense would
dictate and in fact the meaning of the word <epifohskousehi> demands. So
the basis of the Sabbath's Christian observance – the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead – is correct; it only is the application to Sunday
which is wrong and the fabrication of the Roman Church. It requires disrespect
for the written Word as is clear from Justin.
06/06/03
----- Original Message
-----
From: Roelof Upperman
To: biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:59
AM
Subject: Reply 2 on Bacchiocchi
article
Dear mr. Ebersoehn,
Thank you for
sharing with me (and others) on the agp-forum some of
your thoughts about Bacchiocchi. I wrote a reply on the forum for you to
read.
Investigating the texts you
mentioned, I'm now more inclined to believe you differ with Bacchiocchi on his
interpretation of the Greek 'opse'.
If so, I invite you to let
me know the arguments you and Bacchiocchi use. I've not his book on
crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
I'm still convinced Christ
was three literal days in the grave (even exactly 72 hours). 'Three days and nights' in my opinion fit in no
way in a period of 36 hours, whether I read with Hebrew or Greek or
Dutch eyes!
Mark 16:9 is the only New
Testament text I know that seams to mention Christ rose not on a sabbath,
but on a first day of the week.
Other texts only mention an
empty tomb.
Linguistically Mark 16:9
can also lead to the conclusion Christ rose on a sabbath, and as such was risen on the first day of the
week.
Apart from that Mark 6:9 is
part of a pericope in brackets and could therefore reflect a later tradition,
which placed the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week,
whereas it might have taken place on a sabbath in reality.
It has become rather nocturnal, so this is it for now.
Wishing you all the best.
Roelof Upperman.
09/06/03
Beste Roelof,
U sal 'n paragraaf vind in LDCG oor die Sabbat en die
wet. Ek het dit lankal verby gegaan en dit le onbegind in die middel van die
boek. Want soos wat ek gevorder het het dit duidelik geword dat 'n direkte
beskouing oor die verhouding Wet / Sabbat, onbeduidend is ten opsigte van
die groot geheel. Die hele Skrif is die Wet, het dit vir my duidelik geword.
Maar veral is die Wet vir die gelowige, Christus Jesus self!
Vir 'n opsomming van die Wette van die OT, vergelyk
bls. 200 van die eerste boek. Soos alle offerandes in Jesus Christus vervul en
vervuld is, so het ook alle feeste en datums in die Sabbatdag in vervulling en
in vervuldheid gegaan. Daarom se die Hebreerbrief, "bly daar 'n
onderhouding van die sabbatdag geld vir die Volk van God". Vier die
Christen die Wet, en alle Wette, dan vier hy die Here se velossing, en vier hy
die Sabbatdag DAAROM, dan vier hy alle OT feeste en feestelikhede!
Dit is maar net vinnig 'n gedagtetjie.
Christelike groete
Gerhard
NS: Ek gee in elk geval die kompakskyfies verniet
weg, so, een vir jou sal geen verskil maak nie behalwe dat dit vir jou soveel
makliker sal wees. Ek is nie 'n predikant of iets nie – ek is 'n ambagsman en
is nie van my skryfwerk afhanklik nie. Ek
16/06/03
Beste Roelof,
Wat sal u verkies: Engels of Afrikaans? Ek sal ook
graag verder met u oor geloofsake wil gesels .
U wonder of u my boek moet aanskaf: Ek voorsien dit
teen geen kostes per pos op 'n kompakskyfie soos gese – dit lyk soos 'n
visietekaartjie. Die volume (al nege boeke) is tien MB groot. Paragraaf
7.7.2 – boekdeel 3-5-2, is maar pas mee begin – dit gaan oor die Sabbat as
Kosmies-Eskatologiese Teken van die Kerk. Hierdie paragraaf le in die middel
van die boek, maar bevat die hoogtepunt daarvan, sal ek maar se. Dit is in elk
geval die meeste teologies-gekonsentreerd. Ek het dit in Afrikaans begin – tans
omtrent 70 bladsye – maar ek dink daaraan om in Engels aan te gaan. Daar is nog
'n paragraaf wat nie begin is nie – die een oor die Wet. Ek het gevind dat die
Wet deurgaans aandag geniet het en beswaarlik nog op eie voete aandag verdien.
Ek wil egter nog die Wet uit eskatologiese oogpunt behandel. Die
Skepping-Sabbat het reeds eskatologies onder oe gekom toe ek Juergen
Moltmann behandel het – boekdeel 3.5.1 of Par. 7.7.2.1.
As u u Universiteit se posadres en teologiese
bibliotekaris se naam
By my is die teologie 'n groot liefde – ek is net
maar 'n Bybelstudent – geen geleerde. My ouers het my so grootgemaak.
Omdat my hartsoortuiging Gereformeerd is – Calvinisties – maar ek 'n groot
probleem met Sondag-waarneming het, is ek baie geisoleerd. Ek is van slegs
'n paar eenders-denkende Christene in Suid-Afrika bewus, en ons bly ver
van mekaar af. Tans is ek besig om met die Afrikaanse Baptisite Kerk nader
kennis te maak. Hulle Seminarium is in my tuisdorp, en so ver vind ons mekaar
nogal goed.
My eie Sabbatviering is gegrond op sterk en
Evangeliese oortuiging, maar laat prakties veel te wense oor. Ek vind ek doen
nie wat ek preek nie. Daarom sal ek ook graag die Sabbat intenser wil vier –
waarmee Kerk-gaan natuurlik nouste verband hou! Maar ek moet ongelukkig se ek
vind dit eenvoudig onmoontlik om saam met die SDA's te aanbid – hulle
'evangelie' en die een wat ek lief het, lyk nie of hulle dieselfde kan wees
nie.
(Dit laat my dink aan die agp-forum : U sal sien dat
hulle my korrespondensie met u verwyder het. So, as u verder met my wil gesels,
doen dit asseblief maar direk na my e-pos adres, of direk in die Forum van my
web-werf, http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
13/09/03
Dear Professor Bacchiocchi,
Because in your last e-mail to me you wrote you can only share
with me what is biblically tenable, I take the liberty of once more writing to
you, praying for your favourable consideration.
Herewith an exert from 'The History of the Sabbath and the First
Day of the Week' by J.N. Andrews:
"... That the body of the reformers should have failed to
recognize the authority of the fourth commandment, and that they did not turn
men from the Romish festivals to the Sabbath of the Lord, is a matter of regret
rather than of surprise. The impropriety of making them the standard of divine
truth is forcibly set forth in the following language:
"Luther and Calvin reformed many abuses, especially in the
discipline of the church, and also some gross corruptions in doctrine; but they
left other things of far greater moment just as they found them. . . . It was
great merit in them to go as far as they did, and it is not they but we who are
to blame if their authority induce us to go no further. We should rather
imitate them in the boldness and spirit with which they called in question and
rectified so many long-established errors; and availing ourselves of their
labors, make further progress than they were able to do. Little reason have we
to allege their name, authority, and example, when they did a great deal and we
do nothing at all. In this we are not imitating them, but those who opposed and
counteracted them, willing to keep things as they were."39 ""
(Note ."39 " is a reference to "Dr Priestly, as quoted in Cox's
"Sabbath Laws", p. 260"
In the same vein I would have liked to quote Mrs. Ellen G. White
on the Sabbath-truth, but unfortunately I am not in possession of her books. I
do recall that she did write something like the SDA-Church – and
Christianity in general I assume – still had to receive a lot of 'light' on the
Sabbath. Now I shall speak as were I a Seventh Day Adventist, and also as were
I speaking on your behalf, and say, Little reason have we to allege her name,
authority, and example, when she did a great deal and we do nothing at all. In this
we are not imitating her, but those who opposed and counteracted the
Sabbath-truth, willing to keep things as they were. Most important of all the
things we are willing to keep as they were or still are, is the 'translation'
of the Scriptures that have bearing on the Sabbath / Sunday issue as though
they were "inspired" and God's own and absolute Word about the
matter. Second of things we are willing
to keep as they were or still are, and which perhaps are of greater importance,
is that the basic reason, motive, foundation and essence of all Sabbath-truth
is the Law and nothing else besides, before or in stead of it. And parallel
with this is, that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead supplies the
basic reason, motive, foundation and essence of all SUNDAY-pretence and IN NO
WAY ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH!
21/09/3
Dear Mr. Cronin,
I have read your open letter to Prof. S. Bacchiocchi.
I would like to know how he reacted to it – if at all! My experience is that
the professor has one answer only to critique – rudeness!
I wrote a lot in response to his writings in 'The
Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'. You can offload the nine books – free of
charge – from www.biblestudents.co.za.
I agree on a lot with you. I believe though a
Thursday crucifixion – Sabbath resurrection. And I do hold to the "three
days and three nights" for real. I shall send you an overview of your
letter DV soon. Now just one thing: It is not true "Jesus declared the
"three days and three nights" so OFTEN ...". The expression
appears only once in Mt12:40 as you know. "The importance of it could not
be ignored" exactly for its exceptional use!
In any case, bravo for your confronting the stubborn
idiocy of the traditional interpretation of the Passover of our Lord and of the
translations of the relevant Scriptures. Here's the real trouble with
Bacchiocchi – he is committed to the traditional TRANSLATIONS and ows it to the
Pope to be the defender of his perversions.
I'm sending a copy of this letter to the professor.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
23/09/3
How could you be so hypocritical as in your answer to
the question whether the Christian should have a day of worship? 365 days per
year hallowed by men are 365 desecrated before the God that assigns to each day
its own worthiness. You despise the Scriptures and certain Scriptures you
without respect to the Giver of it completely distort – making of it the voice
of anti-christ.
I want to have nothing to do with you. I pray God
could stop your mouth so full of lies.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
28/9/03
Dear Profesor Bacciocchi,
I am gratefull for your patient reply to my last
correspondence re Cronin. You cannot know how much your reply affected me
– both in having made me conscious of my own impatience and unchristian
bahaviour, and in having brought about a sweet hope that the Bible-truth about
the day of Jesus' resurrection may gain some ground among sincere Christians.
Once again I beg forgiveness for my rudeness and lack of love and sympathy. One
cannot commit greater sin but all being of God's infinite grace in Jesus
Christ, we may continue on our quest.
As to point '1' of your letter of Sabbath 27
September 2003, 'The duration of the entombment':
This of course is one of the many and great flaws in
the 'Armstrong'-view, that it insists on an ENTOMBMENT for 72 hours, while
Jesus' DYING AND DEATH actually were for "three days and three
nights'". There is no way the Friday crucifixion Sunday resurrection
tradition can account for this word of Jesus about his being "in the heart
of the earth" – that is, being in the state of dying and death – let us be
honest.
I believe Jesus entered his proceeding through the
agony of the wages for sin (i.e., started to taste death and to undergo
hell) at the table of the Last Supper (the evening of the 'first day' of
Passover Season) and Gethsemane (the night of the 'first day' of Passover
Season), and that He was crucified and died THAT SAME DAY "between the
pair of nights" (dual: behn ha arbayim). So we have one of the three
nights and one of the three days comprising the 'first day' – both in the sense
of the night and day making up the 'first day', and of the moment (part)
representing the whole: Jesus' dying 'marking' / 'signing' the 'first
day'. 1Cor.15:3, "How that Christ DIED for our sins ACCORDING TOT THE
SCRIPTURES".
As concerns the second day of Passover Season, I
quote you, point 'VI. Chronology of passion weekend':
"... The days of the Crucifixion, entombment,
and Resurrection are given in clear sequence and with considerable clarity in
the Gospels ....". For the time being, forget about which days of the week
these were, and just pay attention to these concepts: "The days ... are
given ... in clear sequence ...". Tell this a heathen who has never heard
the story of Jesus' passion – will he not understand that crucifixion,
entombment and resurrection EACH took up one day? How else? Then how else could
one undestand 1Cor.15:4 that continues, "... AND that He was BURIED (the
'second day of Passover Season "according to the Scriptures"), AND
that He ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY (of Passover Season) according to the
Scriptures"?
The Passover history in Exodus 12-16
"clearly" differentiates that the "remains" of the passover
lambs was to be returned to earth and dust (by burning) the day AFTER it had
been slain – the event and the day had its own sign-ificance – the event or
moment 'marked' / 'signed' the day – the part for the whole SECOND DAY! That
clarifies Mk.15:42 and Mt.27:57: Joseph "when it had been evening (after
sunset) already" only started his undertaking to obtain the body of Jesus
for burial (the next and 'second day'). Here the 'second day' of Passover
Season BEGAN – it ended not! This was the moment that corresponds with
John 19:31, 38 and Luke 23:50. This 'second day' began to END when Joseph
closed the tomb and the women "returned home and prepaired their
spices" – Friday, "the day before the Sabbath", or "The
Preparation (of the Sabbath)" ... in the Greek, for those Jewish readers
of Mark! The text in John that corresponds with this moment in time is 19:42,
and Luke's is 23:56.
Note how you wrote the Crucifixion and Resurrection
with capital letters, but the entombment with a small letter. It is only
natural and reflects tradition – but not the true Passover significance
attached to the 'second day' of the Passover Feast. The Scriptures in contrast,
makes of the 'second day' the Passover Sabbath Day. John says
a "Great Day that day was"! This day is worthy the whole of its
own duration. Night and day comprised the 'second day' of Passover Season – day
of burial ... "according to the Scriptures"! Like his DEATH AND DYING
Jesus' burial was part of his 'Erniedrigung' – of his suffering or passion –
his "going down" into "the heart of the earth" – symbolic
words for literal event. But the event consists not in interment as such only,
but in all of Jesus' FINAL SUFFERING.
Jesus could say "It is finished" for He had
fulfilled every prohetic, and last word of God – the last proleptically
included in that uttering from the cross. The "last enemy" conquered
in the death of Christ was death. But in the dispensations of God Almighty it
required "the third day according to the Scriptures", Day of First
Sheaf Wave Offering! Through the ages "the day after the Sabbath" of
Passover Season, floated through the week. But in the very day of God's
ultimate finishing of all His works it came to rest on the day of
His raising Christ from the dead, upon solid foundation once for all
on the Seventh Day "concerning which God thus spoke" –
Hb.4:4.
28/09/03
Dear Profesor Bacciocchi,
To continue,
(In my last post there were a few spelling mistakes and one of
word order. Here is the one of word order corrected: This 'second day' began to
END when Joseph closed the tomb and the women "returned home and prepared
their spices" – Friday, "The Preparation – paraskeueh – (of the
Sabbath)", or, "the day before the Sabbath" – prosabbaton – for
those Jewish readers of Mark who might not have known what "Paraskeueh"
means!)
We stopped last time, saying, "But in the very day of
God's ultimate finishing of all His works it – "the day AFTER the
(Passover) Sabbath" and Day of First Sheaf Wave Offering – came to rest on
the day of His raising Christ from the dead, upon solid foundation once for all
on the Seventh Day "concerning which God thus spoke" – Hb.4:4.
Matthew records the event, "In the late Sabbath's afternoon
...". (NOT: 'After the Sabbath, dawn of the First Day of the week'!) From
this moment on and forever more, Christians observe Christ’s Passover weekly on
the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD our Saviour God. It is no new thing, for
the same thing applied for
For justification of my phrasing "when it was noon", I
send you the Appendix from book 2, 'Resurrection',
Appendix to p. 76-78, Out of the Deep "In Afternoon"
In Part Four, ‘Paul’, I quoted Jonathan Edwards, p. 197f,
"The resurrection of Christ from the dead, is in Scripture
represented by his coming up out of deep waters. So it is in Christ's
resurrection, as represented by Jonah's coming out of the sea; Matt. xii. 40.
It is also compared to a deliverance out of deep waters, Psalm lxix, 1, 2, 3,
and verse 14, 15. These things are spoken of Christ, as is evident from this,
that many things in this Psalm are in the New Testament expressly applied to
Christ, (Compare verse 4 with John xv. 25. and ver. 9. with John ii. 17. and
ver.2 with Matt xxvii. 34, 48. and Mark xv. 23. and John xix. 29. and ver. 2
with Rom.xi.9, 10, and ver.25 with Acts 1:20.) – Therefore, as the Jewish
Sabbath was appointed on the day on which the pillar of cloud and fire rose out
of the Red sea, and on which Moses and the church, the mystical body of Christ,
came up out of the same sea, which is a type of the resurrection of Christ; it
is a great confirmation that the Christian Sabbath should be kept on the day of
the rising of the real body of Christ from the grave, which is the anti-type.
For surely the Scriptures have taught us, that the type should give way to the
anti-type, and that the shadow should give way to the substance."
Christ was that Substance, and the Sabbath pointed to Him that
Substance and awaited Him for the fulfilment of its substance – not the First
Day of the week or of its substance.
On p. 300f there, I have said,
Seeing it cannot be denied the day of the entering into God's Rest
is the Day of the Sabbath, one further objection must be considered. It is the
problem of the time of Jesus' entering into Rest through Resurrection from the
dead. As says Edwards, "... that the shadow should give way to the
substance."
First, let it be observed the moment creates the Day, not the day
the moment. We talk of "Resurrection Day", not of “Resurrection
Morning" or whatever portion of the day. The Event – Resurrection – makes
of it the Day-of-Resurrection. Thus Edwards also sees things. Says he,
"But the day that the children of
"This coming up of the children of
"It is a great confirmation that the Christian Sabbath should
be kept on the day of the rising of the real body of Christ from the grave,
which is the antitype. For surely the Scriptures have taught us, that the type
should give way to the antitype, and that the shadow should give way to the
substance."
I then asked:
Is there any necessity in the morning or the afternoon in this
scheme of things?
And I answered at that point in time:
Of course not; it necessitates the whole day! The event is much
greater than the moment or even the whole day belonging to the moment. We may
fairly conclude from this that Edwards makes no clear distinction between the
morning and the day of the Israelites' crossing of the
After several years I have had a closer look at these texts, and
now must answer differently on the question of what the word "morning"
in these texts mean.
I don't know Hebrew at all, but with the help of Young's
Analytical Concordance to the Bible, was able to make the following analysis of
some relevant words.
"13, And Moses said to the people, Fear not, stand still, and
see the salvation of the LORD, which He will show you today ... 21, And Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD caused the sea to go back by
a strong east wind all that night, and dried up the sea, and the waters were
divided. 22, And the children of
19, And the angel of God, which went before the camp of
23, and the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them ... 24, And
it happened that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the
Egyptians ... and troubled the host of the Egyptians – 25, they lost the wheels
of their chariots, and they moved with difficulty, so that the Egyptians said,
Let us run away of Israel, out of sight! For the LORD fought for
26, Then the LORD told Moses, Stretch out your hand over the sea
that the waters may close in over the Egyptians, over their chariots and over
their horsemen. 27, And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the
sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians
fought against the waters; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the middle
of the sea ... 28 ... There remained not so much as one of them, 29, but the
children of Israel walked on dry ground right through the middle of the sea –
to them the waters formed a wall on both sides.
30, Thus the LORD saved
"That night" / "all that night" the storm
raged! "That night" / "all that night", the LORD was
fighting for
I therefore have a problem with the KJV that says "when the
morning appeared" (27), "Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea,
and the sea returned to his strength" and everything was over, because
"when the morning appeared", is "dawn" before "all
that night" had passed.
"When the morning appeared" is from boqer pahnah. When
the "morning" – boqer, "appears" or 'rises', it 'faces'
west. But 'noon', it has "turned", pahnah, and now 'faces', east!
Ezekiel 43:17, "The stairs of the sanctuary "faced", or were
"turned", east" – pahnah.
In Ex.14:27, boqer pahnah doesn't mean "morning
appeared" or that it 'dawned', but that "the sun turned (and looked
east)" – "noon after".
In Jeremia 2:27 the Lord reprimands his people, blaming them that
"they have turned their back on Me" – "turned", pahnah. The
morning having turned its 'back' to its rising, is declining!
Jeremia 6:4 says it all: "Prepare ye war against her; arise, and
let us go up at noon (tsohar). Woe unto us! For the day (yom) goeth away, for
the shadows of the evening (ereb) are stretched out." Which word here is
from pahnah? – "goeth away"!
In Exodus 14:27 "morning appeared" not; it 'went away'!
What about Exodus 14:24 though? There it says "It came to
pass that in the morning watch", the LORD saw the Egyptians ... struggled
to get their chariots rolling. If this had been "dawn", then it
simply says by dawn all was not over yet – the battle still raged; the
"rest" had not been "entered" yet.
"In the morning watch" is from boqer ashmurah.
Lamentations 2:18-19, "Let tears run down like a river day
and night: give yourself no rest ... cry out in the night: In the beginning /
first – rosh, of watches – ashmurah (first watch after sunset), pour out thine
heart...".
Judges 7:19, "Gideon came ... outside the camp in the
beginning of the middle (tikon) watch – ashmurah, and they had but newly
changed guard." This is the second and deep night watch.
Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as
yesterday when it is past; and as a watch – ashmurah, in the night (layelah)
(when it is past)". The last or third watch of night – of dawn – is
supposed.
The Hebrew night watches were three; the Roman night watches were
four. The Hebrews' wathces of daytime, like the Romans', were two:
1 Samuel 11:11, "And it was so in the morning (boqer) that
Saul put the people in three companies. And they came into the midst of the
host in the morning (boqer) watch (ashmurah), and slew the Ammonites until the
heat (chom) of the day (yom) (= noon)" – the exact words of Ex.14:24!
The second or afternoon watch, after this, then lasted till
sunset.
So in Ex.14:27 we have boqer pahnah, and in verse 24, boqer
ashmurah. If the time were the same they would have been called the same; but
they are called differently and in fact were of different events.
God had told the Israelites to be quiet and wait for Him while
"all night" the wind would blow the seabed dry.
Boqer ashmurah in verse 24 started after the wind had blown
"all night" and lasted "during the morning watch" or first
watch of daytime. Now the children of
Now, after the LORD's battle, He ordered Moses so that the sea
should close in again. Boqer pahnah in verse 27 was when the LORD triumphed.
Boqer pahnah says "morning has turned" – it ended. All history has
turned about. This was the moment! Victory, and the song of Moses! The People
in broad daylight "saw that great work which the LORD did upon the
Egyptians" – verse 31. The People "have entered the rest" (in
the words of Hebrews); they stood on the soil of the Promised Land.
The Exodus story gives the precise and same time of day for the
moment of "Victory" that the Gospels give, epifohskousehi!
To remove a last obstacle to the better understanding of the
events of the Exodus and their times of day, return to chapter 14 and read the
text in its actual order, and not with verses 19 and 20 moved in between verses
22 and 23 as I did. With verses 19 and 20 between verses 22 and 23, I made the
time of day "which the pillar of cloud and fire" changed position
from in front of
Is there any necessity in the morning or the afternoon in this
scheme of things?
I at this point in time must answer:
Of course THERE IS; it necessitates the whole day – "THE
Sabbath of the LORD your God", so that "In the end of the Sabbath,
being light turned towards the First Day of the week ... there suddenly was a
great earthquake ...!"
I think one may
confidently view boqer pahnah as the nearest Hebrew equivalent of the Greek
tehi epifohskousehi – "in the after noon"; and boqer ashmurah as the
nearest Hebrew equivalent of the Greek (tehi) epaurion "(during) daylight
morning".
28/09/03
Dear
Professor,
Re
your post 22 September,
“...
The fact is that Jesus was crucified on PARSKENE, which is the technical term
for FRIDAY, or as Mark defines it, “THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH.” It is as
simple as this.”
So
you make it to look, dear brother in Jesus Christ; but it is far from that
simple. You see, Jesus in fact was “crucified on Paraskeueh” – Jn.19:14. But
John defines ‘his’ ‘Paraskeueh’, “the Preparation of the Passover”. Why would
he think it necessary to explain his use in this instance? Because the term
could be used in other contexts too!
There’s
no problem with ‘paraskeueh’ in Mk.15:42. There Mark indisputably defines it as
the “Prosabbaton” – “the Before-Sabbath” of course of the Seventh Day Sabbath.
Again, why would Mark find it necessary to define what he meant with the word
‘paraskeueh’? For the same reason John explained his: That the word could be
used for more than one day – in fact for any day or for any ‘preparation’.
So
‘paraskeueh’ is not that ‘technical’.
The
main cause of confusion in Mk.15:42 then, is that Mark’s day is confused for
John’s in 19:14. Had Mark meant the same day as John, he should have told from
verse 14 onwards – for here Mark’s ‘paraskeueh’ BEGINS – how Jesus was
crucified and died – not how Joseph began with his undertaking to have the
slaughtered Lamb buried.
It
is obvious Mark and John in the two texts under consideration, do not talk of
the same day. John from verse 31 onwards, and more specific with reference to
Joseph from verse 38 onwards, begins to speak of approximately the same
time-slot of daytime (or rather of night-time) as does Mark in 15:42. If then
Mark speaks of Friday the day on which Jesus was buried – and there’s no doubt
it’s the case – then John in 19:14 must be speaking of the day before – of
Thursday – of the day on which Jesus had been crucified.
And
I haven’t even made use of “the three days and three nights” to show it.
Allow
me to say, that the antichrist will not mind any secondary or less important
aspects of his Sunday-worship be exposed for the fraud it is, as long as the
fundamentals of it is not removed from under it. The antichrist very well knows
the Law has lost its power for Christianity so that defence of Sabbath-worship
by means of the Law are wasted effort, however noble in the sight of God! Oh
yes, the Jews still are a thorn in the flesh of the antichrist, but he has
managed to deal with that irritation. What he fears, is the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, and the power of his resurrection whereby Jesus was declared the Son of
God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness. The Gospel will mean the
antichrist will lose the power and the honour and his vile spirit will be
exposed false and his representation of God on earth a deception of mankind who
followed after him in wonderment in Sunday-worship.
So
this arch-deceiver very successfully stole the true Christian reason for the
Sabbath’s keeping – the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead “in
Sabbath’s-time” – for the “Lord Sun’s Day” and as a right to “change times and
law” in the face of the Almighty. I pray the day come that the Pope learn his
underhandedness has been discovered! And that Protestantism see it.
And
God for his finished and great works by Jesus Christ be honoured! The prize
might be your life and mine – not medallions or millions. (Phil.3:8)
28/09/3
Professor Bacchiocchi,
You wrote to me (extract from letter 22 September),
"... Mark, then, is most precise in explaining
that the Crucifixion took place on what today we call "Friday. " The
next day is designated by Mark as "sabbath" (Mark 16:1) which in turn
is followed by the "first day of the week" (Mark16:2). Mark's
chronological sequence leaves absolutely no room for a two-day interval between
Crucifixion and Resurrection ...".
I would in the first place like to stress my
agreement on your last observation: "Mark's chronological sequence leaves
absolutely no room for a two-day interval between Crucifixion and
Resurrection". It is impossible because it would have meant that the
Crucifixion was on the Passover Sabbath – the proponents of this view with
reference to Mk.16:1 say the women bought the spices after this supposed
'sabbath' – clearly nonsense.
But I would like to more emphatically stress my
disagreement with your observation, "Mark, then, is most precise in
explaining that the Crucifixion took place on what today we call
"Friday".
I dare you show me how Mark does that – the Greek
text please, not the Popes translators' falsification of it! Mark, like the
other three Gospels, is most precise in explaining that the Crucifixion took
place on " the first day of unleavening – adzumos – when always they
killed – Imperfect – the passover" – 14:12. John calls this day "the
Preparation of the Passove" – 19:14.
What happened during the course of this day? "In
the evening He (Jesus) came with the twelve" to eat the Last Supper –
14:17; He was "offended this night" – 14:27; He "this day, even
this night, "before the cock crow twice", was "denied"
– 14:31; "the hour is come, behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the
hands of sinners" – 14:41; "and they (the disciples all forsook
Him" – 14:50; "and they (the mob) led Jesus away to the high
priest" – 14:53; "and straightway in the morning the chief priests
held a consultation ... and they delivered Him to Pilate" – 15:1;
"and Pilate, eager to content the people, delivered Jesus ... to be
crucified" – 15:15; "and when they had crucified Him ... it was the
third hour (9am)" – 15:24-25; "AND THE SCRIPTURES WAS FULFILLED"
– 15:28 ("between the pair of nights" – behn ha arbayim the Lamb had
to be slain!); "And when the sixth hour (noon) was come, there was
darkness until the ninth hour (3 pm) – 15:33; "and on the ninth
hour ... Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the spirit" –
15:34, 37. Mark says nothing of what further happened THAT DAY. Luke says
"everybody left / returned (home)". Matthew tells of the earthquake,
and the after-effect of both the darkness and the earthquake caused everybody
to be pre-occupied with their own affairs for the rest of that day while Jesus
hung on the cross forelorn, dead.
Now starts the new and immediately following day:
"And now when the even was come and because this day was the Fore-Sabbath
(Friday) the Day of Preparation, Joseph of Arimathea came ...". This was
after sunset and dusk – the day beginning, 15 times the meaning of 'opsia' in
the Gospels! The last opportunity presented itself to Joseph to have Jesus
buried "according to the Scriptures".
I again then, Professor Bacchiocchi, dare you to show
how "Mark is most precise in explaining that the Crucifixion took place on
what today we call "Friday". And you insist you are "not
committed to traditional interpretation"? – You are the slave of it!
I still greet you with Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
29/09/3
Bacchiocchi – article.txt
5.1.1.5.4.2.2.
Definite Article or No Definite Article
"... As J.H. Bernard points out, if "Preparation"
meant "the Preparation day of the Passover" we would expect a
definite article in Greek, which, however, is absent." p.43a (Emphasis
CGE)
It follows that if used with the definite article, "the Preparation",
the name of a day would be meant, and the use would be "technical".
However, in just the next paragraph, Bacchiocchi states: "In verse 31, John explains that the
Jews did not wish the bodies to remain on the cross, "on the Sabbath,
because it was Preparation" (literal translation). Here John not only
mentions the Sabbath explicitly, but also refers to the preceding day by the
technical term "paraskeue – Preparation" without the article, thus
meaning : "because it was Friday"." (Emphasis CGE)
"Similarly", Bacchiocchi continues, 43c "John
reports that Jesus was placed in a garden tomb near the place of his
crucifixion "because of the Preparation of the Jews". In this context
the term "Preparation" is used again by itself, (no article) not in a
generic sense, but in a temporal sense as a technical designation for Friday
...." (Emphasis and in brackets CGE)
For John 19:14, Bernard demands, and Bacchiocchi approves, a
definite article is needed if paraskeueh were to denote the
"technical" meaning of a day-name, Friday. In the cases of verses 31
and 42 though, Bacchiocchi deems the absence of the article an indication of a
"technical" consuetude for the day's name, Friday.
The article, or rather the debate around the article, is abstract.
The context of each incidence of use of the term "preparation" should
be determinative. In the case of John 19:14, the absence of the article is of
no consequence. Despite the absence of the article the meaning is
"technical": the day's name is given: "Passover's Preparation".
5.1.1.5.4.3.1.
"Preparations of Jews", John 19:42
"Similarly, in verse 42, John reports that Jesus was placed
in a garden tomb near the place of His Crucifixion "because of the
Preparation of the Jews". In this context the term "Preparation"
is used again by itself ('without the article'), not in a generic sense, but in
a temporal sense as a technical designation for Friday. What John is saying is
that Jesus was buried in the garden tomb because it was near and because it was
late Friday (Preparation) when the Sabbath was about to start." p.43c (In
brackets and emphasis CGE)
Many things Bacchiocchi takes for granted here, will not be
given attention now in order to be able to concentrate on the one aspect of the
"technical" use of the term paraskeueh. What gives the phrase
paraskeueh its "technical" meaning in this verse and context,
according to Bacchiocchi, is that it is used "not in a generic
sense". That means, paraskeueh is used without general significance, or,
positively, it is used specifically as name for Friday.
It was the day
before the Sabbath – nothing else can be deduced from the urgency of the
moment: Preparations had to be made before sunset because the Sabbath was
approaching. This fact is the cause of the perception of haste – which is not
mentioned in so many words, but is real. These were the "Jewish
preparation(s)". The plural is justified by the genitive:
"preparations of the Jews". Only the last part of Friday is relative.
Only the specific hours dedicated to preparations for the Sabbath are implied.
"Preparation" as such: general, common preparations are meant; the
type of preparations Jews make, for the Sabbath. The use is not
"technical", but "generic". And not the entire day as
"The Preparation" is meant, but a portion of it only.
John does not
mention it, but nothing prohibits bringing together the Jews' preparations of
Jn.19:42 and the adventitious preparations the women had to make after they had
left the grave and had gone home: Luke 23:54-56. The special nature of that
Sabbath must also be brought into consideration to form an idea of the type of
"preparations of the Jews" presupposed in verse 42. The
"preparations" here intended, are "general" in every
respect and "genetic" rather than "technical" They were
"the Jews' "; they were the "Sabbath's"; and they were for
an embalming ceremony. That these preparations happened to be made on the usual
Day of Preparation of the Sabbath –
Friday, which is called
"(The)- Before-Sabbath" Mark15:42, was purely incidental.
Linguistically, that is, for in the providence of God there was nothing
accidental about any aspect of this occasion. It was the working out of, and,
according to, the Old Testament type of Passover.
15/10/03
Dear Philip,
Sorry, I missed your last question, "Was Jesus figuratively "in the
heart of
the earth" before Judas
betrayed him?"
I shall try to explain in few words. You will find lengthy explanations
scattered throughout LD. Jesus' "hour arrived" when He and his
disciples
"sat down" for the Last Supper. Jesus' figuratively being "in
the heart of
the earth", begins here. His "last day has come", one could say
– it had
begun "before Judas betrayed him". Jesus here through suffering and
tasting
death while alive, descended to – that is "tasted" – hell and death
... as a
propitiation for our sins. The first of the three "nights" is this –
the
first half of the first of the "three days" of night and day each,
"according to the Scriptures". First the night part then the day part
cannot
be "three days" according to the Bible's reckoning of the day, and
Jesus did
not rise from the dead on the fourth (or fifth) day. The words "three days
and three nights" come from a retrospective viewpoint – as prophetically
the
words of the Victor and RISEN Lord – therefore in regressive order.
Christian greetings
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Brown <pbrown@newwine.org>
To: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Thursday Crucifixion
Gerhard Ebersöhn
I thought of one more point about your view of "three days and three
nights."
At 11:46 PM 4/17/2003, you wrote:
>"Jesus was "in the heart of the earth" for three nights:
Thursday, Friday,
>and Saturday nights."
>
><You only assert; you don't indicate. Therefore I am allowed to say you
>assert wrongly, and counter: Jesus was "in the heart of the
earth"
>figuratively for three literal nights: Wednesday night, Thursday night,
>and Friday night, and three literal days, Thursday day, Friday day, and
>Saturday day, while TRULY "tasting death", experiencing the woes
of hell.
>It means not that He was _buried_ during those three nights and three
>days. Jesus compares Himself with Jonah who lived through his anguish of
>death, while He, living, conscious and willing, would TRULY enter death,
>for us. He would be "released from the pangs of death", only
"on the third
>day".>
>
The night before the crucifixon was the night of the Lord's Supper. Jesus
broke bread with his diciples, inlcuding Judas. If the crucifixion was on
Friday, then the Lord's Supper was Thursday night. Yet you say Jesus was
figuratively "in the heart of the earth on Wednesday and Thursday
nights. Was Jesus figuratively "in the heart of the earth"
before Judas
betrayed him?
Philip Brown
14/12/03
----- Original Message -----
From: Dirk Schürmann <cd-schue@t-online.de>
To: <biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za>
Cc: Stephan Isenberg <stephan.isenberg@wtal.de>;
Velten u. Elvira Berger
<velten_berger@t-online.de>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: AW: War der Herr Jesus wirklich 3 Tage und 3 Nächte im Herzen der
Erde?/D./Keine Meinung/leer/Ja
> Dear friend,
>
> "Afternoon" – Resurrected
> Only Matthew 28:1-4
>
> This assumes there is no break between Verse 1 and 2 and is then strongly
in
> opposition to the clear statements of Mark 16,9 and Luke 24,21. So we
cannot
> accept these conclusions. Let drop your predefined notion of the Sabbath
and
> 'you will see all things clear'.
>
> Best regards
>
> Dirk
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Lesermeinung [mailto:Lesermeinung]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. November 2002 04:00
> An: lesermeinung@wtal.de; velten_berger@t-online.de;
> cd-schue@t-online.de
> Betreff: War der Herr Jesus wirklich 3 Tage und 3 Nächte im Herzen der
> Erde?/D./Keine Meinung/leer/Ja
>
>
> War der Herr Jesus wirklich 3 Tage und 3 Nächte im Herzen der
> Erde?/D./Keine Meinung/leer
> Bewertung: Keine Meinung
> Alter: leer
> Email-Adresse: biblestudents@Imaginet.co.za
> Antwort erwünscht: Ja
> Grund: From the first to "the third day according to the
Scriptures". . .
> . . the first day, 14 Nisan, "Preparation of the
Passover", Thursday,
> begins :
> "Evening" – Preparation for, and the Lord's Supper
> Mk.14:12, 17, Lk.22:7, 14, Jn.13:1-17:26
> "Night" – Anguish, Betrayal, Denial
> Mt.12:40, Mk.14:26-42, Jn.18:1-27
> "Early" – Trial, Delivered, Way to Cross
> Jn.18:28-19:22
> Middle Day – Crucifixion, Mocking, Darkness,
> Mk.15:25, 29, 33, Jn.19:23-29
> "The ninth hour", Afternoon – Died, Deserted
> Mt.27:46, Jn.19:30, Lk.23:48
> . . the second day, 15 Nisan, Passover Feast, "The
Fore-Sabbath",
> Friday, begins:
> "Evening" – Jews, "after this", Joseph
> Jn.19:31-40, Mk.15:42, Mt.27:57, Lk.23:52;
> "Night" – Took the body down, prepared
> Mk.15:42-46b, Mt.27:58-59, Lk.23:53a Jn.19:32-40
> "Afternoon" – Buried
> Mk.15:46c-47, Mt.27:60-61, Lk.23:53b-56b, Jn.19:41-42
> . . "the third day", 16 Nisan, First Sheaf Wave Offering,
"Sabbath",
> begins :
> "Began to rest"
> Lukas 23:56c
> "Morning" – Guard
> Only Mt.27:62-66
> "Afternoon" – Resurrected
> Only Matthew 28:1-4
> . . the fourth day, 17 Nisan, Sunday, begins :
> "The Sabbath past"
> Only Mark 16:1
> "Early darkness", first sight of opened grave
> Only John 20:1-2
>
14/12/03
First
Day: “and it was...”, heavens, earth and light
Fourth
Day: “and it was...”, light-bodies
Second
Day: “and it was...”, waters above and waters beneath
Fifth
Day: “and it was...”, birds and fishes
Third
Day: “and it was...”, continents and plants
Sixth
Day: “and it was...”, animals. Then Man.
These
were the order to God’s creating, and therefore: Man, go to work on these six
days of your creation! Begin, after the Seventh Day! For on the coming Seventh
Day, worship Me, and cease your doing; I give you Rest before I demand your
duty.
Actually
the first six days of God’s creating are also the subject of His Commanding,
but secondarily, and dependent on God’s Commanding of the Seventh Day.
The
idea of man’s “natural” need to rest “one day in seven” is wilful worship. Man
can go without rest altogether, and whether master or slave. Sloth – if the
‘need’ were “natural” – could have chosen to rest one in ten days or whatever,
depending on what suits best “natural” inclination. In our times people take
rest two days in seven because it best serves the vanities of modern lifestyle.
The “natural principle” of “one day in seven” has nothing to do with God’s Law
to rest “THE Seventh Day” and to work the other “six days” of the week SINCE –
from which resulted – the creation.
God
commands man’s working days to the order of the first six days of His creating
– they are not for man to choose as ‘necessity’ might dictate. And man’s
rest-day God commands to the order of His completing, His perfecting and His
rest of the Seventh Day – a completing and a perfecting and a rest not only of
God’s works of the previous six days, but of God’s works of the Seventh Day and
on it, having created and used it an instrument to His ends, God’s works
belonging to this day itself, to this, His for that very purpose, holy Sabbath
Day.
For
six days God “said ... and it was...” as though creation reacted. On the Sixth
Day God for the first time uses his hands so to speak. Nature’s ‘part’ in man’s
creation is minimized to the – created – availability of the lowliest ‘dust’
for his forming. “It was...” not just ‘naturally’, like upon God’s creative
word before. Only the activities of the Seventh Day leave nature and creation
empty handed, completely passive, totally devoid of contribution to, or
participation in, the Works of God of that day, the Seventh Day.
Why
man in God’s Law is obliged to work the other “six days” of the week, is to let
human endeavour answer God’s six days’ work of creating the ‘physical’ cosmos.
Man’s work must follow track of God’s work, leading up to the Seventh Day of
God’s work only, and of the creation’s total unemployment.
It
seems God in his wisdom did not give the First Day of the creation all the
glory that belongs with his creation of light. The Church has come to make too
much of the fact that light was created on the First Day of the week, to the
extent it worships light and eventually the day upon which light was created,
rather than God. God saw fit then, to make the day of the creation of light,
the First Day, to share its glory with the Fourth Day. In the end it was on the
Fourth Day that the light received final dignity. The light-bodies were to
again share distinct ruling honours, all having received but a part time task
and the day of their honour, having received but partial honour. The First Day
can boast nothing any of the other creation-days cannot.
For
six days then, God “said, Let there be ... and it was”; but on the Seventh Day,
He worked so much more! On the Seventh Day, God “blessed the Seventh Day”;
“sanctified the Seventh Day”; “rested the Seventh Day”, and “thus”, “on the
Seventh Day”, “finished”. These, are God’s works of “the exceeding greatness of
His power” – works verily for God impossible acted He not in Jesus Christ,
through Him present, with Him in the eye, and for His sake even from before the
foundation of the world.
Only
the Seventh Day received particular and undivided “blessing” and
“sanctification”; only it – being the day of God’s resting, finishing and
‘example’; only it, being directly and first in mind the day of God’s attention
and Commandment.
It
must be clear from this the First Day to God’s creation-order – the First Day
of the week – is not the first in rank, but in equity; and the last in equity,
the Seventh Day, not the last in rank, but the first. For all first six days
must share, and give of their glory to another – the Seventh only all its glory
to God.
15/12/03
Dear
Dirk,
It
struck me while meditating on our correspondence, translators’ fearless
contempt for God’s Word. ‘The Living Bible’ translates Luke 24:21, “This which
happened THREE DAYS AGO”, and so p-u-l-l-s the events mentioned in precise
answer to Jesus’ question: “What things?”, namely: “How the chief priests and
our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him”, one
day nearer. “This which happened THREE DAYS AGO” being said on Sunday, brings
“these things” onto Friday. But as the KJV, all implied factors taken into
account, correctly has it, Luke says,
“….
besides all (allá ge kai sun pásin)
these
things (tóútois)
which
things we trusted
(that
it had been he which should have redeemed
the
third day this day is becoming (trítehn táútehn hehméran ágei)
since
(apó)
these
things (hou táúta)
(condemnation
and crucifixion)
had
happened (egéneto).”
‘The
Living Bible’ confuses:
“….
things besides all these which we TRUSTED”,
with:
“….
things (that) HAPPENED, today the third day since” the day
Jesus was condemned and crucified!
‘The Living Bible’ cunningly does it, in order to
thoroughly deceive! It saw the trouble for the Friday-Crucifixion fallacy, and
tried to kill the messenger thinking it could kill the message He was condemned
and crucified on Thursday, which Sunday was “the third day since” and which,
from the Sabbath, was “three days ago”.
26/12/03
'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', Nine
books:
Passover/Goshen to
Crucifixion/Gethsemane to
Resurrection/Golgotha to
Pentecost to Pisidia/Peter to Paul/Temple to
Proclamation/Gospels (Part 3, 4);
Eschatology/Moltmann; Eschatology/Theron (Part 3, 5);
Paul (Part 4);
Calvin (Part 6)
26/12/03
Part 1/1, Appendix to p. 129 'Idiomatic' Expression
Only the issue of idiomatic use is here not a repeated issue, but
I had to take into consideration the context, obviously.
Quote, Seventh Day Adventist '
"Jesus said that He would spend "three days and three
nights" in the heart of the earth; yet, He was buried late Friday and rose
Sunday morning, which isn't three full days and nights; that is, a complete
72-hour cycle. Obviously, then, the phrase "three days and three
nights" doesn't automatically mean exactly 72 hours. Instead, it's simply
an idiomatic expression meaning just three days, such as (in this case) Friday,
Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21). It doesn't have to mean a
complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour
Sunday. In other places, Jesus said that "in three days" He would
raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be "raised again the
third day" (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the
"three days and three nights"; that is, Jesus would be crucified and
raised from the dead over a three-day period, even if only one of those days,
the Sabbath, encompassed a complete 24-hour day. He was crucified late Friday,
spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday."
Is the "expression", "three days and three
nights", an "idiomatic expression"?
It is not an "idiomatic expression".
The possibility it could have been an "idiomatic
expression", would have been real, were it true – I extract from the quote
from Bacchiocchi, p. 129 in this book,
"... the phrase "three days and three nights""
had "abundant Biblical ... evidence". The possibility would have been
real, were it true "three days and three nights" is "used in the
Scriptures idiomatically to indicate ... complete 24-hour days" as a rule.
Matter of fact is, the claim of "abundant Biblical
evidence" simply is not true, and the expression "three days and
three nights" is used in the New Testament but this once, in Matthew
12:40. Meanwhile the 'rule' is to use the truly 'idiomatic' expression,
"the third day". Bacchiocchi's claim is false!
What IS an "idiomatic" expression?
Collins supplies the following explanation of an 'idiomatic'
expression:
"... a linguistic usage that is grammatical and natural to
native speakers of a language – the characteristic vocabulary or usage of a
specific group ...".
A word or phrase may be an 'idiomatic expresion' if used
representatively, that is, 'for' something in the greater whole. E.g.,
"day" for the whole cycle of night and day; "Passover" for
the whole of the eight day feast of Passover.
An 'idiomatic' expression is a shorter reference to an assumed
familiar complexity.
An 'idiomatic' expression is a general, constituent of specifics.
It usually is the colloquial or vernacular.
It not necessarily is symbolic or metaphoric.
Eleven times the 'idiomatic' expression "the third day"
is used in the New Testament, and once only the specific, "three days and
three nights".
Therefore: Jesus meant what he said in Mt.12:40; He meant it as
written and read. He does not say 'hours', so does not mean 'hours'; He does
not say 'days' simply, and therefore does not mean 'days' simply, but
specifically "three days, and, three nights".
Taking the phrase or 'expression' "three days and three
nights" means "three days and three nights", the traditional
Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection thesis, "meaning just three
days", does not hold. It "isn't three full days and nights" no
matter what our cleverness. Where is our Christian honesty when dealing with
this Scripture? It seems it lies with our true loyalty – with popish error and
lying to make a case for Sunday.
Are these accidental errors, or neglegence, or carefully framed
errors? No matter which, they are inexcusable, and must be attended to if we
are serious about the Bible and Christianity:-
"Three full days and nights" is not what Jesus said or
meant. What did Jesus mean then? What He said!
"Jesus ... was buried late Friday..." Ah yes! But
don't say "crucified" or
"died", because on Sunday, it had been "the third day since
these things"!
"and rose Sunday morning..." Not true, no accident, but
a fabricated lie – the lie of lies on which Sunday observance thrives. If you
or I persist in parotting this lie, we in chorus with the devil who from the
beginning was the father of lies, stand father to it.
"three full days and nights; that is, a complete 72-hour
cycle..." I have never heard of the phenomenon called a "72-hour
cycle". Seventy two hours – as propagated by Armstrong-disciples – involve
five days!
"...Friday, Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13,
21)."
The passages "Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21" include four
days. Lk.23:49 tells how the day of crucifixion ended; verse 50 how the next
day began – the day that ended after Joseph had closed the grave – Friday.
Friday was the second of the three days.
"... the phrase "three days and three nights"
... doesn't have to mean a complete
24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour
Sunday." It's not the hours, but the parts, "night", and,
"day" Jesus mentioned and meant. And Sunday's night – Saturday night
– and Sunday's day were not included in the days and the nights of which Jesus
spoke and which He meant. It is simply – that's the word, "simply" –
asserted, presumed, alleged, falsely so.
"In other places, Jesus said that "in three days"
He would raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be "raised
again the third day" (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing
as the "three days and three nights"..." Why then did Jesus not
again in Mt.12:40 say, "in three days", or, "the third
day"? Was it for no reason He used the unusual, specific, of one time occurrence,
"three days and three nights"? I don't believe!
"... that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised from the
dead over a three-day period...". Yes, but "three days and three
nights" would constitute that "three-day period" – each day
constituted of its night part and its day part. Jesus says, not only His
crucifixion per se and His resurrection per se would constitute those three
days and three nights, but His being "in the heart of the earth".
Jesus' being "in the heart of the earth" would make up the entire
content of the "three days and three nights". Jesus would suffer –
dying, death, interment and grave – and be raised "the third day"
from His suffering – from His being "in the heart of the earth three days
and three nights". Every word of Jesus is meant and is meaningful
"according to the Scriptures" because the Scriptures are the
"sign" of Passover – the sign of redemption. The Scriptures witness
of Christ, every word of it, especially these in Mt.12:40, because it happened
exactly so. Exactly so and never as by every Word of God we must live,
"... even if only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a complete
24-hour day...".
Therefore, what error and falsity it is that "He was
crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday"! Every
Scripture in the New Testament that has to do with the chronology of events
about Jesus' suffering and triumph are so wrangled by 'translation' as to do
service to the instigator of this error and falsity, the Vatican.
"He was crucified late ...". If 9 am – morning of
day – means "late Friday" relative to the whole (Jewish reckoned)
cycle of the day that started sunset the previous evening, then
"late" may be the accepted time of day supposed for Jesus' crucifixion.
But if 3 pm – "late" afternoon of day – the hour of Jesus' giving
over the spirit is meant, it of course cannot have been the hour He had been
crucified.
"He was crucified late Friday ..." Jesus wasn't
crucified on Friday – the Sixth Day – but on the day before, on Thursday – the
Fifth Day.
"He ... rose Sunday ...", Wrong; He rose "In
Sabbath's-time" – Mt.28:1.
"He spent Sabbath in the tomb ...", Jesus did spend part
of the Sabbath in the tomb, but, "In fulness ("late" opsé) of
Sabbath's-time (sabbátohn) in the very being of light (epiphohskóúsehi) the
First Day approaching ... (eis mían sábbaton)", rose from the dead.
"On the First Day of the week, early, He appeared to Mary
Magdalene (of all), first." (Mark 16:9)
What gross nonsense then is it to declare,
"The expression "three days and three nights" is
used in the Scriptures idiomatically to indicate not three complete 24-hour
days, but three calendric days of which the first and the third could have
consisted of only a fraction of a day." Bacchiocci TCR p. 22/23/24 The
first and the third, as the second, consisted of what Jesus in so many words
said they would, namely, of a night and a day, each. The first began where
Jesus said His hour was come, and that of evil men and of the power of darkness
– there, Jesus' first night of woe had begun. The second night would find Jesus
on the cross, hanging there – dead! Jesus' second night of suffering for man
the death of sinners had begun "when it was evening already" –
Mt.27:57, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:50, Jn.19:31, 38. "The third day according to
the Scriptures" "in the slow hours of Sabbath's-time, it being the
essence of light, the First Day of the week afar off", saw come true
Jesus' word, that "the third day I finish!"
The phrase "a day and a night" does not exist in the
Scriptures of concern. The phrase "three days and three nights"
however, it is true, does not refer to an exact number of hours or minutes, but
"according to the Scriptures" to the precise "calendrical"
days, completed. A fraction of a day whether of the night or of the day was
reckoned inclusively as representing the whole day. The moments of giving over
the spirit, and of taking it up again, are the moments marking the first and
the third of the "three days". Joseph's whole undertaking to have the
body buried, marks the second of the "three days".
27/12/03
It is getting of utter importance the Church should
free herself of paganism and idolatry and reject Sunday worship and accept true
Christian worship on the Sabbath Jesus Christ is Lord of.
Therefore please lend me an ear as to your article Three Days and Three Nights, once again?
Consider:
<<14th Nisan – Yeshua died at 3pm and was buried before sunset>>
... <<and was buried before sunset>>. Refer www.biblestudents.co.za, Deuteronomy_21.htm.
Jesus
would be buried only the day after his crucifixion <<before
sunset>>. He was not buried the same day He was crucified and died.
"According to the Scriptures" the Passover-Scriptures, the
"remains" of the lamb had to be returned to dust on the day after it
had been SLAUGHTERED. Its 'remains' had to be 'interred' on the same day
it had been EATEN. You know the Scriptures as well as I could wish to know
them.
Consider:
<<The
influence of the Sadducees should be taken into account in our studies of the
times of Yeshua and the early church.>>
See references indicated in "Pentecost" –
the third book from the top listed for off-load by use of Winzip in www.biblestudents.co.za. I have
answered this averment many times and places in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant
of Grace'. And I have been waiting for a quarter of a century for its protagonists
to show me one single instance of the Sadducees' own putting it forward,
but in vain. Bare fact is the Pharisees tell us everything we know about the
Sadducees. You will find the Sadducees as far as the dating of the
Passover is concerned WERE NOT the dominant factor they are made
out to be. Their supposed reckoning of the Passover dates was faulty and was
not used in Jesus' time. Modern apologetics seeked an excuse for Sunday-worship
in the Sadducees' supposed placing of First Sheaf Wave Offering and Pentecost
always on the First Day of the week. Historically as well as Biblically it
proved a misconception that never saved anybody face. The only reason
the Sadducees' so called reckoning of First Sheaf isn't an embarrasment
for professors and lip hangers on is the ignorance of both.
28/12/03
Three_Days_And_Three_Nights_Idiomatic_Expression?
Only the issue of idiomatic use is here not a repeated
issue, but I had to take into consideration the context, obviously.
Quote, Seventh Day Adventist ‘
“Jesus said that He would spend “three days and
three nights” in the heart of the earth; yet, He was buried late Friday and
rose Sunday morning, which isn’t three full days and nights; that is, a
complete 72-hour cycle. Obviously, then, the phrase “three days and three
nights” doesn’t automatically mean exactly 72 hours. Instead, it’s simply an
idiomatic expression meaning just three days, such as (in this case) Friday,
Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21). It doesn’t have to mean a
complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour
Sunday. In other places, Jesus said that “in three days” He would raise His
body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be “raised again the third day”
(Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the “three days and
three nights”; that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised from the dead over
a three-day period, even if only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a
complete 24-hour day. He was crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in the tomb,
and rose Sunday.”
Is the “expression”, “three days and three nights”, an
“idiomatic expression”?
It is not
an “idiomatic expression”.
The possibility it could have been an “idiomatic
expression”, would have been real, were it true – I extract from the quote from Bacchiocchi, p.
129 in this book,
“… the phrase
“three days and three nights””
had “abundant Biblical … evidence”. The possibility would have been real, were it true “three days
and three nights” is “used in the Scriptures idiomatically to
indicate … complete 24-hour
days” as a rule.
Matter of fact is, the
claim of “abundant Biblical evidence” simply is not true, and the expression
“three days and three nights” is used in the New Testament but this once, in Matthew 12:40.
Bacchiocchi’s claim is false!
Meanwhile the ‘rule’ is to use the related
‘prophetic’ and strictly New Testament ‘idiomatic’ expression, “the third day”,
eleven times. It is a strictly New Testament ‘idiomatic expression’ or phrase
because every time it is used the reference actually is to the full
description, “the third day according
to the Scriptures”.
What
IS an “idiomatic” expression?
Collins supplies the
following explanation of an ‘idiomatic’ expression:
“… a
linguistic usage that is grammatical and natural to native speakers of a
language – the characteristic vocabulary or usage of a specific group …”.
A word or phrase may be an
‘idiomatic expression’ if used representatively,
that is, ‘for’ something
in the greater whole.
E.g., “day” for the whole cycle of night and day; “Passover” for the whole of the eight day feast of Passover.
An ‘idiomatic’ expression
is a shorter reference to
an assumed familiar
complexity.
An ‘idiomatic’ expression
is a general, constituent
of specifics.
It usually is the
colloquial or vernacular.
It not necessarily is
symbolic or metaphoric.
Eleven times the expression
“the third day” is used in the New Testament, and once only the specific,
“three days and three nights”. That makes the ‘expression’ used twelve times,
every time prophetically / eschatologically / metaphorically for the definite
day of Jesus’ resurrection “according to the Scriptures the third day” – not
once in any one instance “idiomatically”. Except if, as above pointed out,
considered an ‘idiomatic expression’ or natural, endemic New Testament compendium for “the
third day according to the Scriptures”, implying the ‘Passover Scriptures’.
Some prepositions though, are used with
the ‘expression’ “the third day”, like “in” and “after” – one idiomatically
indicating what the other may indicate literally. See in this book considered.
Therefore: Jesus meant what
he said in Mt.12:40; He meant it as written and read. He does not say ‘hours’,
so does not mean ‘hours’; He does not say ‘days’ simply, and therefore does not
mean ‘days’ simply, but specifically “three days, and, three nights”.
Taking the phrase or
‘expression’ “three days and three nights” means “three days and three nights”,
the traditional Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection thesis, “meaning
just three days”, does not hold. It “isn’t three full
days and nights” no matter what our cleverness. Where is our Christian honesty when dealing
with this Scripture? It seems it lies with our true loyalty – with popish error
and lying to make a case for Sunday.
Are these accidental errors, or negligence, or
carefully framed errors? No matter which, they are inexcusable, and must be
attended to if we are serious about the Bible and Christianity:-
“Three full days and nights” is not what
Jesus said or meant. What did Jesus mean then? What He said!
“Jesus … was buried late Friday…” Ah
yes! But don’t say “crucified” or
“died”, because on Sunday, it had been “the third day since these things”!
“and rose Sunday morning…” Not true, no
accident, but a fabricated lie – the lie of lies on which Sunday observance
thrives. If you or I persist in parroting this lie, we in chorus with the devil
who from the beginning was the father of lies, stand father to it.
“three full days and nights; that is, a complete
72-hour cycle…” I have never heard of the phenomenon called a “72-hour
cycle”. Seventy two hours – as propagated by Armstrong-disciples –
involve five days!
“…Friday, Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23:
46-24:3, 13, 21).”
The passages “Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21”
include four days. Lk.23:49 tells how the day of crucifixion ended; verse 50
how the next day began – the day that ended after Joseph had closed the grave –
Friday. Friday was the second of the three days.
“… the phrase “three days and three nights”
… doesn’t have to mean a complete
24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour Sunday.”
It’s not the hours, but the parts, “night”, and, “day” Jesus mentioned and
meant. And Sunday’s night – Saturday night – and Sunday’s day were not included
in the days and the nights of which Jesus spoke and which He meant. It is
simply – that’s the word, “simply” – asserted, presumed, alleged, falsely so.
“In other places, Jesus said that “in three
days” He would raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be “raised
again the third day” (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as
the “three days and three nights”…” Why then did Jesus not again in
Mt.12:40 say, “in three days”, or, “the third day”?
Was it for no reason He used the unusual, specific, of one time occurrence,
“three days and three nights”? I don’t believe!
“… that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised
from the dead over a three-day period…”. Yes, but “three days and three
nights” would constitute that “three-day period” – each day
constituted of its night part and its day part. Jesus says, not only His
crucifixion per se and His resurrection per se would constitute those three
days and three nights, but His being “in the heart of the earth”. Jesus’ being
“in the heart of the earth” would make up the entire content of the “three days
and three nights”. Jesus would suffer – dying, death, interment and grave – and
be raised “the third day” from His suffering – from His being “in the heart of
the earth three days and three nights”. Every word of Jesus is meant and is
meaningful “according to the Scriptures” because the Scriptures are the “sign”
of Passover – the sign of redemption. The Scriptures witness of Christ, every
word of it, especially these in Mt.12:40, because it happened exactly so.
Exactly so and never as by every Word of God we must live, “… even if
only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a complete 24-hour day…”.
Therefore, what error and falsity it is that “He
was crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday”!
Every Scripture in the New Testament that has to do with the chronology of
events about Jesus’ suffering and triumph are so wrangled by ‘translation’ as
to do service to the instigator of this error and falsity, the Vatican.
“He was crucified late …”. If 9 am – morning of day – means “late
Friday” relative to the whole (Jewish reckoned) cycle of the day that
started sunset the previous evening, then “late” may be the
accepted time of day supposed for Jesus’ crucifixion. But if 3 pm – “late”
afternoon of day – the hour of Jesus’ giving over the spirit is meant, it of
course cannot have been the hour He had been crucified.
“He was crucified … Friday …” Jesus wasn’t
crucified on Friday – the Sixth Day – but on the day before, on Thursday – the
Fifth Day.
“He … rose Sunday …”, Wrong; He rose “In Sabbath’s-time” –
Mt.28:1.
“He spent Sabbath in the tomb …”, Jesus did spend part of the Sabbath in the tomb,
but, “In fulness (“late” opsé) of Sabbath’s-time (sabbátohn) in
the very being of light (epiphohskóúsehi) the First Day approaching … (eis
mían sábbaton)”, rose from the dead.
“On the First Day of the week, early, He appeared to Mary Magdalene (of
all), first.” (Mark 16:9)
What gross nonsense then is
it to declare,
“The
expression “three days and three nights” is used in the Scriptures
idiomatically to indicate not three complete 24-hour days, but three calendric days
of which the first and the third could have consisted of only a fraction of a
day.” Bacchiocci TCR p. 22/23/24 The first and the third, as the second,
consisted of what Jesus in so many words said they would, namely, of a night
and a day, each. The first began where Jesus said His hour was come, and that
of evil men and of the power of darkness – there, Jesus’ first night of woe had
begun. The second night would find Jesus on the cross, hanging there – dead!
Jesus’ second night of suffering for man the death of sinners had begun “when
it was evening already” – Mt.27:57, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:50, Jn.19:31, 38. “The
third day according to the Scriptures” “in the slow hours of Sabbath’s-time, it
being the essence of light, the First Day of the week afar off”, saw come true
Jesus’ word, that “the third day I finish!”
The phrase “a day and
a night”
does not exist in the Scriptures of concern. The phrase “three days and three
nights” however, it is true, does not refer to an exact number of hours or
minutes, but “according to the Scriptures” to the precise “calendrical” days, completed. A
fraction of a day whether of the night or of the day was reckoned inclusively
as representing the whole day. The moments of giving over the spirit, and of
taking it up again, are those two moments that mark the first and the third of
the “three days”. Joseph’s whole undertaking to have the body buried, marks the
second of the “three days”.
30/12/03
----- Original Message
-----
From: Mike Gascoigne
– Anno Mundi Books
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003
11:04 PM
Subject: Re: from Gerhard Ebersoehn
Gerhard,
On which day of the week did Yeshua rise from the dead?
Mike
Dear Mike,
The inherent properties of
the "Seventh Day the Sabbath of the Lord your God" already indicate
that "IN" it, God would "finish" through and "IN
HIM", his eternal Word, as it is written, "FOR on the Seventh Day God
RESTED from all His works" (Hb.4-5) "according to the exceeding
greatness of His power WHEN HE RAISED Chirst from the dead"
(Eph.1:19). Therefore – according to this EXPECTATION "In the fulness of
the Sabbath's hours in the very light of day the First Day of the week afar off
..." the grave was opened and the Lamb of God raised from the dead. –
Mt.28:1. I challenge the world on this really literal and accurate translation
I made of Mt.28:1. It is true, and God my Witness to it – so also many human
witnesses like Tyndale and Robertson to mention but two.
30/12/03
----- Original Message
-----
From: Mike Gascoigne
– Anno Mundi Books
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003
11:08 AM
Subject: Re: from Gerhard Ebersoehn
Gerhard,
Even if Yeshua rose from the dead on the Sabbath, it doesn't justify changing
the day of rest to the first day of the week.
Mike
Dear Mike,
Absolutely not! The fact of Jesus' resurrection ON
the Sabbath Seventh Day of the week, once for all confirms it "the Sabbath
of the LORD your God"! The fact – the TRUTH – Yeshua rose from the dead on
the Sabbath, condemns the arbitrary, wilful and arrogant changing the day of
rest to the first day of the week. The Church commits spiritual fornication,
practices idolatry, and sinks into paganism by changing the day of rest to the
first day of the week on the grounds of Yeshua's resurrection from the dead. It
is a FALSE claim to Sunday-worship, for which the Church – MY Church, the
Christian Church – does not hesitate to despise the Scriptures and to
CHANGE the Word of God so as to appear saying Yeshua rose from the dead
"on the First Day of the week". Show me that in the Scriptures –
Greek – I challenge anyone!
30/1/04
Geagte vriend,
U het eenmaal die uitdaging aan my gerig die SDA Kerk
is reg en u daag enigiemand uit om die teendeel te bewys.
Ek voel net sterk oor die Sabbatdag. Christene, glo
ek, glo en onderhou die Sabbat – Sewende Dag van die week ,'Saterdag' – nie net
om rede die weet nie, trouens, gladnie omrede die wet nie, maar omrede Jesus
Christus wat vir ons die Wet van God is. Geen teenstrydigheid tussen Wet en
Genade nie! Hierdie beginsel impliseer een iets wat onbetwisbaar deur die
Skrifte geprofeteer sowel as bevestig word, dat Jesus op die Sabbatdag uit die
dode sou herrys. Jesus se opstanding daarom, is die enigste en grondrede waarom
die Sabbat van God steeds geld vir die Volk van God. Nou het ons rede om ons in
die dag te verlustig, soos Jesaja se. Beminde broer in Jesus Christus, sou u
die sabbat omrede die Tien Gebooie Wet hou, hou u dit vir een en dieselfde rede
as wat die Jode dit gole en hou, en het u geen rede om u in die Sabbatdag te
mag verheug nie, maar slegs om te vrees.
09/02/04
Guten Tag liebe Bruder Andreas,
Ich bin Afrikaans, aber will Deutsch versuchen zu
schrieben.
Danke fuer deinen E-post
Ich erkenne deinen Fragen an, und antworte sie gern
so wohl ich moeglich kann.
Wie bin ich nach Afrika gekommen?
Ich bin hier geboren. Auch meinen Aelter.
Gibt da bei euch eine Gemeinde oder Gruppe?
Ja, hier sind SDA und Church of God – sie halten
den Sabbat Siebenten Tage.
Aber ich bin ein 'Calvinist' oder 'Reformierte' der
nict Sonntag halte, aber dem Sabbat glaube und bestrebe zu halten.
Wie du bermerken moegst, ist die Gottheit Christi
zentral fuer
Ich glaube jemand der nicht Jesus als Gott erkennt,
glaubt, anbetet, und Ehren bezeicht, hat nie gelesen, nie gehoert, nie
versteht, nie 'geseht' ... nicht jetzt. Wessem der Vater willt, dem offenbart
Er den Sohn, Herr und Gott. (Jh.16:45, 14:6 und viel mehr). Hast du die
groessen Werken vielen geweiten Protestanten gelesen? Maenner wie Luther und
Calvin, die Puritaener, Theologen wie Karl Barth und Klaas Schilder – manche!
Nur ein Ding meint Erloeser zu sein ihnen, und das ist, Jesus Christus,
mein Herr und Gott, ich anbete dich mein Erloeser. Nehmt aus und weg das,
und nichts bleibt ueber – ganz nicht! Lehr ist meiner Glaube, und deiner,
und aller die jemahls gegaubt hat. Ich bin ein Christ und glaube dem Bibel denn
ich in Jesus Christus mein Erloeser der allein Gott sein kann, glaube .
Wie ist das mit Religionsfreiheit in
Ich weis nicht. Ich weis nur Afrika-religion immer
aendert die Heilsbotschaft. Das Evangelium in Afrika ist ein
Evangelium VON Afrika, glaubt mir frei! Zum beispiel, Ich beteiligte ein
Kongress Geleherter und einer der Sprechern fuehrtet an Afrika empfingt den
Sabbat nicht durch die Christentum oder die Schrift oder die
Judentum, aber durch Offenbarung des Heiligen Geistes! Das Evangelium in
Afrika sollt ein Evangelium von Afrika sein oder mit Gewalt ausgewirft wird.
Ich waere nicht verwundert es gibt nicht Religionsfreiheit in
Erlaubt mir etwas zu schreiben betreffend deiner
Studie,
DAS ABENDMAHL JESU
Ist es eine wöchentliche, monatliche, vierteljährliche oder eine jährliche
Einsetzung?
Die Einsetzung des Abendmahles ist eine der
feierlichsten Handlungen im neuen Testament. Sie wird im allgemeinen nicht so
beachtet wie es sein sollte. Besonders wenn wir bedenken, dass dies die
heiligste Handlung in unserem Leben ist.
..... die heiligste Handlung .....
Willst
du wieder hieran denken?
Ein jeder glaubt, man kann sie gestalten wie man will
und auch einsetzen so oft man will. Wir wissen, dass Jesus das Passahlamm
darstellt. An Stelle des täglichen Opfers im alten Testament opferte Jesus sich
selbst. Somit wurde das Passahfest im alten Testament in das Abendmahl im neuen
Testament umgewandelt.
..... das Passahfest im alten Testament in das
Abendmahl im neuen Testament umgewandelt .....
Das sollen wir
nun sehen muessen.
Jesus selbst sagt in Lukas 22, 15. 16. "Und er
sprach zu ihnen:
..... Osterlamm ..... zu
Nirgendwo in Evangelien
willst du finden Jesus in der Tat hat "gegessen".
Denn ich sage euch, das ich hinfort nicht mehr davon
..... hinfort nicht mehr davon
In dem
Griechisch kein Wort oder Idee ist zu finden wie "mehr".
Jesus wurde als das Passahlamm zur Zeit des
Passahfestes geopfert.
Wie war es
moeglich, Opfer und Fest, zu
Siehe Johannes 19, 31. "Die Juden aber, dieweil
es der Rüsttag war, dass nicht die Leichname am Kreuze blieben den Sabbat über
(denn desselben Sabbats Tag war groß), baten sie
Deutlich
"der Rüsttag war" – er dauerte. Weder war
er ueber, noch war er am Ende, im
Prozess
auszugehen. Er war am Anfang, und prospektiv. Es waere doch sinnlos
als der Tag ueber waere ploetzlich
bewusst zu worden die Leichame werden blieben den
Sabbat über am Kreuze. Weil der Tag des
grossen Sabbats began hattet, die Juden wohl
und bereits, sahen ein die Leichame werden am Kreuze blieben
den Sabbat über. Da
handelten sie uebereinstimmend und infolgedessen die
Leichame erweitert zu bekommen. Das
stimmt mit Markus and Mattaeus die beiden sagen, wortwoertlich im Griechisch,
"Indem es wohl Abend geworden war" ("Because already it had
become evening"; "Omdat dit
alreeds aand was"). "Abend" meint nicht 'Nachmittag'; er meint nach
die Sonne unter gegeht
war, der Tag im Anfang.
Schluss: Jesus
war am vorigen Tage gekreuzig und auf vorigen Tage stierbt, und ganz den
vorigen Tage durch, und waehrend der
Abend folgender, bliebt am Kreuze hing, biss Pilatus
Josef Vergunst gegeben hattet Jesus Leicham abzuhohlen, weg
zu nehmen, zu bereiten
und zu beerdigen.
Also die Kreuzigung fand an einem bestimmten Ereignis
statt und dies war am Passahfest.
..... am Passahfest .....
Noch einmahl:
Opfer (Kreuzigung), und Fest (Tag des Passahmahl), geschahen auf
zwei Tagen und war
zwei Ereignisse, auf ein ander folgend:
Opfer am 14
Nisan; Festmahl am 15 Nisan;
Opfer war
"zwischen den Naechten" waehrend der Tag zwischen seit Sonnenaufgang
der Nacht 14 Nisan,
bis Sonnenuntergang der Nacht 15 Nisan.
Festmahl war
waehrend den Abend – oder waehrend die Nacht – des 15ten Nisan.
14 Nisan war
"Vorbereitung(stag) des Passahs", Jh.19:41. Luther,
"Ruesttag", fehlt
gaenzlich! Tag des
Opfers war Tag des Festes-Sabbats Vorbereitung.
Ich weis Exodus
(Zweites Buch Mose) hat NUR das Datum 14 Nisan / Abib. Das impliziert
eine urspuengliche Sonnenaufgang Rechnung
fuer den Festtagen, welche Rechnung
spaeter angepasst war, mit die
Schoepfungsordnung zufolge Sonnenuntergang, ueberein zu
stimmen. Laut dieser Umschichtung datierten die
spaeteren Buecher Mose den "Fest" und
das Festmahl, IMMER auf den 15ten Nisan, und den
"Passah" oder Tag des Opfers und
Fortschicken des Sauerteiges, IMMER auf
den 14ten Nisan.
Nun bin ich muede
biss verfolg'
Gruesse
Gerhard Ebersoehn
26/02/04
Spot
the ball
Quote: “7. Paul also writes that no one may judge a
Christian for not keeping the Jewish feasts or Sabbath (Colossians 2:16).”
Which word makes this statement a lie? The one I
shall omit in repeating your question:
Paul also writes that no one may judge a Christian
for keeping the Jewish feasts or Sabbath (Colossians 2:16).
Which words in the above statement
are interpolated and create false impressions – in fact your own ideas?
The words I shall omit in repeating your question:
Paul also writes that no one may judge Christians for
(their) feasting of Sabbath Days (Colossians 2:16).
It is possible to fool most people most of the time,
but not all people all the time.
26/02/04
"... the Lord Jesus rose from death on
Sunday (John 20:1); 4.2 ..."
Please quote me your version that reads "the
Lord Jesus rose from death on Sunday (John 20:1); 4.2"? Then I'll
read you The KJV that reads "Late in the Sabbath ..."! Or the
American Standard "Late on the Sabbath ..." Matthew 28:1, the ONLY
text that gives us the time and day of Jesus' resurrection. Your texts (above)
tell about the women's visit to the grave – or rather, visits – more than one!
26/02/04
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, February 26,
2004 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: I am saved!
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, February 26,
2004 8:43 PM
Subject: I am saved!
"... the Lord Jesus
rose from death on Sunday (John 20:1); 4.2 ..."
Please quote me your
version that reads "the Lord Jesus rose from death on Sunday (John
20:1); 4.2"? Then I'll read you The KJV that reads "Late in the
Sabbath ..."! Or the American Standard "Late on the Sabbath ..."
Matthew 28:1, the ONLY text that gives us the time and day of Jesus'
resurrection. Your texts (above) tell about the women's visit to the grave – or
rather, visits – more than one!
Regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sorry, please notice KJV,
correctly: "IN THE END of the Sabbath ..."
28/02/04
----- Original Message -----
From: Schalk Coetzee <info@netwebs.co.za>
To: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: I am saved!
> God's grace means very little to man if not accepted though faith. Man’s
choice
Sure, dear Schalk. It is a law of logic and of Truth that one should take hold
of Jesus Christ by faith "in order to be saved". "What shall we
do" they asked on the Day of Pentecost ... FULLY COME". They could
not even have asked the question, How? if not through grace given them, what
alone ask it in sincere faith. Faith is given a man and faith is applied by man
through
the operating grace of God in him – no otherwise. As I was reading Calvin on
Deut. 5 your letter came up. This is what I was reading: "It is true that
it is impossible for us to keep the Law of God (Rom 7:14,15). Man is not only
unable to keep the Law completely, but even if he wished by his own power to
keep it, he wouldn't be able to LIFT A FINGER to do so, nor would he know where
to BEGIN." Most important for man to know and be able to do, is to know where
to begin, and that is MOST IMPOSSIBLE for him. He can still keep
the Law of Life ostensibly, but can never yearn after God in love and faith –
never really "wish to", of his own. God must needs first have loved
him, and love shall be love's reward, so that he shall love God. I say, he
SHALL love God, because constrained by the omnipotent power of God's
sovereign, free, and electing GRACE.
12/03/04
----- Original Message -----
From: Bible
Students
To: timm@sdanet.org
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:03 PM
Subject: Calvin and the Sabbath
Geagte broeder Timm,
Ek skryf in Afrikaans – lekker oefening vir jou. Ek
hoop jy sal tevrede wees daarmee.
My "boekie" oor Theron is moeilik. Hier is
`n makliker onderwerp, en, baie interessant!
(Ek gebruik die 'hyphen' – vir die 'deelteken' /
'Umlaut', die twee kolletjies bo-op die letter. Daar is nog ander leestekens in
Afrikaans wat bo-op die letters geskrywe word, maar ek gebruik dit nie omdat
die elektroniese medium nie daarvan hou nie.)
Ek skryf aan jou met die gebed in die hart dat
hierdie saak by jou aanklank sal vind; dat dit jou ook, soos vir my, opgewonde
sal maak. Want dit gaan oor `n waarheid waarvoor ons altwee baie lief is!
"Opgewonde oor die Opstanding!"
Ek is lief vir die Sabbatwaarheid veral omdat dit so
nou verbonde is aan die Lewende Waarheid, Jesus Christus self. En dan, veral
omdat dit so nou verbonde is aan die wonderlikste waarheid van Jesus se
opstanding uit die dood. Laat dit duidelik wees vir die wereld om te sien, te
hoor, te smaak en te ervaar: die Sabbat van die Here jou God is die Christelike
Rusdag. Ek praat van die Sewende Dag Sabbat, ja ('Saterdag')! Die
Christelike Rusdag is NIE die 'Joodse Sabbat' nie, en ook nie 'Sondag'
nie.
Ek glo "onderhouding van die Sabbat is steeds
geldend vir die Volk van God" (Hb.4:9) omdat JESUS "in
Sabbatstyd" (Mt.28:1) uit die dood uit opgestaan het terwyl Hy "al
die werke van God", "klaargemaak" het (Lk.13:32), "die
derde dag" – "volgens die Skrifte" (1Kor.15:4). Christus is
vir ons die Wet, en omrede Christus, glo, bely en onderhou ons die Sabbatdag.
Ja, omrede sy opstanding uit die dood en uit die dode, onderhou ons die
Sabbatdag.
Broeder Timm, dit is eenvoudige waarheid, en
eenvoudige taal. Dit is om eenvoudig aangeneem te word, of om te
slim, verwerp te word. Kom, wees saam met my bly, en laat ons – terwyl en omdat
ons ons in Christus Jesus verlustig – ons ook "in die Sabbat
verlustig" (Js.58:13). Want HY is die Rus, die Rus WAAROM ons die Sabbat
glo.
Maar ek wil jou graag van my nuutste ontdekking
vertel! Wat `n verrassing was dit! Dit gaan oor my groot held in die geloof,
Johannes Calvyn.
Jy het seker al gehoor dat geleerdes toegee dat
Calvyn geleer het dat "die Sabbat afgeskaf was deur die koms van
Christus". Jy het seker ook al gehoor dat hulle toegee dat Calvyn geglo en
geleer het dat die Sondag "gebruik word" vir "praktiese",
"orde"-redes alleen, en gladnie as `n 'Sabbat' of
"godsdienstige" Rus-dag of Vier-dag nie. Dit is inderdaad so dat
Calvyn hierdie dinge leer. Al klaar staan 'Sondag'-proponente onder die oordeel
van hulle eie Hervormer, Calvyn!
Maar, en hier begin die nuwe dinge wat ek gedwing was
om te ontdek en wat hierdie Sondag-proponente soos die graf verswyg omdat hulle
dit nie WIL sien nie, of omdat hulle te BANG is om dit te sien en erken: Dit
kom duidelik na vore in Calvyn se geskrifte, dat, Een: "die Sabbat
deur die koms van Christus afgeskaf was", NIE deur sy STERWE 'aan die
kruis' nie, maar, deur sy OPSTANDING! Twee: Dat "die Sabbat deur die koms
van Christus afgeskaf was" deur sy opstanding NIE 'op die EERSTE Dag
van die week' nie, maar deur sy opstanding "IN DIE EINDE VAN DIE SABBATTE".
Drie, Dat Calvyn in sy Kommentaar op 1Kor.16:1-2, hierdie 'Sabbatdag', nader
omskrywe as synde "VOOR die Eerste Dag VAN DIE WEEK", dit wil
se, volgens Calvyn het Jesus OP DIE SABBAT opgestaan!
Calvyn leer dan dat Jesus "op die Sabbatdag
laat", opgestaan het. Calvyn leer egter ook dat Jesus se opstanding op die
Sabbatdag, die AFSKAFFING daarvan, beteken het. Hierin le die punt waarin ek
met Calvyn verskil, naamlik dat ek glo dat Jesus se opstanding op die Sabbat
(die 'weeklikse' Sabbat), die Goddelike beaming, bevestiging, instelling, en –
omdat in Christus Jesus – oorspronklike skepping of 'making' daarvan, beteken
en bewerkstellig het.
Kyk nou net die grootse betekenis wat Calvyn geheg
het aan die "rus" wat deur die Sabbat "afgeskadu was":
Omdat die Sabbat die rus voorafgeskadu het wat Christus self as Vervulling
sou he – Christus in sy opstanding –,
was dit so ernstig om die Sabbatsgebod te oortree dat dit met die dood
strafbaar was om selfs net `n paar stokkies op die Sabbat op te tel.
Daarom maak die doding van die ou mens vir Calvyn die grootste
"aspek" van die Sabbatsgebod uit.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bible
Students
To: eugene@hotmail.com;
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004
10:41 PM
Subject: Calvin and the Sabbath
Geagte broeder Timm,
Ek skryf in Afrikaans –
lekker oefening vir jou. Ek hoop jy sal tevrede wees daarmee.
My "boekie" oor
Theron is moeilik. Hier is `n makliker onderwerp, en, baie interessant!
(Ek gebruik die 'hyphen' –
vir die 'deelteken' / 'Umlaut', die twee kolletjies bo-op die letter. Daar is
nog ander leestekens in Afrikaans wat bo-op die letters geskrywe word, maar ek
gebruik dit nie omdat die elektroniese medium nie daarvan hou nie.)
Ek skryf aan jou met die
gebed in die hart dat hierdie saak by jou aanklank sal vind; dat dit jou ook,
soos vir my, opgewonde sal maak. Want dit gaan oor `n waarheid waarvoor ons
altwee baie lief is! "Opgewonde oor die Opstanding!"
Ek is lief vir die
Sabbatwaarheid veral omdat dit so nou verbonde is aan die Lewende Waarheid,
Jesus Christus self. En dan, veral omdat dit so nou verbonde is aan die
wonderlikste waarheid van Jesus se opstanding uit die dood. Laat dit duidelik
wees vir die wereld en vir elke gelowige om te sien, te hoor, te smaak en te
ervaar: die Sabbat van die Here jou God is die Christelike Rusdag. Ek praat van
die Sewende Dag Sabbat, ja ('Saterdag')! Die Christelike Rusdag
is NIE die 'Joodse Sabbat' nie, en ook nie 'Sondag' nie.
Ek glo "onderhouding
van die Sabbat is steeds geldend vir die Volk van God" (Hb.4:9)
omdat JESUS "in Sabbatstyd" (Mt.28:1) uit die dood uit
opgestaan het terwyl Hy "al die werke van God",
"klaargemaak" het (Lk.13:32), "die derde dag" –
"volgens die Skrifte" (1Kor.15:4). Christus is vir ons die Wet,
en omrede Christus, glo, bely en onderhou ons die Sabbatdag. Ja, omrede sy
opstanding uit die dood en uit die dode, onderhou ons die Sabbatdag.
Broeder Timm, dit is
eenvoudige waarheid, en eenvoudige taal. Dit is om eenvoudig aangeneem te
word, of om te slim, verwerp te word. Kom, wees saam met my bly, en laat
ons – terwyl en omdat ons ons in Christus Jesus verlustig – ons ook "in
die Sabbat verlustig" (Js.58:13). Want HY is die Rus, die Rus WAAROM ons
die Sabbat glo.
Maar ek wil jou graag van
my nuutste ontdekking vertel! Wat `n verrassing was dit! Dit gaan oor my groot
held in die geloof, Johannes Calvyn.
Jy het seker al gehoor dat
geleerdes toegee dat Calvyn geleer het dat "die Sabbat afgeskaf was deur
die koms van Christus". Jy het seker ook al gehoor dat hulle toegee dat
Calvyn geglo en geleer het dat die Sondag "gebruik word" vir
"praktiese", "orde"-redes alleen, en gladnie as `n 'Sabbat'
of "godsdienstige" Rus-dag of Vier-dag nie. Dit is inderdaad so dat
Calvyn hierdie dinge leer. Al klaar staan 'Sondag'-proponente onder die oordeel
van hulle eie Hervormer, Calvyn!
Maar, en hier begin die
nuwe dinge wat ek nie anders kon as om te ontdek nie, en wat hierdie
Sondag-proponente soos die graf verswyg omdat hulle dit nie WIL sien nie, of
omdat hulle te BANG is om dit te sien en erken: Dit kom duidelik na vore
in Calvyn se geskrifte, dat, Een: "die Sabbat deur die koms van Christus
afgeskaf was", NIE deur sy STERWE 'aan die kruis' nie, maar, deur sy
OPSTANDING! Twee: Dat "die Sabbat deur die koms van Christus afgeskaf
was" deur sy opstanding NIE 'op die EERSTE Dag van die week' nie,
maar deur sy opstanding "IN DIE EINDE VAN DIE SABBATTE". Drie, Dat Calvyn
in sy Kommentaar op 1Kor.16:1-2, hierdie 'Sabbatdag', nader omskrywe as synde
"VOOR die Eerste Dag VAN DIE WEEK", dit wil se, volgens Calvyn
het Jesus OP DIE SABBAT opgestaan!
Calvyn leer dan dat Jesus
"op die Sabbatdag laat", opgestaan het. Calvyn leer egter ook dat
Jesus se opstanding op die Sabbatdag, die AFSKAFFING daarvan, beteken het.
Hierin le die punt waarin ek met Calvyn verskil, naamlik dat ek glo dat Jesus
se opstanding op die Sabbat (die 'weeklikse' Sabbat), die Goddelike beaming,
bevestiging, instelling, en – omdat in Christus Jesus – oorspronklike skepping
of 'making' daarvan, beteken en bewerkstellig het.
Kyk nou net die grootse
betekenis wat Calvyn geheg het aan die "rus" wat deur die Sabbat
"afgeskadu was": Omdat die Sabbat die rus voorafgeskadu het wat
Christus self as Vervulling sou he – Christus in sy opstanding –, was dit so ernstig om die Sabbatsgebod te
oortree dat dit met die dood strafbaar was om selfs net `n paar
stokkies op die Sabbat op te tel. Daarom maak die doding van die ou mens vir
Calvyn die grootste "aspek" van die Sabbatsgebod uit.
Christelike groete
Gerhard Ebersoehn
16/03/04
Raadpleeg asseblief www.biblestudents.co.za, daar vind u
nege boeke, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', gratis, en kort
artikels, html.
Ek vra u in die Naam van Jesus Christus, hoe kon u u
artkel oor die Sabbat publiseer terwyl u bely u glo in Jesus Christus en in die
waarheid en gesag van die Skrif? Ek verstar van vrees voor al die leuens!
Gerhard Ebersoehn
19/04/04
van
1619
12 April 2004
Dear Professor Bacchiocchi,
In your End Time Issue no. 112, you wrote,
<<In his Pastoral Letter
"Dies Domini-The Lord's Day," the Pope himself attempts to make
Sunday the Biblical Sabbath, by applying to Sunday the biblical references to
the Sabbath. For example, the Pope says:
"Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day 'blessed' by God and
'made holy' by Him, set apart from the other days to be among them, 'the Lord's
Day.'" (paragraph 14). Nowhere the Scripture suggests that God blessed
Sunday and made the day holy. This deceptive method is designed to make
Sunday a biblical institution rooted in the Sabbath commandment.>>
Seventh Day Adventists teach that the Little Horn – the
Roman Church – that speaks great things against God will attempt to change, and
succeed in changing the “times and Law” of God. I also believe it, but for
other reasons than the usual. The Roman Church excluded the Second from the Ten
Commandments; and it ‘changed’ the Sabbath from the Seventh to the First Day of
the week. But it changed and is busy changing God’s Law and Sabbath Day by
changing and perverting the WHOLE Written Word the Bible – which in whole is
the Law of God.
I say the Seventh Day Adventists, and you yourself, dear
Professor, do not see the subtle subversion of God’s Word by the antichrist
through TRANSLATION. I especially say it with regard to the Scriptures you have
referred to here.
The Pope is no fool! He misapplies the meaning of the
SEVENTH Day Sabbath Scriptures by falsely applying RESURRECTION Scriptures to
the FIRST Day of the week. Thereby he fully succeeds in ‘changing times and
Law’ belonging to God, into belonging to the lie, the devil and antichrist.
Sunday, IF Jesus’ resurrection occurred on it, would –
by virtue of the very fact – have been the day 'blessed' by God and 'made holy'
by Him, set apart from the other days to be among them 'the Lord's Day'! IF it
were true Christ rose from the dead on the First Day of the week, indeed Sunday
should have been God’s Day of Rest. But the Scriptures are clear Sunday SHOULD
NOT be the day. The Scriptures are equally clear Jesus would on the Sabbath Day
finish all the works of God in and by and through rising from the dead.
Therefore the Sabbath since creation had been the day 'blessed' by God and
'made holy' by Him, set apart from the other days to be among them 'the Lord's
Day' – the Lord of the sabbath having been raised from the dead on it! Simply
because Jesus rose from the dead “in SABBATH’s-time”? Simply! What better
reason could anyone think of? For Jesus’ resurrection IS the finishing work of
all the works of God and the very Rest He had entered upon once for all as from
all eternity – the sole reason for “a Sabbath the keeping of which remaineth
for the people of God”. For Jesus’ resurrection IS the finishing of the
creation of God – IS the salvation from perdition and establishment in
redemption of all His creation, eschatologically already when “in the beginning,
GOD” in grace “to us-ward” (Eph.1:19) revealed Himself through act of creating
the heavens and the earth and all that in them is – which “all” included its
history and the revelation of God in and through Jesus Christ for the finishing
of them.
Now look how easily the antichrist can change the times
and Law of God – seeing he has the power in his ugly claws to accomplish
whatever he wants: Just say: “After the Sabbath early on the First Day of the
week” instead of “In the late (hour) of the Sabbath’s fulness, towards the
First Day of the week...” (Mt.28:1). Instead of saying “When evening had
come...” (Mk.15:42), just say: “When late noon, came Joseph”. Instead of
“before sunrise...” (Dt.21:23), just say: “before sunset”, etcetera!
In other and simple words: The resurrection of Jesus is
the only legitimate Christian reason for keeping God’s Sabbath Day. Or: Jesus
the Risen is the Living Law of God. Therefore to pervert God’s Sabbath, only
steal the principle of its truth and true keeping, Jesus the finishing of God’s
works, Jesus His Rest, and mis-apply it to the false day of man’s preference;
mis-apply it to the Pope’s holy day. And so show one’s reverence for the ‘vicar
of Christ’ instead of Christ.
With whom does your loyalty lie? I have no doubt with
Christ! Then why let your theory and doctrine serve the interest of the devil’s
vicar? By your own words, “Nowhere the Scripture suggests that God blessed
Sunday and made the day holy. This deceptive method is designed to make
Sunday a biblical institution rooted in the Sabbath commandment”, yes, DESIGNED
to give it the biblical significance, of being the day of Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead! This is the crux! Rooted in the Sabbath Commandment is the
divine eschatology of Jesus Christ the Creating and Fulfilling, Finishing, Word
of God – the divine eschatology of Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead.
Please come to understand this because this is the
Bible’s Message of Salvation of which the Sabbath is the memorial. Yes, the
Sabbath is God’s
Then, as concerns that film of Mel Gibson and your
remarks on it. Thank you very much for being brave enough to utter criticism
against it, for it has already in itself become an unimpeachable idol for
people.
Nevertheless, I must say again, I cannot agree with
everthing you commented. The Second Commandment – which, as you know, the
Romanists have left out of God’s Written Law – prohibits the making of ANY
image of God. And that includes ‘pictures of Christ’ – moving or still
pictures, it makes no difference. In principle there is NO difference between
such ‘pictures’ and Jesus-figures on crosses and other such abominable things.
The principle behind it all is to keep unheard the Name of God – to quieten His
proclamation. The Name of God – according to all the Scriptures – should be
proclaimed – loudly and clearly – by Message of the WORD. But man quickly
develops that FALSE humility (Colossians 2) and FALSE ‘respect’ for the Name of
God that He will not be HEARD, but seen in direct contradiction and
contravention of His Law. And under this transgression of God’s Law also and fully
belongs the JEWS’ visualisation of the Name of God. They simply objectify their
idol in form of letters where the papists objectify their idol in the form of
icons and signets like the fish, the cross or whatever. So instead of preaching
Christ, we carry Him around our neck, crucified! It’s wholesale idolatry. Have
you ever seen Christ worn or in token, the RISEN Christ? Never!
Paul said he “preached” Christ – the Mediator, the Risen
and Living Christ – “crucified”. “PREACHED”, that is, the “Crucified” the
LIVING WORD proclaimed and taught by sounding word, from the Word. It can and
may only be accomplished by the man of mission or apostleship – by the man of
calling and faith, preaching and teaching Jesus, hoping for Him, suffering,
patiently, holding to Him. Every aspect of the Christian Faith is
eschatological – it ‘sees’ without objective sight; it ‘sees’ by faith; it
‘sees’ spiritually. It believes and waits.
Something else that struck me is the fact we are not
saved by, what man, did to, Jesus, but by what HE – himself willingly –
suffered, FOR us. So it’s not the amount of violance and blood or the violance
and blood as such (violance and blood that man, afflicted and that man, drew)
that have the power to save. But it is Christ’s, shedding of His, blood;
Christ’s, suffering in the spirit, and Christ’s, giving Himself, over and of
Himself, while suffering death, that redeems and saves. Jesus Christ redeems,
atones, and saves by the giving of His LIFE and the taking up of His LIFE again
– OF HIMSELF!
Mark the relationship in this regard between the Second
Commandment and the Fourth – both find their essence in the very LIFE of God in
Jesus Christ; both, in the resurrection of Him from the dead as the true and
eternal image and memorial of God’s creating grace.
24/04/04
Another Sabbath another opportunity gone, or grasped?
Have I at least tried to give to this Sabbath Day a
Christian character? Did the Church?
Says John Flavel, "I say, and do assure you,
that every idle word that men shall speak, i.e., every word that hath not a
tendency and reference to the glory of God, though there be no other obliquity
of evil in them than this, that they want (this) good end, men shall give
an account thereof."
I say, and do assure you, that every word that hath
not had a tendency and reference to the glory of God in Christ in resurrection
from the dead on this Sabbath Day, served no end to the glory of God, but
served the glory of man. How many times have I this Sabbath had to hear of
'our' holiness, how 'we' are the great doers of God's Holy Law? That's
about all I have heard! And we – no you, the Seventh Day Adventists – wonder
why people 'leave the Church'? It has been long since the time SDA's should
start believe their own doctrine, that "We, are
To check how each and every Scripture that deals with
the Sabbath and the First Day are manipulated so as to steal the only true and
Christian motive for the observance of God's Holy Day,
20/05/04
From Gerhard at biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
To SDA Net
Tony e-mailed me, saying,
> SDAnet in general is not intended as a place to exchange weblinks --
> we prefer that people actually _discuss_ issues on the mailing list.
An ever and presently relevant topic is the cross of Christ.
Certainly the most applicable Scripture in this regard is Colossians 2, with
its implications for the Sabbath Day, the totality of which is based on the
suffering and death – and resurrection – of Jesus Christ – verses 12 to 15.
Some say with it, the Sabbath was abolished. Others – of whom I am not aware
of one except myself and a few Calvinist friends – say, with it the Seventh
Day Sabbath was confirmed, and firmly and originally based on the work of
Christ and on His resurrection from the dead. Jesus' resurrection is the
eschatological creation of the Sabbath of the Lord your God. And this is
clear and fast from the Fourth Commandment, in that God on the Seventh Day
rested. This was the ultimate work of God: to finish and rest in and through
and by virtue of His work done, and rest availed, in Jesus Christ in
resurrection from the dead (Hb.4:8-10). This is the origin of the creation
of God: Jesus Christ the First and the Last; "In the beginning the
Word".
This gives the Christian Church reason for celebrating – "eating and
drinking" – "OF (her) Sabbaths' Feasts".
This gives this forum – SDA Net – something realistic and upbuilding to
ponder on.
29/05/04
Friend,
here's a bit of correspondence that might interest you,
Die
Christelikheid het verword tot ‘godsdiens’ van afgodery soos geen ander op
aarde! Die Gebod teen die maak van gelykenisse en beelde bestaan net nie meer
vir die Christelike godsdiens nie. Dit is omdat Jesus Christus nie meer as God
en Here eerbiedig word nie, maar as gewone mens deurgaan. Ontsag vir die
Skrifte is by die venster uit! ‘n Bespotting word gemaak van die profetiese
betekenis van “die derde dag volgens die Skrifte”. Die eenvoudigste feite om
die laaste lydings-gebeurtenis word verdraai en vervals. By voorbeeld soen
Maria haar Seun wanneer hy van die kruis afgehaal word, terwyl Johannes –
volgens sy eie Evangelie – haar huistoe geneem het nog voordat die duisternis
begin het. Dit is hierdie soort van ding wat onder sekere ‘Christene’
aanleiding tot Maria-aanbidding gee!
Weg
met ‘passie-spele’; God het nie gespeel nie; Hy het geen ‘show opgesit’ nie.
Nie
wat mense met die Seun van God gedoen het en steeds doen, red nie, maar wat Hy,
Self gewil en gedoen het. Nie bloed, spoeg en dorings red nie (dit
veroordeel!), maar die LEWE wat Hy, die mag gehad het om self neer te lê, en
self, weer op te geneem het deur uit die dode en uit die graf uit op te staan,
liggaamlik, werklik, eg en waar. Van Hom, as hierdie Here, kán, en mág, geen
gelykenis gemaak word nie; kán, en mág, geen gelyke gemaak word, wat dan
verheerlik en aanbid word nie.
Gehard
Ebersöhn
“Actors
do not worship when acting Christ” – what then do they do ?
John
(the Gospel) doesn’t “theologically” say “John took the mother of Jesus away
from the crucifixion before it became dark” – “it is stated as a fact” as
literally as idiomatic expression could. Refer on this Greek idiom, ‘ta ídia’, (equivalent
of French ‘chez lui’), to ‘Crucifixion’, 2nd volume of ‘The Lord’s
Day in the Covenant of Grace’. Offload free of charge from www.biblestudents.co.za.
“To
read a number of translations of (this) text”, too obviously may be helpful for
the tradition that John took Mary in his care.
“The
second commandment that the use of images and idols is not allowed in worship”:
Where have you found it? I read that to make images of God, tangibly or
mentally, is idolatry, whether in worship or elsewhere.
I
infer you don’t deem Jesus Almighty God – “only Yahweh may be worshipped as
God”. “That they may not give false testimony” against the divinity of Jesus
(“yesterday, today and forever the same”), ‘the actors’, “need to consider the
Commandment”.
“The movie … motivated … to seriously consider the sufferings of Jesus”:
First, most of the “movie” depicts sufferings that never were those of Jesus
but of the imagination of a couple of nuns of long ago. Second, Jesus’
sufferings through man’s sinning, doesn’t bring salvation but damnation. Third,
having seen Jesus’ sufferings at the hand of humanity, one has seen nothing of
God’s suffering while Himself being Priest and Sacrifice.
‘The sign of Jonah’ was Jesus’ true suffering – that of death and hell
itself – which no man ever witnessed or could imagine, not to mention portray
or make an image / movie / play of!
Gerhard
Ebersöhn, Scorpiostraat 26, van Riebeeckpark, antwoord Professor Stephan
Joubert,
“Gerhard
noem foutiewelik dat slegs visuele uitbeeldings verkeerd is”:
Ek
het nie “slegs” gesê nie. Wat is “verkeerd” met “interne beelde”, “eie
kop-beelde van Jesus”? Net maar wat met “visuele uitbeeldings” van Hom “so ewe”
“verkeerd” is. (Die konnotasie van skynheiligheid van “so ewe”, het ek nie
gemis nie!) Die een is “ewe” “verkeerd” en “(net) so” afgodery as die ander.
Passiespele gaan egter verder, en is “duidelike” “aanbieding” of “uitbeelding”
van presies die “interne beelde van Jesus in (die) gemoed” – dus dubbele
afgodery! Daarom
God
laat Hom deur die geloof alleen ken. Deur die geloof alleen weet ons dat as ons
tot Hom bid, dat HY, en NIE my ‘interne kop-prent’ van Hom nie, ons hoor en
verhoor. Want HY, die EK IS, is Here en God van die Christen – lewende,
persoonlike Vriend, Broer, Maker, Meester en Verlosser, Jesus Christus. Teen
aanbidding van hierdie Here is nóg die Tweede Gebod, nóg die Christelike
geloof, want geen “interne” of “visuele” ‘beeld’
“Die
profetiese betekenis van sekere datums …”:
“Ek
maak julle die Evangelie bekend wat ek … ook ontvang het …” Dis geen eie
voorstelling nie. “Waardeur julle ook gered word … volgens die Skrifte die
derde dag” – dag van Eerste Gerf Beweegoffer – die Goeie Boodskap van die
OPSTANDING en van die Opstandingsdag van Jesus – nié van “Goeie Vrydag” nie.
29/05/04
Gerhard
Ebersöhn answers
Andrew
McGill,
“Actors
do not worship” – what then do they do when acting Christ?
John
(the Gospel) doesn’t “theologically” say “John took the mother of Jesus away
from the crucifixion before it became dark” – “it is stated as a fact” as
literally as idiomatic expression could. Refer on this Greek idiom, ‘ta ídia’,
(equivalent of French ‘chez lui’), to ‘Crucifixion’, 2nd volume of
‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’. Offload free of charge from www.biblestudents.co.za.
“To
read a number of translations of (this) text”, too obviously may be helpful for
the tradition that John took Mary in his care.
“The
second commandment that the use of images and idols is not allowed in worship”:
Where have you found it? I read that to make images of God, tangibly or
mentally, is idolatry, whether in worship or elsewhere.
I
infer you don’t deem Jesus Almighty God – “only Yahweh may be worshipped as
God”. “That they may not give false testimony” against the divinity of Jesus
(“yesterday, today and forever the same”), ‘the actors’, “need to consider the
Commandment”.
“The movie … motivated … to seriously consider the sufferings of Jesus”:
First, most of the “movie” depicts sufferings that never were those of Jesus
but of the imagination of a couple of nuns of long ago. Second, Jesus’
sufferings through man’s sinning, doesn’t bring salvation but damnation. Third,
having seen Jesus’ sufferings at the hand of humanity, one has seen nothing of
God’s suffering while Himself being Priest and Sacrifice.
‘The sign of Jonah’ was Jesus’ true suffering – that of death and hell
itself – which no man ever witnessed or could imagine, not to mention portray
or make an image / movie / play of!
29/05/4
Gerhard
Ebersöhn, Scorpiostraat 26, van Riebeeckpark, antwoord Professor Stephan
Joubert,
“Gerhard
noem foutiewelik dat slegs visuele uitbeeldings verkeerd is”:
Ek
het nie “slegs” gesê nie. Wat is “verkeerd” met “interne beelde”, “eie
kop-beelde van Jesus”? Net maar wat met “visuele uitbeeldings” van Hom “so ewe”
“verkeerd” is. (Die konnotasie van skynheiligheid van “so ewe”, het ek nie
gemis nie!) Die een is “ewe” “verkeerd” en “(net) so” afgodery as die ander.
Passiespele gaan egter verder, en is “duidelike” “aanbieding” of “uitbeelding”
van presies die “interne beelde van Jesus in (die) gemoed” – dus dubbele
afgodery! Daarom
God
laat Hom deur die geloof alleen ken. Deur die geloof alleen weet ons dat as ons
tot Hom bid, dat HY, en NIE my ‘interne kop-prent’ van Hom nie, ons hoor en
verhoor. Want HY, die EK IS, is Here en God van die Christen – lewende,
persoonlike Vriend, Broer, Maker, Meester en Verlosser, Jesus Christus. Teen
aanbidding van hierdie Here is nóg die Tweede Gebod, nóg die Christelike
geloof, want geen “interne” of “visuele” ‘beeld’
“Die
profetiese betekenis van sekere datums …”:
“Ek
maak julle die Evangelie bekend wat ek … ook ontvang het …” Dis geen eie
voorstelling nie. “Waardeur julle ook gered word … volgens die Skrifte die
derde dag” – dag van Eerste Gerf Beweegoffer – die Goeie Boodskap van die
OPSTANDING en van die Opstandingsdag van Jesus – nié van “Goeie Vrydag” nie.
29/05/04
Gerhard
Ebersöhn answers
Andrew
McGill,
“Actors
do not worship” – what then do they do when acting Christ?
John
(the Gospel) doesn’t “theologically” say “John took the mother of Jesus away
from the crucifixion before it became dark” – “it is stated as a fact” as
literally as idiomatic expression could. Refer on this Greek idiom, ‘ta ídia’,
(equivalent of French ‘chez lui’), to ‘Crucifixion’, 2nd volume of
‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’. Offload free of charge from www.biblestudents.co.za.
“To
read a number of translations of (this) text”, too obviously may be helpful for
the tradition that John took Mary in his care.
“The
second commandment that the use of images and idols is not allowed in worship”:
Where have you found it? I read that to make images of God, tangibly or
mentally, is idolatry, whether in worship or elsewhere.
I
infer you don’t deem Jesus Almighty God – “only Yahweh may be worshipped as
God”. “That they may not give false testimony” against the divinity of Jesus
(“yesterday, today and forever the same”), ‘the actors’, “need to consider the
Commandment”.
“The movie … motivated … to seriously consider the sufferings of Jesus”:
First, most of the “movie” depicts sufferings that never were those of Jesus
but of the imagination of a couple of nuns of long ago. Second, Jesus’
sufferings through man’s sinning, doesn’t bring salvation but damnation. Third,
having seen Jesus’ sufferings at the hand of humanity, one has seen nothing of
God’s suffering while Himself being Priest and Sacrifice.
‘The sign of Jonah’ was Jesus’ true suffering – that of death and hell
itself – which no man ever witnessed or could imagine, not to mention portray
or make an image / movie / play of!
29/05/04
Gerhard
Ebersöhn, Scorpiostraat 26, van Riebeeckpark, antwoord Professor Stephan
Joubert,
“Gerhard
noem foutiewelik dat slegs visuele uitbeeldings verkeerd is”:
Ek
het nie “slegs” gesê nie. Wat is “verkeerd” met “interne beelde”, “eie
kop-beelde van Jesus”? Net maar wat met “visuele uitbeeldings” van Hom “so ewe”
“verkeerd” is. (Die konnotasie van skynheiligheid van “so ewe”, het ek nie gemis
nie!) Die een is “ewe” “verkeerd” en “(net) so” afgodery as die ander.
Passiespele gaan egter verder, en is “duidelike” “aanbieding” of “uitbeelding”
van presies die “interne beelde van Jesus in (die) gemoed” – dus dubbele
afgodery! Daarom
God
laat Hom deur die geloof alleen ken. Deur die geloof alleen weet ons dat as ons
tot Hom bid, dat HY, en NIE my ‘interne kop-prent’ van Hom nie, ons hoor en
verhoor. Want HY, die EK IS, is Here en God van die Christen – lewende,
persoonlike Vriend, Broer, Maker, Meester en Verlosser, Jesus Christus. Teen
aanbidding van hierdie Here is nóg die Tweede Gebod, nóg die Christelike
geloof, want geen “interne” of “visuele” ‘beeld’
“Die
profetiese betekenis van sekere datums …”:
“Ek
maak julle die Evangelie bekend wat ek … ook ontvang het …” Dis geen eie
voorstelling nie. “Waardeur julle ook gered word … volgens die Skrifte die
derde dag” – dag van Eerste Gerf Beweegoffer – die Goeie Boodskap van die
OPSTANDING en van die Opstandingsdag van Jesus – nié van “Goeie Vrydag” nie.
29/05/04
From Gerhard at biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
To SDA Net
An ever and presently relevant topic is Christ in His suffering and
victory over sin and death.
Certainly one of the most relavant Scriptures in this regard is Colossians
2, with
its implications for the Sabbath Day, the totality and finality of which is
based on the
resurrection of Christ – verses 12 to 15.
Some say with Jesus' death, the Sabbath was abolished. Others – of whom I am
not aware
of one except myself and a few Calvinist friends – say, with His
resurrection the Seventh
Day Sabbath was confirmed, and firmly and originally based on the work of
Christ. (Contra Calvin who maintains Jesus' in His resurrection abolished the
Sabbath Day.)
Jesus' resurrection therefore is the eschatological
creation of the Sabbath of the Lord your God. This is clear and fast from the
Fourth Commandment, in that God on the Seventh Day
rested. The ultimate work of God (the work of "the exceeding greatness of
His power") is to finish and rest in and through and by virtue of His work
done, and rest availed, in Jesus Christ through
resurrection from the dead (Hb.4:8-10). Jesus Christ the First and the
Last is the eschatological origin of the creation of God: "In the
beginning the Word" – from here its Day of Rest.
This gives the Christian Church reason for celebrating – "eating and
drinking" – "OF (her) Sabbaths' Feasts". This gives this forum –
SDA Net – something realistic and upbuilding to
ponder on.
08/06/04
The Sabbath is sacramental in many respects, and thus
had been observed by the
“Do
not you therefore be judged by anyone with regard to the eating and drinking of
your Sabbaths’, or of your month’s (Lord’s Supper), Feasts.”
“(Your)
eating”:
In
the Septuagint bróhsis normally simply means “food”, as in Lv.19:7. In
verse 23 bróhsimos is rendered “fruit”. In Gn.1:29-30 and 2:9, 16 the
original food of mankind – fruit – is described with the word bróhsis –
the very best of food, for life’s feasting!
Some
food and combinations of foods are deemed of special value and significance, e.g.,
in 2Sm.16:2 and 19:42, “loaves and dates” and “oil”, seem to have had been
reserved for the recuperation of kings. These were ‘royal’, that is, ‘festive’,
foods.
Bróhsis often has the negative connotation of a judgemental
‘feast’ for wild animals and birds. See Jr.19:7, 41:20.
Offerings
and sacrifices are explained as “food” – spiritual food of course – for the
spiritual House of Israel, the Church. See 1Sm.2:28 to 30. Offerings and
sacrifices usually were associated with the feasts of God’s People.
The
word bróhsis as in 1Kings 19:8 can have prophetic – also ‘spiritual’ –
meaning.
Compare
verses 33 and 34 in Jr. 7, and see the relationship between bróhsis and
the “mirth” and “gladness” of a wedding feast.
In
texts like Mal.3:11-12 and Ez.29:5 the feasting congregation enjoys her bróhsis.
The
eschatological return to the Edenic state will be feasted with the original
wonder-food of the creation, or even better – read Ez.47:12. John’s Revelation
presents a similar picture of the tree of life with its fruit of life, bróhsis.
The meaning, again, is purely ‘spiritual’.
The
absence of feasts of food, bróhsis, despite, Hab.3:16, “I will rejoice
in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation”, verse 17. The real feasts
of the People are feasts of faith, the ‘food’ of their feasts being the essence
and object of their Faith, “the LORD God”, verse 19.
In
Daniel 1:10 occurs the only true equivalent of the Col.2:16 bróhsis and pósis.
Here, Daniel and his friends refused the king’s feasts of “eating and
drinking”.
No
doubt bróhsis and pósis in Colossians 2:16, are joined to the
same, but spiritual meaning, as in Daniel 1:10.
The
strongest evidence though that bróhsis and pósis in Col.2:16 have
the meaning of spiritual “eating and drinking” or ‘feasting’, is presented by
the context itself. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead by God is
mightily described as reason for and impulse of the “feasts” of the Church or
“Body of Christ”, verses 12 to 15. Paul begins verse 16 with “Therefore”,
thereby referring back to these verses while creating immediate relation
between Christ’s victory and the celebration by the Church of her feasts of
Sabbaths and months.
15/06/04
To:
SDA NET
From Gerhard Ebersoehn
I am a (staunch) Calvinist, ultra 'Reformed'. But I may recommend many
authors, theologians and evangelists who could tell in much easier style and
idom than Calvin what 'Calvinism' and its characteristic 'dogmas' really
are. Spurgeon – "the last of the Puritans" – for example. Then the
earlier
Puritans – many of them. These were the English "Reformers" – all,
'Calvinists'!
From the Calvinist Puritans came the first Sabbatharians, the 'Trinitarian'
Sabbatharians, and from them splintered and into them intruded the
'free-will' 'Unitarians'. The joining of 'free-will' and Unitarianism is
telling enough; also the time of the two's arival.
But I always say, if you haven't read John Owen on these subjects, rather be
quiet to save face.
With greatest delight I see the
doctrines and principles of Protestantism. Luther called the subject matter
of his 'The Bondage of the Will' (called the 'Charter of the Reformation')
the hinge upon which everything else moves.
"Free will" is a total non-entity, an absolute impossibility. It is
that
human capacity wherewith we are enabled to fool ourselves right into
perdition.
What freedom it would bring the
Election! What mighty instrument for God it may become! HOW GOD'S SABBATH
DAY WOULD BE APPRECIATED! (Have you ever noticed how Election and
Predestination and the Sabbath belong together?)
18/06/04
Ø
To: SDA NET
> From Gerhard Ebersoehn
> I am a (staunch) Calvinist, ultra 'Reformed'. But I may recommend many
> authors, theologians and evangelists who could tell in much easier style
and
> idom than Calvin what 'Calvinism' and its characteristic 'dogmas' really
> are. Spurgeon – "the last of the Puritans" – for example. Then
the earlier
> Puritans – many of them. These were the English "Reformers" –
all,
> 'Calvinists'!
> From the Calvinist Puritans came the first Sabbatharians, the
'Trinitarian'
> Sabbatharians, and from them splintered and into them intruded the
> 'free-will' 'Unitarians'. The joining of 'free-will' and Unitarianism is
> telling enough; also the time of the two's arival.
> But I always say, if you haven't read John Owen on these subjects, rather
be
> quiet to save face.
> With greatest delight I see the
> doctrines and principles of Protestantism. Luther called the subject
matter
> of his 'The Bondage of the Will' (called the 'Charter of the Reformation')
> the hinge upon which everything else moves.
> "Free will" is a total non-entity, an absolute impossibility. It
is that
> human capacity wherewith we are enabled to fool ourselves right into
> perdition.
> What freedom it would bring the
divine
> Election! What mighty instrument for God it may become! HOW GOD'S SABBATH
> DAY WOULD BE APPRECIATED! (Have you ever noticed how Election and
> Predestination and the Sabbath belong together?)
18/06/04
The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace www.biblestudents.co.za
Dit is nie uit Hand.20:7 afleibaar dat die dissipels
op die Eerste Dag vergader het nie – dis 'n vertalersfoefie. Die Grieks se
hulle was op die Eerste Dag "nog bymekaar" – wat impliseer hulle het
op die Sabbat saamgekom.
22/06/04
Dear
Timm,
Free-will is "bound" (Luther) to man's nature and inclination, which
is
fallen and inclined to sin and sinning irrevocably, except through the
intervention of free divine grace, determined by the free will of God only.
That is the full substance and content of Election and Predestination. Its
truth is Scriptural in every respect, and takes a side-swipe at those who
would combat Scripture and the freedom of God's will, without exeption. If
'those' included the
concern me – I promote no own agenda.
Thanks in any case for responding.
Christian greetings
Gerhard.
----- Original Message -----
From: SDA Net <sdanet@sdanet.org>
To: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Cc: <sdamod@lydia.sdanet.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: Predestination and Election
> Gerard, I am rejecting this post. The moderators have discussed it
> among ourselves. Your comments on what the SDA church is doing now
> are wrong. This post is rejected, not because of that, but because
> you are just taking a side-swipe at those who believe in
> free will without putting any substantive content in your post.
>
> It is important for you to try to engage in dialogue with the other
> topics on the network and not to just promote your own agenda.
Please
> try to keep this in mind in future.
>
> Steve Timm
> SDAnet moderator
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
> > To: SDA Net <sdanet@sdanet.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Predestination and Election
> >
> >
> > > To: SDA NET
> > > From Gerhard Ebersoehn
> > > I am a (staunch) Calvinist, ultra 'Reformed'. But I may
recommend many
> > > authors, theologians and evangelists who could tell in much
easier
style
> > and
> > > idom than Calvin what 'Calvinism' and its characteristic
'dogmas'
really
> > > are. Spurgeon – "the last of the Puritans" – for
example. Then the
earlier
> > > Puritans – many of them. These were the English
"Reformers" – all,
> > > 'Calvinists'!
> > > From the Calvinist Puritans came the first Sabbatharians, the
> > 'Trinitarian'
> > > Sabbatharians, and from them splintered and into them intruded
the
> > > 'free-will' 'Unitarians'. The joining of 'free-will' and
Unitarianism
is
> > > telling enough; also the time of the two's arival.
> > > But I always say, if you haven't read John Owen on these
subjects,
rather
> > be
> > > quiet to save face.
> > > With greatest delight I see the
basic
> > > doctrines and principles of Protestantism. Luther called the
subject
> > matter
> > > of his 'The Bondage of the Will' (called the 'Charter of the
Reformation')
> > > the hinge upon which everything else moves.
> > > "Free will" is a total non-entity, an absolute
impossibility. It is that
> > > human capacity wherewith we are enabled to fool ourselves right
into perdition.
> > > What freedom it would bring the
> > divine
> > > Election! What mighty instrument for God it may become! HOW
GOD'S
SABBATH
> > > DAY WOULD BE APPRECIATED! (Have you ever noticed how Election
and
> > > Predestination and the Sabbath belong together?)
>
22/06/04
Dear Henry,
Thank you for your return post, "Jesus Lives
Today".
I agree with much of what you wrote. Nevertheles ...
Take your third paragraph (the fifth likewise) –
"That we might have eternal life" – yet you
mention no word of Jesus' resurrection!
"Obedient to His Father's will in all
things": You think the day of Jesus' resurrection was accidental; not
specifically according to His Father's will, "according to the Scriptures
the third day" of Passover Feast "in Sabbath's time"? What do
you think the Sabbath was instituted the Passover Sabbath in the Fourth
Commandment for?
"God thus concerning the Seventh Day spoke"
– You think "if Jesus had given them rest" it excluded Jesus'
"entering into His own Rest as God upon His" – the ONLY NT reason
given why "there remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath Day for the People of
God"?
You think Jesus' resurrection had nothing to do with
it "all" – with "all" these "works of God", the
works of "the exceeding greatness of His power", nor with the Seventh
Day the ONE Day of ONLY God's works?
Then you still haven't begun to think about the
Sabbath in the Christian way.
Only in your 7th paragraph do you refer to Jesus'
resurrection, and then only as part of a series of events, and without bearing
on the Day of His resurrection.
Wherein is "the great seal of God placed"
but in the supreme and FINISHING, RESTING act of God of raising Jesus from the
dead?
Wherein is His holy Name found but in this the
almighty, all-demanding deed of God omnipotent and loving, His Name of
Redeemer-Creator but in the resurrection of His Christ?
There is NO seal of God in our doing or obedience. The
Seal of God is the Son of God, "ENDING", "BLESSING", and
"SANCTIFYING" the Sabbath Day by His "REST" of
"all the works of God". That, places "the seal of God" upon
"all" the works of God. Seventh Day Adventists have never as yet
associated the Seal of God with Jesus' resurrection on the Sabbath Day!
That's why your eighth paragraph has so many
inaccuracies and plain untruths.
Jesus "died before the Sabbath day began" –
not "Friday afternoon", and not before the Seventh (weekly) Sabbath
Day, but before the Passover Sabbath Day began. John expressly confirms:
"It was the Day of the Preparation OF THE PASSOVER" – of the Passover
Sabbath or "Feast" or "Great Day".
"Being placed in the tomb, He rested": No!
"Death is the wages of sin" – it is not the rest of God! God rested
in and through and by the act of His Finishing like at His creation of the
heavens and the earth. Now His ultimate work was His ultimate rest – that of
raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus' resurrection not only finished redemption;
it finished – completed, perfected – creation. Without Jesus resurrection from
the dead everything created because of man's sinning would have returned
to and have stayed in death. Jesus' "resurrection from the dead",
accomplished God's original work of creation, because God created all things
for this purpose – for His "eternal purpose" of "the glory of
God in the face of Jesus". That constitutes what God created / "made
the Sabbath for".
So Christ was not raised from the dead on the First
Day of the week, but "God honoured the Sabbath" by raising Jesus from
the dead and hell and grave "In SABBATH'S fulness BEFORE the First Day of
the week".
"He could have risen immediately after
dying", IF NOT God determined that "according to the Scriptures"
He would rise again "on the third day", which also God determined,
had to be the Sabbath Day – "in that God rested the Seventh Day".
This word, and this Scripture only, is enough to prove Jesus would rise,
"Victor" on the Sabbath Day.
"Soon after the Sabbath day sun was set, He rose
from the grave in full glory": God "in full glory", but not in
the very deed of "resting", "blessing",
"sanctifying", "finishing", but AFTER it? I cannot accept,
ever! By-passing the ONE Day of His "full glory", to
"honour" and favour the next, irrelevant, day? It makes no sense; it
contradicts every eschatological aspect of the Seventh Day Sabbath – it
contradicts God's Word in every way, whether written, spoken, promised,
prophesied, or Living!
Here is the essence of the time of Jesus'
resurrection as Scripture gives it, Matthew 28:1: "In the full glory of
daylight of the Sabbath Day" – Opse de Sabbatohn epiphohskousehi. I
challenge all the armies of the Pope to prove me wrong. This is the only time
and day agreeable with the promises and word of oath of God. "No day was
honoured more than that special seventh day Sabbath when the King of glory
rested ..." IN, BY, and THROUGH His very act of almighty power and glory
"when he raised Christ from the dead" – Ephesians 1:19f. It was the
Seventh Day Sabbath; it could not be any other day.
Jesus in, by and through rising from the dead, became
the LAW to us, His Church. Therefore He must have risen from the dead on the
Sabbath Day (Seventh Day of the week). Otherwise He could not be the Law to us,
but must be its contradiction.
I have no respect for any authority that might go
against the revelation of God or against the nature of the revelation of God
through the Scriptures. A Sunday-resurrection goes against the grain and thrust
of the promises of God and the Sabbath of God, against its nature, against its
literal as well as spiritual implications. Sunday-resurrection is the devil's
invention and the Pope its gaurdian. Only in the light of Jesus' resurrection
could I understand how Sunday-worship could be the mark of the beast. Papal
power laughed when some honest and good Christians thought they had won
the case for the Sabbath when they won the day for the Law. He laughed because
he held the aces up his sleeve, the last and winning card with the picture of
the Sun King on it and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on his day.
23/06/04
From:
Gerhard Ebersoehn
Bille Burdick came to the net (with reference to Holmes), quoting,
>Does the Sabbath, and related themes of creation and rest,
>need to be expressed in our worship apart from the sermon,
>and the fact that we meet on Saturday?
saying,
>>I think so. But I don't think they should be totally independent
of
>>the theme of the day.
>> As they are either made the topic of the sermon,
>>or can be tied to the sermon topic in some meaningful way,
>>then I think they should be woven in.
>>But IMO, the more integrated the whole service is
>>the more people will retain both the central focus for the day
>>as well as its supporting sub-themes.
On the question,
>How can we express the centrality of the life,
>>death and resurrection of Jesus
>>in a service where (we *partake* of the Communion emble)
>>only once a quarter?
To me the posed questions are of utmost relevance, and Bille's answers
promise insights of utmost importance. Unfortunately these insights are not
defined,
I think because Bille has not really yet discovered them.
The fact that we – as Christians – meet on the Sabbath (Seventh Day of the
week) should be for one reason and cause, The Lord of the Sabbath Himself,
and because of Him in Lordly victory over death and grave, thus having
entered into His own Rest as God and having finished all the works of God
by the exceeding greatness of His Power. It is Christ, having been raised
from the dead on the Lord's Day, "In the slow hours being the very light
of
the Sabbath Day", or, "in the full glory of the Sabbath Day, the
First Day
of the week foregoing". The "related themes of creation and
rest" have been
telling us that since the
beginning of creation. (It is 'eschatology'.)
Bille's answer,
>>We are following his directives
>>to eat and drink of the bread and wine
>>*in remembrance* of Him
echoes Paul in Colossians 2:16.
The time has come we Sabbatharians with deserved disdain reject the world's
misrepresentation and misapplication of this Scripture! Everything about the
Sabbath in this Scripture is positively Christian. No reservations! This
Scripture "belongs to us" – to Christians – as much and more than the
creation story of the Sabbath, or the Commandment regarding the Sabbath -
which could also be claimed as belonging to them by Jews and other
non-Christians. We are not Jews because we are not Judaistic – we do NOT
'observe' or 'celebrate' the Sabbath because of the Law. Christ to us has
become the Law, and everything we do according to the Law and the Prophets
we do because of
Jesus Christ – unreservedly because of Jesus Christ in resurrection from the
dead!
Christ rose from the dead on the Seventh Day Sabbath, "the third Day
according to the (Passover / Salvation) Scriptures" – Day of "First
Sheaf
Wave Offering before the LORD". Then, God "made the Sabbath",
then, "God
rested on the Seventh Day"; then and thus He "finished on the Seventh
Day",
"therefore blessed God the Seventh Day". For the ultimate purpose of
the
First Sheaf Wave Offering – Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead – did
God choose and appoint the Seventh Day Sabbath. The Sabbath serves NO other
purpose in Christian worship than the glory of God in the face of Jesus,
else would be wilful religion, no less than the religion of idolatry. If the
Sabbath had no direct relationship in terms of time and essence with the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, it would have had NO
relationship with either worship or the Sabbath – not if Christian worship
or Christian Sabbath.
26/06/04
Dear Elaine, Thanks very much for your reaction. No
its not a new doctrine – Genesis 2 already contains it eschatologically – read
it together with Eph.1:19f, e.g..
Read 'The Lord's day in the Covenant of Grace' from www.biblestudents.co.za
Read the KJV Mt.28:1, and my questions put to Prof.
Bacchiocchi re "Late"
God bless you with His Sabbath-blessing which is
Christ Jesus in Victory over unrest through resurrection from the dead.
G
27/06/04
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
Thank you for accepting the challenge put to SDAnet
concerning this 'doctrine'.
We have before discussed it, and the same protests
are heard again, each of which is very thoroughly considered in my book, 'The
Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', which can be off-loaded free from www.biblestudents.co.za. There are
also short articles and extracts.
God did NOT rest in Christ in death – which is the wages
of sin!
God rested in the act of the exceeding greatness of
His power when He raised Christ frm the dead – which truth is already present
in every OT Scripture on the Sabbath.
29/06/04
To:
A. Le Roy Moore
From:
C.G. Ebersöhn
Dear
brother in Christ,
You
wrote in SDASNet:
<Brother Gerhard, further down you
protest <Bille's challenge to your
"reasonings." But <there
are very good reasons for her protest, <which
I would like to probe more fully.
I wish to answer to you in person, if acceptable to you?
You
wrote,
<There is no more important
principle than <the "in
Christ" and victory in Him by virtue <of
His death motif which you urge as the <only
motive for Sabbath observance. You are <not
at all wrong in emphasizing this. But it <is
in declaring this "THE ONLY <appropriate
motive for Sabbath keeping."
May
be you will better understand why I ‘declare this’, “the only motive for
Sabbath keeping”, if you correctly noticed the <motif which (I) urge>.
You describe my <motif> as <victory in Him by virtue of His death>
– which is true, but incomplete, and therefore, is not true. My <motif>
lies more with Jesus’ resurrection from His death than with His death by
itself. By itself and apart from the whole of Jesus’ work of redemption, His
death would have been rather useless. Jesus’ death if only it, would have been
but death like ours on our own – for ever in oblivion apart from God and not
reconciled with Him at all. (You said yourself:
< We must never risk one truth by emphasizing
<others. All truth is a unit and failure to <link the parts of truth
together is the <basis for all heresy.
Now
what completes and perfects the <death motif>, is Jesus’ resurrection
‘motif’! You would have been much nearer the ‘unit’ of the ‘truth’ which I
‘emphasize’, if you mentioned Jesus’ resurrection only instead of His death
only.
Jesus’
resurrection presupposes His death – invariably and necessarily. But Jesus’
death – for unbelief – could not presuppose His resurrection. Of course Jesus’
death also presupposes His resurrection, but for faith only. Without faith –
which is grace – it is impossible to accept that Jesus rose from the dead. For
faith Jesus’ death without His resurrection poses an impossibility, while for
natural man, it remains as impossible to deny Jesus’ death than to accept or
believe His resurrection.
So
– to be fair – we must start all over with our critique from the standpoint of
my true <motif>, namely, the <principle> of <victory "in
Christ" by virtue of His> RESURRECTION from death, from the grave and,
“from the dead”. Would you then still have had the same protests against my
views? I doubt!
How
could I doubt? Because I am so convinced “God rested” “in the Son” in
resurrection from the dead, He in fact and ultimately “rested from all His
works”! The first time in God’s time, to be exact. Creation would never have
been created were it not that Jeus rose from the dead. No one soul God had
created, would have survived the wages of sin – which is death – had Jesus not
conquered sin and its prize, and claimed the crown and laurels of God and Lord:
everlasting life of – and for – “all the works of God”; of and for creation for
sure!
One
could <never risk> this <one truth> without risking all others; it
cannot be over-<emphasized>. <By virtue> of this <one truth>
ALL truth stand fast; without it all truth will FAIL; will be <error> –
just like creation that may think it exists without Jesus’ resurrection.
One
should never forget – still less neglect – to put this <one truth> first
and foremost. In your own words:
< To in any way deny that creation and
<redemption are one, that each is a part of <the other or to separate
these, is to <destroy the significance of both. For each <can be
understood only in relation to the <other.
Just
try and think: <creation and redemption are one> in Christ in
resurrection from the dead. Then where else could creation and redemption be
<one>? NOWHERE! Do you see “God the Seventh Day rested from all His
works” implies “God’s Rest” would have been nonexistent had it not been for
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? God’s Rest” “from all God’s works” implies
<redemption> in that it “in the end”, implies Jesus’ resurrection from
the dead.
You
wrote:
<... the ... command is to
"worship Him Who
<made heaven, and earth, and
the sea, and the <fountains of
water" (Rev 14:7). And that is <a
virtual command to keep the Sabbath <command.
Undeniable!
(Please take note, I say, undeniable. I am not against the Sabbath; I am for
the Lord of the Sabbath Day – how then could I ever be against the Sabbath Day
of the Lord?)
But
just read the WHOLE context of this text – which is “the Revelation
(indication) of Jesus Christ”! So the Command and the Commandment say, “Worship
Jesus Christ Who ...”. Who IS this Jesus Christ Who”? He is the Lord in Whom
“the dead are blessed” in that he conquered death – verse 13. He is “the Son of
Man” – in that He is the Saviour of men – the exalted “having on His head a
golden crown” – the crown of Victor Lord “Son of Man” ‘Glorious Being’. Verse
one describes Him with this Name”, “Lamb” – “the Lamb of God” – “our Passover”.
Now notice carefully: Before this Lamb the redeemed sing ...? “The Song of
Moses and the Lamb” – the Passover Song – Redemption Hymn! “A NEW SONG BEFORE
THE THRONE”. Don’t think any further before you have read the Passover
Commandment that commands: “Wave before the LORD the First Sheaf Wave Offering”
– which is Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. Then for this reason and
<motif> God Himself gave the Commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day to
keep it holy” ... “Remember that you were a slave in
The
angel proclaimed "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" – the Good News of Him,
in resurrection from the dead, in victory over death, in exaltaion to Son of
Man and Lord – Lord of the Sabbath Day – day of rest. Here Jesus' own prophecy
had come true. (Mk2:27)
Unfortunately
– lamentably – the
04/07/04
Dear Le Roy,
3 July 2004, and I wish to continue,
Consider your next words:
< The "everlasting gospel" warns all humanity that in
the pending,
<final judgment only true worshippers of the true God
<will receive the reward of life and escape damnation.
<But who is this true God to be worshipped?
<None other than Christ Jesus, the Word, the
<Creator Who "spoke and it was done and commanded
<and it stood fast" (Ps 33:6, 9; Jn 1:1-2).
<Thus, the next command is to "worship Him Who
<made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
<the fountains of water" (Rev 14:7)>
<Who is this true God to be worshipped?> Every Divine Title
is His, but most of all ‘The Resurrected Exalted Crucified’. He cannot be imagined
without THIS Title. Had it been possible to imagine <this God> without
THIS Title he would have been of no benefit, of no value, of no significance
for US, the LOST <creation>; he would not have been WHO HE really IS.
Although He is the “I AM”, He is the “I AM for you” – for US, or, as Paul puts
it in Ephesians 1:19f, “TO US-WARD”. <Who is this true God to be worshipped?
None other than Christ Jesus …>, where God is “to us-ward” more than
anywhere else: than in Christ Jesus The Risen! In the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead God is God “to us-ward”. Only at this point in time and
eternity does <creation> come to its own in that it “in Him” has entered
upon a Sabbath-keeping of the Sabbath Rest that is God’s in the first and last
analysis – “the Sabbath of the LORD your God”.
Mark the two Scriptures you here refer to. Both are
‘Redemption’-Scriptures. In fact, John quotes Psalm 33 in Rv.14! “Sing unto Him
a new song!” Hear the Faith of Old Testament times, waiting upon the Lord,
exclaiming, “Our soul waiteth for the LORD … to deliver the soul from death …
for our heart shall rejoice in HIM, because we have trusted in His holy Name,
Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.” In the New
Testament the servants of this God would refer back to what the psalmist here
looked forward to, and would write: “according to the Scriptures”. I am sure
you won’t deny the eschatology of this Psalm – its Resurrection Faith. Also,
there would have been no point in it for John to write about the Word that “in
the beginning was”, could he not have gone further, and have told us of how
this Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, “and we beheld His glory, the
glory as the only begotten of the Father, FULL of grace and truth”. Where and
when was the Father satisfied, accomplished He fulness, and enjoyed His Rest as
God? The Letter to the Hebrews places this development directly in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead: 5:9, e.g., 2:9, 14-15, 5:5. Now
read 4:8-10 – not before!
Conclusion: Revelation 14 is Resurrection Faith speaking, and if
it presupposes the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment (which it
does), it is because of what Christ attained and accomplished through
resurrection from the dead, from death and from the grave, rather than through
creation. Compare verse 7 with Hb.1:10, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid
the foundation – the foundation of the earth. Also the heavens are the works of
thine hands, (yet) they shall perish. But thou remainest …” How does God “remain”?
Even God “remaineth” because He “remaineth” AGAINST the power that causeth to
perish – the power of sin and death. God “remaineth” implies God’s victory over
this contra, anti- power of nihil and perdition; it implies Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead! In Rv.14 it is no different. “Sit Thou on my right hand!”
(Hb.1:13). Is there anything different from Rv.14:1,3 “Lo, a Lamb stood on the
mount Sion and with Him … the redeemed from the earth” – it is this Lamb all
the earth and its inhabitants (6) are commanded to worship and fear: “Fear GOD,
and give glory to HIM … and worship HIM – this Lamb on the mountain – that made
heaven and earth”. So it – 14:7 – is MORE a reference to Christ as Redeemer of
creation than to Christ as Creator. And if then it is a reference to the Fourth
Commandment concerning the Sabbath Day – which it is – then the Sabbath and the
Commandment concerning the Sabbath Day are based more on the works of God in
redemption than on the works of God in creation. And they are based more on
“the exceeding great” work of God in redemption which, is the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. The Sabbath and its Commandment therefore are based, but not so
pertinently, also on the ‘beginning’ work of God in redemption which, are the
suffering and death of Christ, even the creation. Not that any of God’s works
are opposed, but the climax is clearly and distinctly the resurrection – on
which the Sabbath and its Commandment are mainly based, and which, according to
Hb.8-10, is the grand and all else replacing motive / motif for the “People’s
keeping of the Sabbath”.
Revelation 14:12 explains what I have tried to say: “Here is the
longsuffering of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God,
and the faith of Jesus.” The Greek for “and”, is “kai”, which indeed identifies
the “keeping of the commandments” as the work of Jesus, rather than of the
saints: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, INDEED the faith of
Jesus.” The saints in believing in Jesus are keepers of the law, and not vice
versa! This constitutes the difference between being a Judaist (or even a Jew)
and being a Christian. The Christian does not believe the Sabbath because of
the Law but because of Jesus and the Faith of Jesus. Hebrews again confirms:
“They through unbelief entered not (into the rest).” It is not the same as
saying they through disobedience entered not. Unbelief in Jesus means
disobedience to the Law also; but belief in the Law not necessarily means
obedience to Jesus or to the Faith of Jesus. On the contrary, belief in the Law
may – and more often than not certainly will – make of Jesus an extra
non-essentiality. Belief in the Law too often amounts to nothing but legalism
and self-righteousness. The Christian Confession is so precious, “I believe in
God … in the Father … in the Son …”. I do NOT believe in the Law! God desires
that I shall not, because He desires that HE will be worshipped, not that the
Law (His own Law) will be made an idol of and set in opposition to Himself! The
perpetuity of God’s Law does not exist in the fact it once was engraved in
stone – where are those stones? The second “tables” were as fragile as were the
first that could not withstand gravity. No, the perpetuity of the Law is its
eschatological significance – in that it points to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate
Law of God – the only unbrakeable, indestructable, unalterable Commandment of
God. Because Jesus conquered death and the grave (gravity) and corruptability,
He ONLY is entitled to claim indestructablilty, Life, and the Power of Life and
anti-gravity – resurrection from death and from among the dead. He in this
capacity and by this Title claims allegiance and obedience. If the first
covenant had been glorious it had as it were no glory because of the
overwhelming glory of the New Covenant, which is the Living Saviour Jesus
Christ.
I pray you won’t find this tiresome. I simply can’t help
being so carried away.
06/07/04
To continue, dear Le Roy,
completing your post
Sunday July 5, 2004
You wrote:
<As Bille
reminded you, those who tenderly
<took Jesus from
the cross "returned, and
<prepared spices
and ointments; and rested
<the Sabbath day
according to the commandment"
<(Lk 23:24).
They did not continue preparing
<his body as was
customary but, honoring the
<Sabbath, they
waited till it was over.
<They who took Jesus from the cross>
Joseph received permission to take the body down, and he did so;
then he "removed" it to the place where he, and later on, Nicodemus,
"prepared" it – no women. That happened on the same day as the women,
LATER ON, would observe how Jesus was "laid in the tomb". But where
did this day START? How do you reckon the day? "From evening till
evening"? Then read Mt.27:57 and Mk.15:42 (AV). The body was taken down,
removed and prepared, AFTER SUNSET, when the day after Jesus' crucifixion and
day of His burial HAD begun. It – the burial – is the event of the second day
of the "three days" of Jesus' Passover-/ redemption-suffering.
<They did not continue preparing his body as was customary>
They did not continue – they have not begun as yet with THEIR
preparations before after the burial, and before the Sabbath would begin. That
was Friday "afternoon". ("Afternoon", epefohsken –
virtually the very same word Matthew uses in 28:1 to describe the time of day
when Jesus rose from the dead -epifohskousehi.)
The women – only two of them – "prepared" – an
accomplished task – before the Sabbath started, then, when the Sabbath had
begun, they, as was customary for them, honoured the Sabbath, and waited till
it was over before they – these two women AND Salome – "bought spices and
ointments" – obviously for Salome's sake who had not been present at the
burial. The buying therefore was done on Sunday, Saturday evening, that is,
"when the Sabbath was past" – as Mark puts it.
Therefore, what you are actually telling with these lines cannot
be much, because you have the facts mixed up – just like the usual
Sunday-Resurrection arguments.
<Not until very early in the morning of the
<first day of the week did they return to
<continue their work of preparing His body
<only to find an empty tomb and His body
<nowhere to be found (Lk 24:1-12).
Let us for argument's sake take these events as you describe them,
then ask, Does it prove Jesus rose on the First Day of the week? Of course not.
Then what is the only thing it possibly could imply? And the answer is, that
Jesus had risen BEFORE any time of night here identified. What prohibits the
most logical inference, namely that it implies that Jesus had risen on the DAY
before? Nothing at all!
Therefore again, what you further write, simply doesn't make
sense:
< Since it was
"very early" the next morning
<after they
honored the Sabbath command and
<"rested
the Sabbath day" Jesus could not
<have risen on
the Sabbath.
Why could Jesus not have risen WHILE the women were honouring
the Sabbath Day? Would it not be most appropriate if Jesus so honoured the
Sabbath Day that "in Sabbath's-time" He "entered into His own
rest as God from His" (at creation)? Why, "If Jesus had given them
rest, He would not afterwards speak of another day, but THEREFORE there
remaineth for the People of God the keeping of the (God's) Sabbath Day" –
which is the day of His "FINISHING OF ALL THE WORKS OF GOD" as
Hb.4:4-5 declares, and Paul explains in Eph.1:19 and elsewhere too as having
been the resurrectiuon of Jesus Christ from the dead.
< For not
until "the Sabbath was past,"
<did the women
take their spices to the sepulchre (Mk 16:1; cf Mt 28:1). <By that time it was "very
early in the morning
<the
first day of the week" (Mk 16:2).
Again, what does this help the claim that Jesus was not raised on
the Sabbath, long before the time here assumed? Nothing! It never can indicate
a Sunday-resurrection at least!
Again, the straight facts are, the women not until "the
Sabbath was past", "bought". This time-indication – of verse 1 –
does not apply to the three's visit to the tomb. The time of the three women's
visit to the tomb, Mark supplies in verse 2 of chapter 16, saying, "Very
early sunrise / dawn on the First Day of the week". Mark's was not the
visit to the tomb with the intent to enbalm the body – that visit is described
by Luke; it was earlier, while night was "thick early darkness" –
just after midnight.
<You argue,
though the women came to
<the tomb the
next morning, Jesus arose
<on Sabbath,
which would have been before
<sundown the
previous day.
<
<This is
impossible. According to Mt 28:5-13.
<only when, in
response to the angel's instruction,
<the women went
to tell the disciples did the
<soldiers went
into
<their story:
Dear Le Roy, for the third time, what does this, <according to
Mt 28:5-13>, have to do with the time of the event of Jesus' resurrection?
What time of day it was when, in response to the angel's instruction, the women
went to tell the disciples, and the soldiers went into
<It is certain
that the soldiers did not remain at
<an empty tomb
from sometime before the sun set on
<Sabbath, when
they were stationed there (Mt 27:62-66),
<until the sun
rose the next morning and then suddenly
<go to inform
the priests while the women "were going"
<to tell the
disciples.
<when they were stationed there>:
It was not <sometime before the sun set on Sabbath> when the
guard was set. The guard was set "epaurion" – "morning" of
/ on "the day after their preparations" (Mt27:62) – which was the
weekly Sabbath, the day after "the Preparation" which is Friday the
"Before-Sabbath" (Mk15:42). But this is just by the buy. Of
importance for finding out when Jesus rose from the grave, one should read all
the eschatological meaning of the Seventh Day Sabbath right through the Bible,
then find it confirmed in so many words in Matthew 28:1 ... "In a
moment!" -kai idou! "In Sabbath's-time's fulness in the very being of
lightday before the First day of the week".
<It is certain
that the soldiers did not remain at
<an empty tomb
from sometime before the sun set on
<Sabbath
What gives you that certainty? Is it written? No! But it is quite
possible to be imagined. Remember that the Record states the guard was
"struck down like dead"? That is worse than just 'lights out' from
Joe Fazier's best right hand! It is written to mean what it says, "like
dead", and that should last for ever had it not been for God's providence
and purpose with the guard, to be a witness of the omnipotence of God's
Sabbath-work THEY HAD NO INKLING OF!
Now neither Matthew nor I say the guard remained at an empty tomb
until the sun rose the next morning. By the time the sun had risen, these
guards were able to have recovered from their 'stroke' and its effects of
nobody knows how long, then tried to solve the riddle, must have conversed for
long what to do, then had to have gone into town to wake up and get together
the Jewish leadership – no mean task! Some time after sunrise they were busy
telling their story. Nothing implies they only shortly before sunset left from
the tomb.
<Your main argument is that this was not the
<seventh-day Sabbath but the passover Sabbath.
<There are several reasons this cannot be. The
<list below is not intended to be exhaustive:
<1) It was the "Sabbath day according to the
<commandment." Nowhere in Scripture are any
<of the feast days called "the commandment."
<Instead, they are called "ordinances" (
<2:14-16; Es 12:14, 17, 24, 43). Just before
<introducing the feast days, Moses quotes "the
<Lord" as commanding obedience to the Sabbath
<command. To make sure there is no confusion
<He identifies it in the words of the 4th
<commandment and calls it, "the Sabbath of the
<Lord" (Lev 23:3), as in the decalogue itself
<(Ex 20:10).
<Your main argument is that this was not the
<seventh-day Sabbath but the passover Sabbath.
No, you've got it wrong, sorry to say. My main argument is that
this was not the Passover Sabbath, but the Seventh Day Sabbath! Jesus rose on
the Seventh Day Sabbath, say I, and believe I the Bible says. The Day of the
First Sheaf Wave Offering was not the Passover's Sabbath Day – it was "the
day after the Sabbath" of the Passover (Ex16, Lv23), and therefore the
third day (not a name, but the number) of the Passover Feast Period / Season.
The first day of Passover was its "Day of Preparation of the
Passover", as John calls it (19:14). The Synoptists call this day
"the day on which they had to slaughter the Passover" and
"removed leaven" / "de-leavened" – adzumos. (It is not the
first day of leavened bread EATEN which is the first of the seven days of
unleavened BREAD. The first day of unleavened bread (eaten) is the Passover's
Sabbath Day – the day BEFORE the Day of First Sheaf Wave Offering, which, WHEN
JESUS, was raised the First Sheaf Before the LORD, happened to be and had to
he, the weekly Sabbath Day. That's my main argument. <It was the
"Sabbath day according to the commandment">, Yeah!) The
'Commandment' – all of Scripture!
< Nowhere in Scripture are any of the feast days called
"the <commandment.">
God 'commanded' throughout the Exodus concerning the Passover. God
also changed the Fourth Commandment to accommodate the Passover Redemption
Completion on the Sabbath Day. Therefore the Seventh Day Sabbath as Passover
Redemption Day is "the commandment" in every sense and in every
respect.
<Instead, they are called "ordinances" (
Whether called ordinances or not, an ordinance of God is the
commandment of God non the less. The Passover is called an ordinance "for
ever", and it should be regarded an ordinance forever in the Church's
keeping of the Seventh Day Sabbath for being God's Passover Redemption Day by
virtue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ON THE Sabbath in
completion of the works of God.
<2) Nowhere does
God call any feast "the
<Sabbath of the
Lord--which He does repeatedly
<with the creation Sabbath in both OT and
NT.
<By contrast,
feast Sabbaths are called "the
<feasts of the
Lord."--in the very next verse.
<Thus verse 3
identifies the 7th day Sabbath
<as, "the
Sabbath of the Lord," and in contrst
<in verse 4
"feasts of the Lord" is the
<designation for
the various ceremonial Sabbaths
<then identified one by one.
No objection. I
only propose all feast days of the Old Testament are brought together and thus
ended in the Seventh Day Sabbath. Under the New Testament the Seventh Day
Sabbath receive all the glory of all these feasts in that all were fulfilled in
Jesus Christ by the resurrection of Him from the dead "in / on the
Sabbath".
12/07/04
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
To: LeRoy Moore
Answering some general observations of yours
>5) Are you not in danger of defying that
>command by insisting that Jesus did not rest
>upon it with the women, "according to the
>commandment"?
Jesus rested on that specific Seventh Day Sabbath, but not like
the women rested on that specific Seventh Day Sabbath. God also at the creation
rested on that specific Seventh Day Sabbath, but not like Adam and Eve rested
on that specific Seventh Day Sabbath. For God’s rest is conscious, active rest,
whereas man’s rest – especially in ‘sleep’ – is unconscious and passive. God’s
rest of the creation Sabbath was His great act of the Seventh Day – not a
slumber or something He willed not to do or not willed to do. God’s “works” of
the creation Sabbath are named, divine, and uniquely divine deeds – works man
is not capable of doing. Those works are mentioned: “finished / completed /
perfected”; “blessed / honoured / magnified”; “sanctified / determined /
separated / destined / appointed”. God’s ACT of REST is of the same nature and
quality as these – no anthropomorphism! God’s rest “on the Seventh Day” was
God’s UTMOST DEED that required “the exceeding greatness of His Power”. Could
God’s rest require anything less than this, would it “revive” (a word ‘Moses’
also uses for God’s rest of the Seventh Day) even Him the Almighty?
Therefore Jesus did rest during His ‘crucifixion-Sabbath’, but not
in passiveness – like men do – and not in death – like man does – but in
conquering death – like ONLY God in Christ availed. I describe this mightiest
deed of God His rest whereby even the creation exists and came into existence.
I don’t argue the point, I proclaim it against all logic and fact for the truth
of all fact.
So I am as much in danger of defying or denying the Fourth
Commandment as I am in danger of defying or denying God by insisting that Jesus
did not rest upon it with the women, but with His Father and the Holy Spirit in
the resurrection of Him from death, hell and grave, and in the exaltation of
Him “in it” (Col 2:15) to “the right hand of God in heavenly realms” (Eph
1:19f), "according to the commandment" in its real essentiality. In a
word: I believe in the eschatology of the Fourth Commandment; I believe the
Fourth Commandment is Gospel (and not that the Gospel is the Fourth Commandment).
Am I (for the above reason still) in danger of defying or denying,
as you say,
>... the
distinction Christ Himself
>made between the "ordinances, which the >Passover and
other "feasts of the Lord" are >called, while the 4th commandment
Sabbath is >repeatedly called "the Sabbath of the Lord"?
I don’t deny this distinction, but I say, do not take it too far
or make it everything! For the Passover Sabbath is also called a ‘Sabbath’ in
the Bible, which is the same thing as saying the Word of God, which is the same
thing as saying the distinction of Christ Himself.
But most ironic to me is the blind spot in our field of vision
where this Passover Sabbath is made the Sabbath of this very Fourth
Commandment, yet we insist on absolute distinction of the ‘two’. It’s not only
different Sabbaths, they also are one. In the yearly Passover of the Old
Testament they are distinct and different; in the weekly Passover of the New
Testament they were merged into the fulfilled and only everlasting Passover
(Redemption) Sabbath Day of the LORD your God, the ‘weekly Sabbath’ or “Seventh
Day” in Biblical terminology.
In the Fourth Commandment in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the
‘creation-motive’ is NOT SO MUCH AS MENTIONED. In contradistinction the
Passover-Redemption theme is given twice, not only for the Sabbath Commandment,
but for the whole of the Ten Commandments – for the WHOLE of ‘Law’. (Does not
that make you think it must point to Christ?)
Who will accuse Moses of denying or defying the creation-basis of
the Sabbath Day? Of course nobody. But in the light and glory of the Sabbath’s
salvation-history, the light and glory of its creation-history fades into
nothingness. Moses argued this way, as the Deuteronomy Fourth Commandment
proves. Paul also argued this way, as he somewhere in very similar words do
prove. Then accordingly it is just as true that in the light and glory of the
Sabbath’s Christ-salvation-history the light and glory of its
Egypt-salvation-history fades into nothingness.
No one has once denied or defied the light and glory of any of the
dispensations; it is only argued the glory of the Gospel makes the light and
glory of the previous “Covenant” / “Testament” (of creation and Egypt’s Exodus)
like the light and glory of birthday cake candles against the light and glory
of the midday sun.
>... beginning His work again on the 7th day >Sabbath rather
than on the 1st day of the >week ...
Dear Le Roy, I’m not talking of God >beginning His work<;
I’m talking of God “FINISHING ALL HIS WORKS”, and repeat, without which “finishing”
creation would not have been. This last assertion I make without hesitation or
reservation. Talk about basis, true beginnings, creation –call it what you
like– Christ’s resurrection from the dead is it – the basis, true beginning,
the creation. The creation and God’s creation-act and the resultant creation
per se, rested on this from the beginning, namely on the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead. You agree? Then we agree and thanks and praises be to
God. You disagree? Well then there’s a lot still to be explained and understood
by both of us.
Understand the point of departure of Sunday-venerators; they think
of Jesus’ resurrection as God’s Sabbath Rest. Now in that they are right except
they transgress not only the Fourth Commandment but also the Commandment that
says one should not steal as well as the Commandment that says one should not
lie. For they steal what by the Word of God belongs to God’s Sabbath, and then
lie that the privilege and honour and glory of Christ to have risen from the dead
on it, is the Sun’s day’s. Then they transgress the Commandment that says one
should not kill, and they kill the True truth of God’s Sabbath Day – which is
Jesus Christ Himself – and with the same blow the Sabbath Seventh Day. And so I
can go on and show how every Commandment is transgressed by the transgression
of the Fourth. Or I could simply say, so is Christ the Lord of the Sabbath
dishonoured. I think it is better to say it in the last way. Therefore I still
insist Christ has become the Law for the Christian, and the Christian should
beware lest the Law for him has become his Christ. This is not even a skin-deep
analysis; I am not a good theologian to say the same thing with austere
reverence and beauty. Seems that whenever I try, I either, or always, confuse
and affront people.
Therefore please read me with a forgiving spirit, and you may
perhaps better understand me.
03/08/04
-----
Original Message -----
From: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
To: Diane and Jim Tavegia <tavegia@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Baptist Board
> Dear Diane and Jim,
> I am what we call in Afrikaans, a 'Dopper', that is, Dutch Reformed, or
> Calvinist. I think the Anglican Church moves much towards Roman
Catholicism.
> I have two points though on which I differ with the beliefs of my Church,
> and those are Sunday sacredness (I'm more Calvinistic than my own Church!)
> and the whole matter of baptism. I should rather be seen as an A-Batist -
> one who believes in neither baptism by immersion nor baptism by
sprinkling;
> that neither holds to 'believer's baptism' nor to 'infant baptism'. I
> believe baptism was a sign of apostleship, and, like the 'gift of
tongues',
> ceased with the apostolic era.
divide
> and tarnish the Protestant Churches.
> Protestantism that accepted its Sunday at the expense of "the Sabbath
od
the
> LORD your God", the Seventh Day of the week. I do not believe the
Seventh
> Day Sabbath because of the Law though, but because of Jesus Christ in
> resurrection from the dead "in Sabbath's time" (Mt.28:1),
finishing all
the works of God, for "thus God concering the Seventh Day spake"
(Hb.4:4-5).
> Christian greetings..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Diane and Jim Tavegia <tavegia@bellsouth.net>
> To: <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:18 AM
> Subject: Baptist Board
>
> > Hello from Baptist Board!
> > Quick question. On your registration you put Reformed. Is that
Reformed
> > Baptist or Reformed Angelican? We need it for clarification.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Diane
> >
> > Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken
> > together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the
same
> > measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
> > Luke 6:38
03/08/04
Dear Diane
and Jim,
I am what we call in Afrikaans, a 'Dopper', that is, Dutch Reformed, or
Calvinist. I think the Anglican Church moves much towards Roman Catholicism.
I have two points though on which I differ with the beliefs of my Church,
and those are Sunday sacredness (I'm more Calvinistic than my own Church!)
and the whole matter of baptism. I should rather be seen as an A-Batist -
one who believes in neither baptism by immersion nor baptism by sprinkling;
that neither holds to 'believer's baptism' nor to 'infant baptism'. I
believe baptism was a sign of apostleship, and, like the 'gift of tongues',
ceased with the apostolic era.
and tarnish the Protestant Churches.
Protestantism that accepted its Sunday at the expense of "the Sabbath od
the
LORD your God", the Seventh Day of the week. I do not believe the Seventh
Day Sabbath because of the Law though, but because of Jesus Christ in
resurrection from the dead "in Sabbath's time" (Mt.28:1), finishing
all the
works of God, for "thus God concering the Seventh Day spake"
(Hb.4:4-5).
Christian greetings..
----- Original Message -----
From: Diane and Jim Tavegia <tavegia@bellsouth.net>
To: <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:18 AM
Subject: Baptist Board
> Hello from Baptist Board!
> Quick question. On your registration you put Reformed. Is that Reformed
> Baptist or Reformed Angelican? We need it for clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> Diane
>
> Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken
> together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same
> measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
> Luke 6:38
>
04/08/04
Have you
read anything at all of what I have written? Then your comments and
criticisms are most welcome. Proper Christian conduct it would have been.
But you obviously haven't read a thing! Besides, who are the "you
people"
you are referring to? I am a Christian on the usual fundamentals for being a
Christian.
Christian greetings
Gerhard Ebersoehn
04/08/04
Dear
Eduard,
I would say verse 20 explains: "... inside the veil where Jesus (as)
Forerunner on our behalf has once for all entered ...". That I believe
happened when Christ rose from the dead. It somewhere else says He ever
lives to makes intercession for us. Christ lives today, and He lives "for
us" – His resurrection is why He is able to. What encouraging knowledge!
Gerhard
08/08/04
Dear David Ben-Ariel
Again thanks for replying and not just ignoring like
people usually do.
If you read my book you will discover the eschatogy
of the Seventh Day Sabbath – something Armstrong had no clue of. Also Armstrong
actually propagates a First Day resurrection – see my discussion of his views
in book one 'Part 1' – "
Matthew 28:1 in the Greek MEANS and READS
"In the ending of Sabbath's (hours / time) in the very-being-of-light
towards the First Week-Day when suddenly there was a great earthquake ..."
and Jesus rose from the dead God's finishing, blessing, sanctification and REST
of and on the Sabbath!
----- Original Message
-----
From: David
Ben-Ariel
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
Thank you Gerhard for
sharing with me the plain truth about the REAL day of Jesus' Resurrection: not
on a Sunday! I did know this, thanks to Herbert W. Armstrong, and mention it
within my article against Easter: http://benariel.port5.com/HTML%20Articles/Plain%20Truth%20about%20Easter.htm
Shabbat
Shalom
(Sabbath peace),
David
Check out Beyond Babylon:
http://www.pushhamburger.com/david.htm
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: David
Ben-Ariel
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004
1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
Indeed I did. But have you
realised that the Seventh Day Sabbath for being the day of God's finising rest
of all His works, in fact was the day of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and
not the First Day of the week?
Thanks for having replied,
and God's richest blessing to you in the realisation of this awesome truth.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: David
Ben-Ariel
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005
10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
The Lord's Day has always
been the seventh day Sabbath,
plain and simple. Do you agree with this?
09/08/04
Vind en laai verniet af, die boek, 'The Lord's Day in
the Covenant of Grace', by www.biblestudents.co.za,
10 volumes, uittreksels en artikels.
'BM Berader' van 'christene.co.za' het vir jou baie
dinge vertel, onder andere: "Die Sondag van die Nuwe Verbond is die dag
van die Here (Jesus Christus) en is ’n feesdag om sy opstanding en oorwinning
te vier." Ek wil graag weet waar hy dit uit die Bybel kry! Almal val maar
altyd vir hierdie foefie! Lees gerus hierdie boek hierbo na verwys – u sal u oe
nie glo nie! As die HERE God in die Ou Testament verklaar het "Die Sewende
Dag is die Sabbat van die HERE jou God", maak Hy 'n verklaring waardeur Hy
Homself bind en ten opsigte van hierdie dag onder verpligting plaas teenoor
almal aan wie Hy so verklaar. God plaas sy eie troue op die spel, as't ware.
Bewys Hy nou daardie Trouverbond van Hom in en deur Jesus Christus, dan vind
hierdie Sewende Dag Sabbat sy ware en outentieke bekragtiging, heiliging,
seening, en voltooiing – en so trouens "al die werke van God"! Nou
kom vertel hulle ons nee, nou vind die Sabbatdag sy afskaffing en daardie
vreemde afgodsdag die Sondag word die Dag van die Here? Nooit ooit!
09/08/04
Geagte Rheino,
Gaan lees hoe die Sabbat gevier moet word deur
Christenmense in Kol.2:16: "Laat julle deur niemand van die wereld oordeel
wat julle feesviering (geestelike "ete en drinke") van
julle Sabbatsfeeste of Maand-feeste aanbetref nie!" "Want",
het Paulus in net die voorafgaande verse geskrywe, "Jesus het
getriomfeer!" Hoe? Deur opstanding uit die dode! Nou dan is die Christen
se vrye, spontane, geestelike genieting van God se Sabbatdag onveroordeelbaar
en Hom ter ere, want dit spruit uit die opstanding van Jesus. En ek bedoel die
Sabbat, die Sewende Dag Sabbat – die enigste Sabbat wat die Bybel ken. Efesiers
1:19 verder is 'n Sabbatslied, en so ook Matteus 28:1-3. Dit het niks met
Sondag te make nie.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
09/08/04
In Jesus Christus word al God se wette vervat, en Hy
het hierdie waardigheid verwerf deur opstanding uit die dode. Al God se wette
was vorig op Christus Jesus gerig, en was in volle ooreenstemming met Hom as
die Een Lewende Goddelike Wet Self. Daarom kon geen vorige Wet van God ooit in
stryd gewees het met wat dit eendag in Hom sou word nie. Genade en Reg kus
mekaar in die Seun. "Daarom geld steeds vir die Volk van God onderhouding
van die Sabbatdag" – Hb. 4:9.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
09/08/04
Jesus Christus is vir ons "die Wet van
Vryheid" – gehoorsaam ons Hom, gehoorsaam ons elke Wet wat ooit deur
God ingegee was. Hoe gehoorsaam mens Jesus? Hy skep ons opnuut en wedergebore
kinders van ons hemelse Vader. Nou gaan ek mos nooit sy "heilige dag"
die Sabbat verag en vertrap nie? Nou gaan ek mos gee so wat ek
Presies een tiende vir almal onder een kam was vir 'n
homogene, ewe welvarende gemeenskap en het alles betaal – belasting, welsyn,
die predikant ens. Dis nie vir ons omstandighede 'n goeie beleid nie. U sal ook
opmerk dat die tiende stelsel nooit as 'n wet ingegee was nie. Waar Maleagie
byvoorbeeld daarvan praat veronderstel hy dit as die status quo van die
spesifiek Joodse bestel.
09/08/04
"Kol 2: 16, 17 “Daarom moet julle nie dat iemand
vir julle voorskrywe …dat julle die jaarlikse feeste …of die sabbatdag moet
vier nie." U as predikant behoort tog te weet dis die grootste verkragting
van die Woord van God uit!
16/08/04
Dear Pastor,
Quote:
"As to Sunday observance in honor of the resurrection, Jesus
never taught such a practice. When teaching
about the meaning of his resurrection, Jesus specified only that it would be
"on the third day" (i.e., the third day after he was placed in the
tomb--Matt. 16:21, Mark 8:31). What is
important about the day of the resurrection is the fact that it would come
after Jesus had lain in the grave for 3 days, not that it would be any
particular day of the week. Jesus makes
no effort to point out which day of the week his resurrection would fall on,
nor do his apostles, when they teach about the resurrection, even after it had
occurred."
At first glance your statement might seem correct. Yet there are
more than one ways to tell things – things could be told with deeds rather than
words. And Jesus by His utmost of divine act of rising from the dead gave worth
and sabbatical virtue to even the day on which He rose from the dead. Therefore
a significant difference obviates between your statement that "Jesus
specified only that it (His resurrection) would be "on the third day"
(i.e., the third day after he was placed in the tomb--Matt. 16:21, Mark
8:31)", and the precise statement of Paul's, that Jesus would rise from
the dead on "the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES". The Lord's
resurrection from the dead was to fulfil all the Scriptures, of which the Sabbath-Scriptures
are not the least. Notice the striking semblance in the thrust of the words of
"the Scriptures" in Hebrews 4:4-5 and Exodus 24:8, for but one
example. Then see verse 9 so to speak surrounded with the mighty motive of
Jesus' availing of THE Divine REST in verses 8 and 10. THIS, is what Paul is
speaking of in Ephesians 1:19 further – "the EXCEEDING greatness of His
power when He raised Christ from the dead". God's REST is the mightiest of
His DEEDS – only possible for God. Therefore Moses always calls the Sabbath the
Sabbath of the LORD your God, and Jesus' claimed HIMSELF, Lord of the Sabbath
Day. Jesus' – and God's – claim on the Sabbath Day totally depends on God
having once for all availed all His acts which He reserved for the Seventh Day
of HIS creation-act, in Christ, through Christ, and by Christ, in the raising
of Him from the dead. No Sabbath-blessing, no Sabbath sanctity, no Sabbath
finishing, no Sabbath rest of God were it not this His resurrection blessing,
His resurrection sanctity, His resurrection finishing, and His resurrection
rest in Jesus Christ of the Seventh Day. Nothing in all Sabbath-Scriptures at
all is possible in or by creation itself; it all and absolutely is the
prerogative of God by the utmost of His Power – and that is found in the
one place and moment only of God's raising of Jesus Christ from the dead
"the third day according to the Scriptures".
Your assertion that "Jesus makes no effort to point out which
day of the week his resurrection would fall on", does not take into
consideration what Divine effort it in fact required and demanded. See many
other indications to the same effect ("to point out which day of the
week") in my book mentioned below.
"... nor do his apostles, when they teach about the
resurrection, even after it had occurred" ... Yet they worshipped on the
Sabbath and on only the Sabbath never for another reason than their Faith of
Jesus' resurrection from the dead? Does that not say a lot of "when they
taught about the resurrection"? Compare Acts 2 and 13 – both
'Sabbath'-events!
Now kindly read my book, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of
Grace', to see explained how this "third day" had to have been and in
fact had been, God's Sabbath the Seventh Day of the week – the FACT of FACTS
exactly thus stated in Matthew 28:1.
12/09/04
-----
Original Message -----
From: Samuele Bacchiocchi <sbacchiocchi@biblicalperspectives.com>
To: Bible Students <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: 'Late' or 'after', James Bailey mid 19th centuary.doc
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:'Late' or 'after', Ja#7682B.doc
> >(WDBN/MSWD) (0007682B)
>
> Have you read my book on THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION?
> CHAPTER 4
> THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION
Dear Professor Bacchiocchi,
Yes, Professor, I have made a thorough study of this work of yours.
But let me stress the fact I do NOT believe the 'Wednesday
crucifixion'-fiction!
I -like these SDB's of the nineteenth century- do however believe in the
Sabbath-resurrection of Jesus.
Allow me to return this question: Have you read my questions to you
regarding your commitments in this very book of yours, which I have put
before you on many occasions before?
In case not, I attach them herewith for you, and pray you will give them
honest and Christian attention? Or will you again till Jesus comes tell me I
waste your time? For the sake of God's truth, I beseech thee!
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
12/09/04
From Gerhard Ebersoehn
Answering Pastor Le Roy Moore,
who came to the net in reply, saying,
<<I think you misread.
Certainly none of my posts have
declared salvation "by one's free will.">>
I admit, but is saying,
<<... Thank God we
are ... saved ... by actual
<<response to heaven's provision for salvation in
Christ>>
not making <<heaven's provision for salvation
in Christ>> totally dependant on OUR <<actual
response>> to it -which is the same as <<salvation "by one's
free will">>? 'Provisional' means 'conditional', which means
to be based on something else – here causing <<heaven's ...
salvation in Christ>> to be based on and be depending upon or be waiting
for OUR <<actual response to heaven's ... salvation in Christ>>.
Two unacceptable implications arise from such a
conception of <<heaven's ... salvation in Christ>>.
First:
<<(H)eaven's ... salvation in Christ>> in effect objectively lies
there worthless UNTILL made or used to good purpose by OUR 'acceptance' or
'will' or <<response>> to it.
Two:
WE are supposed NEUTRAL -neither lost nor saved- UNTILL such
moment WE 'decide' or 'respond' to <<heaven's ... salvation in
Christ>>. DEPENDING upon OUR <<actual response>> in either
'accepting' or discarding / rejecting <<heaven's ... salvation in
Christ>> it becomes alive and the power of God to 'actually' save or
destroy the 'respondent'. WE persuade and converse God; we prevail over HIM,
and not HE over us! WE hold the last card, the Ace.
I can never accept. Rather thankfully would I be
'classed' a Calvinist, BELIEVING <<that Christ
died for only the elect and that all the elect will be saved>> and that I
am one of His Elect.
May I ask, dear Pastor, who, but the Elect would you
say <<will be saved>> if not <<only the elect and ... all the
elect will be saved>>?
To me this is no academic question; this to me is THE
question of Life and death – both over which things only God has the power and
the authority. I do not wish to win any argument; I only wish to be saved,
which to me by grace already assures me I am saved and that, forever, because
saved by the work of God and merit of Christ – which stand forever and
ever.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
21/09/04
I shall do as you wish, dear friend.
It is just such a pity you so misapply God's Word
calling HIS Holy Day a weak and miserable principle of the idolatrous
world, while sticking by Sunday the real special day of popish and pagan
worship. But if God loves you, you are His nontheless, and I rejoice with you
in His Love,
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Dennis
E. Rainwater
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, September 21,
2004 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
My Sabbath is Jesus, and His finished work on my behalf. Enjoying
a daily relationship with Him, I have no need of a weekly sabbath day to remind
me of His authority and Lordship in my life.
9
But now that you know God—or rather are known by
God—how is it that you are turning back
to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10
You are observing special days
and months and seasons and years! 11
I fear for you,
that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
Gal 4:9-11
Please remove me from your mailing list. Thank you kindly!
Secure in His grip of Grace,
Den <><
http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/DiscoveriesinDoctrine.htm
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
Sent: Saturday, September 18,
2004 5:27 AM
Subject: Sabbath doctrine
Find and download, free,
from www.biblestudents.co.za, the
book, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', 10 volumes, extracts and
articles.
E-mail us your postal
address, confirming, and we'll send you the CD, free!
22/09/04
Dear friend Dennis,
Forgive me, but I cannot help but grasp the
opportunity your having replied to me, offers me to once again write to you my
undertaking to remove your name from my 'mailing list', despite.
First, I don't have a list I simply post to; I search
for people who may possibly be interested to read my book, 'The Lord's Day in
the Covenant of Grace', and send them an e-mail INDIVIDUALLY. It
takas some hard work! And I tried to to be honest to the title
of my book. Its is a fresh and refreshing approach to the Christian Day of
Worship-Rest. The Christian Day of Worship is as real to the Church as
is its worship, and the "shadow" of Christ's Body His Church is
as real as the Body – there is no 'Congregation' – no 'Church' where there is
not THIS DAY! Whence its divineness as far as I am concerned. And so I could go
on to explain to you why I believe the Day of Worship of the Christian Faith is
as important and as pertinent and real as the very life of it!
I enthusiastically believe a dictum penned by Juergen
Moltmann (the Reformed Theologian from Tuebingen) in his 'Theology of Hope',
that "Christian Faith that is not Resurrection Faith is neither Christian
nor Faith"! It pertains the Sabbath Day as any article of Christian Faith.
I have tried to cast the Sabbath Day into that mould. Therefore I believe you
may loose out on quite a few insights if you have not read 'The Lord's Day
in the Covenant of Grace'.
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Dennis
E. Rainwater
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, September 21,
2004 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
Thank you for your sincere message, and for honoring my request.
I pray that you may learn the truth of the Sabbath, and that you can
enjoy the daily Sabbath rest which I rejoice to rest and trust in. The Sabbath
"Day" had an important purpose, but it was for one people for a specific period
of time. Once the Reality (which the symbol pointed to) arrived, its
purpose was fulfilled -- and put away.
Please wipe the slate clean and do an honest study on the matter of the
Sabbath, and you will discover that it is no longer a meaningful institution
for the Christian. (And never was an institution preceding Sinai.)
But you must start from a point of willingness to allow His Word to say what it says -- not forcing it to fit your preconceptions... I know from my
own experience that this is a difficult and painful thing to do.
Furthermore, if you do this, you will learn that the Lord's Day (Sunday
-- which I do NOT "keep", by the way) enjoys Biblical precedent. While the
Catholics have indeed corrupted the Sabbath/Sunday issue in order to control
and manipulate their memebers, the reason the rest of us gather on Sunday has
nothing whatever to do with the Catholic church or their ways.
As to the reference to 'pagan worship', Christians gathering on sunday
has nothing more to do with 'sun worship' than you worshipping on Saturday has
anything to do with 'Saturn worship'... Christians gather for worship on
Sunday for one reason -- to to praise and honor the Lord Jesus Christ, in
memorial of His resurrection. And there is far more New Testament support
for doing this than there is for 'doing church' on Saturday. (Actually,
there isn't a shred of post-resurrection support for the continuing requirement
of Sabbath-keeping.)
And friend, it is the Holy Spirit (speaking through Paul) referring to
Sabbath observance as a 'weak and miserable principle' -- not me. (The
reference to "special days" is a direct reference to the requirement
of religious observance of the Sabbath. "Special Days" = weekly
worship; "months" = the New Moon festivals; "seasons" = the
seasonal festivals such as the passover, and so forth; and "and
years" = yearly feasts and Jubilee celebrations... Compare to
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own
mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who
abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God....
Rom 14:5,6
As this passage teaches us, I do not condemn you, nor seek to urge you
to discontinue worshipping the Lord Jesus on the old Jewish Sabbath. That
is your right -- provided the observance of the day does not eclipse the
lifting up of Jesus as Supreme. However, when you assert that my
gathering with other Christians on Sunday is tantamount to giving homage to the
beast of
I have no idea what you know of me -- but I urge you to read at least
the Sabbath portion of the paper I've linked in my last message to you.
It is essentially my study notes from when the Lord compelled me to examine the
truth for myself, and finally, to leave the SDA church, of which I'd been a
fourth-generation member all my life.
In any event, thank you for your good wishes -- and I long to meet you at
the feet of Jesus where there will no longer be any barriers of man-made
conflict.
God bless and keep you Gerhard,
Den <><
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, September 21,
2004 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
I shall do as you wish,
dear friend.
It is just such a pity you so
misapply God's Word calling HIS Holy Day a weak and miserable principle
of the idolatrous world, while sticking by Sunday the real special day of
popish and pagan worship. But if God loves you, you are His nontheless, and I
rejoice with you in His Love,
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Dennis
E. Rainwater
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Tuesday, September 21,
2004 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Sabbath doctrine
My Sabbath is Jesus, and His finished work on my behalf. Enjoying
a daily relationship with Him, I have no need of a weekly sabbath day to remind
me of His authority and Lordship in my life.
9
But now that you know God—or rather are known by
God—how is it that you are turning back
to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10
You are observing special days
and months and seasons and years! 11
I fear for you,
that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
Gal 4:9-11
Please remove me from your mailing list. Thank you kindly!
Secure in His grip of Grace,
Den <><
http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/DiscoveriesinDoctrine.htm
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
Sent: Saturday, September 18,
2004 5:27 AM
Subject: Sabbath doctrine
Find and download, free,
from www.biblestudents.co.za, the
book, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', 10 volumes, extracts and
articles.
E-mail us your postal
address, confirming, and we'll send you the CD, free!
02/10/04
Dear Sir,
The most significant factors regarding the Sabbath,
Christian, are NEVER dealt with pertinently and honestly. Two excellent
examples in this regard are the interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17: the
Christian Church celebrating her Sabbaths to the honour of Christ; and the magnificent
fact Christ indeed rose from the dead "in Sabbath's-time"
-Mt28:1- as the reason of reasons for the Sabbath's being and the Christian
observance of it : NOT 'on the first Day of the week' .
Could someone bring this to the attention of Andrew
Sandlin and Dr. David VanDrunen?
I challenge both in the Name of Jesus Lord of the
Sabbath Day on these points – forget the stale, lame and bankrupt arguments
around the Law as pertains the Sabbath the CENTRAL Christian
privilege.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
www.biblestudents.co.za
10/10/04
Dear Sir,
The most significant factors regarding the Sabbath,
Christian, are NEVER dealt with pertinently and honestly. Two excellent
examples in this regard are the interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17: the
Christian Church celebrating her Sabbaths to the honour of Christ; and the
magnificent fact Christ indeed rose from the dead "in Sabbath's-time"
-Mt28:1- as the reason of reasons for the Sabbath's being and the Christian
observance of it : NOT 'on the first Day of the week' .
Could someone bring this to the attention of Andrew
Sandlin and Dr. David VanDrunen?
I challenge both in the Name of Jesus Lord of the
Sabbath Day on these points – forget the stale, lame and bankrupt arguments
around the Law as pertains the Sabbath the CENTRAL Christian
privilege.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
www.biblestudents.co.za
12/10/04
Dear
Bob,
Alright,
I accept your definition of sound exegesis, and I believe I apply your sort of
exegesis pretty well in my dissertation on Colossians 2. In contrast, you have
yourselves not properly applied your own method in that you have not taken
account how Paul's says "one another" / "between
yourselves" – as presented in a former writing of mine.
One
must though recognise the singularity of any document. (Compare for example
John's Letters and 'his' Revelation.) And one should look at
Colossians as a whole: Paul deals with the Church vis a vis the world mainly
and primarily – 'simply can't be missed'!
Then
of course would Paul also address 'inside' matters – things that happened between
members of the Church regardless of the outside world. It changes nothing about
the greater relation Paul deals with – that of the Church over against the
world.
A
specific point I cannot fathom of yours, is your referring to Colossians 5?
Until you explained, this paragraph of yours therefore says nothing.
I
never said or meant "that pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers than
Jews or Christians." I say the pagans -the world- judged / condemned / the
Church for celebrating their Christian Sabbaths. That means the world were not
Sabbath-keepers, but the denouncers of the Sabbaths' keeping, and so denouncers
of the Church for keeping the Sabbaths! That is not at all odd? Since when
would the world be bothered how the Church kept the Sabbath and not be bothered
by the very fact they kept the Sabbath? The world simply thought of the Church
and of its Sabbath-keeping humbug; thought it itself the sole possessor of
wisdom, philosophy, power, dominion, even humility, because "vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind" (2:19).
Paul
personifies the world. This is a determining point to take; good exegesis
CANNOT deny or ignore it. Therefore Paul regards the world as the opposing
party and the Church as the defending party, when he says: "Do not let
yourselves be judged by anyone".
I
also do not deny the world associated sabbath-keeping with the Jews. It today
still does. The world viewed the
"Judging"
in our text doesn't mean 'evaluate' – it means condemn!
But
I would like to know why you would oppose these ideas? Is it because they are
not to your traditional views? Or because they favour the Sabbaths of our text
to be Christian? And cancel the need of them being 'ceremonial' – for no reason
than, 'I have always believed, and so, great champions of the Faith'?
Christian
greetings,
Gerhard
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: 'Bible
Students'
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:46 AM
Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
Gerhard said –
“Good
exegesis does not always demand that we look at similar work.”
Actually, it does.
The rules of exegesis demand that we let the text speak for itself by noting
the author’s meaning to the primary audience, the author’s own context in the
chapter, in the book and also the author’s similar messages in other Bible
books. And finally we add to it, the work of other Bible authors on the same
topic.
The idea of
“Ignoring the other writings of the author on the same or similar
subjects” is not a part of exegesis. Paul’s statements in Colossians 2 are in
contrast to his Colossians 5 statements about “outsiders”. So there you
have Colossians two by contrast to Colossians 5. Same book, same author.
And clearly –
nothing is ever said in all of the NT about pagans being considered as “the
judging authority” on Christian faith and practice.
Gerhard said –
“I say the pagans
judged = “condemned” / “beguiled” the Christian Church because she kept /
‘celebrated’ / “feasted” the Sabbath Days of the Bible which they –the pagans–
regarded not as ‘Jewish’, but as Christian, and therefore, condemned!”
That is simply not
possible. To “Judge” as in “Condemn” is to make yourself the authority and in a
position to judge the practice – There is no hint in all of scripture that
pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers than Jews or Christians. There is
also no hint in all of scripture that pagans did not view Sabbath keeping as
something associated with Jews. (Recall that early Christians were viewed as a
sect of Judaism).
In Christ,
Bob
From: Bible Students
[mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:43 PM
To: bob@stromtek.com
Subject: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
12/10/04
From Gerhard Ebersoehn
Re:
Dante Mena who wrote,
>Jesus valued the Sabbath and practiced it Matt 12:1 Mark 1:21 Mark
6:2 Luke
>13:10 John 7:23-24 John 9:1-14 Jesus lectured about how to keep the Sabbath
>Matt 12:2-12, Mark 2:23-27, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 4:16, Luke 4:31, Luke 6:1-10
>Luke 13:10-17 John 5:7-16 John 7:14-24 Jesus saw the Sabbath
applicable to
>the future, Matt 24:20 Mary, who was part of the early church, kept the
>Sabbath, even as she grieved over Jesus' crucifixion and so did the first
>Christians, Matt 28:1 Mark 15:42, 16:1 Luke 23:54-56 John 19:42, John
20:1
>
>The apostles practiced the Sabbath as they ministered to the gentiles and
>Jews alike (Here are some which specifically mention the Sabbath day
>worship):
>
>Acts: 13:14, 13:27, 13:42-49 (This passage shows us that they preached and
>worship on the Sabbath day with the Gentiles, and it was considered
"the"
>Sabbath day.) Acts 15:13-21 (This shows us that the Sabbath observance, and
>the keeping of the law were accepted as a matter of course, and were
>considered as an aspect of the preaching without controversy on the Sabbath
>day in the synagogues. Paul divides the law of Moses from the other
"laws"
>of
>of those old laws. He affirms once again, however, the Law of Moses
(i.e.
>therefore, Sabbath observance as well) is read and practiced in the
>"synagogues" every Sabbath, meaning inclusively with the Gentile
converts.
>Acts 16:13 equates Sabbath Prayer, with Sabbath preaching and meeting
16:13,
>Acts 17:2, in a parallel to the gospels and Christ -- shows that it was
>Paul's "habit" to worship and preach on the Sabbath. "It was
his manner"
>Acts 18:4 shows the Sabbath meetings (Not Sunday meetings) and preaching
>were done to both Jews and Gentiles.
>
>Note Acts 28:23 that Paul used the law of Moses for conversion as well,
thus
>as Adventists today point to the same law to demonstrate the connection to
>grace Paul's wonderful discourse discusses a relation of grace, the
law,
>and the promise, likens the Christians of the promise with the OT
scripture,
>"And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth (Sabbath) had
left us
>a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrah."
Romans
>9:29 Signifying that the true remnant is identified with the Lord of
the
>Sabbath, and note the parallel of Christ's statement, Mark 2:28 and Luke
>6:5. Many NT scriptures refer back to OT to support arguments and to make
>clear their points, thus showing that the apostles did not separate
>themselves from the OT, and therefore, that Christ, who taught them
>personally, did not admonish them to abandon the OT. The Sabbath is also
>alluded to as an eschatological day of eternal salvation, as alluded to by
a
>number of OT prophets. But, note how Paul refers to it in Hebrews
3:1-19.
>All Jews, and evidently therefore, all gentiles understood this statement
as
>referring to the Sabbath rest of God...the eternal seventh day, but the
>allusion and parallelism is helpful in understanding Sabbath Day
signficance
>to Paul, as well as again, the use of the OT to help understand and
>delineate NT meaning.
>
>In post 1 I noted that Jesus is the first and the last, and alluded to the
>parallel in terms of the Sabbath, being the Father, at the beginning, The
>Creator, and hence, the Lord of the Sabbath. In the gospels, we see
that
>identification when Jesus says, "the Son of Man is Lord also of the
>Sabbath.." Mark 2:28. (Luke 6:5) (No doubt this identification
raised the
>hackles of the pharisees and scribes, for it is an immediate identification
>of Christ as likewise, either equal to or at once the incarnation of the
God
>of creation,with the "authority" to make and define what is
"holy," but
>furthermore, clearly identifies not just his ministry but himself with its
>observance, hence, Genesis 2.) In actuality, the silence in the new
>Testament is about the "change" of the Sabbath to another
day...not Sabbath
>observance. Some few scriptures have often been cited to the contrary, but,
>which upon investigation are actually misleading when cited out of context,
>or they actually end up supporting Sabbath day observance! examples: 1 Cor
>16:1-3; Acts 20:7-11; Rev 1:10' etc) However, there is
substantial
>historical documentation of "Sunday" as the day literally of the
"Sun,"
>"Mithras," and was so openly admitted in
>a pagan day replaced the Holy Day of God...The day which Jesus also claimed
>in self identification. Adventists do not condemn anyone, but, they do
claim
>and scripturally document that this is prophetic, and requires all
>Christians of pure heart to examine it and make a decision as to its
>singnificance in their own lives, because we claim that the current
>universality of this substitution points plainly to the return of our Lord
>soon.
>
>By the way, those few scriptures which tell us not have regard for sabbath
>days, may be explained in understading that there were also "moon
feast
>days" and "sabbath" days (meaning rest days and other types
of celebration
>days, among many of the Jews and also among the gentile converts.)
These
>therefore, are not integral, nor are they important in the context of the
>gospel. That does not "nullify" however, the Sabbath of the
Lord
>God...which was understood then, and was clearly practiced as such by the
>apostles.
>
>In Christ
>
>Dante Mena
Beautiful, Dante!
But may I add a few things here that will show the NT
has much more to say on the Seventh Day Sabbath than the Sabbath's rejectors
would admit?
The Sunday-keepers refer to Acts 20 for their
observance of Sunday, yet the original is absolutely clear that Paul and
friends on the day BEFORE -which had been the Seventh Day and Sabbath-
"HAD come together for to celebrate the Lord's Supper".
It says this with using the Perfect Participle
and the Infinitive of Noun Force. Their gathering "HAD" taken place
on the day BEFORE so that the 'disciples' "on the First Day were
together STILL and Paul discoursed with them". Precise language! They did
NOT "on the First Day of the week CONGREGATE"; it is a FALSE
'translation'! The verb of the sentence is NOT "congregated" – it is
"discoursed". A Participle is no indicative finite verb! And a
Perfect Participle indicates an act performed in the PAST with a RESULT still
going on in the present.
The same type of situation prevailed when the
disciples on the evening of that First Day of the week and before Jesus
appeared to them, "were thronged ALL ALONG" – which implies they on
the past First Day "HAD been thrown together" through
circumstances, so that they "in the evening were thronged there
STILL" – precise language!
Now Acts 20 is also a very good example of my next
point, that the NT does not mention the Sabbath for very normal and taken for
granted observance of the Sabbath. The Sabbath's observance was nothing
out of the ordinary – so why every time it was observed say the Sabbath was
observed? If the Sabbath had been stressed and mentioned observed, every time
it actually was observed, it would have made up a very clumsy proportion of the
NT – as well as of the OT (take the Psalms e.g.). Thus it would have been in a
case like 2Cor.16. Also here the Sabbath-keeping of the Church is tangibly
implied. Why on the First Day put aside one's contribution? Because it
would have been improper on the day before which had been the Sabbath! It would
be improper exactly for the Sabbath's sanctity among the NT Congregation. As
simple as that. Therefore it is not stated word for word.
Fact is EVERY time the NT mentions or implies the
Church worshipping, it means it worshipping on the Seventh Day Sabbath, and for
that very reason does not every time say so.
Another fact is, EVERY time the NT mentions or
implies the Church worshipping, it means it worshipping because of Jesus'
resurrection from the dead, and for that very reason does not every time say
so. The Church NEVER assembled or worshiped for another reason; for that
reason it is not every time stated in so many words.
Put these two facts together, and one gets the real
and true scenario that ruled during the age of the Apostolic Church,
that EVERY time the NT mentions or implies the Church worshipping on the
Seventh Day Sabbath, it for that very reason EVERY time mentions or implies the
Church worshiping because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, thus
'capatalizing' on the basic Sabbath-event for both the Faith of the Church and
the Day of the Faith of the Church, Jesus' resurrection from the dead "in
Sabbath's-time" – Mt28:1 stating the fact once for all.
13/10/04
Dear
Bob,
It seems to me we do not progress at all – we get stuck at the very ouset on
the question of who the "anybody" of verse 16 is. I have exhausted my
present available ideas to persuade you that "anybody" is the world
as
portrayed throughout Colossians. You every time react with insisting it is
an inside party of the Church.
I keep on saying Paul has the Christian keeping of the Christian Sabbath in
mind. You keep on insisting he speaks of annual ceremonial Sabbaths.
I ask about the fifth chapter you refer to as of the "same book" of
Colossians. Colossians hasn't got those many chapters. So I don't know what
you could have in mind.
And so I could go on.
But thank you very much in any case. Much good has come from our
conversation nevertheless for me. I see the discussion dried up, and won't
continue on the subject.
God be with you
Gerhard.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bob@stromtek.com>
To: 'Bible Students' <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:42 AM
Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> Gerhard -
>
>
>
> My answers in your text below --
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:04 PM
> To: bob@stromtek.com
> Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> Alright, I accept your definition of sound exegesis, and I believe I apply
> your sort of exegesis pretty well in my dissertation on Colossians 2. In
> contrast, you have yourselves not properly applied your own method in that
> you have not taken account how Paul's says "one another" /
"between
> yourselves" – as presented in a former writing of mine.
>
>
>
> Bob replies
>
> <<I pointed out Paul's own explicit reference to those outside the
church
in
> the same book – in chapter 5. Paul explicitly identifies them as
> "outsiders". Paul's recommendation is to lure them in
"Making the most of
> the opportunity" to engage them in conversation and draw them in. The
idea
> that Paul is preaching against outsiders and against a supposed practice
of
> viewing outsiders as "scholarly authorities on the correct way to
keep
> Sabbath" can't be found in all of scripture>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gerhard said <<
>
> A specific point I cannot fathom of yours, is your referring to Colossians
> 5? Until you explained, this paragraph of yours therefore says nothing.
>
> I never said or meant "that pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers
than
> Jews or Christians." I say the pagans -the world- judged / condemned
/ the
> Church for celebrating their Christian Sabbaths.
>
> >>
>
>
>
> Bob replies <<
>
> In fact no such condemnation can be found – other than the fact that the
> pagans condemn Christianity in general – as they do Judaism and they
condemn
> the Bible and monotheism and the literal 7 day creation etc. However the
> idea of judging and beguiling assumes the role of authority and teacher.
> This could only be a problem within – where those who were
"Expected" to
> hold authority – actually teach error. There is no other
possibility.>>
>
>
>
> Gerhard said <<
>
> That means the world were not Sabbath-keepers, but the denouncers of
the
> Sabbaths' keeping, and so denouncers of the Church for keeping the
Sabbaths!
> That is not at all odd? Since when would the world be bothered how the
> Church kept the Sabbath and not be bothered by the very fact they kept the
> Sabbath? The world simply thought of the Church and of its Sabbath-keeping
> humbug; thought it itself the sole possessor of wisdom, philosophy, power,
> dominion, even humility, because "vainly puffed up by his fleshly
mind"
> (2:19).>>
>
>
>
> No. The visions the position of authority (puffed up) the idea of
supposing
> to be accepted as a judge. All this is only possible of a "grievous
wolf"
as
> we see in Rev 20 that "arises from among your own selves"
seeking to draw
> away disciples "after themselves". Assuming positions of
authority but
> teaching error. As is still practiced today. The outside world never says
> "if only you would stop celebrating ceremonial Sabbaths – THEN we
would
all
> be Christians"..
>
>
>
> Gerhard said <<
>
> I also do not deny the world associated sabbath-keeping with the Jews. It
> today still does. The world viewed the
> knows. But the world viewed those Jews as Christians, don't forget. And
the
> world knew those Jews / Christians kept the Sabbath – and heted them the
> more for it.>>
>
>
>
> There is no place in all of scripture where we find "the world hates
you
> because you keep the annual Sabbaths" being taught, supposed or
suggested.
>
>
>
> To Judge and mislead (beguile) is to assume a position of authority, to
> claim to evaluate and to correct someone else – as having more insight and
> better information than the one being judged.
>
>
>
> Gerhard said
>
> <<But I would like to know why you would oppose these ideas? Is it
because
> they are not to your traditional views? Or because they favour the
Sabbaths
> of our text to be Christian? And cancel the need of them being
'ceremonial'
> – for no reason than, 'I have always believed, and so, great champions of
> the Faith'?>>
>
>
>
> I oppose them because they do not fit with a sound exegetical rendering of
> the text. I oppose them because the views are indefensible. I freely admit
> that the Col 2 Sabbaths are the annual Sabbaths and that the text is
formed
> in such a way that one can not rightly use the text as an argument against
> keeping those annual Sabbaths.
>
>
>
> In Christ,
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Bob <mailto:bob@stromtek.com>
>
> To: 'Bible <mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Students'
>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:46 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
>
> Gerhard said -
>
>
>
> "Good exegesis does not always demand that we look
at similar work."
>
>
>
> Actually, it does. The rules of exegesis demand that we let the text speak
> for itself by noting the author's meaning to the primary audience, the
> author's own context in the chapter, in the book and also the author's
> similar messages in other Bible books. And finally we add to it, the work
of
> other Bible authors on the same topic.
>
>
>
> The idea of "Ignoring the other writings of the author on
the same or
> similar subjects" is not a part of exegesis. Paul's statements in
Colossians
> 2 are in contrast to his Colossians 5 statements about
"outsiders". So
> there you have Colossians two by contrast to Colossians 5. Same book, same
> author.
>
>
>
>
>
> And clearly – nothing is ever said in all of the NT about pagans being
> considered as "the judging authority" on Christian faith and
practice.
>
>
>
> Gerhard said -
>
>
>
> "I say the pagans judged = "condemned" /
"beguiled" the Christian Church
> because she kept / 'celebrated' / "feasted" the Sabbath Days of the
Bible
> which they -the pagans- regarded not as 'Jewish', but as Christian, and
> therefore, condemned!"
>
>
>
>
>
> That is simply not possible. To "Judge" as in
"Condemn" is to make
yourself
> the authority and in a position to judge the practice – There is no hint
in
> all of scripture that pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers than Jews
or
> Christians. There is also no hint in all of scripture that pagans did not
> view Sabbath keeping as something associated with Jews. (Recall that early
> Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism).
>
>
>
> In Christ,
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:43 PM
> To: bob@stromtek.com
> Subject: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
15/10/04
Dear
Bob,
Thanks for replying.
This verse confirms, Paul advises the Congregation of Christian believers to
answer "outsiders" in kind: answer them with "wisdom", he
says, 'wisdom'
they the world bost so much with. "You", the Church has the true
Wisdom,
even that of God, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Dear Bob, the crux of my argument! This whole Letter deals with the
relationship between Church and 'world'. Therewith I do not deny it also
touches on "internal" matters. Its main strain of thought though is
"YOU"
the Church as over against "ANYONE" being the "world" – the
'world' of
"wisdom", "philosophy", "dominion" or whatever
concept Paul
anthropomorphologically applies to the 'world'. He does not always do it as
amicably though as here in 4:5, but most sternly denounces it especially in
2:16: "DO NOT YOU (the Church) let (YOURSELVES BE) judged / intimidated /
scorned / bullied with regard to (your) feasting ("eating or
drinking") of
your Feasts whether of Sabbaths' or of month's (celebration)" – supposing
the Sabbath a CHRISTIAN institution and practice very much ALIVE in the
contemporary setting of the Church in the world! "Make the most of the
situation" Paul also in this verse implies, 'FEAST your Sabbaths, freemen
of
Christ, and so be a witness to and against the world, a witness for your
Lord who is the Lord even of the Sabbath!'. The world is not lord of the
Sabbath; it has no "authority" in the matter; it cannot 'judge you –
not you
of all people, because you are Christ's, not the world's!'.
I can rejoice with Paul and with the Church "with regard to (this
spiritual)
feeding and drinking" of Christ, through true, Christian, "Sabbaths'
celebration". As a member of His Body, you are also free to join in and
enjoy. This text of Col2:16f is the Scripture's invitation to you as well.
Gerhard
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob <bob@stromtek.com>
To: 'Bible Students' <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:54 AM
Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> Gerhard -
>
> That is a good point about the "fifth chapter". I must have been
too long
at
> the keyboard when I typed that.
>
> Here it is chapter 4 VERSE 5 (not chapter 5).
>
> 5 Conduct yourselves with [b]wisdom toward outsiders, making
the most of
> the opportunity. [/b]
> 6 Let your speech always be [b]with grace, as though seasoned
with
> salt,[/b] so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
>
> This shows how Paul refers to those outside the church in the book of
> Colossians. No guessing. Just reading.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:42 PM
> To: bob@stromtek.com
> Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> It seems to me we do not progress at all – we get stuck at the very ouset
on
> the question of who the "anybody" of verse 16 is. I have
exhausted my
> present available ideas to persuade you that "anybody" is the
world as
> portrayed throughout Colossians. You every time react with insisting it is
> an inside party of the Church.
> I keep on saying Paul has the Christian keeping of the Christian Sabbath
in
> mind. You keep on insisting he speaks of annual ceremonial Sabbaths.
> I ask about the fifth chapter you refer to as of the "same book"
of
> Colossians. Colossians hasn't got those many chapters. So I don't know
what
> you could have in mind.
> And so I could go on.
> But thank you very much in any case. Much good has come from our
> conversation nevertheless for me. I see the discussion dried up, and won't
> continue on the subject.
> God be with you
> Gerhard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bob@stromtek.com>
> To: 'Bible Students' <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
> > Gerhard -
> >
> >
> >
> > My answers in your text below --
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:04 PM
> > To: bob@stromtek.com
> > Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Bob,
> >
> > Alright, I accept your definition of sound exegesis, and I believe I
apply
> > your sort of exegesis pretty well in my dissertation on Colossians 2.
In
> > contrast, you have yourselves not properly applied your own method in
that
> > you have not taken account how Paul's says "one another" /
"between
> > yourselves" – as presented in a former writing of mine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob replies
> >
> > <<I pointed out Paul's own explicit reference to those outside
the
church
> in
> > the same book – in chapter 5. Paul explicitly identifies them as
> > "outsiders". Paul's recommendation is to lure them in
"Making the most
of
> > the opportunity" to engage them in conversation and draw them
in. The
idea
> > that Paul is preaching against outsiders and against a supposed
practice
> of
> > viewing outsiders as "scholarly authorities on the correct way
to keep
> > Sabbath" can't be found in all of scripture>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > A specific point I cannot fathom of yours, is your referring to
Colossians
> > 5? Until you explained, this paragraph of yours therefore says
nothing.
> >
> > I never said or meant "that pagans tried to be better Sabbath
keepers
than
> > Jews or Christians." I say the pagans -the world- judged /
condemned /
the
> > Church for celebrating their Christian Sabbaths.
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob replies <<
> >
> > In fact no such condemnation can be found – other than the fact that
the
> > pagans condemn Christianity in general – as they do Judaism and they
> condemn
> > the Bible and monotheism and the literal 7 day creation etc. However
the
> > idea of judging and beguiling assumes the role of authority and
teacher.
> > This could only be a problem within – where those who were
"Expected" to
> > hold authority – actually teach error. There is no other
possibility.>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > That means the world were not Sabbath-keepers, but the
denouncers of
the
> > Sabbaths' keeping, and so denouncers of the Church for keeping the
> Sabbaths!
> > That is not at all odd? Since when would the world be bothered how
the
> > Church kept the Sabbath and not be bothered by the very fact they
kept
the
> > Sabbath? The world simply thought of the Church and of its
Sabbath-keeping
> > humbug; thought it itself the sole possessor of wisdom, philosophy,
power,
> > dominion, even humility, because "vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind"
> > (2:19).>>
> >
> >
> >
> > No. The visions the position of authority (puffed up) the idea of
> supposing
> > to be accepted as a judge. All this is only possible of a
"grievous
wolf"
> as
> > we see in Rev 20 that "arises from among your own selves"
seeking to
draw
> > away disciples "after themselves". Assuming positions of
authority but
> > teaching error. As is still practiced today. The outside world never
says
> > "if only you would stop celebrating ceremonial Sabbaths – THEN
we would
> all
> > be Christians"..
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > I also do not deny the world associated sabbath-keeping with the
Jews.
It
> > today still does. The world viewed the
> > knows. But the world viewed those Jews as Christians, don't forget.
And
> the
> > world knew those Jews / Christians kept the Sabbath – and heted them
the
> > more for it.>>
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no place in all of scripture where we find "the world
hates you
> > because you keep the annual Sabbaths" being taught, supposed or
suggested.
> >
> >
> >
> > To Judge and mislead (beguile) is to assume a position of authority,
to
> > claim to evaluate and to correct someone else – as having more
insight
and
> > better information than the one being judged.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said
> >
> > <<But I would like to know why you would oppose these ideas? Is
it
because
> > they are not to your traditional views? Or because they favour the
> Sabbaths
> > of our text to be Christian? And cancel the need of them being
> 'ceremonial'
> > – for no reason than, 'I have always believed, and so, great
champions
of
> > the Faith'?>>
> >
> >
> >
> > I oppose them because they do not fit with a sound exegetical
rendering
of
> > the text. I oppose them because the views are indefensible. I freely
admit
> > that the Col 2 Sabbaths are the annual Sabbaths and that the text is
> formed
> > in such a way that one can not rightly use the text as an argument
against
> > keeping those annual Sabbaths.
> >
> >
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Bob <mailto:bob@stromtek.com>
> >
> > To: 'Bible <mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Students'
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:46 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said -
> >
> >
> >
> > "Good exegesis does not always demand that we
look at similar work."
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, it does. The rules of exegesis demand that we let the text
speak
> > for itself by noting the author's meaning to the primary audience,
the
> > author's own context in the chapter, in the book and also the
author's
> > similar messages in other Bible books. And finally we add to it, the
work
> of
> > other Bible authors on the same topic.
> >
> >
> >
> > The idea of "Ignoring the other writings of the
author on the same or
> > similar subjects" is not a part of exegesis. Paul's statements
in
> Colossians
> > 2 are in contrast to his Colossians 5 statements about
"outsiders". So
> > there you have Colossians two by contrast to Colossians 5. Same book,
same
> > author.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And clearly – nothing is ever said in all of the NT about pagans
being
> > considered as "the judging authority" on Christian faith
and practice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said -
> >
> >
> >
> > "I say the pagans judged = "condemned" /
"beguiled" the Christian Church
> > because she kept / 'celebrated' / "feasted" the Sabbath
Days of the
Bible
> > which they -the pagans- regarded not as 'Jewish', but as Christian,
and
> > therefore, condemned!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That is simply not possible. To "Judge" as in
"Condemn" is to make
> yourself
> > the authority and in a position to judge the practice – There is no
hint
> in
> > all of scripture that pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers than
Jews
> or
> > Christians. There is also no hint in all of scripture that pagans did
not
> > view Sabbath keeping as something associated with Jews. (Recall that
early
> > Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism).
> >
> >
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:43 PM
> > To: bob@stromtek.com
> > Subject: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
>
15/10/04
Bob,
Just look at your own words:
"This shows how Paul refers to those outside the church in the book of
Colossians. No guessing. Just reading"! "THOSE OUTSIDE THE
CHURCH" – even
more so though indirectly in 2:16: 'Do not you (inside the Church) let
yourselves be judged by anyone (tis) outside the Church!'
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob <bob@stromtek.com>
To: 'Bible Students' <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:54 AM
Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> Gerhard -
>
> That is a good point about the "fifth chapter". I must have been
too long
at
> the keyboard when I typed that.
>
> Here it is chapter 4 VERSE 5 (not chapter 5).
>
> 5 Conduct yourselves with [b]wisdom toward outsiders, making
the most of
> the opportunity. [/b]
> 6 Let your speech always be [b]with grace, as though seasoned
with
> salt,[/b] so that you will know how you should respond to each person.
>
> This shows how Paul refers to those outside the church in the book of
> Colossians. No guessing. Just reading.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:42 PM
> To: bob@stromtek.com
> Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> It seems to me we do not progress at all – we get stuck at the very ouset
on
> the question of who the "anybody" of verse 16 is. I have
exhausted my
> present available ideas to persuade you that "anybody" is the
world as
> portrayed throughout Colossians. You every time react with insisting it is
> an inside party of the Church.
> I keep on saying Paul has the Christian keeping of the Christian Sabbath
in
> mind. You keep on insisting he speaks of annual ceremonial Sabbaths.
> I ask about the fifth chapter you refer to as of the "same book"
of
> Colossians. Colossians hasn't got those many chapters. So I don't know
what
> you could have in mind.
> And so I could go on.
> But thank you very much in any case. Much good has come from our
> conversation nevertheless for me. I see the discussion dried up, and won't
> continue on the subject.
> God be with you
> Gerhard.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bob@stromtek.com>
> To: 'Bible Students' <biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
>
>
> > Gerhard -
> >
> >
> >
> > My answers in your text below --
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:04 PM
> > To: bob@stromtek.com
> > Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Bob,
> >
> > Alright, I accept your definition of sound exegesis, and I believe I
apply
> > your sort of exegesis pretty well in my dissertation on Colossians 2.
In
> > contrast, you have yourselves not properly applied your own method in
that
> > you have not taken account how Paul's says "one another" /
"between
> > yourselves" – as presented in a former writing of mine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob replies
> >
> > <<I pointed out Paul's own explicit reference to those outside
the
church
> in
> > the same book – in chapter 5. Paul explicitly identifies them as
> > "outsiders". Paul's recommendation is to lure them in
"Making the most
of
> > the opportunity" to engage them in conversation and draw them
in. The
idea
> > that Paul is preaching against outsiders and against a supposed
practice
> of
> > viewing outsiders as "scholarly authorities on the correct way
to keep
> > Sabbath" can't be found in all of scripture>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > A specific point I cannot fathom of yours, is your referring to
Colossians
> > 5? Until you explained, this paragraph of yours therefore says
nothing.
> >
> > I never said or meant "that pagans tried to be better Sabbath
keepers
than
> > Jews or Christians." I say the pagans -the world- judged /
condemned /
the
> > Church for celebrating their Christian Sabbaths.
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob replies <<
> >
> > In fact no such condemnation can be found – other than the fact that
the
> > pagans condemn Christianity in general – as they do Judaism and they
> condemn
> > the Bible and monotheism and the literal 7 day creation etc. However
the
> > idea of judging and beguiling assumes the role of authority and
teacher.
> > This could only be a problem within – where those who were
"Expected" to
> > hold authority – actually teach error. There is no other
possibility.>>
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > That means the world were not Sabbath-keepers, but the
denouncers of
the
> > Sabbaths' keeping, and so denouncers of the Church for keeping the
> Sabbaths!
> > That is not at all odd? Since when would the world be bothered how
the
> > Church kept the Sabbath and not be bothered by the very fact they
kept
the
> > Sabbath? The world simply thought of the Church and of its
Sabbath-keeping
> > humbug; thought it itself the sole possessor of wisdom, philosophy,
power,
> > dominion, even humility, because "vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind"
> > (2:19).>>
> >
> >
> >
> > No. The visions the position of authority (puffed up) the idea of
> supposing
> > to be accepted as a judge. All this is only possible of a
"grievous
wolf"
> as
> > we see in Rev 20 that "arises from among your own selves"
seeking to
draw
> > away disciples "after themselves". Assuming positions of
authority but
> > teaching error. As is still practiced today. The outside world never
says
> > "if only you would stop celebrating ceremonial Sabbaths – THEN
we would
> all
> > be Christians"..
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said <<
> >
> > I also do not deny the world associated sabbath-keeping with the
Jews.
It
> > today still does. The world viewed the
> > knows. But the world viewed those Jews as Christians, don't forget.
And
> the
> > world knew those Jews / Christians kept the Sabbath – and heted them
the
> > more for it.>>
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no place in all of scripture where we find "the world
hates you
> > because you keep the annual Sabbaths" being taught, supposed or
suggested.
> >
> >
> >
> > To Judge and mislead (beguile) is to assume a position of authority,
to
> > claim to evaluate and to correct someone else – as having more
insight
and
> > better information than the one being judged.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said
> >
> > <<But I would like to know why you would oppose these ideas? Is
it
because
> > they are not to your traditional views? Or because they favour the
> Sabbaths
> > of our text to be Christian? And cancel the need of them being
> 'ceremonial'
> > – for no reason than, 'I have always believed, and so, great
champions
of
> > the Faith'?>>
> >
> >
> >
> > I oppose them because they do not fit with a sound exegetical
rendering
of
> > the text. I oppose them because the views are indefensible. I freely
admit
> > that the Col 2 Sabbaths are the annual Sabbaths and that the text is
> formed
> > in such a way that one can not rightly use the text as an argument
against
> > keeping those annual Sabbaths.
> >
> >
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Bob <mailto:bob@stromtek.com>
> >
> > To: 'Bible <mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za>
Students'
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:46 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said -
> >
> >
> >
> > "Good exegesis does not always demand that we
look at similar work."
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, it does. The rules of exegesis demand that we let the text
speak
> > for itself by noting the author's meaning to the primary audience,
the
> > author's own context in the chapter, in the book and also the
author's
> > similar messages in other Bible books. And finally we add to it, the
work
> of
> > other Bible authors on the same topic.
> >
> >
> >
> > The idea of "Ignoring the other writings of the
author on the same or
> > similar subjects" is not a part of exegesis. Paul's statements
in
> Colossians
> > 2 are in contrast to his Colossians 5 statements about
"outsiders". So
> > there you have Colossians two by contrast to Colossians 5. Same book,
same
> > author.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And clearly – nothing is ever said in all of the NT about pagans
being
> > considered as "the judging authority" on Christian faith
and practice.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gerhard said -
> >
> >
> >
> > "I say the pagans judged = "condemned" /
"beguiled" the Christian Church
> > because she kept / 'celebrated' / "feasted" the Sabbath
Days of the
Bible
> > which they -the pagans- regarded not as 'Jewish', but as Christian,
and
> > therefore, condemned!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > That is simply not possible. To "Judge" as in
"Condemn" is to make
> yourself
> > the authority and in a position to judge the practice – There is no
hint
> in
> > all of scripture that pagans tried to be better Sabbath keepers than
Jews
> or
> > Christians. There is also no hint in all of scripture that pagans did
not
> > view Sabbath keeping as something associated with Jews. (Recall that
early
> > Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism).
> >
> >
> >
> > In Christ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > From: Bible Students [mailto:biblestudents@imaginet.co.za]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:43 PM
> > To: bob@stromtek.com
> > Subject: Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Colossians 2 Bob Ryan 3.doc
> >
> >
>
20/10/04
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn
Re: Bob Sands,
who wrote:
<* **Colossians 2:16Therefore
do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or
< drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New
Moon celebration or a
< Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that
were to come; the reality,
< however, is found in Christ.***
<
< Some would suggest that this and other texts like it
refer to ceremonial
< Sabbaths. This verse talks about religious festivals or
"a Sabbath day.
<
< If Sabbath was a shadow of things to
be found in Christ, could the rest below
< that remains called "Today", could it not be
a rest or peace that can be had
< under the New Covenant by being right with God today
and not have to wait days
< for that rest?
< ***Hebrews 4: 7 Therefore God again set a certain day,
calling it Today, when a
< long time later he spoke through David, as was said
before:
< "Today, if you hear his voice,
< do not harden your hearts."[4]
8For if Joshua had given them rest, God
< would not have spoken later about another day. 9There
remains, then, a
< Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who
enters God's rest also
< rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
11Let us, therefore, make
< every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will
fall by following their
< example of disobedience***. >>
In Hb.4 "rest" is <katapausis> and
<anapausis>. This "rest" is Jesus Christ who "gave them
(the People) rest" – verse 8. From this fact the author infers:
"Therefore there remains a keeping of the Sabbath Day –
<sabbatidzontes> for the People of God. Christ is not our 'Sabbath' – He
is our 'Rest". And because He is it, the People keeps its Sabbath Days.
Colossians 2 says PRECISELY the same! Verses 12 to 15
records how Christ "had given them rest" – in the words of Hebrews 4.
It says, the 'world' issued "legal document against us", but Christ
"abolished" it and triumphed over the "authorities" that
prosecuted the Church for her Sabbaths' observance. Paul says, "Do not let
yourselves be judged by ANYONE – of the world – regarding your celebrating /
feasting your Sabbath Days". Christ is on our side, and He is Victor over
every foe of this His Body the People of God'; therefore: Feast – spiritually
"eating and drinking" your Sabbath Days! No Sabbaths, not even a
shadow of the Body remains!
Ceremonial or not, it has nothing to do with the
issue. These were CHRISTIAN Sabbath Days celebrated / feasted / observed!
Gerhard Ebersoehn
22/10/04
Dear Bob Sands,
I am unfamiliar with the American idiom; could you
please explain what you mean with "Bushmail"? In my South African
setting it would mean 'war'- mail or underground activities or at best
'bushveld'-mail / -post, i.e., 'nature's'-mail.
For the "background" you enquire about, you
may visit www.biblestudents.co.za.
As far as the discussion through SDAnet is concerned:
Sunday-observance – no matter what the scholars have
to say – from the very beginning of Christianity was paganism and nothing but
paganism. Justin's sweet and soft talk was only compromise with idolatry. These
are the straight facts. The scholars think everybody not of their opinion and
persuasion must be ignorant or retarded, but they have no single fact or idea
better than what history-sources can offer, and these give no information or
implications contrary to these.
Best example of the false application of historical
documents, is Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:10, and Ignatius' Letter to the
Magnesians. Galatians 4:10 implies Sunday-worship; not Sabbath-worship; from as
early as when Paul wrote that Letter. And Colossians 2:10 unumbiguously is a
Christian Apology -by Paul- of Christian Sabbath-celebration / keeping.
Ignatius' is a defence of true Sabbath-keeping -"for the sake of Jesus
Christ / according to Jesus Christ" – as over against the Judaistic or
legal observance of it. Ignatius never so much as vaguely implied Christian
observance of the First Day of the week.
I challenge the scholars to present their instances
of early (first century of Church, or 50-150 AD) and accepted Christian
observance of the First Day of the week. It simply does not exist. If I had it
I would have awarded a million Dollars for one case.
But the Pope can smile -or could smile- all the way
till now, because he had the only Christian reason for true Christian
Sabbath-observance safely under his gaurdianship, namely the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead, which the Church unanamously claim occurred on the
First Day of the week, while the New Testament as well as the Old Testament
prove it to have occurred "In Sabbath's-time"! Not one text only, but
the whole and all of the subject-matter proclaimed and proclaims the fact and
the truth of the fact and its implications for Christian Faith.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004
2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Is this Gerhard Ebersoehn?, if so who are you and where do you have your Bushmail
set up.
I would appreciate a little background. Thanks.
Bob Sands
----- Original
Message -----
From: Bible Students
To: bsands88@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Colossians 2 Crux.doc
23/10/04
Mr. / Pastor? Sands,
In answer to the below:
First a thank you for not disregarding me altogether!
'Scholars' – without exception to my knowledge –
always allege Christian Sunday-worship is refered to or rather mentioned
in Barnabas and Ignatius, as in Acts 20, 1Cor.16:2 and Jn20:19. They never
produce 'proof' – not a single word or implication. They solely depend on their
own assumptions / presumption. 'Not exactly the most scholarly, mature way to
make their point'! But we open mouthed hang on their for truth sealed lips,
reputation and prestige! I ask for evidence, simply, and have answered
each and every attempt of theirs at it I think very 'scholarly', but have tired
of it and have lost patience with their idle and vain but so high sounding
theories completely of late. I don't know for how long still God will grant me
life on this earth, so I must make the most of every opportunity presenting
itself to proclaim what I sincerely believe is -in your words- the "truth"
concerning this Sunday-lie that has taken Christianity by storm. But even
more concerning the positively 'Christian' character of God's true Sabbath.
See the WWC answered in Part 1,
'Sunday theologians' – Calvinists – whom I know of
like Barth, Schilder and Edwards are of the few thinkers of note who have made
something out of Jesus' resurrection as a case for Sunday-observance –
erroneously of course. They also could not derive the best results for their
case / 'point' seeing it never could fit with the over-all evaluation the
Scriptures attach to the Seventh Day Sabbath eschatologically and not to the
First Day of the week. See this two-fold principle of the prophetic and
the factual applied hundreds of times in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of
Grace'. It from the nature of the case is impossible to be applied to the
First Day of the week.
To me it has become increasingly clear "what was
going on in the early Church" from the moment I let go of others' opinions
and let the NT and earliest Christian documents speak for
themself. Galatians 4:10 refers to PAGAN "days", and therefore
to literal and idolatrous "observation" of the Sun's Day; not to the
Sabbath Day. Colossians 2:16-17 speak of nothing but the
Christian "feasting" of the Christian Sabbath Day of the Bible,
the Seventh Day of the week. Etc. as I have previously referred to.
I cannot understand where you get your conclusion
from that I hold the Pope 'was the first to push Sunday'.
Sunday-observance, say I, tried to oust true Sabbath-keeping already in Paul's
day! (Galatians)
Now here's how I "add to the Bible":
Matthew 28:1, "In fullness of Sabbath's-time midafternoon", and what
followed – by implication Jesus' resurrection. For this 'addition' I have
"scores of scholars" – to use Bacchiocchi's phraseology but not his
views. I challenged Bacchiocchi on each and every of HIS "scores of scholars".
Read my questions to him on AT Robertson and Bauer especially, and take notice
of his FEAR so that he till today has not answered. (I can show you replies
from 'Sunday'-scholars. Imagine while Sundaydarians consider the thesis
responsibly, Sabbatharians refuse Jesus' resurrection for basis, reason and
motivation of Christian Sabbath-keeping, plugging their ears, blinding their
eyes and blunting their senses! A "schmotive" they describe the
sublime and divine 'motive'!
Dear Bob, I have the most saintly translator of the
English Bible, Tyndale, and the most learned of Greek grammarians, AT
Robertson, and several of the highest calibre of learned and devout men to lean
on for my 'factual' insistence of Jesus' resurrection "ON the
Sabbath" and "BEFORE the First Day of the week, and NOT "ON the
First Day of the week AFTER the Sabbath" like Justin first of all
perverted the Scriptures. And what to me is even of greater weight, I have the
whole of the Scriptures to portray the Sabbath's ESCHATOLOGICAL significance so
that I could ultimately quote Ephesians 1:19f as a Scripture of the Sabbath's
fulfilment by and in Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. Give me just a
single such association of the First Day of the week and Jesus' resurrection,
and perhaps I could begin to think of investigating its merit.
Yes, I am a Calvanist and Seventh Day
Sabbath-believer. I would better not boast of my Sabbath-keeping but pray
for forgiveness for it, so weak and sinful is it. Yet I love God's 'Day of
Worship-Rest', as Sunday-keepers in
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
-----
Original Message -----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004
5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr.
Ebersoehn,
I'm
afraid I will have to study for myself what is the truth, your "no matter
what the scholars have to say" is not exactly the most scholarly,
mature way to make your point. Read the article that I cite in the
SDAnet where a whole denomination, The World Wide Church of God, studied
this issue. It is not clear to me what was going on in the early church,
but some reasons are given why the pope couldn't be the first to push Sunday.
If your proof stands on saying that Christ rose on the Sabbath, your one of the
only individuals I've heard that from. You are adding to the Bible, my friend.
As
far as my comments of Bushmail, I was attempting to find out
what co.za stood for and my browser popped up a diagram
of how some jerry-rig Bushmail in remote locations and sometimes have
this suffix. I still didn't get much background about Bible Students. Who are
you? Your views are definitely unique. A Calvinist Sabbath keeper,
with those major emphasis?
Bob
Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004
4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Dear Bob Sands,
I am unfamiliar with the
American idiom; could you please explain what you mean with
"Bushmail"? In my South African setting it would mean 'war'- mail or
underground activities or at best 'bushveld'-mail / -post, i.e.,
'nature's'-mail.
For the
"background" you enquire about, you may visit www.biblestudents.co.za.
As far as the discussion
through SDAnet is concerned:
Sunday-observance – no
matter what the scholars have to say – from the very beginning of Christianity
was paganism and nothing but paganism. Justin's sweet and soft talk was only
compromise with idolatry. These are the straight facts. The scholars think
everybody not of their opinion and persuasion must be ignorant or retarded, but
they have no single fact or idea better than what history-sources can offer,
and these give no information or implications contrary to these.
Best example of the false
application of historical documents, is Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:10, and
Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians. Galatians 4:10 implies Sunday-worship; not
Sabbath-worship; from as early as when Paul wrote that Letter. And Colossians
2:10 unumbiguously is a Christian Apology -by Paul- of Christian
Sabbath-celebration / keeping. Ignatius' is a defence of true Sabbath-keeping
-"for the sake of Jesus Christ / according to Jesus Christ" – as over
against the Judaistic or legal observance of it. Ignatius never so much as
vaguely implied Christian observance of the First Day of the week.
I challenge the scholars to
present their instances of early (first century of Church, or 50-150 AD) and
accepted Christian observance of the First Day of the week. It simply does not
exist. If I had it I would have awarded a million Dollars for one case.
But the Pope can smile -or
could smile- all the way till now, because he had the only Christian reason for
true Christian Sabbath-observance safely under his gaurdianship, namely the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which the Church unanamously claim
occurred on the First Day of the week, while the New Testament as well as the
Old Testament prove it to have occurred "In Sabbath's-time"! Not one
text only, but the whole and all of the subject-matter proclaimed and proclaims
the fact and the truth of the fact and its implications for Christian Faith.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004
2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Is this Gerhard Ebersoehn?, if so who are you and where do you have your Bushmail
set up.
I would appreciate a little background. Thanks.
Bob Sands
----- Original
Message -----
From: Bible Students
To: bsands88@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Colossians 2 Crux.doc
24/10/04
Dear Bob Sands,
Why is the Sabbath Resurrection significant? In the
words of Juergen Moltmann: "Christian Faith that is not Resurrection Faith
is neither Christian, nor Faith!" A Sabbath -the Sabbath- if not
"valid" -apoleipetai- by reason of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead, is neither Christian, nor faith! Just like the Exodus is given
for reason and basis of Sabbath-keeping in the Fourth Commandment, is Jesus'
resurrection given for reason and basis of Christian Sabbath-keeping. Now: most
important is this fact because of God's spoken -promised- Word "concerning
the Seventh Day" – Hebrews 4:4-5. Already the 'creation'-Sabbath contains
and promises and prophesies the Redeemer of creation and the Author and
Finisher -"the Beginning and End of the creation" of God – Rv.3. The
Sabbath Resurrection is significant because it shows God faithful to His Word!
ONLY THUS is the Sabbath of any value and significance, because only thus is it
"valid for the People of God" – Hb4:9. Verse 9 MUST be understood and
believed in its context right in between verses 8 and 10, both of which tell of
Jesus' having given, and having entered, into His own rest. Even this word and
principle comes to YOU, personally, and immediately, and demands from YOU,
faith -"believing" and obedience, "TODAY, if ye hear My
Voice" – which is Jesus Christ, and He in the ultimate of God's Word, in
resurrection from the dead. It demands, commands and COMMENDS (Col.2) from
the CHURCH – "the People of God", to enter into the Rest –
katapausis- which is Jesus Christ. FROM this entering results their
"keeping of the Sabbath Day" – sabbatidzontes (Ignatius) or
sabbatismos – Hebrews 4:9.
THERE IS NO ENTERING INTO THE REST THAT IS CHRIST
WITHOUT "TODAY", AN ENTERING INTO A KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY, for
there is no entering into the Rest that is Christ, that is not an entering into
BEING "THE BODY THAT IS OF CHRIST'S" – COL.2:16-17! No Faith, no
Church; no Church, no Sabbath-keeping! No faith, not even "a spectre of
things a-coming". But where there is the Faith of Jesus Christ, THERE IS
this "spectre ("shadow") of the Body that is of Christ's"
and ever will be, because it is the "spectre of things A-COMING".
It is NOT "a rest not yet attained",
but a Rest OBTAINED! Both Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2 are very clear on this
point. In fact it is the ONLY point both make. Jesus triumphed, and He
triumphed through and in and by virtue of resurrection from the dead. So Paul
commends the Church in her Sabbath-keeping, telling her – commanding her –
"Not (to) let any man judge you in your feasting of your Sabbath
Days".
Gerhard Ebersoehn.
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004
1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. Ebersoehn,
Why is the Sabbath
Resurrection significant?My Bible says he rose on the first day of the week.
The reasoning in Hebrews 4 to me is more significant in all this because it
refers to a a rest not yet attained, a day referred to as
"Today" which I believe could be our being right with our God,
a perpetual "Sabbath" if you will.
Bob Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004
4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. / Pastor? Sands,
In answer to the below:
First a thank you for not
disregarding me altogether!
'Scholars' – without
exception to my knowledge – always allege Christian Sunday-worship
is refered to or rather mentioned in Barnabas and Ignatius, as in Acts 20,
1Cor.16:2 and Jn20:19. They never produce 'proof' – not a single word or
implication. They solely depend on their own assumptions / presumption. 'Not
exactly the most scholarly, mature way to make their point'! But we open
mouthed hang on their for truth sealed lips, reputation and prestige! I ask
for evidence, simply, and have answered each and every attempt of theirs at it
I think very 'scholarly', but have tired of it and have lost patience with
their idle and vain but so high sounding theories completely of late. I
don't know for how long still God will grant me life on this earth, so I must
make the most of every opportunity presenting itself to proclaim what I
sincerely believe is -in your words- the "truth" concerning this
Sunday-lie that has taken Christianity by storm. But even more concerning the
positively 'Christian' character of God's true Sabbath.
See the WWC answered in
Part 1,
'Sunday theologians' –
Calvinists – whom I know of like Barth, Schilder and Edwards are of the few
thinkers of note who have made something out of Jesus' resurrection as a case
for Sunday-observance – erroneously of course. They also could not derive the
best results for their case / 'point' seeing it never could fit with the
over-all evaluation the Scriptures attach to the Seventh Day Sabbath
eschatologically and not to the First Day of the week. See this two-fold
principle of the prophetic and the factual applied hundreds of times in
'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'. It from the nature of the case
is impossible to be applied to the First Day of the week.
To me it has become
increasingly clear "what was going on in the early Church" from the
moment I let go of others' opinions and let the NT and earliest Christian
documents speak for themself. Galatians 4:10 refers to PAGAN
"days", and therefore to literal and idolatrous
"observation" of the Sun's Day; not to the Sabbath Day. Colossians
2:16-17 speak of nothing but the Christian "feasting" of the
Christian Sabbath Day of the Bible, the Seventh Day of the week. Etc. as I have
previously referred to.
I cannot understand where
you get your conclusion from that I hold the Pope 'was the first to
push Sunday'. Sunday-observance, say I, tried to oust true Sabbath-keeping
already in Paul's day! (Galatians)
Now here's how I "add
to the Bible": Matthew 28:1, "In fullness of Sabbath's-time
midafternoon", and what followed – by implication Jesus' resurrection. For
this 'addition' I have "scores of scholars" – to use Bacchiocchi's
phraseology but not his views. I challenged Bacchiocchi on each and every of
HIS "scores of scholars". Read my questions to him on AT Robertson
and Bauer especially, and take notice of his FEAR so that he till today has not
answered. (I can show you replies from 'Sunday'-scholars. Imagine while
Sundaydarians consider the thesis responsibly, Sabbatharians refuse Jesus'
resurrection for basis, reason and motivation of Christian Sabbath-keeping,
plugging their ears, blinding their eyes and blunting their senses! A
"schmotive" they describe the sublime and divine 'motive'!
Dear Bob, I have the most
saintly translator of the English Bible, Tyndale, and the most learned of Greek
grammarians, AT Robertson, and several of the highest calibre of learned and
devout men to lean on for my 'factual' insistence of Jesus' resurrection
"ON the Sabbath" and "BEFORE the First Day of the week, and NOT
"ON the First Day of the week AFTER the Sabbath" like Justin first of
all perverted the Scriptures. And what to me is even of greater weight, I have
the whole of the Scriptures to portray the Sabbath's ESCHATOLOGICAL
significance so that I could ultimately quote Ephesians 1:19f as a Scripture of
the Sabbath's fulfilment by and in Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead.
Give me just a single such association of the First Day of the week and Jesus'
resurrection, and perhaps I could begin to think of investigating its merit.
Yes, I am a Calvanist and
Seventh Day Sabbath-believer. I would better not boast of my Sabbath-keeping
but pray for forgiveness for it, so weak and sinful is it. Yet I love
God's 'Day of Worship-Rest', as Sunday-keepers in
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004
5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr.
Ebersoehn,
I'm
afraid I will have to study for myself what is the truth, your "no matter
what the scholars have to say" is not exactly the most scholarly, mature
way to make your point. Read the article that I cite in the
SDAnet where a whole denomination, The World Wide Church of God,
studied this issue. It is not clear to me what was going on in the early
church, but some reasons are given why the pope couldn't be the first to push
Sunday. If your proof stands on saying that Christ rose on the Sabbath, your
one of the only individuals I've heard that from. You are adding to the Bible,
my friend.
As
far as my comments of Bushmail, I was attempting to find out
what co.za stood for and my browser popped up a diagram
of how some jerry-rig Bushmail in remote locations and sometimes have
this suffix. I still didn't get much background about Bible Students. Who are
you? Your views are definitely unique. A Calvinist Sabbath keeper,
with those major emphasis?
Bob
Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004
4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Dear Bob Sands,
I am unfamiliar with the
American idiom; could you please explain what you mean with
"Bushmail"? In my South African setting it would mean 'war'- mail or
underground activities or at best 'bushveld'-mail / -post, i.e.,
'nature's'-mail.
For the
"background" you enquire about, you may visit www.biblestudents.co.za.
As far as the discussion through
SDAnet is concerned:
Sunday-observance – no
matter what the scholars have to say – from the very beginning of Christianity
was paganism and nothing but paganism. Justin's sweet and soft talk was only
compromise with idolatry. These are the straight facts. The scholars think
everybody not of their opinion and persuasion must be ignorant or retarded, but
they have no single fact or idea better than what history-sources can offer,
and these give no information or implications contrary to these.
Best example of the false
application of historical documents, is Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:10, and
Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians. Galatians 4:10 implies Sunday-worship; not
Sabbath-worship; from as early as when Paul wrote that Letter. And Colossians 2:10
unumbiguously is a Christian Apology -by Paul- of Christian Sabbath-celebration
/ keeping. Ignatius' is a defence of true Sabbath-keeping -"for the sake
of Jesus Christ / according to Jesus Christ" – as over against the
Judaistic or legal observance of it. Ignatius never so much as vaguely implied
Christian observance of the First Day of the week.
I challenge the scholars to
present their instances of early (first century of Church, or 50-150 AD) and
accepted Christian observance of the First Day of the week. It simply does not
exist. If I had it I would have awarded a million Dollars for one case.
But the Pope can smile -or
could smile- all the way till now, because he had the only Christian reason for
true Christian Sabbath-observance safely under his gaurdianship, namely the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which the Church unanamously claim
occurred on the First Day of the week, while the New Testament as well as the
Old Testament prove it to have occurred "In Sabbath's-time"! Not one
text only, but the whole and all of the subject-matter proclaimed and proclaims
the fact and the truth of the fact and its implications for Christian Faith.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004
2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Is this Gerhard Ebersoehn?, if so who are you and where do you have your Bushmail
set up.
I would appreciate a little background. Thanks.
Bob Sands
----- Original
Message -----
From: Bible Students
To: bsands88@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Colossians 2 Crux.doc
26/10/04
From Gerhard Ebersoehn, biblestudents@imaginet.co.za, www.biblestudents.co.za,
Re: Leroy Moore, who wrote,
<The key is that all things
listed, including the
<annual sabbaths, are declared to be "a shadow of
<the things that were to come." >
This is an unfortunate observation, to make of the
shadow, the key. The real 'key' in this Scripture-passage, is the entire centre
of the pericope, the 'IN CHRIST'-section verses 9 to 15. Also the meaning of
the "shadow" should be determined from and by Paul's central thought,
that we, the Church-"Body that is of Christ's (elect)", are
"comforted" (See Paul's PURPOSE for writing this message in 2:2)
through what Christ has availed.
Christ died and rose again and "IN IT
TRIUMPHED" (2:15), "so that" (oun) we, the Body, are redeemed,
that is, made the FREEMEN of God.
Now Paul comes and COMFORTS his brethren, the Church,
with these words: "Do not you let anyone judge you in your eating and
drinking". (Which is a spiritual "FEASTING" on Christ, cf. verse
19). This "feasting", declares Paul, "belongs to Feasts, either
of month's or of Sabbths' ('weeks')". And Paul has NO IDEA about these
Feasts as were they NOT CHISTIAN! It is a complete falacy he has in mind old,
bygone, 'ceremonial Sabbaths'. (Which in any case since long don't "point
to Christ" any more since they they no longer are observed.) NOTHING in
the context suggests Paul writes about these 'Sabbaths'; it is a totally
imported and irrelevant association. Scholars rely on scholars rely on scholars
all of equal made-up mind for it.
Paul says, Don't you fear the world – the great
whole world however wise and filosophical and mighty – you are the Freemen
of Christ, and therefore, Feast your Sabbaths! These "things", i.e.,
these "eatings and drinkings=celebrations of Feasts-Sabbaths", says
Paul, "are (is) indeed a spectre of things a-coming=future, the Substance
(reflecting / casting this shadow or spectre) being of Christ's" – which
is the Body of Believers, the Church.
Then verse 19 makes it absolutely clear, this Body
being the Substance, derives from the HEAD, which naturally should be seen as
the LIGHT of the Body, and from this Light upon this Body there follows the
shadow, but also precedes the spectre.
Paul cherishes the most positive expectation of the
Church and its success despite all "contrary to us"
"powers" (2:15). The "shadow" Paul has in mind, is nothing
sinister, cold, dead and dark; it is the happy, warm, feasting emblem of
the Redeemed "IN CHRIST" Crowd, the Church!
Therefore your Past Tense, dear Leroy, "the
things that WERE to come", is contrary to the Present (Future) Tense of
Paul's, "IS of things a-coming" <tohn mellontohn>, both literal
and hermeneutic. Your Past Tense is the key to the stale and artificial
explanation of the 'shadow' of tradition. It does not "COMFORT" at
all, nor "ministers nourishment" to "the increase of God".
The shadow must do these things, if it is the true shadow of which Paul writes
– the shadow that as it "comforts", supports and serves the Church,
COMPLETELY DEPENDS upon this Body and Head for being. No Head, no Body; no
Body, no Sabbath; no Sabbath, not even a shadow of the Body remains!
26/10/04
Dear Bob Sands,
I 'm sorry I cannot find the source you referred to
that I should read. Please send it to me again?
Thanks
Gerhard
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004
9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. Ebersoehn, I fear you
have a unique position that is not supported by other scholars. I also sense
that you have not read all five parts of the article that I quoted, studied by
the World Wide Church of God. Interesting, they are not trying to do away with
the Sabbath but to point out the sentiments of the early Christian believers
and how so many Christians of today came to worship on Sunday. I found it to be
very enlightening and a help to me in "being convinced in your own
heart" about this matter.
Bob Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004
1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Dear Bob Sands,
Why is the Sabbath
Resurrection significant? In the words of Juergen Moltmann: "Christian
Faith that is not Resurrection Faith is neither Christian, nor Faith!" A
Sabbath -the Sabbath- if not "valid" -apoleipetai- by reason of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, is neither Christian, nor faith!
Just like the Exodus is given for reason and basis of Sabbath-keeping in the
Fourth Commandment, is Jesus' resurrection given for reason and basis of
Christian Sabbath-keeping. Now: most important is this fact because of God's
spoken -promised- Word "concerning the Seventh Day" – Hebrews 4:4-5.
Already the 'creation'-Sabbath contains and promises and prophesies the
Redeemer of creation and the Author and Finisher -"the Beginning and End
of the creation" of God – Rv.3. The Sabbath Resurrection is significant
because it shows God faithful to His Word! ONLY THUS is the Sabbath of any
value and significance, because only thus is it "valid for the People of
God" – Hb4:9. Verse 9 MUST be understood and believed in its context right
in between verses 8 and 10, both of which tell of Jesus' having given, and
having entered, into His own rest. Even this word and principle comes to YOU,
personally, and immediately, and demands from YOU, faith -"believing"
and obedience, "TODAY, if ye hear My Voice" – which is Jesus Christ,
and He in the ultimate of God's Word, in resurrection from the dead. It
demands, commands and COMMENDS (Col.2) from the CHURCH – "the People
of God", to enter into the Rest – katapausis- which is Jesus Christ. FROM
this entering results their "keeping of the Sabbath Day" –
sabbatidzontes (Ignatius) or sabbatismos – Hebrews 4:9.
THERE IS NO ENTERING INTO
THE REST THAT IS CHRIST WITHOUT "TODAY", AN ENTERING INTO A KEEPING
OF THE SABBATH DAY, for there is no entering into the Rest that is Christ, that
is not an entering into BEING "THE BODY THAT IS OF CHRIST'S" –
COL.2:16-17! No Faith, no Church; no Church, no Sabbath-keeping! No faith, not
even "a spectre of things a-coming". But where there is the Faith of
Jesus Christ, THERE IS this "spectre ("shadow") of the Body that
is of Christ's" and ever will be, because it is the "spectre of
things A-COMING".
It is NOT "a rest
not yet attained", but a Rest OBTAINED! Both Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2
are very clear on this point. In fact it is the ONLY point both make. Jesus
triumphed, and He triumphed through and in and by virtue of resurrection from
the dead. So Paul commends the Church in her Sabbath-keeping, telling her –
commanding her – "Not (to) let any man judge you in your feasting of your
Sabbath Days".
Gerhard Ebersoehn.
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004
1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. Ebersoehn,
Why is the Sabbath
Resurrection significant?My Bible says he rose on the first day of the week.
The reasoning in Hebrews 4 to me is more significant in all this because it
refers to a a rest not yet attained, a day referred to as
"Today" which I believe could be our being right with our God,
a perpetual "Sabbath" if you will.
Bob Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004
4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. / Pastor? Sands,
In answer to the below:
First a thank you for not
disregarding me altogether!
'Scholars' – without
exception to my knowledge – always allege Christian Sunday-worship is refered
to or rather mentioned in Barnabas and Ignatius, as in Acts 20, 1Cor.16:2 and
Jn20:19. They never produce 'proof' – not a single word or implication. They
solely depend on their own assumptions / presumption. 'Not exactly the most
scholarly, mature way to make their point'! But we open mouthed hang on their
for truth sealed lips, reputation and prestige! I ask for evidence,
simply, and have answered each and every attempt of theirs at it I think very
'scholarly', but have tired of it and have lost patience with their idle and
vain but so high sounding theories completely of late. I don't know for
how long still God will grant me life on this earth, so I must make the most of
every opportunity presenting itself to proclaim what I sincerely believe is -in
your words- the "truth" concerning this Sunday-lie that
has taken Christianity by storm. But even more concerning the positively
'Christian' character of God's true Sabbath.
See the WWC answered in
Part 1,
'Sunday theologians' –
Calvinists – whom I know of like Barth, Schilder and Edwards are of the few
thinkers of note who have made something out of Jesus' resurrection as a case
for Sunday-observance – erroneously of course. They also could not derive the
best results for their case / 'point' seeing it never could fit with the
over-all evaluation the Scriptures attach to the Seventh Day Sabbath
eschatologically and not to the First Day of the week. See this two-fold
principle of the prophetic and the factual applied hundreds of times in
'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'. It from the nature of the case
is impossible to be applied to the First Day of the week.
To me it has become
increasingly clear "what was going on in the early Church" from the
moment I let go of others' opinions and let the NT and earliest Christian
documents speak for themself. Galatians 4:10 refers to PAGAN "days",
and therefore to literal and idolatrous "observation" of the Sun's
Day; not to the Sabbath Day. Colossians 2:16-17 speak of nothing but the
Christian "feasting" of the Christian Sabbath Day of the Bible,
the Seventh Day of the week. Etc. as I have previously referred to.
I cannot understand where
you get your conclusion from that I hold the Pope 'was the first to
push Sunday'. Sunday-observance, say I, tried to oust true Sabbath-keeping
already in Paul's day! (Galatians)
Now here's how I "add
to the Bible": Matthew 28:1, "In fullness of Sabbath's-time
midafternoon", and what followed – by implication Jesus' resurrection. For
this 'addition' I have "scores of scholars" – to use Bacchiocchi's
phraseology but not his views. I challenged Bacchiocchi on each and every of
HIS "scores of scholars". Read my questions to him on AT Robertson
and Bauer especially, and take notice of his FEAR so that he till today has not
answered. (I can show you replies from 'Sunday'-scholars. Imagine while
Sundaydarians consider the thesis responsibly, Sabbatharians refuse Jesus'
resurrection for basis, reason and motivation of Christian Sabbath-keeping,
plugging their ears, blinding their eyes and blunting their senses! A
"schmotive" they describe the sublime and divine 'motive'!
Dear Bob, I have the most
saintly translator of the English Bible, Tyndale, and the most learned of Greek
grammarians, AT Robertson, and several of the highest calibre of learned and
devout men to lean on for my 'factual' insistence of Jesus' resurrection
"ON the Sabbath" and "BEFORE the First Day of the week, and NOT
"ON the First Day of the week AFTER the Sabbath" like Justin first of
all perverted the Scriptures. And what to me is even of greater weight, I have
the whole of the Scriptures to portray the Sabbath's ESCHATOLOGICAL significance
so that I could ultimately quote Ephesians 1:19f as a Scripture of the
Sabbath's fulfilment by and in Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. Give
me just a single such association of the First Day of the week and Jesus'
resurrection, and perhaps I could begin to think of investigating its merit.
Yes, I am a Calvanist and
Seventh Day Sabbath-believer. I would better not boast of my Sabbath-keeping
but pray for forgiveness for it, so weak and sinful is it. Yet I love
God's 'Day of Worship-Rest', as Sunday-keepers in
Christian regards
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004
5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr.
Ebersoehn,
I'm
afraid I will have to study for myself what is the truth, your "no matter
what the scholars have to say" is not exactly the most scholarly,
mature way to make your point. Read the article that I cite in the
SDAnet where a whole denomination, The World Wide Church of God, studied
this issue. It is not clear to me what was going on in the early church,
but some reasons are given why the pope couldn't be the first to push Sunday.
If your proof stands on saying that Christ rose on the Sabbath, your one of the
only individuals I've heard that from. You are adding to the Bible, my friend.
As
far as my comments of Bushmail, I was attempting to find out
what co.za stood for and my browser popped up a diagram
of how some jerry-rig Bushmail in remote locations and sometimes have this
suffix. I still didn't get much background about Bible Students. Who are
you? Your views are definitely unique. A Calvinist Sabbath keeper,
with those major emphasis?
Bob
Sands
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bible
Students
To: Bob Sands
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004
4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Dear Bob Sands,
I am unfamiliar with the
American idiom; could you please explain what you mean with
"Bushmail"? In my South African setting it would mean 'war'- mail or
underground activities or at best 'bushveld'-mail / -post, i.e.,
'nature's'-mail.
For the
"background" you enquire about, you may visit www.biblestudents.co.za.
As far as the discussion
through SDAnet is concerned:
Sunday-observance – no
matter what the scholars have to say – from the very beginning of Christianity
was paganism and nothing but paganism. Justin's sweet and soft talk was only
compromise with idolatry. These are the straight facts. The scholars think
everybody not of their opinion and persuasion must be ignorant or retarded, but
they have no single fact or idea better than what history-sources can offer,
and these give no information or implications contrary to these.
Best example of the false
application of historical documents, is Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:10, and
Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians. Galatians 4:10 implies Sunday-worship; not
Sabbath-worship; from as early as when Paul wrote that Letter. And Colossians
2:10 unumbiguously is a Christian Apology -by Paul- of Christian
Sabbath-celebration / keeping. Ignatius' is a defence of true Sabbath-keeping
-"for the sake of Jesus Christ / according to Jesus Christ" – as over
against the Judaistic or legal observance of it. Ignatius never so much as
vaguely implied Christian observance of the First Day of the week.
I challenge the scholars to
present their instances of early (first century of Church, or 50-150 AD) and
accepted Christian observance of the First Day of the week. It simply does not
exist. If I had it I would have awarded a million Dollars for one case.
But the Pope can smile -or
could smile- all the way till now, because he had the only Christian reason for
true Christian Sabbath-observance safely under his gaurdianship, namely the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which the Church unanamously claim
occurred on the First Day of the week, while the New Testament as well as the
Old Testament prove it to have occurred "In Sabbath's-time"! Not one
text only, but the whole and all of the subject-matter proclaimed and proclaims
the fact and the truth of the fact and its implications for Christian Faith.
Gerhard Ebersoehn
----- Original Message
-----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible
Students
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004
2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Is this Gerhard Ebersoehn?, if so who are you and where do you have your Bushmail
set up.
I would appreciate a little background. Thanks.
Bob Sands
----- Original
Message -----
From: Bible Students
To: bsands88@charter.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Colossians 2 Crux.doc
27/10/04
From: Gerhard Ebersoehn, biblestudents@imaginet.co.za, www.biblestudents.co.za
who reacts to the
----Original Message-----
from sdanet@sdanet.org [mailto:sdanet@sdanet.org], on Behalf Of Bob
Sands
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:11 PM to SDAnet
Subject: RE: Sabbath
<.....Where did you get that impression? Look also at
Colossians 2 : 16 ***Therefore do not let <anyone judge
you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New
Moon <celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow
of the things that were to come; the
<reality, however, is found in Christ.***>
I would like to know, where did you get this
quasi-translation from? One could proclaim any doctrine of one's own and it
will be wholesale swallowed by Christianity en masse – only do it by medium of
a 'Translation'! The bulk of new 'Translations' is dubious, especially in the
cases of 'Sabbath-' or 'Sunday-texts'.
E.g., "what you eat or drink":
The text hasn't got a "what" and doesn't
allow a "what".
The text doesn't say "eat or drink"; it
says "in eating or drinking" – with a vast difference in meaning!
The texts doesn't say "with regard to a
religious festival"; it doesn't say "with regard to
a festival". It says "with regard to (your) eating or
drinking" – which is the spiritual ('religious) eating and drinking of
Christ – cf. verse 19 – "OF" – Genitive – these "festivals".
That is what the Sabbath was all about – in any case for the Christians and for
Paul. That's why Paul "comfort(ed)" (2:2) the Church, writing to them
saying: "Do not you let anyone judge you concerning your feasting of
Feasts, whether of month's or of week's ("Sabbaths'")
(occurrence)!"
The text doesn't say "These are a shadow of the
things that were to come"; it says "These are a shadow of the things
that ARE a-coming" – cf. verse 19b once more!
The text has no "however". "De"
is not antithetic; it is emphatic: "Indeed!"
Now notice where this 'Translation' has got it right
for once: "the reality, is found in Christ." Now what or which
"reality" is "found in Christ" so many times in especially
this Letter of Paul's? Of course the Christian Community! So the text means
that "These (things) are a shadow / spectre of the things that
ARE a-coming: INDEED the Body (or Church) of Christ's (own)".
It couldn't be simpler because it could
get truer than just true.
Praise God for it!
Gerhard Ebersoehn
28/10/04
From Gerhard Ebersoehn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za, www.biblestudents.co.za
Re: Bob Sands who wrote,
<If you read the study
mentioned you will find that there are many possibilities that
<were going on in the early church. Sunday meetings in
addition to Sabbath keeping.
<New Christian gentiles that
never new the Sabbath of the Judiazers and were told that they
<were not accepted for Sabbath worship
unless they were circumcised ....>
I think I have now read "the study
mentioned". Is that the one written by Michael Morrison, Bob, the one that
came in 5 parts?
The "possibility" of "Sunday meetings
in addition to Sabbath keeping" "in the early Church" : Please
explain? Show just ONE instance of worship on the First Day of the week in
the New Testament? Acts 20:7 and 1Cor16:2? They contain the only
references outside the Gospels to the First Day of the week, and they, don't contain
any reference to Sunday-worship. On the contrary, they both imply
Sabbath-worship. (Explained in an earlier post.)
Or Ignatius to the Magnesians and Barnabas? They
associate Sabbath – the Seventh Day – with whatever they meant by "living
according to the Lord's Day", "eighth day". The First Day of the
week features in neither!
"Not accepted for Sabbath worship": Do you
have in mind Col2:16-17? No! says Paul, "Don't let yourselves be judged by
any man" 'for Sabbath worship'! And why not: "Wherefore",
answers Paul, with reference to verses 9 to 15, and especially to the immediate
last, verse 15, "Wherefore ... He triumphed in it", namely in
resurrection from the dead, vanquishing every foe of God's Redeemed: that's why
the Church should keep her Sabbaths and not be victimized by
the world for it. Don't be condemned though you may suffer
persecution for it, as one may deduce from verse 14 where gets mentioned the
subpoena, the "official document against us" served on the
Congregation for exactly keeping Sabbaths!
You still have Justin -second half of the second
century – to rely on though, and he is the 'scholar' who exalted himself above
the Word of God, thinking it nothing to change it, and to pervert it in order
to steal the Sabbath's honour for the First Day of the week. His words to
Trypho catch him red-handed: "Who rose from the dead ON the First Day
AFTER the Sabbath", while Matthew's words are: "IN the SABBATH ...
BEFORE the First Day" 28:1.
So, you're simply left bankrupt for evidence of ANY
instance of "Sunday meetings in the early Church" (50 to 150
AD).
Their intimidating arsenal of illegal weapons
has exploded in the face of the Sabbath-terrorists, those oh so academic
Sunday-activists.
The day after tomorrow will once again be "the
Sabbath of the LORD your God" – He is your God too? So why
not receive HIS Sabbath Day yours as well?
Gerhard
28/10/04
From Gerhard Ebersoehn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za, www.biblestudents.co.za
Re: Bob Sands who wrote,
<If you read the study
mentioned you will find that there are many possibilities that
<were going on in the early church. Sunday meetings in
addition to Sabbath keeping.
<New Christian gentiles that
never new the Sabbath of the Judiazers and were told that they
<were not accepted for Sabbath worship
unless they were circumcised ....>
I think I have now read "the study
mentioned". Is that the one written by Michael Morrison, Bob, the one that
came in 5 parts?
The "possibility" of "Sunday meetings
in addition to Sabbath keeping" "in the early Church" : Please
explain? Show just ONE instance of worship on the First Day of the week in
the New Testament? Acts 20:7 and 1Cor16:2? They contain the only references
outside the Gospels to the First Day of the week, and they, don't contain any
reference to Sunday-worship. On the contrary, they both imply Sabbath-worship.
(Explained in an earlier post.)
Or Ignatius to the Magnesians and Barnabas? They
associate Sabbath – the Seventh Day – with whatever they meant by "living
according to the Lord's Day", "eighth day". The First Day of the
week features in neither!
"Not accepted for Sabbath worship": Do you
have in mind Col2:16-17? No! says Paul, "Don't let yourselves be judged by
any man" 'for Sabbath worship'! And why not: "Wherefore",
answers Paul, with reference to verses 9 to 15, and especially to the immediate
last, verse 15, "Wherefore ... He triumphed in it", namely in
resurrection from the dead, vanquishing every foe of God's Redeemed: that's why
the Church should keep her Sabbaths and not be victimized by
the world for it. Don't be condemned though you may suffer
persecution for it, as one may deduce from verse 14 where gets mentioned the
subpoena, the "official document against us" served on the
Congregation for exactly keeping Sabbaths!
You still have Justin -second half of the second
century – to rely on though, and he is the 'scholar' who exalted himself above
the Word of God, thinking it nothing to change it, and to pervert it in order
to steal the Sabbath's honour for the First Day of the week. His words to
Trypho catch him red-handed: "Who rose from the dead ON the First Day
AFTER the Sabbath", while Matthew's words are: "IN the SABBATH ...
BEFORE the First Day" 28:1.
So, you're simply left bankrupt for evidence of ANY
instance of "Sunday meetings in the early Church" (50 to 150
AD).
Their intimidating arsenal of illegal weapons
has exploded in the face of the Sabbath-terrorists, those oh so academic
Sunday-activists.
The day after tomorrow will once again be "the
Sabbath of the LORD your God" – He is your God too? So why
not receive HIS Sabbath Day yours as well?
Gerhard
29/10/04
Dear Bob,
In answer to your latest post, below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible Students
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
Mr. Ebersoehn, I fear you have a unique position that
is not supported by other scholars. I also sense that you have not read all
five parts of the article that I quoted, studied by the World Wide Church of
God. Interesting, they are not trying to do away with the Sabbath but to point
out the sentiments of the early Christian believers and how so many Christians
of today came to worship on Sunday. I found it to be very enlightening and a
help to me in "being convinced in your own heart" about this matter.
Bob Sands
allow me the following.
I posted the accompanying letter to SDANet, but they
declined to place it, with the remarks which you may read in the latest SDANet.
Here nevertheless is it:
Gerard
As moderators we would ask you not to contribute to this discussion
thread about the Sabbath at this time.
When there is a discussion ongoing between an SDA point of view
and a non-SDA point of view such as Bob Sands is presenting at
the moment, then having other non-SDA's jump in with yet a different
view makes only confusion. This list doesn't exist to have
two non-SDA views debate each other. I realize that this particular
reply was to Leroy Moore and not to Bob Sands, but it is still
just causing confusion in this case. When the confusion
on this thread dies down a bit then you can contribute again.
Steve Timm
SDAnet moderator.
Now here's my post:
From Gerhard Ebersoehn biblestudents@imaginet.co.za, www.biblestudents.co.za
Re: Bob Sands who wrote,
<If you read the study
mentioned you will find that there are many possibilities that
<were going on in the early church. Sunday meetings in
addition to Sabbath keeping.
<New Christian gentiles that
never new the Sabbath of the Judiazers and were told that they
<were not accepted for Sabbath worship
unless they were circumcised ....>
I think I have now read "the study
mentioned". Is that the one written by Michael Morrison, Bob, the one that
came in 5 parts?
The "possibility" of "Sunday meetings
in addition to Sabbath keeping" "in the early Church" : Please
explain? Show just ONE instance of worship on the First Day of the week in
the New Testament? Acts 20:7 and 1Cor16:2? They contain the only
references outside the Gospels to the First Day of the week, and they, don't
contain any reference to Sunday-worship. On the contrary, they both imply
Sabbath-worship. (Explained in an earlier post.)
Or Ignatius to the Magnesians and Barnabas? They
associate Sabbath – the Seventh Day – with whatever they meant by "living
according to the Lord's Day", "eighth day". The First Day of the
week features in neither!
"Not accepted for Sabbath worship": Do you
have in mind Col2:16-17? No! says Paul, "Don't let yourselves be judged by
any man" 'for Sabbath worship'! And why not: "Wherefore",
answers Paul, with reference to verses 9 to 15, and especially to the immediate
last, verse 15, "Wherefore ... He triumphed in it", namely in resurrection
from the dead, vanquishing every foe of God's Redeemed: that's why the Church
should keep her Sabbaths and not be victimized by the world for
it. Don't be condemned though you may suffer persecution for it, as one
may deduce from verse 14 where gets mentioned the subpoena, the "official
document against us" served on the Congregation for exactly keeping
Sabbaths!
You still have Justin -second half of the second
century – to rely on though, and he is the 'scholar' who exalted himself above
the Word of God, thinking it nothing to change it, and to pervert it in order
to steal the Sabbath's honour for the First Day of the week. His words to
Trypho catch him red-handed: "Who rose from the dead ON the First Day
AFTER the Sabbath", while Matthew's words are: "IN the SABBATH ...
BEFORE the First Day" 28:1.
So, you're simply left bankrupt for evidence of ANY
instance of "Sunday meetings in the early Church" (50 to 150
AD).
Their intimidating arsenal of illegal weapons
has exploded in the face of the Sabbath-terrorists, those oh so academic
Sunday-activists.
The day after tomorrow will once again be "the
Sabbath of the LORD your God" – He is your God too? So why
not receive HIS Sabbath Day yours as well?
Gerhard
I would add to my paragraph above, <<Or Ignatius
to the Magnesians and Barnabas? They associate the Sabbath – the Seventh Day –
with whatever they meant by "living according to the Lord's Day",
"eighth day". The First Day of the week features in neither!>>,
this remark,
that Justin was the FIRST person we today have on
record who associated the First Day with the 'eighth day' – in his debate with
Trypho. This actually was stupid of him, in view of the fact 'the eighth day'
ever before had been a concept of Jewish apocalyptic, and throughout and thoroughly
a concept associated with the last of the seven ages, for Jewish apocalyptic
symbolised by the Sabbath – not by the First Day. Then Barnabas followed
this idea and simply not whatsoever brings the First Day of the week and the
'eighth day' together. He also sees it as the seventh age, and he also sees the
Sabbath of the Seventh Day as symbolic of this last age. Justin came with the
novelty of "the First Day after the Sabbath remaining the first of all the
days, called however, the eighth”. He LIES, when he writes, "CALLED the
eighth". The First Day had never been "called" "the
eighth" day. Scholars who fall for Justin, simply fall for a lie.
"Enticing words", Paul would have said of Justin's!
Peace for the approaching Sabbath! Jesus is the Lord
of it, so will keep his appointment with His People, surely! Not to be missed!
(Even if we can only meet in isolation but in "the Faith of Him".
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sands
To: Bible Students
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Colossians 2 Crux.doc
<<Mr. Ebersoehn, I fear you have a unique
position that is not supported by other scholars.>>
Dear Bob,
What does it matter? As long as my position is
supportable by the Bible! I pray it is, and believe it is. I believe my
‘position’ is in accordance with the Gospel, and is to the glory of Christ and
His Church. My position is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead and if not confirmed by it, must be discarded not only as worthless, but
as harmful – and shameful.
All I say is there is no ‘CHURCH’ without God’s Day
“appointed” for ‘Church’ – for the worship of Him, neither of (natural)
necessity, nor by instruction from the Scriptures. The reality of the People of
God BOTH includes its ‘shadow’ of present and past “being” and expects its
future ‘spectre’ of “completeness”, “in Him”. The Church “IS” not, if the shadow,
“IS” not. “IS” from the ‘estin’ of 2:17. The shadow is as real as the Body that
casts it, and the Body sheds the shadow, as truly as the Head is the Light of
it.
Now the Sabbatharians say I annul the Sabbath through
my views, and the Sundaydarians deny the claims of my views for the Sabbath,
but against their will they must admit them all as valid for the Sunday,
because they themselves make the same kind of claims for Sunday! How ironic!
My friend and brother in Christ, you know as well as
I do we the Church IS not if not on the Day of Worship-Rest. You know as well
as I do God in Jesus Christ WILLS it that way, and practice and reality DEMAND
it that way. You know as well as I do EVERY TIME an argument is raised AGAINST
the Sabbath (Seventh DAY), it is contradicted and CANCELLED by the very
principle and practice of the ONGOING Sunday-worship of the Church in its very
resistence to the Sabbath Day. It may be in the form of the simple denial of
the SEVENTH Day as Day of Worship, or it may be in the form of denial of ANY
‘literal’ Day of Worship, it amounts to the same!
NO argument against a Day of Worship Rest – a
‘sabbatismos’ “for the People of God” – is possible: it’s an a priori
impossibility! Just so, NO argument against the Seventh Day as THE Day of
Worship Rest – as THE ‘sabbatismos’ “for the People of God” – is possible: it’s
an a priori impossibility. The reasons it is impossible are many, but basically
only two: 1, Because God is unchangeable, and so His Word and Promise and
Fulfilment. 2, Because the Scriptures THROUGHOUT –Old as well as New Testament–
proclaims and teaches and infers and implies, and ‘speaks’ of ONE Day of
Worship Rest only: The Seventh Day Sabbath and Sabbath of the LORD your God –
“Sabbath” of which Christ is “Lord” through resurrection from the dead.
“Tell my People their sins!” is a Command of God that
is valid today as ever. Sunday-worship is a sin of God’s People; it should not
be excused or be smooth-talked. That the Church does not keep God’s Sabbath
Day, is another sin of God’s People; it should not be excused or smooth-talked.
The “keeping of the Sabbath” on-going in the Church today for the very reasons
so combated by Ignatius, “not for the sake of Jesus Christ”, is a sin of God’s
People; it should not be excused or be smooth-talked. One cannot pardon or talk
good a “judaising living the Sabbath”. (Ignatius) But even less can one pardon
or defend another, strange and idolatrous day, so much the more estranged from
the Gospel by the thousands of barrages of lies that in the name of Truth has
been hurled at God’s Holy Day.
I may be privileged to share in the “Anstoss” of the
cross of Christ also with regard to the Sabbath Day, or prefer the popularity
of Sunday-worship. I have been confronted with this option all my life, and, if
I wanted or not, have been confronted with decision-making in this regard all
my life. I had to distantiate myself from both factions of the Church as far as
this issue is concerned, and have been able by the grace of God to nevertheless
not disassociate myself with the Church totally; I still by joints and strands
of Truth, like the Sabbath-truth, receive nourishment from the Head, and pray I
may for the rest of my life. To God be praises, and the Glory of His Name,
Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour!