‘That
Day’ —
the SDA Dilemma
exposed
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Begun: 9/9/09
Introduction by GE:
We
think only good men were types of God’s Christ; but the most wicked of men –
and women – were types of Jesus Christ in his humiliation and suffering for sinners
having been “made sin for us” in his suffering of dying and of death for
the remission of our, sins. We shall see
where this statement fits in, in the picture of the Passover of Yahweh.
Here
is the equation or formula for understanding me and my viewpoint, which I am convinced is the key
to understanding ‘Gospel Chronology’ in the New and Old Testaments: Please use
the Authorised Version:
‘Friday’:---
Jn19:(31–)42 // Lk23:(50–)54-56a
// Mk15:42-47 // Mt27:57-61 = 1Cor15:3-4 // Ex10:21-29
SDA, D*:
“My
belief is in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. However, my belief
is not based on 'just because' Ellen White says it or 'just because' the SDA
church organization teaches it. The SDA church is NOT like the Roman Church
where what the Pope says...that's it. I believe in the Friday crucifixion and
Sunday resurrection because that is what the Bible says.
Let's take a look:
It is true Jesus said that he would be in the grave three days and three nights
.....”
GE:
How can you expect any to take seriously one further word
from you? “Let's
take a look ....”,
and your make or break statement, “.... that he
would be in the grave three days and three nights”, is the lie of what Jesus had
said.
I can see you are unable to see why I say so! Your very first words to explain, justify or
prove your position, and you violate the Scriptures.
You don’t believe in the Friday crucifixion and Sunday
resurrection “because that
is what the Bible says”. It is impossible. Your ‘belief’ is so utterly based on ‘just because Ellen White says’ and ‘just because the SDA church organization teaches’, that the SDA church has become
far worse than the Roman Church where what the Pope says .... that's it.
D*:
“In Matthew
12:40 He said, "three days and three nights,” but in Mark 8:31 He said,
"after three days.” He referred to the same event in John 2:19 as "in
three days,” and on five occasions He said, "the third day.” Matthew
16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 13:32; 24:46.”
GE:
Everything you say is careless – or rather, carefully –
faulty and untrue. You just hoped that
nobody would care to pay proper attention like for nearly two centuries in your
church, and in all Christianity for two thousand years, no one has dared.
“He referred
to the same event in John 2:19” you say. Which “same event”? “In Matthew
12:40” Jesus
spoke of his suffering for sin the suffering of dying death and of being in the
grave “three days and three nights”. He said: “three days and three nights in
the HEART of the earth”, not, “in the grave”, and not, ‘in the earth’ either.
But, “in the HEART of the earth.”
And if you cannot see the difference, you should not debate things like
this.
But I’m now referring to your maintaining Jesus’ being “in the grave three days and three nights”, was “the same event as in John 2:19”, and ‘the same event’ written of “in Mark 8:31” where “He said, "after three days”” he would RISE again.
Jesus’ suffering —
his suffering of dying death and of death, “three
days and three nights”, his suffering of
having been “in the heart
of the earth .... as in Matthew 12:40 .... three days and three nights” — now is it as you allege, “the same event” of “after three
days”? is it “the
same event” of his
resurrection from the dead, quote, “as in Mark 8:31”? Is there no difference? Is to “lay down my life”
– Jesus’ dying of death and suffering of having been “in the grave” – ‘the same
event’ for Him
than what for Him it was to “take up my life again”? Are these things, “the
same” or “the same event” as you here are stating for the Gospel? Is it really for you ‘the same event’ whether He died
or resurrected? No? then how can you
deal with these Scriptures and their events the way you do, as were it ‘the same event’ whether He died OR resurrected?
It is not what I, say you say. Here is it, what YOU, have
stated: “In
Matthew 12:40 He said, "three days and three nights,” but in Mark 8:31 He
said, "after three days.” He
referred to the same event in John 2:19 as "in three days,” and on
five occasions He said, "the third day.” Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke
13:32; 24:46.” Emphasis, is mine; the rest, is yours.
Is it really for you that He suffered dying death and through death, has been “three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth”, ‘the same event’ for Christ than that He “three
days and three nights in the grave” had been “buried”?
O, I am not understanding you correctly? You have been
referring to the incidence of the day of the Crucifixion? Well, then all the same is it a gross oversight
on your part to have attributed the different time-indications to the “the same event”. Then just as serious a mistake is it of yours that you
made this, categorical, statement: “I believe in
the Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection because that is what the Bible
says. Let's take a look: It is true
Jesus said that he would be in the grave three days and three nights .....”. It is not true; it is you
believing in the LIES of “in the grave
three days and three nights” and “the Friday
crucifixion and Sunday resurrection” because “in the grave
three days and three nights”, is NOT “what the
Bible says”.
No, the suffering of Jesus in having died in dying eternal
death of hell, “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”
and the humiliation of Jesus in having been ‘in the earth’ in having been
buried “in the grave”, are both inseparable ‘events’
and on par perhaps unto salvation; but they are NOT:
1) “the same
event”; neither
are they of
2) the same duration in “three
days and three nights”; nor are they of
3) the same location, “in
the grave”; and,
most importantly, neither are they of
4) the same nature, of the suffering of Jesus Christ in
having died in dying eternal death of hell, “three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth”.
Jesus “three days and three nights”, suffered; He suffered
being “in the heart of the earth”; He suffered dying; He suffered death;
and, having been humiliated unto death, He died, and was buried. But “after
three days”, He ROSE! Different
events in different Scriptures. Therefore, it is
not “the same
event in John 2:19 as "in three days”.... in Matthew 12:40”; it is
not “the same
event in John 2:19 as in "after three days” in Mark 8:31”; and, it is
not “the same
event in John 2:19 as "the third day” in Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 13:32; 24:46.”
“A Friday
crucifixion and Sunday resurrection” but “in the grave
three days and three nights”. How did you manage to
put that, together?
D*:
“In order to
understand what Jesus said is to understand the phrase "three days and
three nights" in the light of inclusive reckoning of time. ....”
GE:
But how do you apply your stressed ‘inclusive reckoning of time -method’ if He was crucified, if
He died, if He was taken down, if his body was treated and embalmed, and if his
body was carried to the tomb, EVEN ONE MINUTE BEFORE Joseph laid Him in the
tomb and closed Him in the earth, “in the grave
three days and three nights”? How, “is it true .... crucifixion was Friday .... resurrection
.... Sunday”,
but He, was in the earth, “in the grave
three days and three nights”?
‘Literally’, by your own ‘inclusive
reckoning of time
-method’, it’s an absurd impossibility!
Just because you regard the words “in the heart of” in Mt12:40 as
of no consequence.
When was He crucified? When did He die? When was He taken
from the cross, when, did Joseph buy linen? When came there, Nicodemus? When
was his body treated and embalmed? When did they carry his body to the tomb and
followed the women after in the procession?
Before He was laid in the tomb? Before Joseph closed the
grave and went home? When also, did the
women go home? When prepared the women, spices? Before, or after they began to
rest the Sabbath? Before, or after, sundown?
I dare say before you say more, in
order to understand what Jesus said when He said "three days and three
nights", first
get these ‘principles’, right,
1) that “three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth” is not “three days
and three nights in the grave” or, for that matter, ‘three
days and three nights in the earth’;
2) that “three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth” is a different event and different matter than “the twinkling of
an eye” in which Jesus rose from the dead!
D*:
“.... This
was the method used throughout the Bible in computing time. See sayings,
idioms, and phrases today can mean something completely different in the 1st
century. Jesus and people of that era spoke and wrote in harmony with the
common literacy usage of the day, and that usage recognized inclusive reckoning
of time. In simple terms this means that any part of a day was counted as a
whole day.”
GE:
So what does it have to do with the truth or untruth Jesus
was crucified and buried on Friday and rose on Sunday?
D*:
“Notice this
statement from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
"A short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh
day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day
only a few minutes after the birth of the child, these being counted as one
day.” Vol. 4, p. 475. How clearly this defines the Hebrew method of computing
time. Any small part of a day was reckoned as the entire twenty-four hour
period. It is the Hebrew form of speech and language.
Here are examples from the Bible of the inclusive reckoning of time:
The tax issue between King Rehoboam and the people. "Come again unto me
after three days. ...So ... all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day.”
2 Chronicles 10:5, 12”
GE:
I ask you again, what does it have to do with the truth or
untruth Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday and rose on Sunday?
D*:
“First it
says AFTER 3 days and then says all the people came ON the third day.”
GE:
Who has argued against that? Why do you mention it? What is
its pertinence, if asking you what does it have to do with the truth or untruth
Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday and rose on Sunday?
D*:
“Another
example:....”
GE:
Do we need another example? For what?
D*:
“In Genesis
7:4 God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain
upon the earth.” But in verse 10 we read, "And it came to pass after seven
days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.” The marginal reading
expresses it as "on the seventh day.” When did the flood come? Was it in
seven days? Was it on the seventh day? Or was it after seven days? The answer
is simple when inclusive reckoning is applied. The day on which God spoke to
Noah counted as the first day, and the day on which it started raining was the
seventh day. Even if God spoke just ten minutes before the end of that first
day, it was still counted as one of the seven. And if it started raining at
noon on the last day, it was also counted one of the seven.
This is how Hebrews counted time. ....
....
Back to inclusive reckoning of time. Applying this principle to the
crucifixion/resurrection is making sense now. Jesus died on the preparation
(Friday-that's 1 day), rested on the Sabbath (Saturday-that's 2 days), and
resurrected sometime early the first day of the week (Sunday-that's 3 days). So
Jesus was in the tomb for 3 full days by the Hebrew's reckoning of time.
One more awesome example of inclusive
reckoning of time is found in the four days of Cornelius:
It's in the New Testament and reveals graphically how days were
numbered in the days of Jesus. In Acts 10:3 Cornelius "saw in a vision
evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to
him."
Follow the story carefully. He was instructed in the vision to send
men to Joppa and call for Peter. "And when the angel which spake unto
Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and ... he
sent them to Joppa. On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew
night unto the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray.” Verse 7-9. While
praying he had a vision, and the men knocked at his door when his vision ended.
Verse 17. Please notice that this is one day after Cornelius received his angel
visitor.
Peter invited the men to come in. He "lodged them. And on the
morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied
him.” Verse 23. Take note that this is now the second day since the men were
dispatched by Cornelius. "And the morrow after they entered into
It had been exactly three days, to the very hour. Yet Cornelius
said, "Four days ago.” How could he say it was four days when it was only
three days? Because he used inclusive reckoning, which meant that parts of four
days were involved. In the same way the Bible described the time of Christ's
death as three days and three nights even though it was only a part of those
three days.”
GE:
And ....? So what? I
do not deny ‘the principle of inclusive reckoning’, nor do I need to. Nor do I
need to prove it. It’s a principle ‘my theory’ can live with and by, by itself.
The ‘principle of inclusive reckoning’ though is not something the Bible-truth
of a ‘Thursday Crucifixion, Friday Burial, Sabbath’s Resurrection’, must live
of.
“.... in the
grave three days and three nights” by “inclusive
reckoning of time”
even if “just ten minutes before the
end of that first day”: Friday day = 1 “day”; Saturday day = 2 “days”. And by “inclusive reckoning of time”, Friday night = 1 “night”; Saturday night = 2 “nights” and on Saturday “night”, “very early
in the morning,”
(“as it began to dawn” before sunrise), He, after two days and two nights,
rose from the dead, and D* has proven all Scripture false with the true ‘principle of inclusive reckoning’.
D*:
“Now let the
Bible explain the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
Please read Mark 15:42, 43, "And now when the even was come, because it
was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea
... went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus."
Now read these words, "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 day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken away.” John 19:31.
The day following the crucifixion was not only the weekly seventh-day Sabbath,
but it was a high Sabbath. ....”
GE:
‘Please read ....’!
D*:
“This means
that a yearly Sabbath in that particular year happened to fall on the weekly
Sabbath. In this case it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread. ....”
GE:
“This means
....” You mean,
what you have read for us from Mark and John now? “Read Mark
15:42, 43 .... Read John 19:31”! What do you read? Don’t you have volumes about how a day is ‘reckoned’ the Bible-way? How
is a day ‘reckoned’ in the Bible, please? You tell
me what YOUR church teaches; what YOU have been teaching and preaching as
though one’s salvation rests on it, just how, is a day ‘reckoned’? WHEN does a
‘day’, begin and WHEN does it end? Ja?
With what? “From
evening to evening are your Sabbaths.” Ja? Got that from? .... “the Old Testament”? “The Old
Testament is the Word of God still”, yes? No fine,
then it is. THEN WHAT DID YOU
READ?! What have I read? What has
everyone with eyes to read, read? That “that day” ended, or, that “that
day” — I am quoting
YOU where YOU are quoting the Bible, correctly — that “Now .... when the even .... when was come .... because
it was .... the preparation .... that is, the day before the sabbath ....
because it was the preparation .... for that sabbath day was ....”. Read again, “when the even was come”. Read again, “because it was the preparation, that is”. Read again, “that is, the day before the sabbath”. Read again, “when the even was come .... because it was the
preparation”. Read
again, “Now when the even was come
.... for that sabbath day was” .... WHERE IS THIS DAY IN ITS DURATION? Does it say “The
day following the crucifixion was”? It’s your words!
BUT YOU suppose, YOU allude to, YOU, actually refer to and
YOU actually SPEAK OF AND ABOUT the “day” in “Mark
15:42, 43 .... John 19:31” .... BEGINNING! THEN DISCARD THE THOUGHT. Well, “The
day following the crucifixion”, isn’t that what it ACTUALLY says? “The
day following the crucifixion .... was”! My dear man: “The day
following the crucifixion was— it happened; it occurred! it INCURRED: it STARTED. And “That
day” “that was”, was NOT ‘the day OF the Crucifixion. “NOW”, “was” the day – “that day” – ‘following the crucifixion’ that HAD BEGUN. “That day” “that
was”, was NOT the
following day “the weekly
seventh-day Sabbath”; it “was”, “that
day”, “that was”: “because it
was the preparation”.
Yes, “that day” “that
was”, “was a high Sabbath”. ‘Because that is what the
Bible says’! Quote: “Now read
these words, "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 day,)
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken
away.” John 19:31.” Emphasis mine for the obvious reason, John speaks
of one and the same day as “THAT
sabbath day”— “THAT sabbath day” of the events WHEN
“The Jews therefore, BECAUSE it was the preparation (NOW), that the bodies should not remain
upon the cross on the sabbath day .... besought Pilate that their legs might be
broken .... for THAT sabbath day WAS an high day.”
And “that day” was ‘the day
following the crucifixion’; and ‘the day
following’ “That Day”, was, ‘the
Sabbath’.
Whatever happened after Joseph had appeared on the scene
and after “It now had become evening already”, happened on “that day”,
‘the day following the crucifixion’— the day that Joseph buried
Jesus on. And whatever happened before
Joseph appeared on the scene and before “It now had become evening already”,
happened on the day OF the Crucifixion BEFORE “that day” of the Burial.
D*:
“There can be
no question as to the time elements involved. He died on the preparation day,
or the day before the weekly Sabbath.”
GE:
Which Scripture? They
simple do not read or mean or in whatever way imply “He died on the preparation day”.
But if you read those Scriptures, “Mark 15:42, 43 .... John 19:31”, you will ONLY ‘read’ of how and of WHEN He was BURIED— in fact, no, IN THESE
SCRIPTURES you will ONLY ‘read’ of how and of when BEFORE, He
was actually buried. In these two
Scriptures and their SUCCEEDING CONTEXTS, you will read of only how and of when
He was actually buried on “that day” ‘following’ the crucifixion and preceding “the following day”, the “weekly Sabbath’.
D*:
“.... He died
on the preparation day, or the day before the weekly Sabbath.”
GE:
You are twisting John 19:31; John 19:31, is NOT John 19:14!
D*:
“The next day
is designated as "the sabbath according to the commandment”....”
GE:
No; it is not. Not “the
next day”, “is designated”. WHERE, in “Mark 15:42, 43” or in “John 19:31” or in their subsequent contexts
are you, ‘reading’, “The next day is designated as "the sabbath
according to the commandment””? Were you referring to Lk23:56b, its context begins in verse
50 already, where verse 50 is actually the parallel text of “Mark 15:42, 43” and “John 19:31”. Why then, where are you ‘reading’ anywhere in
between Lk23:50 and 56a, of “The next day”?
No; just like in all four Gospels you will nowhere in the
texts or contexts of Joseph’s actions on “That Day” – “The day the
Preparation .... that great day sabbath” read one word about or find one
reference back to the day of the Crucifixion. You will not read of “the next day” or find “the next day
designated”. There is no suggestion that “the next day is designated”, but in Lk23:56b where “The Sabbath according to
the Commandment” is referred to.
[Verse 54 may or could be
interpreted ambiguously though,
either that:
“That day was The Preparation and the sabbath (“that
day”), mid-afternoon was running out”; yes, “That Day MID-DAY CLIMACTIC ENDED towards the Sabbath”
(of the week).
Or:
“That day was The Preparation and mid-afternoon (of it),
the (weekly-)Sabbath-was drawing
near”.]
D*:
“The next day
is designated as "the sabbath according to the commandment.” Since the
commandment says, "The seventh day is the sabbath,” we know that this had
to be the day we call Saturday. Furthermore, after describing the events of the
preparation day in verse 55 and the Sabbath day in verse 56, the very next
verse says, "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had
prepared.” Luke 24:1.”
GE:
The passages which YOU quoted, mention “events”,
“.... the
even was come .... (‘event’ one)
it
was the preparation .... now .... (‘event’ two)
The
Jews besought Pilate .... (‘event’ three)
that
their legs might be broken .... (‘event’ four)
that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross .... (‘event’ five)
and
they might be taken away .... (‘event’ six)
for
that sabbath day was .... (‘event’ seven)
was
an high day .... now .... (‘event’ eight)
and
Joseph of Arimathaea [“after these things” J19:38]
went
unto Pilate .... (event
nine)
and
craved the body of Jesus .... (event ten)
etcetera.
“These things” all and “These things” only,
are the “events” on and of “That Day” ‘the day following the crucifixion’.
EVERY of “these things” happened ON ‘the day following the crucifixion’; none of these “events” occurred BEFORE “Now
when it was evening”; BEFORE, “when it
now was the preparation”, BEFORE, “that day
that was a high Sabbath”— BEFORE, whether BEFORE “evening” or BEFORE “the preparation” or BEFORE “that day high Sabbath” “was”. Nothing! All of it – all of “these things” mentioned
IN THESE SCRIPTURES happened, and they all STARTED to happen, “now when it was evening” / “now when / as evening
already had come”, when “ALREADY”, ‘ehdeh’, “EVENING”,
‘opsias’, “THESE THINGS”— afterwards
mentioned — began, to
occur.
1) Mark and John,
and Luke and Matthew therefore, give us the day and the time of day on “That
Day” that “these things” would begin;
2) they give us the
day and the time of day on “That Day” that “these things” continued, and,
3) Luke and John
give us the day and the time of day on “That Day” that “these things”
were finished, Lk23:54, Jn19:42.
4) All that Mark and
Matthew give us of this day’s ENDING is by way of postscript / appendix /
prenthesis, to give us the names of the ONLY TWO WOMEN who attended the
funeral, Mk15:41-42; Mt 27:55-56.
1) None of “these things” on “That
Day” was the CRUCIFIXION or of,
or concerning the Crucifixion. The Crucifixion was PAST.
2) “These things”
of “That Day” everything and all, were of, and were on, and were
concerning, ‘the day
following the crucifixion’, the day of the BURIAL—
the day of the Burial was CURRENT.
4) “The Sabbath
according to the (Fourth) Commandment, “was
following”. “These things” — inter alia the fact “That
Day was great day of sabbath” of the passover — everything and all, were
of, and were on, and were concerning, “That Day, The Preparation”, when,
and as Imperfect: “the Sabbath drew
on”— like the KJV translates the word, ‘epifohskoh’ also found in
Mt28:1, “as it began to dawn towards (the First Day)”. But here in Lk23:54, ‘epifohskoh’ means “as
it began to dawn towards the Sabbath”: “mid-afternoon”.
5) Yes, “as it
began to dawn” while ‘epifohskoh’ being an Imperfect in Luke, ‘epefohsken’.
“As it began to dawn” as the
beginning of the ending of the day ‘was-then-happening-shining-down’ -
Imperfect. “As it began to dawn” therefore, while it was the beginning
of the ‘drawing near’ of the Sabbath as Joseph “laid (the body) in a sepulchre”.
“As began the beginning of the dawning towards the Sabbath”. Nothing wrong therefore with rendering Past
Continuous Tense in English, “was beginning dawning towards” or “was
beginning drawing near” on Friday afternoon. Precisely according to John in 19:42 where it
says, “there laid they the body of Jesus by the time of the Jews’
preparation (began / was beginning)”,
or, “because (of) / due to that the preparation time of the
Jews had begun / proceeded”. Because this by “now”, was “the
Preparation / The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”, “now”, BEGINNING ITS ENDING-PART after “mid-afternoon”
/ “after-mid-afternoon” : its last three hours towards sunset and the
impending, ‘following’, Sabbath Day.
But first, “The events
of the preparation day” all
BEGAN to happen,
“BECAUSE / SINCE” ‘epei’ Jn19:31a
“now when already evening had come” ‘kai ehdeh
opsias genomenehs’ Mk15:42a and
“it has been The Preparation” ‘ehn paraske-u-eh’ (Jn
& Mk)
“which now IS the fore-Sabbath” ‘ho estin
prosabbaton’ Mk15:42c.
And “the events
of the preparation day” WOULD happen for the rest of the day thus begun, and
would END this very day when
“by the time of the Jews’ preparations” Jn19:42,
“mid-afternoon / “the preparation day” BEGAN to dawn towards the First Day of the week” Lk23:54.
“After
describing the events” or rather and exactly, after describing the event of the ending
“of the preparation day in verse 55
.... the Sabbath day in verse 56” – exactly, in verse 56B – would begin. Because in
55-56A, the women only “had returned
home and prepared their spices and ointment”. 56A
STILL is “the events of the preparation
day” that had
begun in verse 50 already and continued until 56A when “the events of
the preparation day” continued until 56B.
“The Sabbath
day in verse 56”
actually only would begin with 56b when the women when the Sabbath would have
begun, would have begun to rest, ‘hehsuxasan’ Ingressive as well as Constative
Aorist, the Verb corresponding with the dual fact the women “rested”,
and, “had begun to rest”.
D*:
“The day
following the crucifixion was not only the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, but it
was a high Sabbath. ....”
GE:
You cannot perceive – after everything explained –, that “the day following the crucifixion was not the
weekly seventh-day Sabbath” at all. “The weekly seventh-day Sabbath ....” was not “That Day that was a
high day sabbath”. You cannot
understand it, because you cannot acknowledge or accept “It was The
Preparation and That Day that was, was a high day sabbath.” Why not? Because it demolishes the total
concept and possibility of “the Friday
crucifixion and Sunday resurrection” by the single factor:-
“That Day that was .... The Preparation .... high day
sabbath”,
“was”:—
FROM Mk15:42,
Mt27:57, Lk23:50, Jn19:31,
and LASTED,
UNTIL Mk15:47,
Mt27:60, Lk23:56a, and Jn19:42.
You cannot understand “the
day following the crucifixion was” NOT “the weekly
seventh-day Sabbath”, or, that “the weekly
seventh-day Sabbath” was NOT “Since it was The Preparation .... for was great the
day of that sabbath” (‘epei paraskeyeh ehn .... ehn gar megaleh heh hehmera
ekeinou tou sabbatou’) Jn19:31,
·
because you cannot acknowledge or accept
·
its night-beginning halve,
·
or its day-ending halve,
·
implied respectively and discernable, here:—
in Mark before 15:46a and after 46b;
in Matthew before 27:59 and after 60;
in Luke before 23:52-53a and after 53b; and
in John before 19:40 and after 41.
In MARK,
the day of Jesus’ BURIAL
“was”, and BEGAN in Mk15:42
FROM “evening had come”
(// Mt27:57 // Jn19:31/38 // Lk23:50);
.....
this ‘day’ of Burial, lasted ON
and “was” its NIGHT
and first halve when
“he (Joseph) bought linen, and
took him down, and wrapped him in the linen”;
.....
this ‘day’ of Burial, lasted until it
BEGAN ENDING when
“(Joseph) laid him in a sepulchre
and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre and
Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses
saw where He was laid.”
In MATTHEW,
the day of Jesus’ BURIAL
“was”, and BEGAN in
Mt27:57
FROM “when even was come / had come”
(// Mk15:42 // Jn19:31/38 // Lk23:50);
.....
this ‘day’ of Burial, lasted ON
and “was” its NIGHT
and first halve “when
Joseph had taken down the body and
he wrapped it in a clean / new linen cloth.”
.....
This day of Burial, lasted until it
BEGAN ENDING
when
“(Joseph) laid (the body) in his own new tomb
and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre
and departed, and
there was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
sitting over against the sepulchre.”
In LUKE,
the day of Jesus’ BURIAL
“was”, and BEGAN in Lk23:50
(FROM “evening had come”
in Mk15:42 // Mt27:57 // Jn19:31/38);
.....
this ‘day’ of Burial, lasted ON
and “was” its NIGHT
and first halve when
“This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus
and took it down, and wrapped it in linen.” 53a
.....
“That Day (of Burial)
was The Preparation” and
it BEGAN ENDING in
54 when
“it began to dawn towards the Sabbath .... and
he (Joseph) had laid the body in a sepulchre .... and
the women who followed after
had seen the sepulchre and how his body was laid ....
and they returned home and
the women began to prepare spices and ointments.”
.....
This day of Burial lasted ON
until it ENDED in 56b
and
“(the women) had begun to rest the Sabbath.”
In JOHN,
the day of Jesus’ BURIAL
“was”, and BEGAN in
Jn19:31/38
“since it was The Preparation ....
because it was That Day great day of sabbath ....
(// Mk15:42/Mt27:57 // Lk23:50) .... and therefore
the Jews besought Pilate ....
and after these things Joseph asked Pilate ....”.
.....
This ‘day’ of Burial, lasted ON
and “was” its NIGHT
and first halve when
“Nicodemus also came there .... and
they took the body of Jesus and
wound it in linen clothes with the spices
as the manner of the Jews is to bury.”
.....
This day of Burial
lasted until
it BEGAN ENDING in
42 “by the time
of the Jews’ preparations when
they laid Jesus in a new sepulchre
(where in the place where He was crucified
there was a garden ready and near).”
You cannot acknowledge or accept:—
·
of “That Day that was a high day sabbath”
·
its night-beginning halve,
·
or its day-ending halve,
implied respectively and discernable in each of the
Gospels,
as you cannot acknowledge or accept
·
of “That Day that was a high day sabbath”
·
its “evening already”-BEGINNING
in Mk15:42, Mt27:57, Lk23:50(48a), Jn19:31/38;
·
or its “mid-afternoon”-ENDING,
beginning in Lk23:54b/56a and Jn19:42.
YOU, quoted:
“because it
was the preparation, therefore on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an
high day)”. It’s NOT ‘the day OF the Crucifixion, that Now, was’! It’s NOT
‘the day OF the Crucifixion, that “Now, when
the even was come”,
“was” or now lay ahead still. But it was ‘the
day following the crucifixion’ that “was”— NOT, the day OF the
Crucifixion. But, “Now when the even was”, it “was when”, “the even was
come” = “had
begun”. “It
NOW was = “had
begun” the preparation,” and it “NOW” “was = “had begun” the day FOLLOWING the crucifixion”.
“That Day The Preparation that was great-day-sabbath had
begun” Jn19:31 and the larger portion of it still lay ahead!
NOT ‘the day OF the Crucifixion
“now was”. But
“BECAUSE
it now was the preparation .... Joseph
of Arimathaea .... went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.” That was three to six hours after and “FOLLOWING
the crucifixion”.
That was anything to three hours after sunset
“after these things” of the Jews’ going in to Pilate Jn19:38, and when “the even was come / “had come” or “had
had begun” Mk15:42, and anything to three hours after “the crucifixion day”
or after “the crucifixion day” had had ended from “the ninth hour” (3 p.m.
Mk15:33,34; Mt27:45,46; Lk23:44) for the after-afternoon until before evening
with sunset AFTER which “Joseph
came”. “Joseph came” indeed after
“The Preparation had had begun” ‘ehn paraskeueh(s)’, anything to three
hours AFTER, after sundown.
“Joseph came” after sunset ‘following the day of crucifixion’ and after the Jews have had their passover-meal: Jn18:28b
x 19:31b.
“Because it was the preparation”, it was the day “FOLLOWING the crucifixion”, BEGINNING in “Mark 15:42, 43 .... John 19:31”; “It was the
preparation the day FOLLOWING the crucifixion”, BEGINNING! “It was the preparation the
day FOLLOWING the crucifixion” that had had begun “when the
even was come = had
come”.
But in Lk23:54 to
56a:— “The /
That”, very “day” —‘the
preparation the day following the crucifixion’ ENDING—, now for the next three hours “was” ENDING, ENDING from:— “mid-afternoon” for:— the after-afternoon
until:— the moment of sunset and the evening and the day following:— “the
Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment”, would begin.
D*:
“Luke clearly
identified that preparation day as the one immediately preceding the weekly
Sabbath. "And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And
the women also, which came with him from
There can be no question as to the time elements involved. He died on the
preparation day, or the day before the weekly Sabbath.”
GE:
True, “Luke clearly
identified that preparation day as the one immediately preceding the weekly
Sabbath.” As true as it is, as untrue is it that “He died on the preparation day” or that He died “the day before the weekly Sabbath”.
Where in “Luke
23:54-24:1” do
you read “He died the
day before the weekly Sabbath”? Where do you read in “Luke 23:54-24:1” that “He died the preparation day”, anyway “the preparation day which was the Fore-Sabbath” Friday “Mark 15:42, 43”?
You do NOT in “Luke
23:54-24:1” or
in “Mark 15:42, 43 .... John 19:31”, read, “the preparation day .... He DIED”! You will, however, in John 19:14 furhter – verse
fourteen on – read of “the preparation day OF THE PASSOVER”; that He on
it ‘....died’.
Here, you yourself – word for word – give the Scripture
covering “events ... on the preparation
day”, “that
day being a great day sabbath” .... with no word that “He died”, the Scripture supposing an already dead body that Joseph
wanted to bury, but you say, Jesus, in this Scripture “Luke 23:54-24:1”, actually “died”?
D*:
“The next day
is designated as "the sabbath according to the commandment””
GE:
You referring to “Mark
15:42, 43 .... John 19:31”, speak of “the next day” as “the
day following the Crucifixion”, don’t forget! You mean “the next day” after / “following the
Crucifixion”, as
being “the next day” and “the Preparation”. You referring to “Mark
15:42, 43 .... John 19:31” must therefore mean “The Preparation which is the
Fore-Sabbath”, because there also was “the preparation of the passover”
Jn19:14 which you don’t want hear mentioned for fear it shall reveal He was
crucified the day BEFORE “That Day, The Preparation great-day-of-sabbath”!
“The next day” or day after “the Crucifixion” is wrong, because “the sabbath according to the commandment” is the Sabbath that came after the Burial; not
“sabbath” that came after the crucifixion. “The next day
designated” in “Mark 15:42, 43 .... John 19:31”, was the day designated after the Burial, which was “the
sabbath according to the commandment”, yes, but designated as would occur after the Burial;
not after the Crucifixion. The Burial
came after or followed on the Crucifixion; not “the
sabbath according to the commandment” came after or followed on the Crucifixion. “The sabbath
according to the commandment” came after and followed on the “day” and “sabbath”
of Burial, “since it was The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath”
(‘Friday’) .
It is all very simple. Only admit and accept “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath”
Jn19:31, “according to the Scriptures” 1Cor15:3-4 of the passover Abib
15 and second of the “three days” “painful darkness” of
Ex10:21-29, Acts2:24.
D*:
“Since the
commandment says, "The seventh day is the sabbath,” we know that this had
to be the day we call Saturday. Furthermore, after describing the events of the
preparation day in verse 55 and the Sabbath day in verse 56, the very next
verse says, "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had
prepared.” Luke 24:1.”
GE:
Sure. What does it mean for you? For me it means just what
it says .... just what it reads. Have you read what “Luke 24:1” says? Does it say
a word about the Resurrection? It does not. So what is your point?
Purely the fact “after
describing the events of” the BURIAL on “the
preparation day in verse 55 and [implying the following] Sabbath
day in verse 56, the very next verse (Luke 24:1) says, "Now upon the first
day of the week”,
EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, the chronology, the sequence, and the pertinent content and
relation of each passage or “verse” in context. Why hide the straight forward truth?
Now notice how “, after describing
the events of
the Crucifixion on the day BEFORE ‘the
preparation day’
in Mark 15:14:12-41, “the very
next verse”, “Mark 15:42, 43”, “says”, “When evening had already
come since it was The Preparation now”. Does it say, ‘now upon the following day the Sabbath’? Of course not!
So how could “the Sabbath
day in verse 56b”
have been “the day following the
Crucifixion”? It says – it reads –, “That Day was ....
great day sabbath” Jn19:(31-)42 //
Lk23:(50-)54-56a. “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath was” “the sabbath”
Lv23:11,15 of the passover, NOT, “Sabbath according to the Commandment”!
“That Day great day sabbath” is the passover’s : “which is The
Fore-Sabbath .... since it was The Preparation”. Therefore, “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath
was .... The Fore-Sabbath” = ‘Friday’.
If a = b and b = c, then a = c; it is an axiom of
sound-mindedness— ‘common’, sense; a
fact of life; a fact in the Gospels, a fact in Mk15:42 / Jn 19:31, a fact in
the chronology and history of the Passover of Yahweh in Jesus Christ from
Exodus to John the Baptist and even Christ himself as Prophet before his death,
many times over and over ....
What were, “the events
of the preparation day in verse 55” and the verses before until in verse 50, the equivalent
or parallel text of “Mark 15:42,
43” and “John 19:31”; the MANY ‘events’ were of particularly and
exclusively “That Day that was great day sabbath .... because it was The
Preparation” ‘epei ehn paraskeueh / ‘kai hehmera ehn paraskeuehs’’. ‘Events’ in both “Mark 15:42, 43” and “John 19:31”, were virtually the same as in Luke in 23:54a, “That Day was The
Preparation” ‘ehn gar heh hehmera’. The
MANY ‘events’, ALL “the events of the preparation day”, according to also Matthew in
27:57-61, were “the events” of ONLY, “The Preparation
Day” and of only, the BURIAL-day, and of only AFTER ,“When the even had
come”. “SINCE / BECAUSE IT HAD
BECOME The Preparation That Day that was, was a great day sabbath” and “the events” of it, were ‘events’ of “That Day-great-day-of-sabbath”.
I’ll repeat where you can begin to read them, “the events” of ONLY “The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath, That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath”
....
BEGINNING:
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Jn19:31/38, Lk23:50.
I’ll repeat where you can read them
ENDING:
Lk23:54-56a / Jn19:42.
I’ll repeat where to read the events of the day following
the “The Preparation”, the events
“of / on the Sabbath”:
BEGINNING:
Lk23:56b;
“of / on the Sabbath”:
“the next morning”:
Mt27:62-66; and
“of / on the Sabbath”:
“mid-afternoon”: Mt28:1-4.
“AFTER the Sabbath” Mk16:1;
“early darkness still / ‘evening’ ”
Jn20:1.
As “these events” only, occurred on the day before: “ON the Sabbath Day”, I’ll
repeat where to read the events directly
AFTER “on the Sabbath”: Mk16:1, Jn20:1 ....
You will hereafter nowhere and never, read of the events “OF
the Sabbath Day” — and of Jesus’ Resurrection implied — because in Mk16:1,
Jn20:1 you have just begun reading the events of the First Day of the week,
Sunday.
What is amiss in the first place with “your
belief in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection”, D*, and the
SDA church organization, and
Ellen White, and Christianity at large, is that you
read the pertinent Scriptures incorrectly; and next, that you ‘miss the link’
between the first and “the third day according to the Scriptures” the Passover
of Yahweh-Scriptures: to ‘miss the link’ of the SECOND of the “three days”
in the God-given and therefore imperative eschatological wholeness of the “three
days and three nights”-“three days”-“according to the Scriptures”,
“the prophet Jonah” and Jesus Christ Himself in Mt12:40: even the
God-given and therefore eschatological imperative and wholeness of “That Day”-“That
Great-Day-sabbath”. You miss it or you ignore it.
D*:
“Please take
note that after preparing the spices on the afternoon of the crucifixion
(Friday), and resting over the Sabbath (Saturday), they came to the tomb with
the spices on the first day of the week (Sunday) to do the work of anointing.”
GE:
You miss it or you ignore it. I am very sorry, but please take note, everyone except yourself it
seems, has taken note that you have said – again – “....
preparing the spices on the afternoon of the crucifixion (Friday) ....”. It does not ‘say’, “on the
afternoon of the crucifixion (Friday)”. It ‘says’, “on
the afternoon”,
that is, “mid-afternoon (Friday)” 23:54b exactly, “Joseph laid
the body in a sepulchre” Lk23:53b, “and rolled a stone unto the door of
the sepulchre” Mk15:46, “and departed” Mt27:60, “and the women
also .... returned and prepared spices and ointments” Lk23:56a. That was a
full 24 hours and full day after the Crucifixion and when Jesus had died.
You illegitimately INSERT, “of
the crucifixion”,
thereby
DELETING THE WHOLE DAY, “That Day”—
“That Day”
“which was the Fore-Sabbath”—
“That Day
(which) was great-day-sabbath” —
“That Day”
of the passover— the Passover of Yahweh—
“That Day
IN THE BONE” of “which”—
“That Day
IN THE BONE” of for “THREE DAYS
DARKNESS!”—
“That Day”
in the Plague of which—
“That Day”
in hell’s “darkness three days”—
“That Day”
“they saw not one another,
neither rose any from his place”—
“That Day” and “for three days” it was “Passover
of Yahweh”—
“That Day”: “according to the Scriptures” Ex10:22—
Jesus Christ was BURIED.
You illegitimately INSERT your own words, “of the crucifixion”, thus DELETING, “That Day”
that the Anointed of Yahweh ‘PASSED OVER’— just by YOUR, adding to “the
words of the Book of this Prophecy” (Rv22:19),
1) your own words;
2) by ADDING to its
“reckoning” your own, and
3) to its “events”, the events of your own invention—
YOU, BY YOUR ADDING to “the words of the Book of this
Prophecy”, “Luke
23:54-24:1”, DESTROY
its FULFILLED TRUTH “according to the Scriptures”— THESE Passover-Scriptures
of the Gospels and the Exodus in Christ and by Christ “our Passover” and
“Lamb of God”!
Please
take note that
all these ‘notes’ are applicable to all Sunday-resurrectionist-worshippers; D*,
SDA, RC, Protestant, irrespective to person or faith or movement.
D*:
“The women
came to the tomb with the spices on the first day of the week (Sunday) to do
the work of anointing. This was their first opportunity after the Sabbath to
carry out the preparations made on Friday afternoon. This is when they
discovered that Christ was risen.”
GE:
Exactly! But please,
Luke gave the specific time of night that “The
women came to the tomb with the spices”. It was, “very early in the morning”; in fact,
‘literally’, “deep(est) early-morning” – that is – ‘just after
midnight’. Like you say, “This was their first opportunity after the
Sabbath to carry out the preparations made on Friday afternoon.”
But no! “This”, was not yet “when they
discovered that Christ was risen”; “this was their first opportunity” they were TOLD by angels, that
“He is risen: remember the words how He spake unto you .... saying .... the
Son of Man must .... the third day rise again.”
Yes, “they remembered his words”, but they still
could not realise nor did they believe He spoke to them of “That great Day”
or “three days darkness” of Israel’s passover woes in Christ; and much
less of its fulfilment in Him on “the third day” of these days or of
this darkness, as it is scarcely possible to discern whether it is “three
day’S darkness” or “three days OF Darkness”— darkness and days
indistinguishable as it (Abib 13 and 14) were fused into one great dark day, “That
Day”. “That Day”,
So it was not with this visit at the tomb, “when they discovered that Christ was risen”. They would only really discover the Truth of
it the moment they would BELIEVE. They not yet, believed. They have been told that Christ was risen by TWO angelic witnesses, yet, “they
.... ALL .... believed not” Lk24:11. Even after they have been told by an
angel a SECOND time that Christ
was risen, they were
“baffled and sore afraid” Mk16:8 .... not believing in the least. “The women” (Mt28:5) would ‘discover’
and believe, only the moment “the angel” the THIRD time, “EXPLAINED”
to them Mt28:5, and “The Risen” (Mk16:9) had “met them” Mt28:9. “THEN, said JESUS (himself), unto them: Be
not afraid: go tell my brethren.” “Go
tell my brethren” what? What “the
angel (had) explained to them” in Mt28:1-4, yes.
At their last visit
at the tomb (on Sunday morning) “the angel explained to them” what had
happened THE DAY BEFORE “On the Sabbath” Mt27:62-28:5a,1-4; and soon
after “the angel had explained to them” Mt28:5-7, Jesus (on Sunday
morning) “met them” Mt28:7-10.
What the women really discovered for fact with their visit
at the tomb according to Luke in chapter 24:1, was that the body was gone— the
tomb, empty! They would have known that,
by the time they would visit the tomb again, Mk16:2. The women already – before they came with
their spices – knew the grave had been opened because Mary Magdalene, who was
first to have seen the stone removed from the sepulchre (Jn20:1), must have
told them before she and “all” the rest of the women “came to the tomb with the spices on the first
day of the week (Sunday) to do the work of anointing”, still believing the body was
in the tomb.
They accumulated knowledge visit by visit to prepare them
for the moment of personal, individual, halting – Jn20:15, and personal,
communal, moving, confrontation by The Risen – Mt28:9.
At their first and own, intentional endeavour “to go see
the tomb” Mt28:1b, it was out of inquisitiveness and faithlessness, so that
nothing came of it .... THEY, THINKING, THEY, WANTING, “TO SEE”: the
while GOD, WORKING, “to us-ward” in Christ, WITHOUT US, without and AGAINST
OUR willing and inclinations, GOD working, WORKED, our salvation “IN HIM”. God worked “HIS OWN REST” Hb4:10, in Jesus
Christ and ours through Jesus Christ, “Sabbath’s!” – we, not even
knowing – as from before the foundation of the world our names have been
written in the Book of Life, even by Jesus Christ our Lord without us present
but “in Him”. Therefore is Jesus the
Lord and “Lord of the Sabbath” and the Sabbath “the Lord’s Day”.
(See, I put the exclamation mark inside the quotation
marks. If you read Mt28:1-4 you will see “.... Sabbath’s .... exclamation: “Mark!
Behold! / Look .... Sabbath’s .... then suddenly!”)
Sabbath truth and will-worship are mutually exclusive;
Arminianism and Free-Grace-Sabbath’s-Enjoyment,
are irreconcilable. The Christian Sabbath Day and legalism, are arch enemies.
D*:
“If the
crucifixion took place on Wednesday, how can we explain why the women waited
until Sunday to come to the sepulchre?”
GE:
Please ask this question, like this: If the women made their preparations on Friday, how can we explain why
they waited until Sunday to come to the sepulchre?, would it not be the most before hand, logical,
unprejudiced answer to your question in the form you have asked it? The way I put the question, it is based on
the bare facts supplied in Luke 23:50 to 56 and especially in verse 56a. The way you, put your question, it is based
on zero facts supplied in Luke 23:50 to 56 since there is no word or IDEA there
mentioned, or alluded to, or implied, to the effect or statement that “the crucifixion took place on Wednesday” – or, for that matter, and
precisely for that matter – that “the
crucifixion took place on ....” “FRIDAY”! So yours is an out and out FALSE ‘question’;
and my question in itself, is the answer to yours.
Answer the true question, ‘If the women made their
preparations on Friday, how can we explain why they waited until Sunday to come
to the sepulchre?’ And the
answer shall be:
1) For thus had it
‘been written’. “Because thus it behoved the Christ” to fulfil the
Scriptures— the Scriptures concerning “That Day great-day-of-sabbath” of
the passover.
2) For thus “was
it the custom / law (according to the Scriptures) of the Jews to bury”, “that
which remained” of the Passover Lamb of God “That Day” of “The
First Day of Unleavened Bread (eaten)”, the second day of the passover, “the
fifteenth day of the First Month”, “to you, Israel”, “the People
of God” Hb4:9.
Which answer – giving due place to “That Day” –
implies inevitably and unconditionally “the
crucifixion took place”, NEITHER “on Wednesday”, NOR on “Friday”, but had to have ‘taken place’ on Thursday and the
fourteenth day of the First Month.
As right through all the Scriptures it is being commanded,
demanded, promised, prophesied, and typified and figured forth, “God appointed a day in which
He would judge the world”, “through Jesus Christ”. Through his descent into hell and death and, through
his resurrection from the dead; but ALSO, through his GRAVE; in that God made provision amply for IT, the GRAVE,
in “That Day”; in that God provided in “That Day”, for DEATH; the
DEATH of His Chosen and Anointed One returned to dust but without having seen
corruption in his flesh because not by his flesh in his body or by his body in
his flesh in the grave so much did He bear our sins and corruption as in his
heart and in his spirit, and in his soul and LIFE; as “GOD WITH US”.
God provided for DYING AND DEATH through the first of the “three
days darkness”, “between the two nights” (of the old thirteenth and
new fourteenth days of the First Month in
“THREE DAYS”, ‘FIRST days’ of passover-season;
“THREE DAYS”, ‘HEAD-days’;
“THREE DAYS”, “COUNT you”;
“THREE DAYS” “shall be unto you for a memorial”;
“THREE DAYS”, “ye shall proclaim”;
“THREE DAYS” “in their seasons .... on the
selfsame day(s)”;
“THREE DAYS” “much observed unto the LORD for
bringing them out”;
“THREE DAYS”, “when a STRANGER shall sojourn with
thee .... then let HIM come near and KEEP IT”.
“THREE DAYS”, “a Man .... despised and rejected
of men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: AND WE HID AS IT WERE OUR
FACES FROM HIM ....”.
“Certainly, this was a RIGHTEOUS MAN. And all the people
that came together to that sight, having seen (HIM and) the things which
were done (to HIM), smote their breasts, and
RETURNED ....
THEN SUDDENLY! a man, named Joseph ....”
“He laid the body of Jesus in his own tomb
(which he, this “good and just man”,
“had hewn out in the rock”
by his SINNER’S ‘righteous works’
for himself IN DEATH)
“.... he laid the body in his OWN tomb .... and
rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and,
DEPARTED!”
“We have TURNED everyone to his OWN way; and
the LORD hath lain on HIM the iniquity of US ALL.”
Yet the Sunday-worshippers pretend they serve the LORD by
making void “That Day”, by discarding it as a day of no consequence or
even of time-content or ‘event’. Or they
supposedly glorify it unduly and hypocritically baptise it in the name of
Jesus’ and God’s ‘Sabbath-rest in the
tomb’— what sacrilege and blasphemy!
Yet is it not the end; they christen “That Day”, “the greatest and most important day in our
Christian calendar, GOOD FRIDAY”!
Weep my soul .... it’s
D*:
“Why didn't
they come Thursday or Friday to anoint His body? Did they not understand that
after four days His body would be decomposing and their work of love would be
in vain? The answers to these questions constitute the strongest case against a
Wednesday crucifixion.”
GE:
The
answers to these questions constitute the strongest case against a Wednesday
crucifixion as
they certainly constitute
the strongest case against a Sunday resurrection!
Take into consideration the above arguments showing the
Reality and Truth of the middle (and third) day of the “three days”, “concerning
Me” — without which they would have been ‘the two days’ (only) and no
longer, would have been the “three days” “concerning Me”, and “That
Day, day of great-sabbath” no longer included under “all the things ....
which were written (that) must be fulfilled”: because it would be
two days only.
“All the things which were written must be fulfilled,
for
THUS, it behoved the Christ:
To suffer (on the first day) and
from the dead (the second day’s GRAVE)
the third day, to rise”.
Take into consideration the second day of the true “three
days” of the Scriptures in prophecy about Jesus Christ, “That Day” upon
which Joseph buried the body of Jesus; give due ‘credit’ to it for having been
the full 24-hour day it “according to the Scriptures” by ‘inclusive
reckoning’ ought to have been and in historical fact of Jesus Christ’s
interment, “was” (“once for all”). He, That “all in all
fulfilling Fullness of God”, ‘kept’, “That Day” when “That Day”
and its darkness, ‘kept Him in’. But “Thou (didst) not leave My Soul
in hell, neither (didst) suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.”
That is the story of how God’s Sabbath Day has been
preserved and as it were was raised from the dead and oblivion. I shall never
understand how Calvin could say, that Christ, as He on the Sabbath rose from
the dead and life entered again ‘into his quivering body’, He “abolished the
Sabbath”.
Count “That Day”, keep count of it, keep reckoning
with, “the bone of the day That Day”, and you have hit upon the strongest case against a Sunday-resurrection day. For “That
Day” – you have yourself, D*, from the Gospels shown – was “Friday”. So the CRUCIFIXION
— to the prophetic fulfilment of the
Passover of Yahweh by the BURIAL of Jesus Christ in “That Day” of the
God-given and therefore imperative eschatological wholeness of the “three
days” of “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” —,
had to have been BEFORE “Friday”, so that FROM “That Day”, it shall be
counted back AND on; back indeed to the Fifth Day of the week (Wednesday night
and Thursday day) the Crucifixion, and on, to “In the Sabbath” the
Resurrection. “That Day”, is CENTRAL, because
“Where He was
crucified there was a tilled land; and in the tilled land there was a grave
(wherein no man had been laid before). Because it was near and prepared, laid
they Jesus there by the time of the Jews’ preparations” .... “That Day”!
Christ’s was “a NEW grave”. “Thus .... in His own
order .... That Day .... it behoved the Christ .... The First .... the
Firstborn from the dead .... to be .... lain.” Jesus’ Burial was NO ARBITRARY act of
Joseph’s. It was “the prophet Jonah” signed and stamped: ‘FULFILLED!’
(Mt12:40), “just like a prophet”,
Moses, signed and stamped: ‘FULFILLED!’ (Ex10:22-23). ‘FULFILLED!’: “All that the prophets have spoken: SUFFERED .... all
things that must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me .... the Christ ....
‘FULFILLED!’ TRUE!
‘THUS IT IS WRITTEN!’ ‘THUS IT BEHOVED THE CHRIST’. Signed and Sealed with Royal Seal: ‘SUFFERED!’ “THUS it behoved the Christ to rise from
the dead the third day ....”. Having
“PASSED OVER .... THAT DAY” in the Passover of Yahweh, He “moved not
from his place” among the dead, but was fore-ordained to be “holden of
the pains of death”. After which
figure, every man shall “return to his place” and in the Last Day be
raised again. Every man. Jesus is the Sign and Seal of “That Great Day of
the LORD”.
Acts 4:16,9 ‘hoti men gar gnohston sehmeion’ “Indeed a
Notable Miracle”, “this day”.
NOW HEAR THE TIME OF DAY THAT IT WAS (God be my witness
today, WRITTEN in 3:1), “at the hour of prayer / worship, the ninth hour”
— “mid-afternoon”, 3. p.m.! “But
ye denied The Holy One and The Just, AND DESIRED A MURDERER BE GRANTED UNTO
YOU.” Jesus the Anointed of God had to
take the place of the MURDERER, even ‘bar-abbas’, ‘father’s-son’, AS A TYPE OF
“Son-of-God” ‘Bar Abbas’, whom WE, have made to be a murderer, “sin,
for us”.
But what I at this time want to lift out if I could for
practical reasons, and even more from this Scripture, Acts chapter 4, want to
underline, is, that it was “The-Day-of-Pentecost-Fully-Come” 2:1, STILL,
WHEN “INDEED NOTABLE MIRACLE HAPPENED”!
See Book 3/1, ‘Pentecost’. Acts, in chapter four at the verses quoted, was
the same “DAY OF PENTECOST”, “at the hour of prayer / worship, the
ninth hour”, “mid-afternoon”, 3. p.m., exactly the corresponding DAY, AND, HOUR of day that Christ rose
from the dead:— “In the end of
the SABBATH MID-AFTERNOON
as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”. I stand in awe! You may laugh at me, deride
me; I couldn’t care less! Thus is it
written, friends! “Peter and John”
speak here, preach here, argue here, proclaim here, “notable miracle” of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ “On the Sabbath / IN Sabbath’s FULLNESS”,
that AFTER AS MUCH AS EVER BEFORE
was spoken, preached, argued, PROmised, PROclaimed, PROphesied, “notable miracle”
that typified and signified and “glorified His Son Jesus” (13), Christ, “the
Son of God”!
But we are actually dealing with “That Day” BEFORE “this
day”. Is it not noteworthy that Jesus lay in the tomb, only three hours, on
“That day” (‘Friday’) —from “mid-afternoon .... as it began to dawn
towards the Sabbath Day” until the women after sunset “began to rest the
Sabbath”—, but “Sabbath’s”, the full night and the day “of the
Sabbath” until “being in the mid-afternoon” (absolutely literally,
‘tehi epifohskousehi’)? Is it not of
great significance to you too? “Three
days even darkness, (painfully) FELT”! I think it is in Revelation that it
says people chewed their tongues so painful was the darkness.
Where it seems the world in the days of Joshua (by the
Victory ‘God Gave’) gained, one day, so here in The Plague upon all the land it
seems the world must (in SEEMING defeat by the Will of GOD) have lost, track of
one day! But I say this tongue in the
cheek. It could be taken seriously if you liked. How would a man ‘IN SOLITARY’ (in
“That Day”), note or number the sequence of days? But we have often stopped at the Scriptural
phenomenon of the fact only Exodus dates the whole exodus of over three days —of over these “three days” of
Egypt’s Plague as it were side by side with Israel’s exodus— (Like two
trains while the one is overtaking the other travelling in the same direction.)
on ONLY “the fourteenth day of the First Month”, whereas all the subsequent Scriptures divide
the main events of the passover under (or ‘over’) the fourteenth, fifteenth and
sixteenth days. There was no
‘distinction of days’ in death’s darkness while only God could keep track of time!
Never, would Christ have passed by, “That Day”! Till “In the fullness of time” would He
obey God, would He “pass through” EVERY “day appointed”. “Unto now / until now / towards now”,
and now IN “That Day”, “the Father and I, WORK!” In “That Day”, “I DO the Will of My
Father”, and “Am, Perfected”.
“Behold I cast out devils and do cures: today and
tomorrow; and the third day I AM perfected. NEVERTHELESS IT BEHOVES ME TODAY
AND TOMORROW AND the
day AFTER (‘tomorrow’) to JOURNEY / pass on / pass through / pass
over.” “The third day I finish”
means the second day I work as much as I have worked the first of the three
days. We cannot just strike through and out
“That Day” of passover “in between” Abib 15— passover “in
between” passover Abib 14 and passover Abib 16. “That Day” / “TOMORROW” as much as “the
first day” or “the third day”, Christ “JOURNEYED” / “passed over”; Christ “That Day”
/ “TOMORROW” as much as “the
first day” / “TODAY” or “the third day” / “the day AFTER”,
“fulfilled”, “obeyed”, “WORKED”, “My Father’s will”,
and “finished / accomplished / perfected”. Without Christ’s work on the second of
passover’s first days, He would not have accomplished or finished or perfected
salvation; it would have been as good or as incomplete as without the first or
the last of the passover’s three first days.
“In the middle day” / “between the two nights”
‘behn-ha-arbayim’, “That Day”, Father and Son WORKED ON! Between Crucifixion and Resurrection: BURIAL!
Between day of Crucifixion and day of
Resurrection: NIGHT and day of Burial! In
three days, “GOD .... MADE”; In
three days, “GOD .... FINISHED”; In three days, “GOD .... RESTED” .... “rested
THE SEVENTH DAY.”
“THREE DAYS” in
“THREE DAYS” aye six “working days” since “the
tenth day of the First Month” since “the Hand of the LORD was upon Him”;
“THREE DAYS” the thick, crushing pressures of the depths of
the earth and of the sea.
“That Day” the
“That Day” between
the narrowness of the horse gate by the king’s house for Athaliah,
“That Day” the tumult for the priests between images and altars in the house of Baal;
“That Day” Jonas
under the foundations of the sea and mountains,
“That Day” Job
in the curse of the day of his birth;
“That Day” Hezekiah .... “According to the commandment
of the King .... the Priest WENT IN INTO the INNER PARTS of the house of the
LORD to cleanse it; (and) BROUGHT OUT all the uncleanness in the temple which Ahaz in his reign (had brought in)”;
“That Day” Ezekiel,
“Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord God; THIS IS THE DAY
whereof I have spoken.” 39:8. “In
the beginning of the year, in the TENTH day of the month after the city was SMITTEN,
in the SELFSAME DAY the Hand of the LORD
WAS UPON ME ....” 40:1. “Thus
saith the Lord God: The gate of the INNER court that looketh towards the east
shall be SHUT THE SIX
WORKING DAYS, but on the
Sabbath it shall be OPENED .... The Prince shall go forth, but the gate shall
not be shut until the evening.” 46:1-2.
Reality or Virtual Reality of Prophecy, “according to
the Scriptures” .... “concerning the Christ”, “God thus
concerning the Sabbath Day spake”? I leave that with you. You know what it means
for me .... wicked men too, and buried infidels and saints alike, were types of
Christ in his suffering dying death “in the heart of the earth” and in
the darkness of
Therefore “That Day” in which Adam died in Christ –
the day that God created him sinless and perfect – “That Day” was ....
the Sixth Day of the week .... wasn’t it? You agree? O well ....
Jesus DECLARED “NOW is the HOUR” the ‘hour’, of “three
days and three nights”, “in the heart of the earth” of under the
curse of death under the Law, and He DECLARED it: “The Kingdom of My Father”.
IN THE STRAIGHTS HE DECLARED: “Father, the hour IS COME: Glorify Thy Son,
that Thy Son may also glorify Thee.” Christ in battle, Christ in Victory, Christ:
The Lord! Christ in the Kingdom of HIS
SUFFERING, VICTOR; CHRIST IN CONFLICT, TRIUMPHANT. Christ under utter bondage
of the powers of hell: ROSE, and RAISED UP, and EXALTED, is “Lord of the
Sabbath Day”.
“In the arms” of God, are they carried out of
NEVER speak of ‘raised’, ‘resurrected’, ‘rose’, per se. It
is not “according to the Scriptures”; because “according to the
Scriptures”, “God raised Him FROM THE DEAD”! “From” “the
terror by night”; “IN THREE DAYS”— by “darkness” and by “plague”,
“three days and three nights”— raised Him from “darkness”, raised Him from “plague”; “BY the
third day according to the SCRIPTURES”: “raised Him FROM THE DEAD”! That is what it meant that Joseph BURIED Jesus
“The Preparation that is the Fore-Sabbath that was .... That Day great day
of sabbath” (“Friday”), “the in-between-the-two-nights”
of Abib 14 and Abib 16 -“in-the-BONE-of-Day”.
“After three days I shall rise again; in three days
build this temple”; “after two days will He revive us; in the third day
He will raise us up .... The LORD hath smitten; He will bind us up; Come, let
us return to the LORD!” .... Come, let us .... on the THIRD day rise!—
where “us” stands for Christ.
“That Day .... IN THE MIDST OF THE TWO NIGHTS”,
‘behn ha arbayim’! How can you forget,
o
“Ye shall carry up my bones away.” “Moses” (lawgiver, saviour) “took
the bones of Joseph with him. .....” Ex13:19. “That Day, in the bone of
the day”, “in the heart of the earth” “in the midst of the sea”,
“the LORD went before them BY DAY a Pillar of Cloud to lead them the Way;
and by NIGHT a Pillar of Fire to give them LIGHT to go by DAY AND NIGHT.”
(19) “Three days”, plague; “three
days”, darkness.
In “the beginning of the months for you” Ex12:2, the
first and the second, and the second and the third days of the “three days
darkness” are indistinguishable; the Cloud that was Light to
“That Day”, “Ye shall bring forth that which
remaineth”; “thou shalt burn it with fire ....”; “No bone of Him shall be broken”; “Thou
shalt not see corruption.”
There was the day that God “brought OUT”; there was the day that God “brought IN”. Then there was the day “IN BETWEEN”
that “God led the People ABOUT, the
way of the wilderness.” (13:18) “They,
entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.” “That we should die in the wilderness where
there are no graves.” (11) And there
was the day that God “brought in ....”. “Fear ye not, stand still,
and see the Salvation of the LORD which He will show you TODAY .... all that
NIGHT .... in the midst of the sea.” (14:13,20,22)
“Even the first
day”: Ex12:15a
“The house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the
kingdom.” 2Chr22:9.
“Not on the Feast Day lest there be an uproar.”
Mk14:2 / Mt15:5.
“The first day they must kill the passover”
Mk14:12/Lk22:7.
“The ninth hour Mk15:34 [‘In the end of day’
Lk23:54/Mt28:1]
Jesus cried with a great Voice, Father, in your hands I
commend my spirit.”
“The sabbath” Ex
12:15b, Lv23:11,15:
‘In-The-Bones-of-Day”; “That Day was sabbath” Jn19:31;
“COME IN on the
Sabbath to go out on the Sabbath” 2Chr23:8; Ez45:25/46:4,5; 46:1/12,2,8.
“That Day great-day-of-sabbath” Jn19:31 of
passover.
“Now That Day was the Preparation in the end of the
Sabbath”
/ “That Day, was the Preparation mid-afternoon, and the
Sabbath drew near”
Lk23:54b
“The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” Mk15:42.
“That Day” was BOTH “That-Day-sabbath” Lk23:54a
/ “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath” Jn19:31, AND “The Preparation which
is the Fore-Sabbath” Mk15:42/Jn19:38.
“The third day”
“Come in on the Sabbath to GO OUT on the Sabbath”
2Chr23:8; Ez45:25/46:4,5; 46:1/12,2,8.
“The Priest dismissed not the courses!”
“On the day after the sabbath must you wave the First
Sheaf before the LORD.”
“The third day I FINISH.” “Christ on the third day according to the
Scriptures rose.” “The Father and I WORK HITHERTO” “In the end of the Sabbath mid-afternoon
....” “CROWNED THE KING .... Behold the King’s Son shall reign, as the
LORD hath said. .... And the City was quiet after that they had slain Athaliah.”
Now the Scriptures show “That Day, the In-The-Bones’-Day”,
was the WHOLE AND ESSENCE of it, “That Day”: “Friday”, “The Preparation which is
the Fore-Sabbath”, which is “midst”, ‘in the bone of day-passover’.
If He rose on Sunday, this MIDDLE-DAY included as it should
as day of Interment, it would have meant Jesus rose ‘after four days’ or ‘on
the fourth day’.
But no; Christ – “according to the Scriptures”,
these, passover-Scriptures – was CRUCIFIED, BEFORE this second and “Middle”
/ “in the bone of” / “SHUT IN” of the “three days” of the
Passover of Yahweh Scriptures. He was crucified BEFORE “That Day”.
And He – “according to the Scriptures”, these, passover-Scriptures
– ROSE, AFTER this SECOND and “Middle” / “in the bone of” / “SHUT
IN” of the “three days” of the Passover of Yahweh Scriptures. He rose
AFTER “That Day”.
Christ was CRUCIFIED on the day BEFORE “That Day, In-The-Bones’-Day” on which He was BURIED,
on passover’s, ‘sabbath’. Otherwise all the Scriptures would not have
foretold that He would RISE “IN THE SABBATH”, and all the Scriptures
BEFORE AND AFTER the Gospels, would have foretold and confirmed He resurrected
on the First Day of the week. But alas, there is not the minutest trace it
happened or was shown to ever have happened – that it ever would happen – on
the First Day of the week. Not in the Bible, anyway; not as long as proper
account is taken of the Middle-Day, ‘Bones-Day’, “That Day”, “That day
great day of Sabbath” of the Passover. “Upon that day shall the Prince
PREPARE”— the Sixth Day of the week Ez45:22,45. “Ye shall bury Him That Day”, Dt21:23.
“All the firstborn in the
“That Day”, “That Great Day”, Abib 15, is the
day of woe and dread, yet is called “Feast Day”, the prelude and The
Preparation-Day to triumph; the stillness before the shout of victory; the day
of captivity before rescue. Ex15:16...21.
“So also is the Resurrection of The Dead. It is sown in corruption; it is
raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in Glory: It is
sown in WEAKNESS; it is RAISED IN POWER.”
Before of anyone else, shall it be true of Jesus Christ! “Death is swallowed up in Victory”,
but for Glory there needs be Humiliation and Suffering; and for Victory,
“I shall save THY SEED from the
D*:
“After four
days His body would be decomposing and their work of love would be in vain?....
The Bible offers incontestable proof that no one would have attempted such an
anointing [as the women’s] under
those circumstances.”
GE:
My dear man, who thought it would be attempted? Who argues “After
four days His body would be decomposing”? Who argues “After four days”? I argued your argument of a Sunday
resurrection would amount to that He rose on the fourth day contrary all
Scripture that have the FULL Burial-day BETWEEN Crucifixion-day and
Resurrection-day; from which FACT you can never get away, and therefore MUST
face the consistency and consequence He actually would have risen on the fourth
day while according to NO Scripture, rose He on the Sunday or fourth day. In
fact, “By the immutability of His Counsel confirmed by oath” of God, “It
was not possible that He should be holden of the pains of death”. “That .... his soul was not left in hell,
neither did his flesh see corruption.... God had sworn with an oath to Him ....
that He would raise up Christ to sit on His Throne .... therefore being by the
Right Hand of God exalted.” God
swore this and his Counsel predetermined it of Jesus Christ, of his soul, and of
his flesh,
“Of the fruit of David’s loins .... Jesus of
“It was not possible” there would be another – a
fourth – day that Christ would be “DEAD AND BURIED”; it had to be “That
Day”, “That-In-Between-Day”, “In-the-Bone-of-Day”.
Because in between
“this which ye now see and hear .... Pentecost
fully come”
and 52 days before, “crucified and slain”, Abib 14,
and “this .... Pentecost fully come”
and 50 days before, “Him Whom God raised up”, Abib
16,
there 51 days before was “That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath”
“DEAD AND BURIED”, Abib 15, “the sabbath” of
the passover Lv23:11,15.
.... “Thou hast made known to Me the Ways of LIFE; Thou
shalt make Me full of Joy with Thy countenance”, Abib 16 First Sheaf Wave
Offering. But only AFTER, “My flesh shall rest in hope because Thou shalt
not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption” being “DEAD AND BURIED”, Abib 15. Acts 2:28,27; 29. It explains why it is said “That Day was
great-day-of-sabbath”: “My flesh shall rest in hope” .... because it
speaks of Christ— in actual fact, because God, speaks of His Anointed.
“That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath” Abib 15 “DEAD AND
BURIED”, is as VISIBLE in Scripture as Abib 14 “crucified and slain”,
or “the resurrection of Christ” Abib 16.
Therefore it is you only, SDA, D*, who argue things like
that “After four days His body would be
decomposing .... and .... such an anointing .... no one would have attempted .... under those
circumstances”.
Only, you, because you cut out Abib 15, whilst Christ “should be HOLDEN BY
THE PAINS OF DEATH “DEAD AND BURIED” “in
the grave”, Abib
15, “according to the Scriptures” .... “ALL the Scriptures”
1Cor15:3-4, Lk24:27.
Red Sea between
Irony? Or Ecstasy? No; Faith! “I
believe .... in Christ who was crucified and died, AND WAS BURIED, and the third day rose.”
“and was buried” “IN BETWEEN” death by dying — AND
— life by rising.
“and was buried”
Abib 15, “IN BETWEEN” death by dying Abib 14 — AND — life by rising Abib 16.
“I believe in Christ who was CRUCIFIED and DIED”
“the first day they must always kill— the passover”;
because “He was CRUCIFIED AND DIED” according to our
Confession and “according to the Scriptures”—
“even the FIRST, day”
“first day” of the Passover of Yahweh;
“I believe in Christ who was BURIED” according to our
Confession and “according to the Scriptures”— “BURIED”:
“among the dead” “In-the-Bone-of-day” day— “That
Day” of the Passover of Yahweh.
“He was buried”:—
“the sabbath” Lv23:11,15 ....
“That-Day”
“That-Day-great-day-of-sabbath” day ....
“Feast”: “ye shall eat” day of passover.
Ex12:17 ....
the “In-the-bone-of-day” day ....
“That-Day-In-The-In-Between” (‘geh-tsem hazzeh’)
....
“Shut-in-day” ....
“the-between-the-two-nights” day (‘behn ha arbayim’)
....
the “three-days-great-darkness-day” ....
I believe
“He ROSE, from the dead
the THIRD, day according to the Scriptures”—
“third day” of the Passover of Yahweh;
D*:
“When Lazarus
had been dead four days, Jesus ordered the stone removed from his tomb. Martha,
the sister of Lazarus, protested in these words, "Lord, by this time he
stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.” John 11:39.
The words of Martha reveal the fact that no woman of that day would
have considered it possible to prepare a body for burial four days after death.
To Martha it seemed an irrational act even to open the tomb of Lazarus.”
GE:
Were you but so conscientious and meticulous about detail
of far greater importance with regard to Jesus’ resurrection than a fourth day,
and truthfully asked, Who, raised Him from the dead?
D*:
“Those who
believe that Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on Saturday base much of their
evidence on Matthew 28:1
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of
the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."”.
GE:
I can forgive you this, “Those
who believe that Jesus died on Wednesday”, yes. I don’t think you will repeat it 70x7 in this
discussion. But as you can see – so far
–, those who believe Jesus rose on the Sabbath and died on Thursday and was
buried on Friday, do in fact “base much of
their evidence on Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week”. “Because that
is what the Bible says”, not so? To quote, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week.” Those who believe Jesus rose on the Sabbath
and died on Thursday and was buried on Friday, do in fact base much of their evidence on Matthew 28:1, but those who believe Jesus
rose on Sunday and died and was buried on Friday, haven’t as many or as ‘much’ as ONE Scripture to base
their supposed ‘evidence’ on. As you can see
– so far –, those who believe Jesus rose on the Sabbath and died on Thursday
and was buried on Friday, do not only base much
of their evidence on Matthew 28:1; they base ALL of
their evidence on ALL
of the Scriptures, because thus is ‘their evidence referenced throughout the Bible's
Old and New Testaments’. Or do you think I
haven’t referenced evidence throughout
the Bible so
far? Well, I intend to go on doing just
that, to reference the evidence Jesus rose from the dead “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week,” throughout the Bible's Old and New
Testaments!
D*:
“Figuring
that the first day of the week "dawns” at sundown Saturday night as the
Sabbath ends, these people assume that the women discovered the empty tomb in
the twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown.”
GE:
Not exactly. But yes, “Figuring
that the first day of the week "dawns” at sundown Saturday night as the
Sabbath ends,”
is virtually correct. Only say it in clearer terms, like ‘The First Day of the week drew near before sundown Saturday afternoon
as the Sabbath ended’ — that makes it much surer you understood well what ‘these people assume’ and find almost literally in
the text in Mt28:1. From now on you
cannot make excuses that you didn’t understand ‘these
people’.
Alright then, Let’s hear: Is it true, that as ‘The First Day of the week drew near before
sundown Saturday afternoon as the Sabbath ended’, Jesus rose from the dead, or,
not?
D*:
“These people
count backwards exactly seventy-two hours and arrive at Wednesday evening just
before sundown for the crucifixion.”
GE:
I’ll ignore “Wednesday” and take it for Thursday.
So, if we ‘reckon the
day’ ‘inclusively’, ‘backwards’:
‘Saturday’ day plus Friday night = 24 hours; plus Friday
day plus Thursday night = 48 hours; plus Thursday day plus Wednesday night = 72
hours. This is the equivalent for the Fifth, the Sixth and the Seventh Days of
the week.
What’s your problem?
I can count this up to “exactly
seventy-two hours”
with no problem. But explain, please,
how you, find it possible to count backwards from Sunday morning, say sunrise,
6 a.m., exactly seventy-two hours and arrive at Friday afternoon before sunset,
say 5 p.m., “in the
grave, 72 hours”? I would like to see how you do it? O, you don’t waste your time on
frivolities? Then why do you employ
frivolities against my standpoint and the standpoint of “these people” who believe a Thursday Crucifixion and Friday Burial and
Sabbath’s Resurrection?
D*:
“But notice
Mark's account of the visit to the sepulchre: "And when the sabbath was
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought
sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the
morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising
of the sun. And they said among themselves. Who shall roll us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre?” Mark 16:1-3.
There is no question about this being an early Sunday morning
visit. It is at sunrise. The very same women are named as in Matthew's account.
Can we correctly assume that these same women had been to the tomb the night
before and found Jesus risen? Impossible. Why?....”
GE:
Two events, two occasions at different times at different
locations by different women with different objectives, “the same event” .... you falsify BOTH Scriptures and BOTH events.
“When the
sabbath was past”
is after sunset ‘when even was come’ as in Mk15:42 and Mt 27:57. But
there in Mk15:42 and Mt 27:57, NOR HERE in Mk16:1, will you have it, but belie
it in every impossible way. Here, in
Mk16:1, for you, “When the
sabbath was past”,
is “early Sunday morning at sunrise”, and “there is no question about this.”
Meantime you still maintain that you hold to an ‘evening-beginning’ of
your Sabbaths ....?
Quoting D*: “.... Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome”
.... “The very same women are named as in
Matthew's account.” As in which account of Matthew’s? Matthew has no account like Mark’s in 16:1,
or, in 16:2 to 8!
You again pretend the events on Crucifixion-day happened on the day which Luke in 23:50-56 is
speaking of: “The very same women are named as in Matthew's account”, you say, referring to Mt27:55-56
where these three women are named as “among many (other) women (who) standing – afar
off – were beholding” the “sight” (Lk23:48) of the CRUCIFIXION!
You underline this by ignoring the fact Mt27:61 // Mk15:47
// Lk23:55b, where only the two Marys are being mentioned as present, “sat over against the sepulchre”, “beholding how
his body was laid”: the BURIAL!
You allege that in “Mark's
account of the visit to the sepulchre”, it is the same visit mentioned in Lk24:1 when “The women came to the tomb with the spices on
the first day of the week (Sunday) to do the work of anointing”. You speak as if these Scriptures speak of one
event, “This was their first
opportunity after the Sabbath to carry out the preparations made on Friday
afternoon.”
It is not so that “This
was their first opportunity after the Sabbath to carry out the preparations
made on Friday afternoon.” “Their opportunity” could not have arrived yet, for
two reasons. First, That not everyone of them had the spices yet to “carry out” that which the other two on Friday afternoon had had
prepared for already; they first had to go buy spices for Salome who was not
present at the burial on Friday afternoon.
Two, That by now the women must have known about the Roman guard posted
at the tomb “for the third day” to keep His disciples away; they
therefore had to wait until midnight when the ‘Roman day’, would be over, and
the guard’s watch would have expired.
Therefore Mark expressly stated that after the Sabbath had gone through,
the three women went to buy spices, “so that, WHEN THEY COME, they may
anoint Him” – “their first
opportunity”
having been when eventually they did go to anoint Him, which LUKE recorded in
24:1, was “deepest morning of night” – soonest after midnight possible –
when “They, carrying their spices prepared and ready, arrived at the tomb on
the First Day of the week”.
Now you allege “This was
(the women’s) first opportunity after
the Sabbath to carry out the preparations made on Friday afternoon.”
You say this was when “The women
came to the tomb with the spices on the first day of the week (Sunday) to do
the work of anointing”. Now although you say, “notice Mark's account”, you must be referring to Luke
because it is not Mark, but Luke, who states that “The
women came to the tomb with the spices on the first day of the week”. And you categorically – first
– assert that this was “the visit to
the sepulchre” –
and next –that this was WHEN “very early
in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the
rising of the sun.”
Now, did you CONFUSE “very
early in the morning .... at the rising of the sun”, with “when the sabbath was past”, or, is “at the
rising of the sun”
your and the Seventh-day Adventists’ new RECKONING of / for the beginning of a
Bible-day (as Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi maintained re Matthew)?
Now I further ‘notice’
(YOU, asked me to “notice
Mark's account”!) not only “Mark's
account” AND
Luke’s ‘account’ where you refer to ONLY “Mark's
account .... Mark 16:1-3.” I ALSO, ‘notice’ the ABSENCE in Mark 16 verses 2
to 3 of verse 1 – as I have pointed out already. Don’t forget; your confusion
must be ‘noticed’ still.
And I ALSO ‘notice’ the total absence in “Mark's account .... Mark 16:1-3” or in Luke’s account for that
matter, of “The very
same women .... named as in Matthew's account.”
Therefore, how on earth did you find it possible to “correctly assume” it “Impossible” “that
these same women had been to the tomb the night before ....?” I find it impossible to see ‘why’ it is ‘impossible’!
You said, “Notice”, but yourself do not notice
these are separate, and because separate accounts, differing accounts; neither
the same, nor contradicting, accounts. In other words, you do not notice Mk16:1
and Lk24:1 record different events not different ‘visits’. Mk16:1 doesn’t
mention anything about the grave or a visit. What about the different actions, places of
action, times of action, objectives of actions?
Chronology:
Joseph “rolled a stone to the door .... and departed”,
after which these TWO women also “went home and
prepared spices and ointments” Lk23:56a
BEFORE “they started to rest the Sabbath” 56b, and
“after the Sabbath together with Salome bought spices”
Mk16:1.
Which fact undeniably implies different events EACH with
different occasion / event, place, time AND DAY and: women.
WOMEN are the Subject in
Mt27:55-56 “the ninth hour” after CRUCIFIXION Thursday;
MEN are the Subject in
Mk15:42/Mt27:57/Jn19:31/38/Lk23:50 “when evening had
come” BEFORE BURIAL Thursday night;
WOMEN are the Subject in
Mt27:61=Mk15:47 AFTER
Burial, “mid-afternoon” Friday;
Lk23:53b-56a/Jn19:42 after Burial “Jew’s preparations” Friday
Lk23:56b “Sabbath” Friday night to Saturday day;
Mt28:1 “On the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon before the First
Day”
Mk16:1 “after Sabbath” ‘evening’ Saturday night;
Jn20:1-10 “still early darkness” ‘evening’ Saturday
night;
Lk24:1-10 “deep morning” after midnight Sunday
morning;
Mk16:2-8 “very early sun’s rising” before sunrise
Sunday;
Jn20:11-18/Mk16:9 “early on the day” after sunrise Sunday;
Mt28:5-8 early day after sunrise Sunday.
ALREADY A FULL DAY “the Sabbath Day HAD PASSED” after
the events on and of “That Day” the day of the Interment that in Mk15:42/Mt27:57/Jn19:32/38/Lk23:50 had
had started, and had been current AFTER “when it had become evening already”.
Mk16:1 implies a full day, the Sabbath, had passed (12 hrs). NOT A WORD of any action by any women is
mentioned in Mk16:1 for the duration of this full past Sabbath, or, for the
whole past night before it (Friday night (12 hrs)) --- 24 hours AGO. (We do not
now talk about Lk23:56a!; we are
looking at Mk16:1 now.)
Mk16:1 implies ANOTHER full day – mentioned in Lk23:54-56a,
“That Day great day of sabbath” of the passover (12 hrs), the day
of the BURIAL. --- 36 hrs AGO.
Mk16:1 implies ANOTHER full NIGHT, ‘Thursday night’ that
had had begun, here: in Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 / Jn19:32/38 / Lk23:50. (12 hrs)
--- 48 hours AGO.
Mk16:1 implies 39 hours AFTER Joseph had closed the grave.
The first and last and only mention of women for “THAT DAY”
of the BURIAL, TWO days and TWO nights AGO BEFORE the time given in Mk16:1, is found in Luke 23 AFTER verse 53 AFTER the body HAD been
laid.
“That Day had been The Preparation .... and the sabbath
(of the passover that) was beginning to draw to a close”, or, “That
Day had been The Preparation and the Sabbath (the Seventh Day) drew on”.
.... The time or hour of day remains the same: “mid-afternoon”, “the
ninth hour”, 3 p.m. —irrespective. Joseph closed the grave and went home. The
women too, went home and prepared spices and ointments— three hours BEFORE the
Sabbath would begin or the women would “begin to rest the Sabbath”.
“That Night”, “evening already”
(Ex12:41-42/13:4,8; 1Cor11:23b) in Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 / Jn19:32/38 / Lk23:50, 51
hours AGO and 51 hours BEFORE “After the Sabbath” Mk16:1, “Joseph suddenly
was there” Lk23:50, to begin to undertake to bury the body of Jesus;
obviously, only after there had been a body of Jesus “TO bury” Jn19:40c. Which means Joseph had begun to act after the
day of the Crucifixion had ended .... after sunset; any time to three hours after
sunset after Crucifixion day.
And still LATER, “Nicodemus also came there”. The
tableaux was the very
same as at the
first ever passover when
Joseph closed the grave twenty four hours after Jesus had
passed over, and “commended (his) spirit into the hands of (his) Father”.
Lk23:46; Mk15:34/Mt26:46. Joseph had
begun his undertaking, at least 3 hours even to six hours after Jesus had
passed over and had died, Lk15:42 / Mt27:57 / Jn19:31/38 / Lk23:50.
It’s twenty four
– 24 – hours “in the tomb”, ‘in the earth’, “correctly”; not “72 hours” which you supposed would “exactly arrive at Wednesday evening just before
sundown for the crucifixion” .... however you (YOU) ‘figured', “that
the first day of the week "dawns” at sundown Saturday night as the Sabbath
ends”, so “that the women discovered the empty tomb in the
twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown”, “72
hours” later. As I said, “72
hours” was YOUR
arithmetic; nobody else’s.
D*:
“The very
same women are named as in Matthew's account. ....”
GE:
“.... are named
....” where “in Matthew's account”? Which Scripture are you
referring to now? “And they said among themselves. Who shall roll
us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” Mark 16:1-3.” In which Scripture are “The very same women named”? In “Mark
16:1-3”, “named”? .... “as in
Matthew's account”,
“named”?
Is it true? the women “in
Matthew's account”? But where is that “account”, “in Matthew”? We have already
found, Matthew does not have such “account” at all. “Matthew's
account” mentioned
the “many women among whom” these three women stood watching the CRUCIFIXION “sight”
Mt27:61=Mk15:47. But Mark in 16:1 (verse
‘one’!) recorded these three women PURCHASED
spices long after the Crucifixion, TWO
FULL DAYS IN BETWEEN AFTER the Crucifixion and AFTER sunset “when the
sabbath was past”!
From the Crucifixion to the women’s purchase was more than two days —the
Friday of the BURIAL and the weekly Sabbath plus the last three hours of / on
Crucifixion-day—, but SDA D* says it was the same event and the same women
....!
whole Sabbath 24 hours;
whole Fore-Sabbath; 24 hours;
3 hours “Preparation of the Passover” Jn19:14
= 51 – FIFTY ONE HOURS later and you, D*, expect the poor women standing there around
the cross from after Jesus had died still!?
.... at “the same
event”!?
Yes you; but not only you; also all Christendom .... virtually ....
The difference in time between Mark’s account of the THREE women’s
PURCHASE in 16:1, and Mark’s account of the unknown number of women’s VISIT at
the tomb in verses 2-8, was from sunset after the Sabbath to “very early in
the morning the first day of the week .... at the rising of the sun”, ‘lian
proh-i tehi miai tohn sabbatohn anateilantos tou hehliou’: virtually the full
night of 12 hours, apart and later!
D* never quotes this passage of the Markan visit, 16:2-8.
Instead, he identifies it with the Lukan visit, 24:1-10. But they were very different visits far apart
in time, with no points of agreement and many points of difference. But no
points of disagreement; points of difference that make them separate visits and
in respect to every of their differences, unique. Yet, yes, exactly for those
differences, each is a unique account – yet are they in total harmony. Identify
them, and destroy the harmony! They should not be identified; better try to
‘correlate’ them.
Most conspicuous of these differences or rather individual
characteristics of the separate visits, is Luke’s mention in 24:1 of the women
“carrying their prepared and ready spices” when “they came to the
tomb”, obviously to anoint the body. Mark, on the other hand, reads, “They came
to the sepulchre” but with no spices or ointments or intention to anoint
the body. The Lukan visit 24:1-10 therefore must have been the women’s first
visit when they were still thinking the body was in the grave so that they
could anoint it; and the Markan visit therefore their second visit.
Then the next clear difference between the two visits is
the time of night mentioned in each that the women actually visited the
tomb. Luke says “they came / arrived
at the tomb, very early in the morning”, from the Greek ‘orthros’ for the
first quarter of the morning after midnight. See throughout the Bible. The Greek further agrees with ‘batheohs’, “the
deep of night” / ‘deepest, darkest of morning’ – again, like with
‘orthros’, just after midnight. It’s much like a pleonastic expression for
emphasis; earlier morning than ‘orthros batheohs’ is there not.
Mark elaborates on what he, meant with “very early on
the First Day of the week”, ‘lian proh-i miai (hehmerai)’. For Mark it is ‘day’ almost, “very early in
the day”. And “very early in the day” is “when the sun is (still)
coming up” ‘anateilantos tou hehliou’, or, ‘at sunrise’ or ‘before the sun
is up’.
But a little later with regard to when Jesus “appeared
to Mary Magdalene”, Mark states: “He appeared to Mary .... first of any,
early the First Day of the week” ‘proh-i prohtehi (hehmerai)
sabbatohn’. Now, Jesus showing Himself
to Mary, is it ‘day’ already, “early day”, ‘proh-i’.
John in 20:11-17 confirms this indeed ‘day-time’, describing
how Jesus revealed Himself to Mary where she “had had stood after without at
the sepulchre”. — It must have been after
the visit mentioned in Mk16:2, and the same
as the event referred to in Mk16:9.
While Mary “had had stood after without at the sepulchre”,
“she saw Jesus standing and knew not that it was Jesus .... she supposing
Him to be the gardener” (14-15)— “the gardener” who, one would
expect, would come on duty with sunrise.
So there was most of
the night between when the three women bought spices “as soon as the Sabbath was past”, and when some several
women – unspecified – after the after-midnight visit mentioned by Luke, must
have re-visited the tomb according to Mark in 16:2-8, “very early before sunrise on the First
Day of the week” in distinction to when a little later “He appeared to
Mary early on the First Day”, Jn19:11,14,15 / Mk16:9.
This is enough to reveal the reckless fallacy of indiscriminately
identifying the personae, events and times and places of the Thursday and the
Friday, of the Friday and the Sabbath Day, of the Sabbath Day and First Day, of
the Crucifixion and the Interment, of the Interment and the Resurrection, of
the Resurrection and the Appearances; of the three women and the two women, of
the two women and the three women, of the three women and the several other
women, of the several other women and Mary Magdalene, of Mary Magdalene and the
other women (whosoever); of afternoon and mid-morning, of just after sunset and
just before sunrise, of night and afternoon, ad infinitum; of two angels and
one angel; of the angel’s witness and the women’s witness, of the women’s
witness and the Gospels’ witness; of confusing Lk23/24 and Mk15/16, and them and
Mt27/28, and them and Jn19/20, bundling and bungling the lot into a single incidence
of all the women arriving together, well almost together, all “from different directions”, well, all “from Bethany”, “at the tomb on Sunday morning”, “at the same time”, well, virtually, at the same time. At what hour
that must have been after two thousand years has not been decided, yet. “Simultaneously”, “but Mary a little before the others”, “simultaneously with the Resurrection”; “not witnessing the resurrection”, “witnesses of the resurrection”; women the “eyewitnesses of the resurrection”, angels the “eyewitnesses of the resurrection” ....
What insurrection against fact and truth! No wonder the God-cursers elate.
And here’s your explanation – your unravelling – of all the
confusion: “The very
same women are named as in Matthew's account. Can we correctly assume that these same women
had been to the tomb [as the Sabbath-Resurrection adherents assume] the night
before and found Jesus risen? Impossible.
Why? Because of the question they asked as they approached the garden on Sunday
morning, "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the
sepulchre?””
But please tell us how “the
question they asked”, “Who shall
roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”, “correctly
assume(d)”,
makes it / proves it, “impossible” that
these same women had been to the tomb the night before”? Why does it prove it “impossible”?
We can ignore the falsities you so casually intertwined
with what “they / these people” “assume”, e.g., that they “assume ... Jesus found risen”. But we cannot ignore nor forgive the fact you identify
three different occasions by abusing the mention and / or inference of the
names of the three women involved at each occasion. The women were identical;
the events or occasions or circumstances or places or times or days were none,
identical.
It is very incorrect to even say THE WOMEN were identical:
1) In
Mt27:56/Mk15:40/Lk23:49, Crucifixion (on Thursday), the three, “Mary
Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and of Joses his mother Salome .... the women
from
2) In
Mt27:61/Mk15:47/Lk23:55-56, Burial (on Friday), they were only the
Marys, two of “the women from
3) In Mt28:1, RESURRECTION
“on the Sabbath”, the women mentioned were “Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary”, the only women who were also present when “they laid Him in
the tomb”.
4) In Mk16:1, purchase
of spices “after Sabbath”, they were three: the two Marys and
Salome.
5) In Jn20:1-2 –
verses one to two! – Mary Magdalene was the only women who had the
first sight “when still early
darkness” on Saturday evening of the removed door-stone.
6) In Jn20:3-10 NO
WOMEN were involved; they were only the two men, Peter and John. Mary Magdalene
had not “stood after” (Jn20:11) after Peter and John’s visit. The men are said
to have returned as they had come: only they. Mary did not accompany them;
after she had told Peter and John about the removed door stone, she must also
have gone and told the other women, because the women who had had spices
prepared went to the tomb after midnight and the “others with them”,
Lk24:10. So Mary did not accompany Peter and John, and did not remain after,
when they had left.
7) In Lk24:1,10,22-24, first
visit on Sunday night ‘after midnight’, ‘the three women’ (mns. variant)
were the two Marys and “Johanna” (Salome), “and others with them”.
8) In Mk16:2-8 –
from verse 2, to 8! – second visit on Sunday “morning
before sunrise” the women were ‘all’, but no one is named.
9) In Jn20:11-17/Mk16:9,
first
Appearance Sunday sunrise) it was only Mary Magdalene;
10) In Mt28:5-8, second
Appearance after sunrise Sunday, it was several other women, Mary absent. Mary
Magdalene immediately after Jesus had finished speaking to her at the grave, “Forward,
go!” returned to tell the disciples, Jn20:18. She was gone by the time the
other women for the last time, still, “in great anxiety”, must have
returned to the grave.
So; If the women are unidentifiable, so will the events and
times and places be unidentifiable. But
you say no, “the very
same women are named”, and because it is the same women, it must be the same “event”— the same visit, at the tomb.
Every bit of information in the Gospels in the Scriptures
under scrutiny regarding the Sabbath, the Saturday night and Sunday morning,
whether about the women, the times, the places, the events, they are all forced
together into one focal point of the event of the Resurrection by you
Sunday-resurrectionists: Sunday morning— it does not matter which or how much
detail you gloss over, ignore, mute or twist or corrupt— wherever one might be
reading of women, location, day or time, it does not matter, it is the
Resurrection, the place and the moment and the witnesses of the Resurrection!
It is the same with the Scriptures about the Burial. They
are never about the place or the people or the event or time or day of the Burial;
they are always about the Crucifixion.
These are the two, basic, and plain, and easy to recognise,
principles of the traditional deception of a Friday crucifixion and Sunday
resurrection. And once they are discovered by the Bible student, he ever and
anon firstly, is accused of being without love and filled with hatred and
pride; and next, he is branded a legalist and a self-righteous hypocrite.
Invariably that is the order; it’s my first hand experience. It is my experience received from
Sunday-worshipping Christians, but most vehemently from Sabbatharians, the
Seventh-day Adventists the leaders of their pack.
Thanks! I needed a glass of water!
Now, Why must it be
“impossible” that
these same women had been to the tomb the night before”, if we “assume” “the question
they asked”, “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door
of the sepulchre?”,
“correctly”? Prove it “impossible” for us ‘people’ (these
Wednesday crucifixionists ‘people’ you refer to – with whom I for argument’s
sake shall group myself, although you do know, don’t you, that I actually
believe Jesus was crucified on a Thursday....)? Why is it “impossible” that
these same women had been to the tomb the night before”, if we “assume” “the question
they asked”, “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door
of the sepulchre?”,
“correctly”? You cannot “correctly
assume”, you
cannot ‘prove’, anything! You merely pretend
you can.
When the women went to the tomb “carrying their spices”
Lk24:1, it must have been their first visit, logically. Also the time given by Luke is earlier than any
mentioned in the Gospels.
In Luke’s story, it is stated the women summarily entered
the tomb, no questions asked. “They FOUND the stone, rolled away.” Its position was exactly like Mary had told
them; no surprise! They came, they saw, they entered. They did not have to wait for someone to come
remove the stone for them. As far as
that is concerned it is exactly the same in Mark: The stone needed not to be
removed; the women’s question is not about something that still had to be done;
it had been done already, and the women in advance knew it well enough: Mary
told them.
In Mark, the women “arrive, over the grave”. In Luke
also, the women “arrived, over the grave”, indicating they all, “arrived”
with the same route, and they every time, arrived with the same route; not ‘from different directions’, and so they
couldn’t all have arrived at the same time.
In Mark, the women “arrive, over the grave”, the
Present. Also in Luke, the women “arrived, over the grave”, but ‘Past
Tense’. But in Mark, after they had
arrived – not before they had arrived – “the women talked among themselves /
said to themselves”, and asked their question, ‘thinking’ – most probably
not uttering a word – about the humanly speaking impossible task they were
standing there, looking at.
The women were all sharing the same ‘question’ in their
minds. Had their question been audibly expressed, there should have been another
party to whom they could put their ‘question’ But “They asked themselves”.
If the Future Tense must be taken strictly literal, the
question would be silly; the women could clearly see that the stone had been
removed already. They had arrived; then ‘asked’. They did not ask on their way,
as E.G. White alleges. The women’s
‘question’ must therefore be rhetorical, suggestive, subjunctive, inquisitive, in
fact : EMPHATIC (See article, ‘Subjunctive’) because they saw the reality of a
fact they were acquainted with already
in any case. They were looking at
it, “asking / thinking: It is so BIG!”
Their question is rhetorical, and therefore with past
connotation. It has NO future connotation.
Therefore: It was asked “ON THE SPOT” ‘epi to mnehma’. The
women’s ‘question’ or rather, ‘thought’, “They talked / wondered / asked
among themselves, Who would have removed the stone for us, because it is very
big!?” / “Who for the life of us would have moved the stone away, it is
so big!?”, PROVES, the women had been at this very spot, before. Luke gives the express definition of when
that visit before this one at this same spot had been. Mark gives the very literal definition of
when this second visit at the tomb, was.
Vainly have you attempted, SDA, D*, to put wrong thoughts
in our mind, to have supplied us with YOUR, FALSE, day and time as were they
the only, ‘possible’. YOU gave us YOUR, “Impossible!” answer to the ‘the question
they asked’,
your own answer, that these
same women had been to the tomb, I quote you, “This is
absolute proof that they had not been to an empty tomb THE DAY BEFORE. And it
also proves that Matthew's “dawn” refers to the dawning represented by the
sunrise and not sunset.” Let me make my standpoint clear: I do NOT say,
nor have I ever argued, EITHER, “these same
women”, OR, “the day before”, whether “the day
before the dawning represented by the sunrise”, or, “the day
before the dawning represented by the sunset”, this “day” supposed, the Sabbath. My
position – which I am firmly convinced is the position as found in all four
Gospels considered as one and in full agreement – has from the beginning until
this day been, that the women’s intentional undertaking “to go look at the
grave”, never realised, and they “On the Sabbath Day they set out to go
have a look at the grave” were providentially prevented to realise their
‘visit that never happened actually’, sir.
Sunday-resurrectionists protest, No, the Present means the
women while advancing towards the grave, raised their question about what they
had foreseen as something they would not be able to do themselves. Against this it must be said, Mary Magdalene
must have been among those women, and she indisputably already knew the stone
was removed. And she did not keep it her private secret, because it is written
she ran back after having observed the removed door-STONE (not, ‘stone-DOOR’),
and told the others, Jn20:2. Therefore – the Lukan visit of earlier or not –
everyone of these women had already known the grave had been opened.
With the visit recorded by Luke, the women – all together –
“found confirmed the stone rolled away” while they walked right past it. With the visit recorded by Mark they “studied
the stone by measuring it / looking it up”, reconfirming.
We are usually told Mary saw the stone was rolled away
before the other women as they were all of them on their way to the grave. But
John says “Mary comes .... Mary sees.”
Only, Mary Magdalene. Why would just Mary Magdalene turn around and run
back and not the others? If Mary were so far ahead of the others, she alone saw
but they could not, why when she came running back, must she have run past them
and tell them nothing? Ridiculous! Why
would Mary be so far in front? Because she was so anxious? But she didn’t run
to the sepulchre, but “comes”; then “runs back”? What about Luke who tells the women came all
together and together entered first of all; all together having seen the door
stone but not having paid particular attention to it? If it is only one visit
when Jesus rose, why did no one see the resurrection, or Jesus coming out of
the grave? And millions such stupid questions of and in unbelief, disbelief,
superstition? Away with it!
Against the Sundaydarians’ vice versa story, it may further
be mentioned, the women’s question cannot be interpreted Future at all because
it is stated in Mark as in Luke – the different Verb ‘tenses’ used in the Gospels
respectively, no matter – if the women were still on their way, it cannot be
said they “come (‘are’) / come (‘being’) upon / over / right at the grave”
(‘epi to mnehma’). If something like ‘erchontai
PROS to mnehma’ (emphasising motion), it would have been ‘they come to’ or ‘they coming
to’, or – the more literal the more laughable – ‘they shall come to the grave’ from whichever distance AWAY FROM the
grave.
But we are not in the Grammar class. Nevertheless, if any
see fit to criticise my under-graduate Greek, please go ahead.
The meaning is not literally ‘Future’, because the women did not have to wait for
someone to come open the grave for them.
Mary told the others after she had told John and Peter according to
Jn20:1. That tells, Mary’s observation was earlier than the Lukan visit at
right after midnight! In John it says “Mary Magdalene” – no one else besides.
Mary was on her own and she was the first when she discovered that the tomb HAD
been opened actually, “the door-STONE moved away from the sepulchre”.
(The focal point is the STONE; not the grave.) Here you have your pretence exposed,
Sunday-resurrectionists, “The question
they asked”, “Who would have rolled us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre?”, prove that at least one of the women “had been to the tomb the night before”, for certain; and that it had
been long before midnight “when still being early darkness / night’s evening”,
but not so long before midnight as — you wished it were “assume(d)” by “these people” —, “the
day before .... by .... sunset .... in the
twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown”.
The logic and sequence of events in “the question (the women) asked”, “Who
shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? .... correctly
assume(d)”,
imply that “Mary Magdalene” “visited the
tomb .... the night before”, “when being early darkness still” Jn20:11. The question cannot refer to Mt28:1-4 because
“Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”, “On the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon”,
INTENDING, “SET OUT TO, go have a look at the tomb”, but they in actual fact,
never came so far as to get to the tomb.
In John it is Present Indicative, Mary ‘actually’ “comes
and indeed sees”, ‘erchontai kai blepei’.
In Matthew it is ‘ineffectual’ – with a Future Past, virtual
Subjunctive, ‘Tense’ – “They went / set out to see / so that they may go see
the grave”. The clause serves as an
adverbial phrase of time rather than a statement of action.
So your remark or ostensible conclusion, dear D*, from “Mark's account of the visit to the sepulchre” and “the women’s question, “Who shall roll us away
the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””, that, “There is no
question about this being an early Sunday morning visit. It is at sunrise”, is superfluous and obviously
mere pretence.
“The question
they asked” –
the women’s rhetorical question – , “Who would have rolled us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre?”, therefore proves that at least one of
them “had been to the tomb the night
before”, for
certain! Mary did not ‘discover’ that
the body was no longer in the tomb; she only thought so. Actually she thought “they”
whoever ‘they’ were, must have “removed / moved” the body. Mary and
everybody else whom she would have told, still actually were of one mind the grave
inside, was intact otherwise they would not have “Went to the tomb carrying
their spices ready and prepared”, to anoint the body, of course without a
doubt which they thought was still in the tomb!
Mary and the other women already informed about the opened
grave, “found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre” just as Mary had
told them; so they paid no further attention to it. But Mark tells, the women took a closer look
at the stone, which shows they must have returned to the grave later on to do just
that.
Now with that being the case, what is impossible after
their visit (in Luke) that they may later return to the grave to make sure
about – among other things – regarding the removed door-stone? Especially since the angels of the after
midnight-visit – Luke – told the women to go think about what Jesus in
“Who for the life of us would have moved the stone away,
it is so big!?” This was no small
riddle to the women and it is no mere question. Their ‘question’ is an exclamation of women
wondering in awe at something they had seen before but at first did not pay
much attention to. The Lk24:1 visit
makes that clear. In Luke’s story the women did not at first ‘take notice’ really;
their first desire then was to anoint the body.
It was just after midnight, “deepest darkness”, when
they first came to the tomb. The women at first must have thought the body was
still there, because “they came carrying their spices ready and prepared”
for the task. They were so pre-occupied with their spices and ointments, they couldn’t
care less about the stone; its size or its position or the direction it was
moved didn’t interest them then. They couldn’t have seen properly in any case
that time of night; not even their small lamps (perhaps) would have helped
outside in the great distance between the sepulchre and the flung away door
stone .... in any case, Mary had told them already ....
But “at sunrise” (Mark), the women could see better,
and having be able to give it some thought after the angels’ advice, by now were
able to “have a closer look / looking up observing / calculating”
‘anablepsasai theohrousin’: “The stone was hurled upwards despite it was
very big” ‘anakekulistai ho lithos ehn gar megas sfordra’. Mk16:4.
The women of these two visits were clearly the same group
that had been informed by Mary Magdalene about the fact the stone was moved
away from the sepulchre. So Luke gives obviously first impressions, and Mark obviously
much later affirmations of those first impressions.
In the earlier anecdote, Luke’s, the women walked back and
told everyone what the angels had told them Lk24:6, “Remember what He told
you!”
In the story of the later visit – Mark’s – it is “the
sun’s rising” now and the women now can see and understand things better. What
they expected from the beginning seemed much more real than they at first had
thought. They “found (things they
with their first visit had seen and afterwards have contemplated and “remembered”),
“confirmed”; or “re-affirmed”, ‘anablepsasai’; ‘ana’ meaning not
only ‘up’, but ‘again / anew’. The women saw things in a new, nightmarish,
light. Now only – in better light – could they see the stone’s – and their
problems’ – true size! Things simply got
too much for the women. Mark’s story
ends with the women terrified, fleeing from the tomb. “They told nobody
anything”, so afraid and “intrigued / surprised / ‘affrighted’ /
‘amazed’” (5c,8b) were they.
John is taking over the story from here. (John is a much
later document than Mark!) John fills in
some ‘missing detail’ in Mark: “But (while the others fled), Mary had
had stood after outside the tomb, weeping ....” 20:11. And as we have seen,
John’s story plays out sunrise to after sunrise, some while later than Mark’s
story which again, was several hours later than Luke’s story, which again, was several
hours later Mary’s sighting of the grave, Jn20:1-2.
There are many things about the story accounted in Mark
that distinguish it from the other Gospel stories of visits at the tomb. All things mentioned in Mark’s story or visit
fits in between the stories of Luke before it and John’s after it.
My conclusion therefore is, “the
question they asked” in Mark’s story of the visit at the tomb, “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door
of the sepulchre?”,
and several other intriguing implications and inferences prove the ‘possible’ rather than the “impossible” – the probable rather than the
improbable; the inevitable rather than the avoidable –, that ‘these same women’ indeed had to have been at the
tomb BEFORE, and that “very night” indeed ACCORDING TO LUKE 24:1, “just
after midnight / deep darkness”. In
Mark, the women “before sunrise” are “AT the grave”, are “come
upon the grave”. They simply HAD to go there AGAIN to make sure. That is
why “They went out quickly and fled from the grave” at the realisation
their worst fears were “found confirmed”. But Mary Magdalene, when the other had left, “had
had stood after outside next to the opening of the grave, weeping” (Jn20:11)
and Jesus soon after “appeared to (her) first” (Mk16:9).
D*:
“The very
same women If they had been there Saturday just before sundown and found the
tomb empty, they would have known that the stone was already rolled away from
the door. This is absolute proof that they had not been to an empty tomb the
day before. And it also proves that Matthew's “dawn” refers to the dawning
represented by the sunrise and not sunset.”
GE:
You find it “Impossible” to conclude “these same women had been to the tomb the night
before”. First, I am not supposing “these same women” YOU presume – the three women
named in Mk16:1 and Mt27:56, and whom YOU pretend were “these same women” who “had been to the tomb the night before” – according to Mk16:2 --- 16
verse TWO. Or No; you actually referred
to Mt27:56, 51 hours before at the cross in the end of Crucifixion-day BEFORE “the
evening had come” right after in verse 57!
Next, I do not speculate the length of the interval which
YOU speculate between “the first
day of the week "dawn(ing)” at sundown Saturday night as the Sabbath ends”, when “the women discovered the empty tomb in the
twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown” and “.... backwards exactly seventy-two hours .... at
Wednesday evening just before sundown for the crucifixion.”
That is YOU who surmise; not I; and not ‘these
people’ who
accept the Scriptures, and a ‘Saturday-Resurrection’ “according to the
Scriptures”.
Third, not I but YOU, try to ‘prove’ “that
Matthew's “dawn” refers to the dawning represented by the sunrise and not
sunset.”
This is what you said, for the record,
Quote:
“Those who
believe that Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on Saturday base much of their
evidence on Matthew 28:1
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of
the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
Figuring
that the first day of the week "dawns” at sundown Saturday night as the
Sabbath ends, these people assume that the women discovered the empty tomb in
the twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown.
But
notice Mark's account of the visit to the sepulchre: "And when the sabbath
was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought
sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the
morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising
of the sun. And they said among themselves. Who shall roll us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre?” Mark 16:1-3.
There is no question about this being an early Sunday morning
visit. It is at sunrise. The very same women are named as in Matthew's account.
Can we correctly assume that these same women had been to the tomb the night
before and found Jesus risen? Impossible. Why?....”
You say: “Those who
believe that Jesus .... rose on Saturday base much of their evidence on Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the
sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."”
I answer: So do I.
You say: “Figuring
that the first day of the week "dawns” at sundown Saturday night as the
Sabbath ends,....”
I answer, No; we people believe what is written in
Mt28:1-4,5-8, where NONE of this: “.... that
the women discovered the empty tomb in the twilight moments of the Sabbath,
just before sundown”, can be read or deduced. Where
also none, of this, “Matthew's “dawn”
refers to the dawning represented by the sunrise and not sunset”, can be read.
First, “on Matthew 28:1” in context, Mt28:1-8, It
nowhere says “the women DISCOVERED
the tomb”; it
nowhere says “the women discovered
the EMPTY tomb””. It says: “Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary set out to go look at the tomb.” In
the end they did not, because Mt28:2
says, “Then there suddenly was a great earthquake.” It literally says: “LOOK
OUT THERE HAPPENS GREAT EARTHQUAKE!”
That was what the Marys ‘LOOKED’ at instead of the grave, that moment that
ended all their futile intentions “to go have a look at the tomb”.
Mt28:1-8 nowhere and no how says “the women discovered the empty tomb in the twilight moments of the Sabbath,
just before sundown”. It says: “In the
fullness of the Sabbath Day being in the mid-afternoon tending towards the
First Day of the week / Late in the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the
First Day of the week.”
Thus had this text translated virtually literally in
English been accepted and believed for four, five, six centuries by Protestants
and Catholics alike .... because this is what the Vulgate says, see? Until the Sunday-resurrectionists noticed its
implications for their fallacies. The
differences like between your version of Mt28:1 and its true version are
obvious; they need no explanation; not for an honest person. They betray – they highlight –, the corruption
of “Matthew
28:1” making
it appear, it’s “Mark's account”!
“Matthew 28:1” nowhere and no how “account(s) the dawning represented by the
sunrise and not sunset”;
“Matthew 28:1” nowhere “refers to when the sabbath was past”;
“Matthew 28:1” nowhere says “it being early Sunday morning .... at sunrise”
So now, “Mark's account”, a la SDA, D*:
“But notice Mark's
account of the VISIT to the
sepulchre: "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices,” .... I never knew ....! “Mark's account of the VISIT to the sepulchre:” which SDA, D*, has just now alleged is supposed in “Matthew 28:1”.
“But notice Mark's
account of the VISIT to the
sepulchre:”. “An early Sunday morning visit .... at sunrise” nowhere is to be ‘noticed’. “An early
Sunday morning visit .... in the twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before
sundown”, is
nowhere to be ‘noticed’. So, who is it who assumes that the women discovered the empty tomb
in the twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown? No
one but SDA, D*! Therefore all SDA, D*’s reasoning, is based
on false presuppositions, proven now at the hand of two of his key-texts, Mark 16:1-3 and Matthew 28:1.
“.... that they
might come and anoint him ....” It is in Mk16:1.
It is not in Mk16:2; it is not in Mt28:1; it is not in
Jn24:1; it is not in Mk16:9; it’s nowhere in Luke 24. But it is “Mark's account of the VISIT to the sepulchre” in “Mark 16:1-3”, maintains SDA, D*.
“.... very early
in the morning the first day of the week ....”
It is in Mk16:2; it is not in Mk16:2; it is not in Mt28:1;
it is not in Jn24:1; it is not in Mk16:9; it’s nowhere in Luke 24. But it is “Mark’s account of the visit to the SEPULCHRE: And when the sabbath was
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought
sweet spices.””
“Mark’s
account” should
be “Mark’s accountS” in “Mark
16:1-3”,
because “Mark’s
account of the VISIT to the
sepulchre” is
nowhere in “Mark 16:1”, and “Mark’s
account of the visit to the sepulchre” is not contained in “Mark
16:1-3”; it is contained in Mark 16 from verse 2, up to verse 8.
Mark’s actual “account” in verse 1 of the women’s purchase,
separates verse 1 from verse 2 and further; the content weighs far heavier than
chapter and verse divisions. Content and circumstantial context and evidence
determine sequence and chronology; not textual position. Consequently the three
women mentioned in verse 1, are not to be read into “Mark’s account of the VISIT to the sepulchre” from 16:2 to 8 where Mark only uses the Plural forms of
words, “they” and “them”, and no names of individuals. This fact as such, shows the independence of the contents of the first
and following passages. Mark is not
for no reason specific in verse 1 about who the women were, and unspecific in
verses 2-8 about who “they” – ‘the women’ – were.
The immediate sequence of the ‘visit-story’ after the
‘purchase-story’ in the text, does not make them back to back in time-sequence;
Mark does not for nothing also give each event its individual time-allocation;
Mark also must have had good reason to have commenced with his account that the three women
had bought spices with the time-specification, “after the Sabbath”. He
as well as Luke or Matthew or John, surely had known that after Joseph had had
buried Jesus, the Sabbath had passed before any women or man would have ‘moved
from his place’. And meanwhile, that the Father, with the Son, “until
now” has “WORKED, to us-ward who believe, when He raised Christ from the
dead”, specifically because it was the last and “Seventh Day God thus
concerning did speak: And God the Seventh Day from all his WORKS, RESTED!”
And Christ said, on the Sabbath Day speaking, “the third day I finish”; and
the Father, with the Son, “until now / hereto for, WORKED”. That is why every Gospel finds the tomb
EMPTY, by the First Day of the week.
“But notice
Mark's account of the visit to the sepulchre: ".... when the sabbath was
past .... very early in the morning the first day of the week”, it is a fact SDA, D*, with
brutish force has wrung from ‘Mark's
account’. .... “There is no question about this being an early
Sunday morning visit. It is at sunrise.”
Whether it was “The very
same women named as in Matthew's account”, no longer matters, SDA, D* has removed all doubt, and
therefore, “we can
correctly assume that these same women had been to the tomb the night before
and found Jesus risen.” .... Huh? O my, I
forgot, says SDA, D*. O my, Impossible, says SDA, D*. Why? O my,
now I am in a fix .... “Why? Because
of the question they asked as they approached the garden on Sunday morning,
"Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””
The women “set out to go see; but then there suddenly
was a Great earthquake!” So yes, “Impossible”; but never “because of the question they asked as they
approached the garden on Sunday morning, "Who shall roll us away the stone
from the door of the sepulchre?””! That was far too
late— 15 hours, too late!
The women’s ‘question’ here, is irrelevant: The women never ‘saw’ because they never
‘arrived’ but only, “set out TO ....”.
That which happened though “On the Sabbath Day IN FULLNESS” IN
FACT occurred “when suddenly THERE WAS”, that unforgettable “great
earthquake”, namely, at the RESURRECTION of “Our Saviour Jesus Christ who
hath abolished death .... and now is made manifest by his appearing .... and
hath brought life and immortality to light (the unapproachable light of the
Presence of God) through the Good News”. Precisely like “The angel explained and
told the women ....”. Like when God
spoke and He made the worlds. “WHEN”
“God rested” “in the Son” “on the Seventh Day”, “WHEN
He raised Him from the dead”.
The women never saw, or they never would not have believed;
they never saw, because they would not have lived to see. For “Until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who .... only hath immortality, dwelling in
THE LIGHT WHICH NO MAN CAN approach unto; whom NO MAN HATH seen (“being
made manifest by his appearing”), nor can see: to whom be honour and
power everlasting” .... “For He That Is Entered Into His Own Rest As God
Rested from His Own Works.” Hb4:10.
No human beheld Jesus rise from the dead; no women were
there when his grave opened and He Exited Egypt the heart of the earth. So they
at no stage knew until “He The Risen”, “FIRST of any, appeared to
Mary Magdalene” , while she “had had stood after without at the
sepulchre weeping .... and saw Jesus .... supposing Him to be the gardener ....
(and) Jesus saith to her, Women, why are you crying?” Not until Mary had
seen Jesus herself and He Himself revealed Himself to her had fallen man seen
God; knew any among mortals He rose from the dead.
We “IN HIM”, “are co-raised TOGETHER WITH CHRIST from
the dead”. Christ in immortality and in unapproachable light, saw the FACE
OF GOD AND LIVED! In Christ Victor and
Lord “The Only Risen One” is, “GOD MANIFEST in the flesh”
1Tm3:16, ‘ MANIFEST’ from the dead. “Christ as a Lamb .... who was
fore-ordained before the foundation of the world .... was manifest in these
last times .... God raised Him up from the dead.” 1Pt1:19-21.
That, was not “the night” or “in
the twilight moments of the Sabbath, just before sundown”. NOR was that “as .... these same women .... approached the
garden on Sunday morning” or “had been to
the tomb .... very early in the morning the first day of the week”. That – Christ manifest having been raised by
God from the dead, was neither in the presence of “these
same women” or
any others. That, was not “on Sunday” or “very
early in the morning” of any day. Because that –the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead– was, “On the Sabbath mid-afternoon before the First Day of the
week in SABBATH’S FULLNESS.”
You mean, SDA, D*, the women asked themselves, “Who shall
/ would have rolled the stone away from the door for us?”, because they at
that stage – Mk16:3, Sunday morning – did
not yet know that the stone had been rolled away? And therefore could not
and indeed have not been at the tomb
on Saturday afternoon? Well, that, to
me, should mean that the grave actually was opened on Saturday afternoon
already .... unless my logic deceives me.
However, You mean, SDA, D*, the women asked themselves, “Who
shall / would have rolled the stone away from the door for us?”, because
they at that stage – Mk16:3, Sunday morning – did not know yet that the stone had been rolled away? (And
therefore could not have been at the tomb on Saturday afternoon?) Well, they very well already knew! They, Mary Magdalene included, now – in Mk16:3
– are only asking among themselves “WHO”, could have done it. They –
according to both Luke and Mark – at no point in time when they got to the tomb
were surprised by the obvious fact the stone lay cast away from the
door-opening of the tomb. Mary was the first one who summed up the situation at
the tomb, and related her first impression of it to Peter and John and gave her
own mistaken opinion. The women in
Mk16:3 were puzzled by HOW it was possible, and by WHOM such a feat could be
done. The emphasis is on the word, “Who” in Mk16:3.
You forget, SDA, D*, the women asked themselves, “Who shall
/ would have rolled the stone away from the door for us?”, AFTER, – as
written in Jn20:1-2 –, “Mary .... sees the stone: taken away from the
sepulchre, THEN SHE RUNS, AND COMES .... AND SHE TELLS ....”. You forget
D*, Mary TOLD everybody – not only Peter and John, Jn20:2a –, but everybody –
also the other women, because all the other women TURNED UP in the end when “they
carrying their spices prepared and ready came to the tomb” Lk24:1. (Which ALSO shows Mary when she first saw the
stone removed from the grave, did not enter into it; it proves she did not know
that Jesus resurrected and did not tell she knew, that the body was gone. She
only thought, “They removed the Lord.”)
So all the women who came to the tomb on Sunday after
midnight already knew the grave had been opened; but they still believed the
body was in it. Which also explains why
they paid the stone no attention in Luke’s story. First thing in their mind was
to use “their prepared and ready spices and ointments”.
Also of course the time of night the women first came to
the tomb, “in deep darkness”, explains why they did not then, think
about the stone or anything about it, unlike with their following-up visit (in
Mark) when “day was breaking” and they had better light to properly look
at the stone and reach on the spot conclusions on clearly much thought about questions.
Haven’t the angels at their first visit told them to “remember” what
Jesus had told them? They had about
four, five hours perhaps to reminisce .... So back “They went to the tomb”,
to check up!
Therefore what is your point, D*, that “If they had been there Saturday .... and .... the
stone was already rolled away” that “This is
absolute proof that they had not been to an empty tomb the day before”? That the stone was not rolled away? Circular
arguing? If they had been
there Saturday just before sundown and found the
tomb empty”, is
this your “absolute proof” for whatever you might have in
mind? Your mere supposition?
“If they had been there Saturday just before
sundown and found the tomb empty”, then of course “they would have known that the stone was already
rolled away from the door”!
But that simply was not the case.
Why would they have come to the tomb again while THEY KNEW that
it was empty and that the body was gone? Because that was the reality!
They came –in Luke’s story–
because they have not before been at the tomb or have
entered into it or
knew that the body was gone. Or they would not have “carried
their spices with, prepared and ready”.
They came again –in Mark’s story–
because THEY NOW, KNEW, the body was gone,
and because THEY NOW, KNEW, the tomb was empty, they
attended to the stone, first ....
because the reality was, they were not sure about things
yet.
And .... –in Matthew’s story– it is not even told they came
once more, but only that
“The angel explained to the women:
Fear ye not!
For I know that ye seek Jesus
Which was crucified ....
Now the next morning,
Their preparations despite,
The Pharisees came together unto Pilate ....”.
Therefore, in Matthew’s story it is not told that
yet again they came,
but, in Matthew’s story it is
“Explained to the women,
The angel telling them ....
There was a great earthquake
When Mary Magdalene and (you),
The other Mary,
Went to see the tomb
In the Sabbath Day’s fullness
(as you know).
But behold!
After when Jesus had died
And cried out with a loud voice,
He yielded up the spirit .... then
Lo! The veil of the temple was rent
In twain from the top to the bottom;
(No one saw, they all were at the Crucifixion of the Christ
....)
Behold, I am telling you! ....
The graves rent open! And
Many bodies of the saints which slept,
Then arose, and
(on the Sabbath)
AFTER HIS RESURRECTION
Came out of the graves and
Went into the city and
Appeared unto many.
Now ....
(“explained the angel to the women”):
When the centurion
And they that were there
WATCHING JESUS –
Many women too were there
Beholding afar off,
Among which women was Mary Magdalene
And Mary the mother of James and Joses,
And the mother of Zebedee’s children
Which followed Jesus from
Ministering unto Him –
SAW THE EARTHQUAKE
And those things that were done
(when they crucified Him)
Fearing greatly, shouted,
Truly, this was, the Son of God!
Now ....
(“explained the angel to the women” ....
how would they know if he did not?):
When even was come,
There came a rich man of Ari-matheea,
Named Joseph,
Who indeed was Jesus’ disciple:
He therefore went to Pilate, and
Begged the body of Jesus.
Then Pilate commanded
The body be delivered!
And when Joseph had taken the body, he
Wrapped it
In a clean linen cloth.
And ....
(“explained on the angel to the women”
for how knew they if he did not? ....)
He laid it in his own new tomb
Which he had hewn out in the rock.
And he rolled a great stone to the door
And, departed.
And there (“That Day”) was:
Mary Magdalene, and (you!)
The other Mary
Sitting,
Over against the sepulchre!
Now ....
(“explained on the angel to the women”
BECAUSE HOW, DID THEY, KNOW? ....)
The next morning,
That followed That Day of The Preparation,
The next morning,
(“On the day after that day sabbath” Lv23:11,15)
The chief priests and Pharisees
Came together with Pilate
With excuse,
Sir,
We remember that deceiver
While he was yet alive, said,
“After three days I will rise again!”
Command therefore, sir,
That the sepulchre be made sure –
Unto the third day
(“For hereunto I and my Father work”
Said He, sir ....)
LEST HIS DISCIPLES COME
BY NIGHT and
(after “the third day”)
Steal him away,
And say to the people,
He is risen from the dead, so
The last error be worse than the first?
Pilate answered them:
You have your guard!
You have your way!
You make sure as you see fit!
So they came and made sure
The sepulchre
Sealing the stone, and
Setting a watch.
(“FEAR NOT YE! I
KNOW YE SEEK JESUS ....”)
DESPITE, IN THE END OF THE SABBATH
(“explained the angel to the women”
so that they may know ....)
AS IT BEGAN MID-AFTERNOON TO DAWN
Towards the First Day of the week —
Came Mary Magdalene
And (you) the other Mary —
TO SEE the sepulchre ....
SUDDENLY THERE WAS
GREAT EARTHQUAKE ....
For the angel of the Lord
Descended from heaven and
Coming, rolled away the stone
Back from the door;
And sat down on it. His
Countenance was like
Lightning, his
Raiment white as snow: for
Fear of him the
Keepers did shake and like
Dead became.
THE ANGEL TO THE WOMEN
EXPLAINED .... and
Reassured them:
Fear ye not!
For I know that
Ye seek Jesus which was crucified ....
If the women had not
been there Saturday just before sundown and did not find the tomb empty, how would that, “prove that
Matthew's “dawn” refers to the dawning represented by the sunrise and not
sunset”?
If
they had been
there Saturday just before sundown and did
find the tomb empty, how would that, “prove that Matthew's “dawn” refers to the
dawning represented by the sunrise and not sunset”?
The Gospels themselves are – through the facts they give – implying
several visits at the tomb during the ‘Saturday night’ after the day of the
Burial, that began as implied in Lk23:56b, in Mk16:1, AND, in Jn24:1. In that
order, for logical, practical, and chronological reasons.
Matthew is the only Gospel that skips this ‘Saturday night
fever’ of visits at the tomb – in 28 between verses 15 and 16. Matthew in fact
skips an unknown number of complete days. He does not mention even, the
incidence of the First Day of the week. For Matthew, what was of ultimate
importance, happened and was accomplished “On the Sabbath Day”, that Christ
resurrected from the dead “Sabbath’s-time”, “IN” it, in its “Fullness”
and “having been in the very light” of its day, “Sabbath’s”.
Therefore Matthew refers to the two most important aspects:
One,
The encouraging assurance for the future of the Gospel, all
the attempts, both before and after the resurrection, of the world to blackmail
and thwart the Message of Christ’s Triumph were vanquished and its enemies
without distinction, defied, defeated, shamed and hushed for ever — 27:62-66
and 28:11-15 (Col2:12-15, 16-19).
and,
Two,
That the Witness of his Resurrection had been given to all
the world through God’s chosen for the task of its first proclamation, “to the
women” without names: 28:5a and verses 1 to 10;
Each of Luke, Mark and John has his / its own, and
identifiable, individual, factually absolutely true story of “the First day
of the week’s”, “night”, and, “First day of the week’s”, “morning”,
while in Matthew’s story “the First day of the week’s” “night” and “morning”,
are only logically and chronologically but undoubtedly implied.
Now through this unitary approach to and concluded
impression from the complete context of this, specific, one, Resurrection- and
these specific, two, Appearances-Scriptures and these just as specific,
several, ‘visits-stories’, one historical fact for the believer in the Word of
God “according to the Scriptures” is solidly confirmed: That the
Resurrection was “.... BEFORE the First Day of the week”; and for this
conversation, was “On the Sabbath ....” PRECISELY
NINE TO TEN HOURS BEFORE THE FIRST REALISED VISIT TO THE TOMB according to
Lk24:1, and therefore, needless to say, before the first appearance “to Mary
early on the First Day of the week”.
So everybody living or conscious in those days and hours of
the Crucifixion and Death and Preparation and Burial and day and ‘moment’ of the Resurrection of Christ, knew nothing of the
Resurrection, except He, Who Was The Resurrected, HE, their Substitute, IN
WHOM, the redeemed elect of all time were conscious and knew and believed. Just as Christ was their Substitute in “giving
Himself a sacrifice for sins”, just so Christ was their Substitute on the
first Sabbath of God’s creation.
‘How the Sabbath was made’: Gn3:8-24/Mt28:1-4/Mk2:27.
UNLESS .... the Scriptures could be corrupted like it seems
they can: from “On the Sabbath before the First Day” into “After the Sabbath on the First Day”,
etc. etc.
Just as Christ now takes the sinner’s place – Adam’s place
– on the SIXTH Day: “In THAT DAY THAT thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
DIE.” Thou shalt surely die DEATH. And God’s Word was made true THAT DAY already
“in Christ”. “Of how much
soarer punishment suppose you, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden
underfoot: the Son of God! .... and has counted the blood of the
(Everlasting) Covenant (of Grace) wherewith HE (Christ) was
sanctified (predestined, seperated for the forgiveness of sins), an
Unholy Thing, (that) hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? .... It is a fearful thing to fall into the
hands of the Living God! But call to remembrance
the former days .... (HE, The Beginning of the creation of God, was) made
a gazingstock both by REPROACHES AND AFFLICTIONS. .... For You (o Father),
had compassion of ME (your Son) IN MY BONDS AND TOOK JOYFULLY THE
SPOILING OF YOUR GOODS, knowing in Yourself that You have in heaven (for
Me) a better and enduring SUBSTANCE.” Hb10. “These things said
Isaias, when he saw HIS GLORY and
spake OF HIM” .... in chapter 53!
Yes; this must be painful in your ears as it must be in
mine. “For thus it behoved the Christ.” “Beware therefore, ye
despisers, and wonder (and gaze at HIM) and perish: for I work a work in
your days, a work ye shall in no wise believe, though A Man (the Man of
Nazareth, “a Man of sorrows”) declare it (the WORK OF GOD) unto
you.” Acts 13:40-41. IT WAS THE DAY
OF ATONEMENT when Paul spoke these words! ‘That Day’ that came into fulfilment
the prophecy of the prophet Daniel, of seventy times seven sabbaths “determined
upon your People”, “when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue” –
out of the Congregation; out of the Unity, out of “The Substance the Body
that is Christ’s Own”. (Col2:17) “Lo,
we turn to the Gentiles!” 46c.
It was not the
Seventh Day Sabbath! It was ‘that day sabbath great day’ of the FEAST, the tenth
day of the Seventh Month; and ‘That in the bone of the day Day’, “was”,
The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath, the Sixth Day of the week. “The next day, Sabbath, when came almost
the whole city together to hear the Word of God”, 13:44, was the Seventh
Day Sabbath. (See my original
explanation of Acts 13 (book 3/2), and compare it with my study of about four
decades after, ‘Begin en Einde van Laaste Lyding’.)
Therefore, yes, you are almost right, D*, “If the women had been there”, WHICH THEY HAD BEEN – several
times – but only after Mary had seen “that
the stone was already rolled away from the door” Jn24:1-10 and had told the
others about it! “If they had
been there”,
WHICH THEY HAD BEEN – but AFTER “sundown” and “AFTER MIDNIGHT”
(Lk24:1), they each time naturally would have “found
the tomb empty”.
Because He rose “On the Sabbath before the First Day of the week”.
This is another fact, facet and factor about the “three
days and three nights”-“three days” eschatological necessity and
imperative of the God-given wholeness of the “three days and three nights”-“three
days”-“according to the Scriptures” sign and type of the Passover
and of the prophet Jonah of the Christ, which neither the devil nor his hoards
could, or can, undo or deny, but which apostate Christianity has been busy at
highly successfully for nearly 2000 years now.
Therefore “they would
have known that the stone was already rolled away from the door” .... of course! Every time,
they found the tomb: empty! (Except for the angels or angel that each time were at or
in the tomb to witness to the women that Jesus was risen.) “They had
been there” in
fact; and more; they had been INSIDE the tomb “already”, “before” by the time they “at sun’s
rising” according to Mark “found (it) confirmed” or re-affirmed, “that the stone was already rolled away from the
door” – long “before”, in fact.
Luke:
“As soon as possible the First Day of the week
immediately after midnight they (‘the three women’ says a manuscript
variant) .... and certain others with them (with no spices and
unprepared) .... came unto the sepulchre, carrying their spices prepared and
ready. And they found / noticed (as Mary had told them) the stone was
rolled away from the sepulchre.
Straightway entering they discovered / found not the body.”
It was gone! Mary’s worst fear had come true: “They have
taken Him away!”: HERE, is the ‘discovery’ of ‘the EMPTY tomb’; this was
neither the discovery of the OPENED tomb, nor, of the Resurrection!
Nevertheless, HERE, THIS, is what just about the whole of Christianity
insists was both the opening of the grave AND, the resurrection of Christ from
the dead. The vicious,
brain-washing!
Why don’t the women stop at the stone first? They already knew the stone no longer closed
the grave. Their greater concern was what
was inside the tomb or not inside the tomb: “Coming, they went straight in and learned:
the body was not there!”
They women came to anoint the body but found it GONE – at
which discovery they “were perplexed”. “With heads bowed down”,
they came out of the tomb. As they came out, “two angels” as it were
above and over them, outside in front of the entrance of the tomb confronted
them.
Mark:
The mystery deepens:
“Then very early they come (again) upon / above
the tomb sun’s rising. And they reasoned among themselves: Who for us on
earth / for the life of us would roll / shall have rolled the STONE from the
door of the sepulchre? And when they looked / looked up / looked closer /
looked properly / aimed / measured / they saw / noticed that the stone was
rolled / hurled / cast back / cast up and away because / despite it was very
large / heavy.”
The women start their investigation outside the tomb, with
the stone. Why don’t they enter the tomb
straight away? Their greater concern no longer was what was inside the tomb
or not inside the tomb. It was because the women ALREADY KNEW there was nothing
inside the sepulchre that they in Mark’s anecdote don’t at first enter the
grave, but begin to investigate with the stone before, they entered again. In
Luke the women simply passed the stone as they approached the grave and had
seen that what Mary (must have had) told them, was so.
In Mark the women at closer look at the stone wondered how
a mortal or even a few mortals, could move such a big and heavy object away, “Who
would have moved for the life of us the stone it is so big!?”
“As they entered the tomb, they saw / encountered a
young man ....” not like in Luke the angels them! The women don’t, again, first of all notice
that the body was not there as they did with their first visit recorded in Luke
when the angels were not inside the tomb at that moment. In Mark it’s the stone that interests the
women first and which they among other things CAME TO MAKE SURE about. The
women still believed not that Jesus was risen.
They didn’t think about the possibility or impossibility of it
even. “So, as they entered”, they
must have “remembered his words” and what the angels the first time (in
Luke) had told them they must “remember”. (Not like at their first visit
according to Luke, entering in straight.)
Now, in Mark, it is one ‘angel’, as the women entered the
tomb, sitting, inside, “at the right hand side” of an already familiar
interior.
In Luke the women “were much perplexed”, and “took
a fright” because “they found not the body”; In Mark, the women already
knew the body was taken away, but they still believed not that Jesus was risen.
“They were affrighted” at finding “a young man” inside, “sitting
on the right hand”— of course where before when they first came to the
grave there was nothing.
Luke tells nothing about Peter; in Mark the angel says,
Jesus is risen. The women do not believe the angel. Jesus, they believed, were
sure, was dead – like everybody dead, for ever dead. But the angel tells them
Jesus would meet Peter in
Matthew
“In the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon towards the First Day of
the week” ‘already, the
stone was rolled away from the door’. The women then, did not know; they have just “set out
to go have a look at the grave, WHEN SUDDENLY THERE WAS A GREAT EARTHQUAKE ....”
and their intention was obliterated from their minds as from reality. That was
what “on the Sabbath” had happened, “explained the angel to the women”
Mt28:1-5a.
“In the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon towards the First Day of
the week, explained the angel to the women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
(pointing at Mary the mother of James and Joses), set out to go have a look
at the grave; but then suddenly there was a great earthquake!”
It must have been most startling for the women to have
heard the angel tell about Mary Magdalene and the other Mary’s goings about on
and intentions of the past “Sabbath’s afternoon”! How could he know? How did he know!? They
should believe this messenger – he undeniably is speaking the truth! “I have told you! And they departed quickly from the sepulchre
with great and fearful joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.” 7-8.
That is from the standpoint (literally) of the women: it
looks like outside the grave. They have not even entered; the angel spoke to
them outside; and they by now seemed to have become quite familiar with him. Why
should we bother to again check up if what he says is true? We now know!
As for from the standpoint of the author of Matthew:
Mt28:5 re verses 1 to 4, “the angel” introducing
rhetorically, literally, his witness “Of the Sabbath’s mid-afternoon towards
the First Day of the week’s” events — and the whole story of the whole “Sabbath’s”,
events, 27:62 right through to 28:4,
from the Sabbath’s evening-beginning implied in “the next morning” in
27:62, until its “mid-day climactic ending” in 28:1-4. “The Sabbath’s MID-DAY CLIMACTIC ENDING
towards the First Day of the week”, Christ rose from the dead, ‘Lord’, of “The
Lord’s Day” “the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God”.
“The angel explained to the women .... In the Sabbath’s
mid-afternoon towards the First Day of the week”. Write it in capital letters: “IN THE
SABBATH’S MID-AFTERNOON TOWARDS THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK” MT28:1!
‘Because that
is what the Bible says’ and because that is what the Bible from Genesis has been
saying! And because that was what “The
angel explained to the women, telling them” – every word of his – obviously
the truth!
I left John out in my summary because his anecdote in
20:11-17 concerns the first Appearance when the other women were not involved.
D*:
“..... The
SDA church is keeping the correct day. Ellen White is in agreement with the
Bible about the Sabbath. Plain and simple.
D*”
GE:
Yes, “The SDA
church is keeping the correct day”; so do the Jews. And so does Christianity recognise and
admit and allow the Seventh-day Adventists.
But not Christianity – nor the
Seventh-day Adventists themselves –
will allow them the truth of “agreement
with the Bible about the Sabbath” with regard to the fact of the Sabbath’s-Resurrection
from the dead of Jesus Christ, most unfortunately. That is your dilemma, SDA, D*, exposed
today. Would that we hear from one
another soon; God bless you all. GE.
23 October 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157