Gerhard Ebersöhn

 

 

 

 

 

Save the Sabbath!

 

 

(Third delivery)

 

 

 

Ellen White and Sunday-Tradition in Embrace

 

 

 

 

 

“Priest and prophet have gone off the road ... they err in vision; they stumble in judgment ... To whom shall he teach knowledge, and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? ... The Word of the Lord to them was law upon law, law upon law, line upon line, here a little, there  little, that they may go forward, but fall backwards, and be snared, and broken, and taken.”

Is28:7-13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag 43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

 

Resurrection or Appearance?

 

To prevent confusion of things said by whom, I shall now also “underline” Mrs White’s statements. 

 

 

“The night of the first day of the week had worn slowly away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come, Christ was still a prisoner in His narrow tomb. ... “And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven.” Clothed with the panoply of God, this angel left the heavenly courts. The bright beams of God’s glory went before him, and illuminated his pathway. “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.” ... At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men. When the heavenly train was hidden from their view, they arose to their feet, and ... and made their way ... The earth trembles at his approach ... and as he rolls away the stone, heaven seems to come down to the earth. The soldiers see him removing the stone ... and hear him cry, Son of God, come forth; thy Father calls thee. They see Jesus come forth from the grave, ... As He comes forth in majesty and glory, the angel host bow low ... An earthquake marked the hour when Christ lay down His life and another earthquake witnessed the moment when He took it up in triumph.” p 90 §2, p 91 §1, 5, 2.  

 

“This chapter (was) based on Matthew 28:2-4; 11-15” ...

 

 

“This chapter is based on Matthew 28:1,  5-8;   Mark 16:1-8;

Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18” ...

 

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... Ignorant of what was even then taking place, they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” They knew that they could not remove the stone, yet they kept on their way. And low, the heavens were suddenly alight with glory that came not from the rising sun. The earth trembled. They saw that the great stone was rolled away. The grave was empty. ... Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples. Meanwhile, the other women came up. A light was shining about the tomb, but the body of Jesus was not there. As they lingered about the place, suddenly they saw that they were not alone. It was the angel who had rolled away the

stone. ... about him the light of the heavenly glory was still shining ... The women turned to flee, but the angel’s words stayed their

steps. ”Fear not ye,” said he; “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples

that He is risen from the dead. Again they look into the tomb, and again they hear the wonderful news. Another angel in human form is there, and he says, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” pp 96/97.

 

 

More than one, separate, individual, visits

 

Whether or not any or all Gospels are ‘reasonably well represented’ in White –anywhere–, two things are one hundred percent accomplished by such ‘representation’ as in Mrs White’s, One, each and every Gospel text is one hundred percent perverted and falsified; Two, each and every Gospel narrative is one hundred percent perverted and falsified.

 

And to what end? In order to transform different and individual ‘visits to the tomb’, into the one and instantaneous coincidence of the women’s visit, of Jesus’ Resurrection, and of his Appearance— to what end? In order to crown and sanctify Sunday as the Day of Resurrection-Faith’s Worship-Rest— to what end? In order to abolish “The Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God”.

 

Mrs White is co-labourer neither last nor least in the effort. “He shall speak great words and shall think to change times and laws”.

 

To what good is all this ‘hair-splitting’ some have accused me for?

To distinguish between things the Gospels distinguish between! The Gospels never assimilate the four accounts of the four Gospels. The Gospels do not even assimilate the individual accounts within any one Gospel. Don’t let us join, what God has seen fit to keep separate. Deal with the facts, not with our own innovations and sentiments.

 

I believe each Gospel tells the truth, nothing but the truth, and all the truth of all it tells of the truth. We can find the whole truth

but not all its components in any single Gospel. But we find the whole truth— the whole Gospel, in all and each of the Gospels’ distinguishable but inseparable accounts, together. ‘Together’—

different things taken together— not different things assimilated, fused and brewed into a personal or traditional concoction. Which way would you prefer to deal with the Scriptures? Would you rather allow each individual story to tell its own story, or would you try your hand at playing diatessaronist or conflationist like Mrs E.G. White and tradition too many times already have produced? 

 

More than one story, more than one visit, or chaos and irreconcilabilities ad infinitum! More than one story, or justified reason for cynicism and scorn on the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and appearances. But no! we rather change God’s Word, than ours! And deeper and deeper into quicksand of human obstinacy sink plain reason and truth.

 

But why should I be the one who must apologise for using a multiple-visit solution? Everybody does! Mrs White uses the principle as Christian tradition has done for the duration of Christianity! But I don’t know what I’m talking!? Yes in fact, Mrs White here supplies us with her versions of how many visits to the tomb!

 

First, it’s the guard. All right, theirs is no visit; they were stationed at the grave. So be it!  So after the guard had left, “the women made their way”. But – and this is a very common view – “The women had not all come to the tomb from the same direction. Mary was the first to reach the place ...”. The women must have arrived in at least two different ‘groups’, making it two visits, one after the other – to begin with. Next, Mary Magdalene goes back to go tell the disciples Peter and John, who then came to the tomb; so Peter and John’s was the third consecutive visit.

 

Now for Mrs White’s unique version of the story.  Mary “had followed the disciples” and again showed up at the grave; that’s four visits now. Jesus appears to her. “And Mary went her way to the disciples.” (98/2)

 

Tradition has it though – in this case in agreement with the Gospels of Mark and John – that Jesus “first appeared to Mary Magdalene”, Mk16:9, Jn20:11f.  So does Mrs White tell us, the other women had not yet seen the Lord. The other women’s visit to the grave was just before Jesus appeared to them. This visit of the women then had to have been the fifth visit to the tomb on the Sunday morning. 

 

So what’s so strange about ‘my’ view of different visits to the tomb?  I also say there were each of these very visits, but I just don’t squeeze them in into zero tolerance in time; I spread them

out over the reasonable period the Gospels allow and in fact demand - the whole of the Saturday night.

 

To know what really is strange, rather look at five different visits to the tomb, all within the compass of, from “the night had worn away ... just before daybreak” – when the (‘first’) angel descended, Mt28:1, (see 90/1-2) –, until, “even then” (identical time) with reference to Mk1:2a and 2c (see 96/2, “very early” 92/1)!  Within a matter of no time at all! (Which, by the way, was the greater miracle, the Resurrection, or the visits?!)  Five visits to the tomb, with all the events and all its evidences, gone, within “the moment when He took up (his life)”?!   In fact –strictly reckoning the White way– these five visits plus their events, plus all the evidences / results, plus all their evidences / results vanished, happen in less time than no time, because — reckoned the White way :— first event, Luke “deep(est) morning (of night)”, is later in time than the last event, Mark (and Matthew), “very early (‘the night had worn away ... just before daybreak’)”.  That’s asking just too much of common sense.

 

No two accounts of visits to the tomb may or can be identified, or they will and must be confused and in fact be either strangled and suffocated together, or be mutilated and cut apart and to pieces.  To bring into one single event all actions of everyone, and all time indications of every Gospel, and all acts of God through every agent or medium, is not to maintain the unity of the Scriptures— it results in its opposite, in the fragmentation of every single event, every action of everyone, of each time indication of each Gospel, and all acts of God of whatever agent He might have used in the working out and revelation of the Gospel of the Resurrection of Christ. To ferment, brew and distil in stupefying inferno half a dozen vintages, unrecognisably destroys the character of each and all.

 

Luke and Mark do not have the same event under consideration; they are telling different stories, each in its own right; each in its own time! Neither of Luke, Mark, and John in 20:1-10, tells of an Appearance – far less of the Resurrection (as tradition holds). There are just two Appearances on Sunday morning recorded, John 20:11-17, and Matthew 28:8-10. There is no Resurrection recorded as happened it on Sunday morning, no, not one!  There is only the circumstantial events of the Resurrection as happened it “In the Sabbath”— Matthew 28:1-4, recorded as “answered and told the angel the women” (on Sunday morning)— Matthew28:5.

 

 

 

 

(1)  Luke recorded the women’s first, originally planned visit to the tomb.

(2)  Mark recorded their visit of disillusionment and re-affirmation.

(3)  John recorded Mary’s trust and vigilance rewarding “stand”-visit.

(4)  Matthew recorded the other women’s courage of despair and elucidating visit to the tomb.  

 

 

(1)  Luke gives the time of “deep morning”, ‘darkest hour’, after midnight.

(2)  Mark gives the time or ‘very early sun’s up-coming’ before sunrise.

(3)  John gives the time a gardener would have come on duty, just after sunrise.

(4)  Matthew gives no time; his time must be deduced from John’s anecdote and the statement in Mark 16:9, that “The Risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first, early on the First Day of the week”.  What possible objection could be raised against this plainly Scriptural sequence of visits ... but tradition’s vagaries?

 

There were but two more ‘visits to the tomb’ by women,

(1)  Mary Magdalene, who first saw the stone and who, virtually as having seen the stone, ran back, John 20:1-10;

(2)  The considered, desired, willed but never realised visit, “To go have a look at the grave at the very moment there was a great earthquake”, Matthew 28:1.

 

By recognising and accepting these, six, visits, each of them and all of them, it is not necessary to take away or add or change a word or phrase or context or meaning of any, in the least. Yes, the Word says, Thou shalt not take asunder that God put together; but the Word also outright teaches, Thou shalt not put together that God separated. To “rightly divide the Word of God” means to rightly hold together things that belong together and as far as they belong together; to maintain in whole each whole. Own agenda is forbidden. God willed Jesus would rise from the dead “In Sabbath’s-time”; so happened it.  Mrs White is doing her best to prove God’s Word for confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew in White, but not White in Matthew

 

False claim one

 

“The Lord Is Risen”— Mrs White does not ‘base’ the Resurrection on “Matthew 28:1”. That, we have seen already, and shall now continue to show.

 

Mrs White, under her heading to chapter 8, “The Lord Is Risen”, had given us the most important information for a true understanding of her message with that chapter. She assured us, “This chapter is based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15.” (Yes, she supplied the full stop.)  In my second delivery I pointed out the difficulty created if one leave out specifically verse 1 and verses 5-8, or 5-11, while dealing with the Resurrection.

 

Not even Mrs White’s resolve, she was not going to use Mt28:1, was trustworthy, because she obviously could not have helped but employ verse 1 in her contemplation of the event of the Resurrection. It should be impossible for anyone, when working on the Resurrection, to ignore verse 1.  To announce before you have started, you’re just going to ignore verse 1 of Matthew 28, is not very clever.  

 

Mt28:1 is pivotal, simply because it is the only Scripture in all of Scripture that directly implies and refers to the event and the temporary and tangible circumstances of the event of Jesus’ resurrection. It is not in the least surprising therefore, despite the claim verse 1 is not under scrutiny for the consideration of the Resurrection, to find verse 1 summarily quoted in the second paragraph of the first page of the chapter, scarcely ten lines from the top!

 

 

If any man shall take away of the words

 

Nevertheless, that in itself doesn’t mean so much as the covering up which the use of this indomitable Scripture received under the

pen of Mrs White.  I am counting my words! By leaving out the most striking feature or aspect or force of verse one, its unequivocal time-statement, “In the Sabbath”, Mrs White has actually disguised the text with her usual parlance of earthquakes and shining lights dispersed commodiously opportunely and inopportunely throughout the episode.

 

By having omitted also Matthew’ mention of the women who at the very moment of the “great earthquake”, “set out to go have a look

at the grave”, Mrs White has further weakened Matthew’s time-clause consisting of all the time-phrases contained in verse 1, together. “Set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go have a

look at the grave”, is as integrally part of Matthew’s statement of day and time of day, and of event and circumstances of event, as e.g., the key-word, “Sabbath’s”.  Mrs White’s neglect to use Mathew’s time-clause where it is supposed to be used, reserved it adulterated for her next chapter, where she – unlawfully – has smuggled it in into Luke’s description of the women’s visit to the tomb after midnight Saturday night.  

 

Having mixed unrelated bits of Scripture, ‘here a little, there a little’, the effect has become as stupifying as had strong drink been taken. (See Is28:10, 7)   

 

Who would have recognised ““And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven.” Clothed with the panoply of God, this angel left the heavenly courts. The bright beams of God’s glory went before him, and illuminated his pathway. “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men”” for verse 1 of Matthew 28 after ‘Inspiration’ has assured you, “This chapter is based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15.”?  Truth is, this ‘quote’ of Mrs White’s, is for that matter not a ‘quote’ at all, but in all, is a ‘lying report’.

 

Why does Mrs White go to all the lengths to first tell her readers forget about verse one now, and next to employ it but with its most distinctive aspect, its time-statement, replaced with something from nowhere?

 

Do you recall where Mrs White wrote of the Jews’ conference with Pilate when they asked the grave to be sealed and guarded? The Scripture naturally, was Matthew 27:62-66. Mrs White then commented, “They could not rest upon the Sabbath. Though they would not step over a Gentile’s threshold for fear of defilement, yet they held a council concerning the body of Christ.” (88/3)  Where Matthew did not directly say it was the Sabbath, but only implied

the fact, Mrs White without difficulty recognised the plainest of inference that it was “upon the Sabbath”. But where Matthew directly mentioned the fact it was the Sabbath, there, Mrs White chose to obfuscate and obscure the easiest and most obvious of actual facts.

 

Besides Mrs White’s subtle corruption of John 18:28, why the Jews “would not step over a Gentile’s threshold” as were it “for fear of defilement” as in itself their reason, and not, “lest they be defiled

but that they might eat the passover”, besides that, it’s a minor thing. It seems as soon as Mrs White touches the Scriptures she corrupts them! What I want to underline, is this, Matthew mentions the securing of the tomb on the implied Sabbath morning; and Mrs White admitted that it was unmistakably the Sabbath Day that was implied. Where Matthew then uninterruptedly, in fact, logically as well as chronologically uninterruptedly and continuously as contra-event of the grave’s securing on the same day that Sabbath Day, recorded Jesus’ resurrection, “In the Sabbath”, there, Mrs White turns the blind eye; or, more accurately, there, Mrs White draws the blinds on Matthew’s mention of the Sabbath. She strikes out from Matthew’s tableaux of the Sabbath Day on which the grave the morning had been sealed, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead its very afternoon. 

 

The Sabbath morning: All attempts to hinder Christ’s resurrection;  “But, in the Sabbath’s afternoon:”— still on the Sabbath, in fact “In Sabbath’s fullness of daylight” ... “Behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven.” Clothed with the panoply of God, this angel left the heavenly courts. The bright beams of God’s glory went before him, and illuminated his pathway. “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.” 

 

The inescapable fact doubly ensured by Matthew that it was the Sabbath Day in which Christ rose from the dead, first by context of 27:62 to 28:5, and then by mention in verse 1, of uninterrupted eventual and chronological sequence, is what Mrs White deliberately tried to prevent from getting noticed.  I cannot for a moment believe Mrs White in her heart knew not and understood not, that, according to Matthew 28:1 in the context of 27:62-66, Jesus’ resurrection occurred on the Sabbath Day! Not after all this! She lacked the courage, and she lacked the ability, and she lacked the honesty ... in the face of her brethren and sisters of her ‘Movement’, to accept and defend the truth of the fact.

 

So she said, “This chapter is based on Matthew 28 ...” from verse 2 on, be careful— I exclude verse 1; and don’t’ go further than verse 4!   Indeed, most remarkable of all, is that she said, “This chapter is based on Matthew 28 ...” from verse 2 on, but be careful— I exclude verse 1, and be even more careful to take note that I exclude verse 5!   It is just unbelievable! Imagine, “This chapter”, based on, “The Lord Is Risen”— “is based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15”, No verse 1 ...  (1) No, “In Sabbath’s-time”; (2) No, “Set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go have a look at the grave” ... 

How is that, possible? Incredible! ... this as far as Matthew 27:62 to 28:4 is concerned!

 

But here, is the zenith of incredibility: Concerning 28:5—

No verse 5 ... (3) No, “The angel answered / explained to the women, and said ...”.  How is anybody ever going to hear of, to learn about, to believe in, “The Lord is Risen”, had not “The angel informed / explained / answered the women”: “… In the Sabbath’s fullness …”?   Nobody would ever have known, “Explained the angel” not, and “Told the angel” not “the women”— who thus, and then, when told and when answered, were enabled and commanded to go, to make known, the Good News!  Without verse 5 of Matthew 28, and without The angel answering / explaining to the women, telling them …,  the whole Gospel of Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead, would have remained a sealed book. The very existence of Christianity depended on this mystery having been made known— audibly and not by sight, and which only God was mighty to do and for which only God had an angel sent.

 

So Matthew called the angel who rolled the stone out of the grave’s opening, “the angel of the Lord”, that is, “messenger of the Lord”, “the sent of the Lord”, the “commissioned of the Lord”. This ‘messenger’ (it seems to me), was the very angel who “Answered and told the women …” the next morning after that Jesus “In the Sabbath’s fullness” had risen from the dead by the Power invested in Himself and in the Full Fellowship of God— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  This ‘messenger’ (it seems to me), was the very angel who “answered the angel, and told the women ...” (Matthew 28:1-8)— each and every word of what happened yesterday, “In the Sabbath …”.  

 

For this reason and for nothing in all the universe else, that God’s way isn’t good enough, that Faith by hearing comes and not by seeing isn’t good enough – for its denial rather, and for its exact reversal, that man shall live by sight and not by faith, Mrs White took upon herself the calling to ensure mankind shall be initiated into the mysteries of believing by seeing. So she wrote ‘The Desire of the Ages’, chapter 8 and 9, “The Lord Is Risen”, and, “Why Weepest Thou”.  

 

 

 

 

 

False claim two

 

“This chapter (“Why Weepest Thou”, p 96f)  is based on Matthew 28:1...”, claims Mrs White. 

 

The first sentence of ‘this chapter’, reads, 

 

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””.

 

Since “Matthew 28:1” is the first text claimed for ‘basis’, it should be justified to expect the statement, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””, and in particular the time-phrase, “On the first day of the week, very early”, to be contained in “Matthew 28:1”.

 

I still must meet the Seventh Day Adventist who ever questioned Mrs White’s assertion “Matthew 28:1” forms the basis for her statement “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””.   I have met but few non Seventh Day Adventists who have given it a thought the generally accepted opinion, ‘On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body’ ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”, might not be based on Matthew 28:1.  The power of tradition! 

 

 

Matthew 28:1 in White?

 

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””? ...

 

(1)  “On the first day of the week”— which Matthew 28:1 does not contain; which Mark 16:2 does contain; which Luke 24:1 does contain; which John 20:1 does contain; which John 20:11f does not contain;

(2)  “... very early”— which Matthew does not contain; which Mark 16:1 does not contain; which Mark 16:2 partially, sort of contains; which Luke does contain; which John does not contain;

(3)  “... (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with”— which Matthew does not contain; which Mark does not contain; which Luke only, does contain; which John does not contain;

(4)  “... taking with them, precious spices”— which Matthew does not contain; which Mark does not contain; which Luke only does contains; which John does not contain;

(5)  “... they drew near the garden, saying as they went”— which no Gospels contains = 4 ‘nots’;  

(6)  “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”— which only Mark does contain = 3 ‘nots’.

 

How well is “Matthew 28:1” represented in, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””?   Nil out of 6 times! Zero percent! Mrs White’s claim, “This chapter is based on Matthew 28:1, 5-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18”, as far as “Matthew 28:1” is concerned, therefore, is 100% false.

 

And while we’re on the subject,

How well is John represented?  1 out of 6 = 17%.

How well is Luke represented?  4 out of 6 = 67%.

How well is Mark represented?  Two and half out of 6 = 42%.

 

How many ‘only’ cases are there?

Matthew – nil;

Mark – 1 (6);

Luke – 2 (3, 4);

John – nil.

 

 

Luke in White, but not White in Luke

 

Therefore, White’s version ‘based on’ Luke no doubt, looks like this, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””

 

Of this, what is not genuinely ‘Luke’, is the dual statement, “... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”  To which Gospels then, do these two statements, “... they drew near the garden, saying as

they went, Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” actually belong?

 

The statement, “... they drew near the garden, saying as they went”, belongs to no Gospel!  “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”, belongs to only Mark. Therefore, Mrs White’s statement, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ...”, up to here, reasonably accurately represents Luke 24:1. Please note, verse 1, only; not verse 2 as well.

 

And please note, ‘reasonably well’, because both the phrases, “very early”, and, “made their way”, are doubtful, strictly speaking are erroneous, ‘translations’.

 

 

Mark in White, but not White in Mark

 

“Very early”:

 

If taken for Luke’s, he, actually says, “deep(est) early-morning”, from ‘orthrou batheohs’.

 

If taken for Mark’s, he, actually says, “very early”, from ‘lian

proh-i’.

 

Mark uses a second expression though, to tell what he actually meant with saying, “very early”— he also says, “sun’s rising”, from ‘anateilantos tou hehliou’.

 

Luke’s “very early” therefore was much earlier than Mark’s “very early”. Luke’s was just after midnight. (More or less what the

‘darkest hour’ of morning would have been, quite a few hours before, when ‘night has worn away’.) 

 

Mark’s “very early” therefore was much later than Luke’s “very early”. Mark’s was just before sunrise. (More or less when ‘night has worn away’ and quite a few hours after ‘darkest hour’ of morning.)

 

I have said no Gospel contains this, “they drew near ... (saying) as they went”.   First, Matthew and John do not in any way relate a ‘coming to the grave’ of, or, by any women – plural.  Only Luke and Mark do. So am I contradicting myself by denying, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices? I answer, for good reason I insist I do not contradict myself. The

reason is the manner in which it is said “(the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices”. Neither Mrs White’s exact words, nor the grammatical mode she uses, is that of the Gospels. 

 

To state that Mark 16 anywhere says, “they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” ” is more than an obvious blunder, because no less than an obtrusive innovation of Mrs White’s imagination. It is obvious, I say – so obvious:

 

-------------Mark----------------------------White--------------------

They come upon the sepulchre---------------they drew near

And said-----------------------------------------saying ... as they went

Who, for us, will roll away the stone?---------yet they kept on their way

 

The women spoke after they arrived---------spoke before they arrived

 

As clear as that. Luke and Mark don’t use Participles to say “they drew near the garden, saying as they went”.  Both Luke and Mark use Indicative, active, finite verbs. “They came (Luke) / They come (Mark)”. “They came / come upon the grave” – both; not as if on their way to, the grave, not, “drew near ... as went”. The women had had come, they had had arrived, before they spoke a word.   Luke: “They came ... they found ... entering they found not”— no ‘speaking’ whatsoever!  Mark: “They come ... they said ... looking up they see ... entering they saw.”  All continuous action is after arrival; none is before arrival.

 

 

Confusing Resurrection, Visits and Appearances

 

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ...”.

 

“What”, according to Mrs White, “was even then taking place, (as) they drew near the garden, ... as they went”— in other words, before but virtually simultaneous as the women arrived at the tomb? It cannot have been anything but the Resurrection!  Yet, the guard “even then” as the women arrived, is nowhere to be seen? And what else than by the lightning of the appearance of the angel who moved the stone away, could “the heavens suddenly (be) alight with glory that came not from the rising sun” (96/2), yet the angel is nowhere? In less time than “when the heavenly train was hidden from (the guard’s) view” arrive the women, and the guard is gone already, but not the light of the angel nor the earthquake spent?

For having said, Mrs White (or / and the editors) refers: “This chapter is based on Matthew 28:1, 5-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18.” For the time of the Resurrection, Mrs White gave us no reference from Scripture. She left out Matthew 28:1 in her list of Scriptures “This chapter” – “The Lord is Risen” – “is based on”— Remember? page 90. Instead of Matthew 28:1, Mrs White gave us this, “The night of the first day of the week had worn slowly away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come.”  We found that no Gospel could be opened at such a Scripture; Mrs White made her statement up herself. She gave her own fabrication that in no single Gospel or in all combined, can be identified.

 

Now for the Appearance, Mrs White in fact does refer to “Matthew 28:1”, but she does not quote it!  Instead, Mrs White again supplies us with her own concoction, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb”. “Matthew 28:1”, is that what she said? It is! ... which again, does not come near what Mt28:1 says, “In Sabbath’s fullness, afternoon tending towards the First  Day”.

 

 

 

 

Confusing ‘Luke’ and ‘Matthew’s’, ‘visits’

 

“This chapter (“Why Weepest Thou”, p 96f)  is based on Matthew 28:1...”, claims Mrs White. 

 

I have said Mrs White ‘reserved’ the first part of Mt28:1 for later. While she told us she is not going to use Mt28:1 at all, she in fact did use it, but did not use its time-clauses! Now Mrs White has formulated supposedly, Matthew’s time-clause, using Luke’s terminology ... more or less. Mrs White for basis of this chapter told us she is going to use Mt28:1— not so? She did! Well then, we have read the chapter a hundred times, and couldn’t find Matthew 28:1 under the heading of this chapter, “Why Weepest Thou?”. Mrs White forces us to accept “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” for the first verse of Matthew 28 ... despite the 100% irreconcilability of the two texts, as we have already seen. “Yet they kept on their way. And lo, the heavens suddenly were alight with glory that came not from the rising sun. The earth trembled. They saw the great stone was rolled away. The grave was empty.” (96/2)

 

(1)  “Yet they kept on their way.”— Which Matthew does not contain; which Mark does not contain; which Luke does not contain; which John does not contain. Four ‘nots’ = 1 falsity.

(2)  “And lo, ... suddenly”— Which only Matthew does contain; which Mark does not contain; which Luke does not contain; which John does not contain. Three ‘nots’ and 1 ‘only’— Matthew!

(3)  “And lo, the heavens suddenly were alight with glory that came not from the rising sun”— Which no Gospel contains. Four ‘nots’ = 1 falsity. But let us say “the heavens suddenly were alight with glory that came not from the rising sun”, but from the angel of the Lord. Which Gospel tells us of the brightness of the angel? Only Matthew.

(4)  “The earth trembled.” Only Mt28:1, only once, tells of “a great earthquake”. Another ‘only Matthew’ case.

(5)  “They saw the great stone was rolled away.”  What a gross lie – in every respect and especially in its subtlety, it cannot be improved on!  Don’t worry, I know it’s not that the women were beholding as ‘the stone was being rolled away’; I can see “was rolled away” is a Participle.

 

But who, “saw the great stone was rolled away”?

Mt28:1 has no human witnesses; Lk24:2 states the women “found the stone was rolled away from the sepulchre”— confirming

something they already knew (something Mary must have told them). Mk16:3-4 says the women inspected the stone, and concluded it needed an unusual power to fling such a huge object “out of the doorway uphill”— the women’s re-affirmation of what they already had found according to Luke, only in greater detail and astonishment.  Then John, of course.  But John, where Mary “had had stood at the sepulchre”, 20:11f?   Cannot.

 

Then John 20:1. ...

Mrs White: “They saw the great stone was rolled away”? ...

John: “Cometh Mary ... and seeth, the stone taken away from the sepulchre”— singular, “Mary”; not, “they” (Mrs White), ‘the women’;  not “they” (Mark), who asked in wonderment, “Who will roll away the stone out of the door of the tomb for us?”

 

Was this chapter (“Why Weepest Thou”, p 96f) based on Matthew 28:1 ?  Not on any of any of the Gospel accounts!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confusing Mark and Luke

 

Mrs White:

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body.”

 

Here, in Luke 24:1 at last, and nowhere else, do we have Mrs White’s “night of the first day of the week ... the darkest hour ... come”. That, was not, when “night ... had worn ... away ... just before daybreak” though— as in Mark 16:2!   That, was soon after midnight, after 12 o’clock Roman time, Saturday night, which in Bible language, was “deep(est) morning (‘orthrou batheohs’), upon the First Day of the week”, Luke 24:1a!  That, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body”, was Luke 24:1 and Mark 16:2 after Mrs White has woven them into one fabric. (I recall the Old Testament has a Law that forbids different fabrics to be used in one texture; and another of an ox and a donkey should not pull together in the same yoke.)

 

White: “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb”.  

Luke 24:1a, “On the first day of the week, deep(est) morning”.  

 

White: “...  taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body.”

Luke 24:1b, “…they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared”. 

 

Now we have two similarities on which to ‘base’ our conclusion Mrs White’s statement, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body”, is supposed a reference to, and in fact is meant a diction from, Luke 24:1.

 

But:

White:  “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices ... they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””   

 

“Taking with them, precious spices” can only be found in Luke, “bringing the spices which they had prepared”. The adverbial phrase of time, “very early”, resembles Luke’s, “‘orthrou batheohs’-deep(est)

morning (of night)”, but also Mark’s, “very early-‘lian proh-i’”. So, which of Luke or Mark does Mrs White try to present to her readers? She might have thought she presented both, in fact all four Gospels, because all four Gospels are a priori in perfect agreement; therefore whichever phrase is mixed up with whichever phrase from whichever other Gospel, all in all in the end must agree, and having listened to one will be as good as having listened to all, and having listened to all, one has listened to each ...

 

Mark says, “very early”; so says Luke. Matthew does not.  Mark though, also contains “sun’s rising-‘anateilantos tou hehliou’”— which no other Gospel contains.  Only Luke, mentions “bringing the spices which they had prepared”.   But only Mark, contains “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”

 

Now it seems Mrs White’s “based this chapter” on Luke, when considering her combination of, “(the women) made their way to the tomb”, with, “taking with them, precious spices”.  Then again it seems Mrs White’s “based this chapter” on Mark, when considering her combination of, “saying as they went”, with, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”    

 

Mrs White’s words, “very early”, say nothing, because Mark’s ‘lian proh-i’ can mean “very early”, just like Luke’s ‘orthrou batheohs’, can mean “very early”.   But, most significantly, Luke’s ‘orthrou batheohs’-‘deep(est) morning (of night)’, cannot possibly mean, Mark’s, ‘anateilantos tou hehliou’-‘sun’s rising’.  Luke’s is just after midnight; Mark’s is just before sunrise.

 

The reason for my ‘hair-splitting’? No, it’s not hair-splitting; it is rightly dividing the Word of God! But my reason? To show the time involved, the time’s course, the elapse of time between the visit that took place shortly after midnight, and the visit that took place shortly before sunrise. The difference could have been between say a maximum of 5 hours and a minimum of say 4 hours. That would be the time in between the women’s visit when they took their spices with to anoint the body, “based on Luke 24:1-12”; and their visit to the tomb that Mary “had had stood after at the opening of the grave”, where Jesus a little later appeared to her and she thought He was the gardener “based on”, not, “John 20:1-18” (White), but, “based on” John 20:11-18 (John)!

 

The words or any idea like “(The women) made their way to the tomb”, do not occur in Mark 16 verse 1, or, Mark 16:2-18!  “Sun’s rising” from ‘anateilantos tou hehliou’ in Mark, is much later than Luke’s “deep(est) morning (of night)” from ‘orthrou batheohs’.

Luke’s “deep(est) morning”, was when “(the women) made their way to the tomb”, when “they drew near the garden”— not, as Mrs White says, “saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””, but, as Luke (in her words) says, “(The women) made their way to the tomb / they drew near the garden ... taking with them precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body”. 

 

Mark’s “Sun’s rising”, was when “very early in the morning the First Day of the week, they come upon the tomb as the sun rose. Then said they under themselves, because looking up and seeing it was exceeding great, Who would have rolled for us the stone out of the door?” Mark 16:2b-3— not, Mrs White’s, “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb” but,

 

Mark’s, “they come upon the tomb”; and not, Mrs White’s, “taking with them, precious spices”, but

 

Mark’s, “said they under themselves, because looking up and seeing it was exceeding great, Who would have rolled for us the stone out of the door?”

 

Mrs White so entangles the two visits they should appear the one and same visit of round about sunrise Sunday morning, making the Resurrection, round about sunrise Sunday morning. Voila! But According to Mark, it must be inferred the women had been at the tomb before. The women’s visit in Mark 16:2-8 to the tomb is to re-affirm the findings of their first visit to the tomb, Luke 24:1-8.

 

“Very early” better corresponds with “darkest hour”, because the “darkest hour” cannot be “just before daybreak had come”, but must be much earlier. Even to say “just before daybreak had come”, scarcely makes sense, because “just before daybreak” is “before daybreak”; and, when “daybreak had come”, is after “daybreak had come”.

 

The women’s second visit to the tomb?  

First visit:  “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb” being nearest equivalent of Luke’s anecdote of the women “taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body”! Luke recorded the earliest and first visit when, not knowing yet the body was gone, the women brought their Friday afternoon prepared spices with, with which to anoint

the body. They would not after that they had found the body was gone, have brought spices.

Second visit:  Therefore Mark says nothing of spices having been brought with to the grave; he must have recorded a following and second visit. Luke mentions the earlier time, “deep(est) morning (of night)”, Mark the later, “very early sun’s rising”.

 

So, the women asking in Mark, “Who, for us, will roll away the stone?”, ask in amazement at the size of the stone and the impossible feat to have removed it, ‘for us’. “And they, looking up (to where it lay), noticing the stone was very large, said among themselves,  Who shall (have) rolled away the stone for us?!” The stone was rolled away already; they don’t wonder as if the stone still had to be rolled away and— they don’t wonder, as if they had not yet seen. The women are standing in front of the tomb and looking up at the stone, are amazed at the sheer power that threw such heavy and unwieldy an object away uphill. And in amazement “Say they one to the other, Who could have done it for us?”.

 

It is wrong to say “Mark 16:1-8” contains only the double time-indication, “On the first day of the week, very early”, because “Mark 16:1-8”, has two statements of time. The first single-time-statement in verse 1, tells of three women who “after the Sabbath had gone through”, went to buy spices.  The second dual time-statement— here under consideration, tells neither of the time of the Resurrection nor of the time of the Appearance, but of women who a second time, visited the tomb, “very early, sun’s rising”. No appearance has yet occurred.  Just so in, Matthew 28:1 to 8, no appearance has yet occurred.  “The angel answering the women” on Sunday morning – before Jesus had appeared to the other women – “informs them”, about the Resurrection that had had happened “on the Sabbath Day” before.

 

Mrs White confuses both Saturday afternoon— Matthew 28:1, and Saturday evening “after the Sabbath has gone through”— Mark16:1, with Sunday “morning very early before sunrise”— Mark 16:2-3!   Mrs White mistakes “the rising sun” of Mark 16:2-3 for Matthew’s, Sabbath’s-afternoon! – “And lo, the heavens were suddenly alight with glory that came not from the rising sun”, but from the angel of Matthew 28:1— the angel “of the Sabbath’s afternoon”, who rolled the stone away from the opening of the grave.

 

There is no angle from which to view all these frantic, futile, and unnecessary attempts to reconcile times and events of the First

Day of the week, of Appearance-day, of ‘Sunday’. It’s not even comical. It’s scandalous. It is a blemish on the name of Christianity

and faith. Are Christians that fatuous?  To appear not so feather-brained, Christianity has always tried to defend their self-created ‘glaring discrepancies’, by saying they should be ascribed to the ‘individual points of view’ and ‘own individuality’ of the Gospel-writers. Today we have to hear, it’s all because of the reader’s ‘individual point of view’ and ‘own individuality’ (‘dynamic-equivalent’) – or of both author and reader. I think such excuses equally show laziness, anxiety and unbelief, or blatant haughtiness.  I don’t know what to call it when some say it is ‘the Spirit of Prophecy’, or, ‘Inspiration’.

 

Conclusion, Christianity generally is squarely facing the challenge to accept the ‘viewpoint’ of more than one visit to the tomb after Resurrection and before first Appearances.  That will require the inevitable and unavoidable accompanying factor of more than one time, each visit having had its own time of occurring in night or day of the First Day of the week, Sunday.

 

Still some people say I just hide my ignorance behind verbosity. Let them please explain that to me in plain words and with facts.

 

 

“What was even then taking place”

 

And “what was even then taking place”, was not the Resurrection, but only the women’s own “(coming) unto the sepulchre”, Lk24:1b— because the women brought their spices and ointments with, for the obvious reason to anoint the body (presupposed it was still there) (... approximately ten to eleven hours after the Resurrection the day before, “Sabbath’s afternoon” about 3 pm., Mt28:1!!)   

 

“What was even then taking place” during the first visit of the women to the sepulchre, was not the Resurrection, but only that they “found the stone rolled away”, Lk24:2— just like Mary must have told them after she earlier that very night “On the First Day of the week, while being early / fore-darkness / dusk still”, Jn20:1a— had seen it “taken away from the sepulchre”, Jn20:1b.

 

Mary noticed the stone removed, and nothing else; she could not tell if the body was there no more. She thought it must have been stolen because she had seen the grave opened, yet would not believe it, and still believing Jesus’ body was intact, she with the other women – we must assume –, went to do what they originally on the day of interment had decided to go do as soon as they being Jews— the Sabbath for them would be over. But because of the earthquake and having learned of the guard’s appointment –

we must assume –, the women must have decided to wait until the guard’s watch would have ended. The watch would last “until the third day had been over” (Mt27:62-66) ... which for a Roman guard, would end midnight (12 pm., Saturday night).

 

 

 

Confusing Matthew and Luke

 

Mrs White:

“They drew near the garden ... they kept on their way ... the heavens were suddenly alight ... The earth trembled.”.

 

Mrs White is busy with the women who “very early made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices.” No Gospel than Luke’s relates the spices which the women brought to the tomb. But Luke mentions nothing of “the heavens were suddenly alight ... The earth trembled”.  “The heavens were suddenly alight ... The earth trembled”, are occurrences immediately associated with the resurrection.  Jesus’ resurrection occurred, as “the heavens were suddenly alight” by the angel whose “appearance was like lightning”, “when suddenly there was a great earthquake” and “the earth trembled”— Matthew 28:1!   Mrs White tries to fuse the events of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew into one, which she or nobody is able to do. Yes, she falsely identifies Luke’s story with Matthew’s in 28:1-4. By having assimilated events of the resurrection with the very moment of the women’s goings to the grave, Mrs White has made the time of Jesus’ resurrection, the same as that of the women’s “(drawing) near the garden”. Only she – unlike tradition – doesn’t make the women the eyewitnesses of the resurrection because she had made the guard the eyewitnesses already. But that changes nothing; it worsens the fraud, for Mrs White has now falsified both the record of Luke and Matthew, and in more than just one way.

 

Mrs White confuses Matthew 28:1 where Matthew says,

“In Sabbath’s fullness, mid-afternoon now tending towards the First Day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out to go have a look at the grave / went with the purpose to see / to look at the grave, when suddenly there was a great earthquake for the angel of the Lord descended ... his countenance was like lightning”,  with Luke, 24:1, as were it Luke who says,  “On the first day of the week, very early” when the “heavens were suddenly alight (and) the earth trembled”.  Luke does not say anything like it. Mrs White’s is a false conglomeration of the two Scriptures and their different and diverse but never divergent events and times.

“They saw that the great stone was rolled away”

 

Mrs White: “They saw that the great stone was rolled away” ... Again, either a subtly misleading, or an obviously negligent observation.  For neither John nor Luke nor Mark says what Mrs White makes it appear they said.

 

John wrote, “Mary Magdalene seeth the stone taketh away from the sepulchre.” He does not write, “They saw that the great stone was rolled away.”  John then says immediately, “Then she runneth”.

 

Luke writes, 1:1b-2, that when the women “came upon the tomb”, they “found / confirmed the stone having been rolled away from the sepulchre” ... just as Mary must have told them, Jn20:2. [Mary told not only Peter and John, but all who were present at “their own home” (10)— “we know not”, Jn1:2d.]  “Then entering in they found / confirmed not the body”. The Luke-visit proved Mary’s observation and suspicion from her earlier visit— Jn20:1-2a, correct. The Luke-visit gave the women reason “to think over / remember what He has told you”, Lk1:6, so they “found”, when they “went” – Luke.

 

Mark is it who only, speaks of the women’s observation that the stone was— comparatively, “very great”, because they “correlating / calculating / looking up / reconsidering, observed that it has been cast up and backwards away”. Mark’s is the women’s follow-up operation, the concluding confirmation of their worst fears after the findings of their first visit (Luke). Jesus died, was buried, his body is gone, the angel says He lives, and will meet Peter in Galilee ...

Just too much for them to contemplate, the women “flee away from the grave and tell nobody anything”!

 

Matthew minutely describes the actual event of the angel who removed the stone and then sat on it – events Mrs White attributes to Luke!

 

Vividly “described / explained / answered the angel (to) the women”— an observation by sight of no human being.   We do not know if the angel who “told the women” was the same as the angel who removed the stone, and it does not matter. All we absolutely for sure do know, is that Matthew’s event ‘answered’— the event of the Resurrection— is not the event of any other Gospel, and that although its occurrence was the first in time and sequence, its events and eventualities were only made known with the last and latest of the women’s visits to the tomb. The angel’s “describing / answering / explaining to the women”, was what has made the remarkable difference between the women’s reaction according to

Mark, and now that they are actually told exactly how the Resurrection happened.  Therefore, Mrs White’s seemingly innocent statement, “They saw that the great stone was rolled away”, is a calculated perversion of every one of the accounts of the four Gospel writers, at one blow.

 

 

“Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples.”

 

A statement no fault to be found with— except— if understood in own context! In own context of, whom?,  where?, what?, and when?  A to the eye faultless statement, in every word and idea has become corrupted under ‘the pen of Inspiration’!

 

Where?

White:  “(1) the other women came up. (2) A light was shining about the tomb, (3) the body of Jesus was not (found) there. (4) As they lingered about the place, (5) suddenly they saw that they were not alone. It was the angel.” Five discrepancies, five contradictions, five corruptions.

 

John:  “On the First Day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene unto the sepulchre and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple.” — Statements about movement, locality, direction, object, action.

 

Who? 

White:  “other women came up ... they lingered about”.

 

John:  “cometh Mary Magdalene” ...  John is telling of Mary Magdalene, of no one else. He tells of Mary only who ‘came’; of Mary only, who ‘ran’. Nowhere whatsoever, does John refer to other women. Not before in context – at the Crucifixion – not in context after – at Jesus’ Appearance to Mary. The event cannot be confused with an event in which other women were involved.

Another White lie!

 

What?

White:  “(1) they made their way to the tomb (2) taking with them spices (3) what was even then taking place (the Resurrection)

(4) they drew near the garden (5) saying as they went

(6) the heavens were alight with glory / A light was shining about the tomb / light of the heavenly glory was still shining (7) The earth trembled (8) They saw that the great stone was rolled away (9) The grave was empty / the body of Jesus was not there (10) the other

women came up (11) they lingered about the place (12) they saw that they were not alone. It was the angel (14) The women turned to flee (16) but the angel’s words stayed their steps. (17) “Fear not ye,” said he; “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead. (18) Again they look into the tomb (19) again they hear the wonderful news. (20) Another angel in human form is there, and he says, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again”.   

 

 

What?

John: “Cometh Mary Magdalene unto the sepulchre and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple.”

 

Most of the twenty ‘whats’, Mrs White falsely, associates with Matthew, Mark, and Luke! You can make your own comparisons. Multiply your results with one another; you’ll end up with legions— legions of lies that equal zero truth and spell crazy confusion.

 

When?

(I’ll restrict myself to literal time indications; circumstantial indications can only confirm over and over again what literal indications will have proved unmistakably, already. I also before have referred to the aspect of time rather extensively.) 

 

White:  “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them spices”. We have seen this, because of the women “taking with them spices”, corresponds with Luke’s record which was not a record of what happened after the Resurrection as Mrs White says, but of a visit to the grave of just after midnight, four to five hours before the first Appearance and 15-16 hours after the Resurrection.

 

John: “When yet being early- / fore-darkness  (dusk of evening)” before totally ‘night’, or, the part of night before the middle part of the night. 

 

Luke: “Deep(est) morning (darkness of night)”. Time? ‘Darkest hour’— after midnight, and irreconcilable with any other time given in any other Gospel! Conclusion: Each Gospel contains its own

story, each story having possessed its own time-slot in day or night.  

 

Mark:  “Very early, sunrising / just before, sunrise”.

 

Matthew: Matthew itself, gives no time for when “The angel answered the women” and the subsequent appearance to the women while on their way to the city.  Because the Appearance is the determining factor of time of the angel’s telling— not the Resurrection — Matthew’s implied-only-time of day for ‘The angel explaining to the women’, must be deduced from both the fact that Mark in 16:9 states that Jesus “As the Risen, first appeared to Mary Magdalene early on the First Day of the week”, and that John 20:11-15 states, that Jesus appeared to Mary about the time a gardener should begin to work, which normally would have been ‘sunrise’.

 

Therefore, Mrs White’s timing in every respect of the events of Jesus’ resurrection as well as appearances, is irreconcilable with any of the Gospels’ given events or times of the visits to the tomb. And so is tradition’s. 

 

Thought now we should have heard everything? We haven’t seen halve of Mrs White’s confusion and obfuscating yet! How is that possible? By this totally lost and mesmerized misunderstanding of hers of John 20 the first two verses, with and for, John 20 verses 11 to 17! (Tradition just a much.)

 

Mrs White describes the chronology of John 20:1-2, “Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples.” Just what John says.

 

But, Mrs White also states, “Mary had not heard the good news. She went to Peter and John with the sorrowful message, they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.” (97/3)  

 

We are confronted by two questions here, First, Did Mary know for observed fact the body was gone?  Next, What, while Mary had been going to the disciples, and while having followed them back to the tomb, happened with the other women?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did Mary see the tomb was empty?

 

Did Mary convey to the disciples her ‘sorrowful message’, because she had seen, inside the sepulchre that “the Lord (was) out of the sepulchre”?   Then, Did Mary, because she had seen, tell the disciples, “they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre”?

Then, because she had seen, why did she not also know, “where they have laid Him”?  Or, who, ‘they’, were?

 

There is of course one answer. (Don’t say ‘solution’, because there’s no ‘problem’ or ‘question’ here. Everything is very plain, in fact.) There is only one answer, Mary did not see, inside the tomb! To depart from the supposition Mary with this, her first visit to the tomb, saw inside the sepulchre, cannot be possible, or one must plainly be dishonest and so assume. That is the logical side of the answer.

 

Then there is the believing side of the answer. Believe what John wrote – nothing more; nothing less, and John tells you, Mary saw: “The stone”, not, ‘The sepulchre’. And John tells you, Mary saw the stone, “Rolled away from, the sepulchre”, not, ‘The tomb was empty’. Factual act believed: Mary did not see inside the tomb; did not— could not, know, the body was gone; or, taken away; or, stolen. Actual fact believed: Mary surmised; she supposed, she feared; she knew no better because she had not seen inside the tomb.

 

Mary did not actually know because she did not actually see inside the sepulchre! Mary only vented her fears, her suspicions, to the disciples!  She could not tell anything except what she had seen, that the stone was removed, for fact, because she actually had seen it.  Mary only did what John recorded she did, and which Mrs White confirms she did, “Mary Magdalene ... upon seeing that the stone was removed, ... hurried away to tell the disciples.”  That is the full content of John 20:1-2.

 

Alright then, what Mrs White has written, “Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples” (96/3), is true and correct. But she also wrote, “... She went to Peter and John with the sorrowful message.” Which should mean, that Mary also must have heard, ‘the sorrowful message’; or, which should have implied, Mary actually saw herself, inside the tomb, that the body was gone. Which both of course, are false assertions— Mrs White’s, false assertions. And also the false claims of tradition, to the detriment of the Gospel Message.

 

What happened at the grave while Mary had been going?

 

“The women had not all come to the tomb from the same direction. Mary was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples. Meanwhile the other women came up. A light was shining about the tomb, but the body was not there. As they lingered about the place, suddenly they saw that they were not alone. ...” (96/3)

 

“On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body. ... Ignorant of what was even then taking place, they drew near the garden, saying as they went, “Who shall roll us the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” They knew that they could not remove the stone, yet they kept on their way. And low, the heavens were suddenly alight with glory that came not from the rising sun. The earth trembled. They saw that the great stone was rolled away. The grave was empty. ...”

 

Let’s put the words in Mrs White’s chronological disorder:

(1)    On the first day of the week, very early ...

Mary was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples.

(2)    Meanwhile the other women came up.

(3a)  they made their way to the tomb ... they drew near the garden,

(3b)  Ignorant of what was even then taking place,

(4)    A light was shining about the tomb, but the body of Jesus was not there.

(5)    As they lingered about the place,  

(6)    suddenly they saw that they were not alone. It was the angel who had rolled away the stone. ...  

(7)    about him the light of the heavenly glory was still shining ...

(8)    The women turned to flee, but the angel’s words stayed their steps. ...

(9)    Again they look into the tomb, and again they hear the wonderful news.

(10)  Another angel in human form is there, ...” pp 96/97.

 

This is the women’s only visit at the tomb (Mrs White presupposing).  “On the first day of the week, very early, (the women) made their way to the tomb, taking with them, precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body.” This— undoubtedly from the mention of the “precious spices to anoint the Saviour’s body” which the women were “taking with them”, is the women’s visit described in by Luke in 24:1 to 10. 

 

So Mrs white states “The women had not all come to the tomb from the same direction. Mary was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples. Meanwhile the other women came up.” Fine. Then,  

 

1)   .... then tell your readers, Mrs White, what you and they may read in Lk24:1?  Who, were the women “and”, the “certain other women, with them, came unto the sepulchre”?  Did they come “with”, Mary? Or is Luke telling a different story than yours? 

 

2)   .... then tell your readers, Mrs White, what you and they may read in Lk24:9-10? Who, were the women who together – as they came – left, the tomb to go tell the disciples? “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and others (who) with them .... returned from the sepulchre and told these things to all the rest .... which (all together) told these things unto the apostles.” 

 

Therefore, why does Mrs White say, “Mary was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples”?  Because she confuses John’s story in 20:1-10 for Luke’s story in 24:1-10! 

 

Of course Mrs White is going to contradict herself again, where she will refer to the John 20:1-10 passage. (See p 33.) 

 

 

What happened with the guard?

Last time we have heard of the guard from Mrs White, she wrote,

“At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour, the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men. When the heavenly train was hidden from their view, they arose to their feet ... they hurried on to the city, telling those whom they met the wonderful news. ...” (91/5)

 

When was that?

“When the heavenly train was hidden from their view”.

 

When was that?

“(An) earthquake witnessed the moment when He took (His life) up in triumph.” (91/2)   

 

Where does this fit in, in the above?

During:  (2)  Meanwhile the other women came up.

(3a)  they made their way to the tomb ... they drew near the garden,

(3b)  ignorant of what was even then taking place.

 

So, this is how Mrs White’s chronology now looks:

 

(1)    On the first day of the week, very early ...

Mary was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples.

(2)    Meanwhile the other women came up.

(3a)  they made their way to the tomb ... they drew near the garden, ignorant of what was even then taking place ...  

(3b)  (An) earthquake witnessed the moment when He took (His life) up in triumph ... At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour,  

(3c)  the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men. When the heavenly train was hidden from their view, they arose to their feet ... they hurried on to the city, telling those whom they met the wonderful news. ...” (91/5)

 

When was that? When

(3)   “the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men ... When the heavenly train was hidden from (the guard’s) view” ... but, while there still was

(4)    A light shining about the tomb,

(5)    As they (still) lingered about the place, and while

(6)    (about) the angel who had (just) rolled away the stone the light was still shining.

 

If this is not simultaneous, at once, together, then what is? Which means, the women had arrived ‘the moment’ that Jesus came forth from the grave at the sight of the conscious guard— the women there, but seeing nothing? If evidence for the story ‘his disciples came by night and stole him away’ was needed, surely the guard should have met face to face with the women then and there while Jesus rose from the dead? How muddled can things get? Or is it the things that get muddled, or the minds of some people? Forcing in into one very exact single moment of time all and every of the

events and circumstances preceding and surrounding the Resurrection, is the formula and catalyst for the White farrago inside the cauldron of tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relation between John 20 verses 1-10 and verses 11-18

 

White:  “Mary had followed John and Peter to the tomb; when they returned, she remained.”  (97/3, 5)   

 

Let us begin this story at its beginning! Not where Mrs White has squeezed it in!  Where did Mrs White thrust this story in as with regard to time of day?  To formulate the question correctly: From where did Mrs White drag verses 1-10 – the visit of the two disciples to the tomb – in, towards, and in terms of time of day immediately and continuously before, John’s anecdote of the first Appearance?

 

John 20:  

“1, Comes Mary on the First Day of the week, when being yet early darkness, to the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Immediately therefore she runs and comes before Simon Peter and before the other disciple … and says to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb …! Immediately therefore rushed forth Peter and the other disciple and went to the tomb. So ran the two together; the other disciple ran faster than Peter, and he arrived at the tomb, first. Not entering for haste, he, leaning over, sees the linen … Catching up came Peter, and he, entered the sepulchre, and notices the sheets. … Then therefore entered also the other disciple who got to the tomb first. … For not yet understanding the Scriptures, they again returned to their own home.”  End of act, end of pericope, end of present period, — “when being yet early darkness”.   

 

Beginning of pericope verses 11-18— “Now Mary had had stood without before the sepulchre: and as she wept, she stooped down, looked inside the tomb, and sees two angels.”   

 

Does literal positioning contextually demand uninterrupted chronological sequence?  Must, by every relevant factor, verses 11 further, logically as well as sequentially, without a break follow on verse 10? (Mrs White not only makes Mary, but all the women, wait from soon after midnight until soon before sunrise.) These are forced, unreasonable, unnatural, and unsustainable claims. As is evident from the contextual content of John’s relating, as well as

from bringing together all the Gospel accounts, there exists an obvious time-differential between verses 11 further —the story of Jesus’ appearance to Mary — and verse 1-10 — the story of Peter and John’s inspection of the grave.

 

That time-differential will demonstrate in the successive visits the women paid the sepulchre during the course of the night-half of the First Day of the week.  

 

John specifically mentions “the two disciples”, Peter and John going to and returning from the grave— Mary features nowhere.

 

Mary now, just after she had told Peter and John, “when being yet early darkness” (John 20:1), must from the disciples’ abode have made further contact with the other women, because soon after, just after midnight, “Deepest morning hour, the women came unto the sepulchre bringing their spices they had prepared, with them.” (Luke 24:1)  We are only told what we are told: Mary had not followed John and Peter to the tomb; when they returned, she, was elsewhere; she not at this occasion at the grave, while Peter and John returned home, “remained”.  Remember (pp 29-30 above), Mrs White maintained Mary “hurried away to tell the disciples”; now she alleges “Mary  .... when they (John and Peter) returned, she remained.”  Actual facts! Denial final! Mrs White errs! 

 

 

It is evident that Mary “remained behind” not ‘after verses 1 to 10’ – the visit recorded by John as in the Present, of “when being yet early darkness” or ‘dusk’ of Saturday evening. “Comes Mary on the First Day of the week, when being yet early darkness, to the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Immediately therefore she runs and comes before Simon Peter and before the other disciple … and says to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb …! Immediately therefore rushed forth Peter and the other disciple and went to the tomb. So ran the two together; the other disciple ran faster than Peter, and he arrived at the tomb, first. Not entering for haste, he, leaning over, sees the linen … Catching up came Peter, and he, entered the sepulchre, and notices the sheets. … Then therefore entered also the other disciple who got to the tomb first. … For not yet understanding the Scriptures, they again returned to their own home.” 

 

It was too soon to understand, and far too long before Jesus would appear to any. Understanding and Revelation went hand in hand. Each visit to the tomb shows the progression of both.

 

Mary therefore had remained standing at the grave’s opening after another visit, that the reader should suppose— a visit of earlier the morning of that night. John expects of his reader to mark his use of the word, “had had stood after” (‘heistehkei’); John supposes the reader to have noticed the absence of Mary Magdalene in his story of Peter and John; John never fails to mention the involvement of Mary Magdalene. The reader who has not noticed, is doing John the historian an injustice.  Mary must have stayed behind at the grave after another visit of some women, among whom she earlier, had found herself. Then after the other women had left from the tomb, Mary “had stayed behind standing” at the opening of the grave.  That supposed visit must have been the one Mark recorded in 16:1-8, after which visit, the women “went out quickly, and fled from the grave, for they trembled and were amazed: neither told they anything to anyone, because they were too afraid.”

 

It is after this visit to the tomb recorded in Mark 16:1-8, and after the other women had left, that John picks up the story, “But Mary stood without at the sepulchre. Weeping as she stooped down, looking inside the tomb, she sees two angels.”

 

John has used the Pluperfect ‘heistehkei’ because it had been after the visit “very early sun’s rising” (Mark),  that Mary “had had stood / stayed after”. The ordinary Past Tense word “stood”, or, “remained”, does not properly convey the idea of the Pluperfect, “had had remained after / had had stood after”. The Pluperfect is irreconcilable with the idea that ‘Mary remained standing’ as if in the continuity of the Present, while Peter and John after their visit were leaving from the tomb. The Present or Imperfect would much better have expressed that feeling of present continuity; the Pluperfect cannot do it.

 

Something like where John used the Perfect to say the linen sheets were lying apart “having been wrapped up” (‘entetyligmenon’) hours before, so does he here, using the Pluperfect an even stronger word and form than the Perfect, begin the final episode in the unfolding of the Gospel to human understanding— the episode of Jesus’ first appearance.  

 

Conclusive reason to believe that Mary wasn’t staying behind after the visit of Peter and John, cannot be ignored for the fact John had stated in 20:1 the time of night that Mary received her first view of the rolled away stone, which was soon after sunset the evening before “while it being early darkness still”. After as much time as it took Mary to run from the grave to the disciples, they went to the grave. It scarcely could have been totally dark yet! But soon “after

Mary had had stood” at the opening of the grave, Jesus encountered her. She thought He was the worker of the garden who then should have begun working there, which would have been with sunrise.  Virtually all night went by between after Peter and John had returned from the grave, and before Mary had seen Jesus.  

 

During that time, Mary paid the grave her first visit (as told by Luke), as well as her second (as told by Mark). Mark supplies the time of morning of the womens’s visit, “sun’s rising very early on the First Day (morning)”. “Mary had had remained after” after this visit— after the other women had had left from the grave. “Mary had had remained after” makes perfect chronological as well as circumstantial sense given the reasonable proximity between her last and relatively earlier visit, and her waiting at the sepulchre after it, and her experience in the garden when Jesus finally appeared to her. “Mary had had stood / remained after” (Pluperfect) makes no sense if immediate continuity is presupposed. 

 

Therefore:

White:  “Mary had followed John and Peter to the tomb; when they returned, she remained.” 

John: Mary never ‘followed John and Peter to the tomb’.  In fact, “John and Peter returned” from the tomb to their own home leaving no one behind.

 

Mary now (said I before), “when being yet early darkness”— John 20:1, must from the disciples’ abode have made further contact with the other women, because soon after, just after midnight, “Deepest morning hour, the women came unto the sepulchre bringing their spices they had prepared, with them.” Luke 24:1.  After having returned from the grave after this (second visit of Mary to the tomb), Mary once again, went to the tomb – as told by Mark.  Mary (according to John 20:11) “had had stood after at the opening” after this, Mary’s third visit to the tomb, where Jesus soon after, appeared to her, “first, early, on the First Day of the week”, Mk16:9.

 

White: “As they lingered about the place, suddenly they saw that they were not alone. ... The women turned to flee, but the angel’s words stayed their steps. ... Again they look into the tomb, and again they hear the wonderful news.” 

 

In absentia Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Only Mrs White will know where she got this from. In total, one dished up mess.

 

 

White: “As they lingered about the place” John: “But Mary Magdalene”, although like the other women “affrighted” at their visit to the tomb in the “very early morning at sunrise” (Mk16:6a), “had had stood outside in front of the grave” (John 20:11a) – and did not with the other women “quickly fle(e) from the sepulchre. For they (all) trembled and were astounded; nor said they anything to anyone, because they were too afraid.” (Mk16:8) So we find Mary still ‘lingering’ before the chamber, “weeping”.

White: “As they...” – John: “But Mary”;

White: “as they lingered about” – John: “went, quickly fled from”; White: “lingered about” – John: “had had stood”;

White: “lingered about” – John: “outside in front”; 

White: “about the place” – John: “in front of the grave”; 

White: “suddenly they saw” – John: “as she wept she stooped”; 

White: “they not alone ... the angel ... again they look into”

John: “she seeth (into) two angels sitting”

 

A clause of six words and virtually double as many discrepancies! And so, we have seen ourselves, is the bulk of Mrs White’s ‘inspired writings’.

 

White:   ”Fear not ye,” said he; “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead. Another angel in human form is there, and he says, “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” pp 96/97.

 

Matthew:  Read above,  “ “Fear not ye,” said he (the ‘explaining’ angel of 28:5); “for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead.”

 

White:  “Another angel in human form is there, and he says,”

Luke: “Behold, two men stood by them in shining garments, and they said unto them ... Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

Again White’s subtle subterfuge, blending into one, two visits and more; ignoring all time-differences, making of several, the only time and only moment of visits, of Resurrection, and of Appearances; making of several, the only message, of Appearances and of Resurrection; making of several, the event of a single visit, of Resurrection as of Appearance; making of several, the only place and circumstance of direction, encounter, mode – every possible aspect crushed into one –, of visit, Appearance and, Resurrection! Tradition at its incomparable and inimitable best.

 

Does not my soul have reason to weep?!

 

Paul says what one accuses someone else of, one is guilty of oneself. I accept Paul’s warning, and do not excuse or justify myself. But this I say, that if I just glossed over the hypocrisies of Mrs White, I would have acted hypocrite myself.  My writing has been meant as a critique; not as just another zombian acclamation of her ‘inspired’ brilliance.

 

 

(Changed a bit, pp 29/30 and 33, 9 July 2009)

 

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag 43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za