Three days and three nights Gary DeMar

Three Days and ThreeNights

By Gary DeMar

(Gerhard Ebersöhn will answer afterwards.)

There has been considerable debate over the best way to interpret the three-days and three-night language of Matthew 12:40, either as three 24-hour days of exactly 72 hours or parts of three days and three nights. Because you can’t get three full days if the count begins on Friday, some interpreters have argued for a two-Sabbath approach and a crucifixion on Wednesday and a resurrection on Saturday. What does the Bible say?

The New Testament states repeatedly that Jesus will be raised on “the third day” or “in three days” (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:40; 27:64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 9:22;

13:32; 18:33; 24:7; 24:21; 24:46; John 2:19, 20; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4).

Only once do we find the following: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). By letting the Bible speak for itself, that is, by letting the Bible interpret itself using the text of Scripture, we

can dismiss the claim that there are contradictions or insolvable ambiguities.

In Luke 18:31–33 we see an all-inclusive statement about events leading up to the resurrection: “And [Jesus] took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all

things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day

He will rise again.’”

First, notice that the geographical setting is Jerusalem. This will become important in determining the starting point of the three-day and three-night language of Matthew 12:40. Second, Jesus is to be “delivered to the Gentiles.” This begins when He is arrested by the “Roman cohort” and “officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:3, 12). This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42).

It’s at this point that some claim that there was a special Sabbath distinct from the seventh-day Sabbath.

Before we get into the details of unraveling the evidence, notice that Matthew 12:40 does not say that Jesus would be buried in a tomb for three days and three nights. In fact, there is no mention of a crucifixion or a resurrection. It seems that His disciples did not understand “heart of the earth” to be a burial. When Jesus does mention that He will be killed and raised up, Peter says, “God forbid it Lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:21). Why didn’t Peter say something similar when Jesus used the “three days and three nights” language earlier?

In Joe Kovaks’ Shocked By the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told,1 there is a discussion of when Jesus was crucified to fit with a 72-hour burial—three full days and three full

nights. Kovaks takes the position that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and raised from the dead on Saturday.

Traditionally, Jesus is said to have been crucified on Friday and raised early Sunday morning, the first day of the new week. But this wrecks havoc with a 72-hour, literal three-day burial. “Three nights” is used elsewhere in Scripture: in the case of Jonah (Jonah 1:17), which Jesus quotes in Matthew 12:40, the Egyptian who is found in the field and is brought to David “for he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” (1 Sam. 30:12), and in Esther 4:16.2 Notice the use of “three days, night or day” in Esther 4:16: Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in

Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish (Esther 4:16).

In Esther 5:1, we read: Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the

entrance to the palace.

Three days and three nights are mentioned, but the requisite period of time is satisfied when Esther broke the fast “on the third day.” It’s most likely that the fast was broken on the evening of the third day.

“If Esther intended the three days and three nights to be taken literally as a 72-hour period of fasting, then she should have presented herself before the King on the fourth day. However, we are told a few verses later that Esther went before the king ‘on the

third day’ (Esther 5:1). Examples such as these clearly show that the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is used in the Scriptures idiomatically to indicate not three complete 24-hour days, but three calendric days of which the first and the third

could have consisted of only a fraction of a day.”3

So then, the solution to the seeming time discrepancy can be solved by maintaining that a part of a day and part of a night can mean a full day and night. But Jesus spent only Friday and Saturday nights in the tomb. A full night is missing if He was crucified on Friday. And if He was raised from the dead on Saturday, as some argue, then another day is missing as well.

To get three full days and three full nights to bring it in harmony with Matthew 12:40 and three full 24- hour days, some have moved the crucifixion back to Wednesday, claiming that Thursday was a special Sabbath, a “Passover Sabbath” and not the usual

Friday-Saturday Sabbath. R. A. Torrey held this position, as does Joe Kovaks:

To sum it all up, Jesus died just about sunset on Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the

beginning of the first day of the week, Saturday at sunset, He arose again from the grave.4 This view necessitates a weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath. Jesus is crucified on the “day of preparation,” that is, the day before the weekly Sabbath.

There is no mid-week extra Sabbath (Luke 23:54–25:2).

RalphWoodrow writes: “Only one Sabbath is indicated:

the crucifixion was on the day before ‘the sabbath’; the women prepared their spices and rested on ‘the sabbath’; and on the first day of the week (which all agree was the day after ‘the sabbath’), they found the tomb empty. It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath.”5

What about John’s account that the Sabbath was a “high day”6 (John 19:31), supposedly making it a different Sabbath?

D. A. Carson comments:

If parasakeuÄ (‘Preparation’) here refers to the same day as does its use in [John 19:14] . . . then this sentence tells us that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before (i.e. the ‘Preparation’ of) the Sabbath. The next day, Sabbath (=Saturday), would by Jewish

reckoning begin at sundown Friday evening. It was a special Sabbath, not only because it fell during the Passover Feast, but because the second paschal day, in this case falling on the Sabbath, was devoted to the very important sheaf offering (Lv. 23:11; cf. SB 2. 582).7

One last point on the special Thursday Sabbath idea needs to be made. Why would the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb when they could have

gone on Friday? By the fifth day, a dead man’s body would have been in the process of significant decay. If Lazarus stunk in four days (John 11:39), what would a dead body smell like that had been entombed for five days?

To conclude, Jesus was crucified on the “preparation day” (Friday), that is, the day before the weekly Sabbath (Saturday).

Supposedly support for a Saturday resurrection is found in Matthew 28:1 where we read: “in the end of the Sabbath [‘after the Sabbath’ is most likely incorrect]8 as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.” Since the Friday- Saturday Sabbath ended at 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, the claim is made that Jesus rose from the dead “in the end of the Sabbath,” not on the first day of the week.

Part of the problem may reside with the way Matthew 27 and 28 are divided. Keep in mind that there were no chapter divisions, spaces between words, or punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts.

With these points in mind, let’s see how this would look in English using Matthew 27:66, the last verse of chapter 27, and 28:1, the first verse of chapter 28:

AndtheywentandmadethegravesecureandalongwiththeguardtheysetasealonthestoneintheendofthesabbathasitbegantodawntowardthefirstdayoftheweekMaryMagdaleneandtheotherMarycametolookathegrave

Now let’s add spaces between the words but no punctuation:

And they went and made the grave secure and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone in the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave

By adding a period at the end of “the Sabbath,” the meaning of the passage changes from the way the verses appear in all translations. This one bit of punctuation makes a big difference. Ralph Woodrow argues that the “end of the Sabbath” is a reference to when the guards sealed the tomb since there was fear

that Jesus’ disciples would steal the body (Matt. 27:64; 28:13). This might be the best solution.

Most commentators take a position similar to that of R. C. H. Lenski who argues that “It is unfortunate that the [Revised Version] has translated [the Greek as] ‘now late on the Sabbath day.’ This would say the women came to the tomb late on Saturday

instead of early on Sunday. This might be the sense of the Greek words used in the classics, but in the Koine [opse] is used as a preposition and means ‘after,’ . . .”9 Of course, this is exactly what the Wednesday-Saturday advocates assert. It’s difficult for Lenski to make his case stick since opse is only used four times in the New Testament and is translated as “evening” or “late,” depending on the translation (Matt. 28:1; Mark 11:11, 19; 13:35).

Translating opse as “after” reconciles Matthew 28:1 with Mark 16:1: “And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.” But the question remains: Can opse be translated as “after”? Woodrow’s explanation is attractive, but the use of the Greek word de might militate against it.

There are other factors to consider. The women would not have begun their journey to the tomb until after the official end of the Sabbath because they had “rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), that is, they kept the Sabbath provisions of their day. So there was time between the end of the

Sabbath and the beginning of the first day of the week (Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) to purchase spices (Mark 16:1) which would not have taken place on the Sabbath and to travel to the

tomb to anoint Jesus. It was during this time that Jesus rose from the dead.

Another problem with the Wednesday view is that the disciples who met and walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus did so on the day of His resurrection (Luke 24:13). The disciples tell this “stranger” (to them) of the crucifixion and death of Jesus (24:20) and say that “it is the third day since these things happened” (24:21). If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been the fifth day since these things happened. The

third day was Sunday, the first day of the week. A Thursday crucifixion would have made it the fourth day. So even if Jesus was crucified on Friday and raised on Saturday, we are still missing a third night (first night, Friday, second night, Saturday).

Attempts to resolve this apparent contradiction center on the

mistaken assumption that “heart of the earth” is a reference to the time Jesus spent in the grave. Notice that Matthew 12:40 says nothing about a crucifixion, burial, or a resurrection. Here are some points to consider:

1. There were times when Jesus spoke in parables so He would not be understood by everyone: “To you it has been granted to know

the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. . . . Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while

seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt. 13:11, 13; see 13:34–35). The Scribes and

Pharisees had come to Jesus asking for a sign. Similar language and context are used by Jesus in John 2:19: “The Jews therefore

answered and said to Him, ‘What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’”

2. Since Matthew 12:40 is the only place in Scripture where “three days and three nights” and “heart of the earth” are used, we can

assume that it is an idiomatic expression that takes some deciphering using other Scripture passages.

3. If Jesus was buried in the “heart of the earth,” and “heart” is a metaphor for “center” or “middle,” then Jesus was not buried in the literal heart (center) of the earth. From what we know of Jesus’ burial, He was buried above ground (Matt. 28:2) in a rock hewn grave (Mark 15:46) that could be entered and exited easily.

4. Jerusalem was considered the “heart of the earth: “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her’” (Ezek. 5:5; cp. Ezek. 38:12; Acts 1:8).

5. Jesus continually points to Jerusalem as the place where He would be betrayed and crucified: “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised on the third day” (Matt.16:21).

When did the “suffer many things” begin?: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him up to the Gentiles to mock and scourge Him, and on the third day He will be raised” (20:17–19).

6. From the time of His being “delivered up” on Thursday evening in the Garden of Gethsemane to the day He “will be raised”

constitutes “three days and three nights” in the “heart of the land,” that is, in Jerusalem. The Greek word often translated as “earth” is better translated as “land.”

One last point needs to be made. The first day of the week, our Sunday, is the eighth day (seven days plus one), an expression of a new creation.

Endnotes

1 Joe Kovaks, Shocked by the Bible: The Most

Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told

(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008).

Page 7 of 8 News Feature - Three Days and Three Nights -

2 Also see Genesis 42:17–18; Leviticus 7:16–17; 1

Samuel 20:12; Luke 13:32–33; Acts 27:18–19 for

third-day examples.

3 Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Time of the Crucifixion

and the Resurrection (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical

Perspectives, 1985), chapter 2.

4 R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (New York:

Fleming H. Revell, 1907), 107–108.

5 Ralph Woodrow, Three Days & Three Nights—

Reconsidered in the Light of Scripture (Riverside,

CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association,

1993), 6–7.

6 The word “day” is not found in the Greek text.

7 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 608.

8 “This careful chronological statement according to

Jewish days clearly means that before the Sabbath

was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the

women was made ‘to see the sepulcher.’ . .

.” (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in

the New Testament, 6 vols. [Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Book House, (1930), 1:240).

9 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St.

Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg

Publishing House, [1943] 1964), 1147.

Three Days and Three Nights

By Gary DeMar

Refuted by Gerhard Ebersöhn

Gary DeMar:

“There has been considerable debate over the best way to interpret the three-days and three-night language of Matthew 12:40, either as three 24-hour days of exactly 72 hours or parts of three days and three nights. Because you can’t get three full days if the count begins on Friday, some interpreters have argued for a two-Sabbath approach and a crucifixion on Wednesday and a resurrection on Saturday. What does the Bible say?”

GE:

Gary DeMar, so that’s it?

What about a two-Sabbath approach and a crucifixion on Thursday and a resurrection on “On the Sabbath”. Because that’s ‘what the Bible says’!

Gary DeMar:

“The New Testament states repeatedly that Jesus will be raised on “the third day” or “in three days” (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:40; 27:64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 9:22;

13:32; 18:33; 24:7; 24:21; 24:46; John 2:19, 20; Acts 10:40; 1Cor. 15:4).

can dismiss the claim that there are contradictions or insolvable ambiguities.

He will rise again.’”

First, notice that the geographical setting is Jerusalem. This will become important in determining the starting point of the three-day and three-night language of Matthew 12:40.”

GE:

When Jesus spoke these words, the geographical setting was not, “Jerusalem”.

And, it’s not the three-day and three-night – Singular ‘language’ – of Matthew 12:40. It’s the three-days and three-nights – Plural ‘language’ – of Matthew 12:40.

Then it’s not about determining the starting point of the three-day and three-night language of Matthew 12:40. (That is right here in Matthew 12:40.) One is supposed to find the starting point of the “three days and three nights”, which Jesus spoke about.

Gary DeMar:

“Second, Jesus is to be “delivered to the Gentiles.” This begins when He is arrested by the “Roman cohort” and “officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:3, 12). This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42). It’s at this point that some claim that there was a special Sabbath distinct from the seventh-day Sabbath.”

GE:

You just grab it from the air, “This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42).” Here, with this irresponsible assumption of yours, everything has already gone completely awry, sir. I beg your pardon. You think you have defeated your ‘enemy’ without having struck a single blow; I’m not even talking about having fought a single battle. From the gong has gone, “This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42).”

“Having compassed the earth, Satan, with meditated guile returns as a mist by night into paradise .... his subtle approach .... with much flattery extolling .... grown bolder, with many wiles and arguments induces Eve to eat ....” Milton.

From here you start your triumphal march .... straight over and down the precipice. Because this takes place on Wednesday evening before – in fact, evening OF – the “preparation day of the passover” that is on Thursday (John 19:14), the day before Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42).

Gary DeMar:

“Before we get into the details of unraveling the evidence, notice that Matthew 12:40 does not say that Jesus would be buried in a tomb for three days and three nights. In fact, there is no mention of a crucifixion or a resurrection. It seems that His disciples did not understand “heart of the earth” to be a burial. When Jesus does mention that He will be killed and raised up, Peter says, “God forbid it Lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:21). Why didn’t Peter say something similar when Jesus used the “three days and three nights” language earlier?”

GE:

Because ‘earlier’ – Matt. 16:21 – was actually, later; and Jesus earlier in Matthew 12:40, does not speak to Peter. So that should unravel some of the evidence why Peter didn’t say something when Jesus used the “three days and three nights” language.

Gary DeMar:

“In Joe Kovaks’ Shocked By the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told,1 there is a discussion of when Jesus was crucified to fit with a 72-hour burial—three full days and three full

nights. Kovaks takes the position that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and raised from the dead on Saturday.”

GE:

Ja well, we’re not discussing Joe Kovaks’ astonishing position now, I think?

Gary DeMar:

“Traditionally, Jesus is said to have been crucified on Friday and raised early Sunday morning, the first day of the new week. But this wrecks havoc with a 72-hour, literal three-day burial.”

GE:

If that were the only or only important implication of Jesus’ words, “three days and three nights”! The traditional viewpoint is aimed at wrecking havoc with the truth Jesus was raised from the dead on Saturday.

Gary DeMar:

““Three nights” is used elsewhere in Scripture: in the case of Jonah (Jonah 1:17), which Jesus quotes in Matthew 12:40, the Egyptian who is found in the field and is brought to David “for he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” (1 Sam. 30:12), and in Esther 4:16.2 Notice the use of “three days, night or day” in Esther 4:16: Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish (Esther 4:16).

GE:

“Three days and three nights” are not “mentioned”. “Notice the use of “three days, night or day” in Esther 4:16” .... it’s much different.

And neither of Esther 4:16 or 1 Sam. 30:12 uses figurative or prophetic language like Jesus and Jonah did; they both speak literally.

What are we supposed to learn from “three nights” used elsewhere in Scripture? It is of no help to understand Mt12:40 (or the 21 other ‘three days’ instances in the New Testament).

Gary DeMar:

could have consisted of only a fraction of a day.”3”

GE:

Must one therefore accept that an ‘expression’ is used idiomatically when not indicating “complete” concepts? – that an ‘expression’ is used idiomatically when “used to indicate .... a fraction” of something? – That an ‘expression’ is used idiomatically when “used to indicate .... calendric days”? When it is so “used in the Scriptures” an ‘expression’ is used idiomatically?

Gary DeMar:

“So then, the solution to the seeming time discrepancy can be solved by maintaining that a part of a day and part of a night can mean a full day and night.”

GE:

That a part of a day and part of a night can mean a full day and night doesn’t say it can mean any full day or any full night. Jesus’ or Jonah’s words, “three days and three nights” is no ‘idiomatic expression’ that can have any meaning but the real or literal meaning of the words. The real meaning of the words in the case of Jonah and especially of Jesus, is the specific, three, ‘calendric days’ of the passover’s prophetic significance in the last passover-experience of Christ. THESE “three days”, were comprised of “three days and three nights”. The “three days and three nights” were not any three days or nights spread over more than THESE “three days” of Jesus’ last passover “according to the Scriptures”.

Gary DeMar:

“But Jesus spent only Friday and Saturday nights in the tomb. A full night is missing if He was crucified on Friday. And if He was raised from the dead on Saturday, as some argue, then another day is missing as well.”

GE:

Here we go again, with the one assumption after the other, totally uncontrolled. Assumption is proved with assumption. By multiple assumption a case is thought to be made. “Having compassed the earth, Satan, with meditated guile returns as a mist by night into paradise .... his subtle approach .... with much flattery extolling .... grown bolder, with many wiles and arguments induces Eve to eat ....” Milton.

Re: “Jesus spent Friday and Saturday nights in the tomb” .... He did not. Jesus spent THREE nights OF suffering of dying and of death, IN suffering of dying and of death: “three days and three nights IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”. But, He was in the grave (“AS Jonah was in the belly of the fish”), only ONE OF THESE, “three nights” of Christ’s hellish descent “three days and three nights IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”: ‘Friday’ night, which was night and first halve-day of the Seventh Day the Sabbath Day. That was the only night-of-day Jesus spent in the tomb .... Friday night.

That was the only night-of-day, Sixth Day of the week, “fifteenth day of the First Month”, Jesus spent in the tomb .... Friday night. That night AND that same ‘day’, BEGAN, here: “Mark 15:42”. Mark well, BEGAN; not, ended! “Because now when evening had begun it was The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath already.”

If anyone might still argue it was not Friday, read where it is written THIS very day — after that Joseph had laid Jesus’ body in the tomb and had closed the opening, and had gone home — ENDED, “And that day WAS / had been The Preparation Day (Friday), while the Sabbath was approaching mid-afternoon .... and the women also .... having had returned home, prepared spices and ointments.” (Luke 23:54-56a) “There had they laid Jesus therefore, because / by the time the Jews’ preparations had started” (John 19:42) for the pending “Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment.” (Luke 23:56b)

Take THIS information to start from to find the “three days” as well as the “three days and three nights”— because they are ONE AND THE SAME ‘days’, one and the same “calendric days” AND one and the same ‘days of the week’. Of THESE “details”, begin to “unravel the evidence .... that Matthew 12:40 does not say that Jesus would be buried in a tomb for three days and three nights”, but, until “death’s pains be loosed” (Acts 2:24) by “God who raised Him from the dead” (Col2:12c), would be “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” of hellish torment and descent, for reconciliation and atonement of sins.

Gary DeMar:

“To get three full days and three full nights to bring it in harmony with Matthew 12:40 and three full 24- hour days, some have moved the crucifixion back to Wednesday, claiming that Thursday was a special Sabbath, a “Passover Sabbath” and not the usual

Friday-Saturday Sabbath. R. A. Torrey held this position, as does Joe Kovaks.....”

GE:

Which would not have helped them, the likes of R. A. Torrey and Joe Kovaks. Could they not have learned from their infamous predecessor poor Herbert Armstrong? Why? Will one ever find the great men – the ‘scholars’ – acknowledge their indebtedness to their ill-fated and ill-famed, very well noticed but un-noted and looked down upon, colleagues, in fact, masters?

Gary DeMar:

“Joe Kovaks: To sum it all up, Jesus died just about sunset on Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of the week, Saturday at sunset, He arose again from the grave.4 This view necessitates a weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath. Jesus is crucified on the “day of preparation,” that is, the day before the weekly Sabbath He arose again from the grave.4”

GE:

Kovaks makes two basic mistakes,

1) He is not consistent;

2) He is not precise.

1) Emphasis GE: “..... just about sunset _on_ Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of _the first day_ of the week, _Saturday_ at sunset .....” Which, is which? Is “about sunset”, “on Wednesday” still, or on ‘Thursday’ viewed as The Fifth Day of the week’ already? Is “about sunset”, “at the beginning” “of the first day of the week” already, or, is it ‘Saturday’ viewed as The Sabbath, still?

2) Solution: Be precise. ‘Sunset’ per se is momentarily; it represents no time and therefore cannot represent any ‘whole’. It is neither the day that ended before it nor the day that after it began. There is an Old Testament wisdom that recommends “From evening” one should reckon a new day as his sabbath having started. And another, that advises “at the going down of the sun” before day’s end, one should slay his passover sacrifice. Why try to better on it? Be precise, by being “not too holy” or haughty, as yet another Old Testament wisdom goes.

Gary DeMar:

“This view necessitates a weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath. Jesus is crucified on the “day of preparation,” that is, the day before the weekly Sabbath.”

GE:

This view incorrectly necessitates a weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath, because it presupposes Thursday to have been that second ‘sabbath’, because it presupposes Wednesday to have been Crucifixion-day. The correct weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath, is found in between here:—

Beginning, Mk15:42, Mt27:57, Lk23:50, Jn13:1 and, here:—

Ending, Lk23:54-56a, Jn19:42.

Once again this view – the ‘Wednesday-crucifixion theory – incorrectly presupposes its supposed second ‘sabbath’, for no reason than that its propagators are too holy men to allow spices and ointments be prepared on a ‘sabbath’ irrespective what ‘sabbath’ day— even ignoring the fact their ‘sabbath’ in question was supposed to be “that great day sabbath” of passover, Jn19:31— “that great day sabbath” for the very reason and purpose for returning to the earth “that which remaineth” of the passover’s lamb, Ex12:10. The burial of the body of Jesus “our Passover” (1Cor5:7) and Passover “Lamb of God” (Jn1:29), “according to the Scriptures” (1Cor15:3b-4) had to happen on the day after Abib 14 crucifixion-day on Abib 15. But they claim his body was buried on the same day that Jesus died – which the Law (they argue from), forbid. The Wednesday-crucifixion people therefore actually claim the Crucifixion was Abib 15! And if Wednesday was Abib 15, Jesus according to them would have been supposed to have raised from the dead on Thursday because the First Sheaf Wave Offering that typified the Resurrection, had to be offered “on the day after the (great day Feast) sabbath (of passover)”, Lv23:11,15.

And so one could go on and on. But enough!

This view is incorrect mainly because it impudently, just waves, the content of the very Scripture it offers for its own proof (Mark 15:42)— “This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42).” Like ALL Sunday-resurrection assertors do.

What, is “This”? “This” is: “Jesus is to be “delivered to the Gentiles.” This begins when He is arrested by the “Roman cohort” and “officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” in the Garden of Gethsemane ..... This takes place on Thursday evening before the “preparation day,” that is on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42). ..... It’s at this point.....”.

“This” is “This” according to Gary DeMar and cohort. “This” is not, “according to the Scriptures” the Scripture Mark 15:42 itself. What am I talking? It’s not what I’m talking! Read Mk15:42, and read its parallel texts, Mt27:57, Lk23:50, Jn13:1, and read on until you get in point of chronological passage of “this” day’s night-day-time, to “this” day’s ending, here: Lk23:54-56a, Jn19:42. Now tell me, count them! Count the words! Tell me how many words – or thoughts for that matter – have you read that say, or refer to, the Crucifixion? Read! Lets hear!

I have seen only one quasi exception so far, Hans X’s sorry excuse of an apology for the beginning of Friday, Abib 15, in Mark 15:42. No one shall admit frankly, because HERE is the last nail in their coffin, the coffin of final burial of the Friday-Crucifixion and Sunday-Resurrection hoax. I say, here; but I also say, the last, one, nail in their coffin. For their coffin is sealed and secured by innumerable nails and screws to make it impossible to escape from. Sunday-Resurrectionists have conned themselves! It’s proven.

It has been proven long ago. The first who tried to raise the ghost of a Sunday-Resurrection from its coffin was Justin Martyr. All ‘translations’ and the pathetic champions of these ‘translations’ since the twentieth century, are Justin Martyr’s fellow spirit rousers.

Gary DeMar:

“There is no mid-week extra Sabbath (Luke 23:54–25:2).”

GE:

There is. John 19:31 tells you the ‘Friday’ spoken of in Mk15:42 et al, “was that great day sabbath” .... of course, ‘sabbath’ of the passover; the ‘Passover’s-Sabbath’, or, ‘Passover’s-Feast-Day’, or, ‘Passover’s-Great-Day-Sabbath’.

How can it be denied? Like J.C. Ryle who simply denied John ever mentioned the Last Supper? Like everybody maintains John contradicts the Synoptists?

Therefore, there is a ‘mid-week extra Sabbath’, but it is not perceived by looking at (Luke 23:54–25:2) as an isolated text of Scripture. It is clear there is a ‘mid-week extra Sabbath’ looking at the complete picture as painted by and in all four the Gospels, with Mark 15:42 the focal point of it. Even by looking at the relevant Scriptures separately, Mk15:42 and Jn19:31/38, they correlate and unambiguously indicate and define, ‘Friday’ indeed, “was that great day sabbath”.

But people confuse “The Preparation” with, and for, “The Preparation of the Passover”.

People forget – or ignore – Mark did not only write, “The Preparation”, but that he actually explained which “Preparation” he had in mind and wrote about in 15:42— obviously in distinction to the other “Preparation” that also occurred during that last week of Jesus’ passover, “The Preparation of the Passover” mentioned by John, 19:14.

And people forget – or ignore – John did not only write, “The Preparation”, but that he actually explained which “Preparation” he had in mind and wrote about in 19:31/38— obviously in distinction to the other “Preparation” that also occurred during that last week of Jesus’ passover, “The Preparation that is the Fore-Sabbath” mentioned by Mark, 15:42.

People forget and ignore Mark himself, explained just which “Preparation” he had in mind and wrote about in 15:42, namely, “The Preparation WHICH IS, the Fore-Sabbath”— no other “Preparation” than ‘Friday’, Abib 15.

People forget and ignore John himself, explained just which “Preparation” he had in mind and wrote about in 19:31/38, “Since it was The Preparation, and that day was great day sabbath”— no other “Preparation” than ‘Friday’, Abib 15 ..... in distinction to the “Preparation” he had in mind and wrote about in 19:14, “The Preparation of the Passover”— no other “Preparation” than ‘Thursday’, Abib 14.

“Preparation”-Burial-day of “that which remains” of the Passover Sacrifice, is no other than “that great day sabbath” of passover, ‘Friday’, ‘mid-week extra Sabbath’!

Gary DeMar:

“RalphWoodrow writes: “Only one Sabbath is indicated:

GE:

Re: “the women prepared their spices and rested on ‘the sabbath’; and on the first day ..... they found the tomb empty” as though “the women prepared their spices and, rested on ‘the sabbath’’.

No, the women prepared their spices the day before ‘the Sabbath’ of the week, on “that day the great day of a sabbath” of the passover. Hear the true story; if it took hundred times to read it over, do it, because everyone has heard the false story, the women ‘prepared their spices and rested on ‘the sabbath’’, millions of times. Be fair to yourself! Before you will be fair to others.

What is meant by this, “on the first day of the week (which all agree was the day after ‘the sabbath’), they found the tomb empty.”? The Gospels would say they found the tomb empty; Ralph Woodrow meant: that Jesus rose “the day after ‘the sabbath’”.

“.... on the first day of the week (which all agree was the day after ‘the sabbath’), they found the tomb empty” ..... Ralph Woodrow and Gary DeMar actually conspired that Jesus “the day after ‘the sabbath’” rose. A man who wants the truth will have to read Mt28:1 a few hundred times – a true translation like the KJV – before he will truly hear what actually is written: “ON the Sabbath” / “IN the Sabbath” / “Sabbath’s”, Jesus rose. And he will have to read Mk16:2 and Luke 24:1 only once to see that “on the first day (the women) found the tomb empty”.

Ralph Woodrow and Gary DeMar are reading at the wrong places, “Mark 15:42” and “Luke 23:54–25:2”, for the Resurrection, while they turn a blind eye for what they in “Mark 15:42” and “Luke 23:54–25:2” are supposed to look for .... “a different” and “mid-week extra Sabbath”. Ingenuity may sometimes blind instead of open eyes or ears.

It – for the third time –, has become necessary to quote Milton, “Having compassed the earth, Satan, with meditated guile returns as a mist by night into paradise .... his subtle approach .... with much flattery extolling .... grown bolder, with many wiles and arguments induces Eve to eat ....”.

Gary DeMar:

“Ralph Woodrow: “Only one Sabbath is indicated: the crucifixion was on the day before ‘the sabbath’; the women prepared their spices.....” “the crucifixion .... day .... the women prepared” making day of Crucifixion and day of preparing of spices, the same, one, day.

That .... after all the cunning deceit of it, demands one has to first ignore then hope to forget for the sake of conscience, “Because now when evening had begun already it was The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath already.” Mk15:42.

Is it the day before sunset, or the day after sunset?

Then was it the day of Crucifixion, or was it the day “they buried Jesus”?

Is it the day before sunset, or the day after sunset?

Then was it the day “the women prepared their spices”, on?

Or was it the day AFTER “the women prepared their spices” according to Mark?

Ralph Woodrow and Gary DeMar summarily declare,

“..... the crucifixion was on the day before ‘the sabbath’; the women prepared their spices and rested on ‘the sabbath’ ....”

“..... on the day before ‘the sabbath’; the women prepared their spices.....”

Ralph Woodrow’s “;”; and “‘....’”; his using no capital letter for “‘the sabbath’”; and even his word-order, are just for show. He intended everything for eye-blinding. Honesty demands his statement should be read as if without his gadgets of subterfuge, “On the crucifixion day before the sabbath the women prepared their spices.”

Then once again, behind and underneath all the ingenuities of his stealth, lurks his covering-up of “THIS”: “Because now when evening had begun already it was The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath already”. Ralph Woodrow’s covering-up continues to include the whole day thereafter and the actual Burial on it— AFTER, the crucifixion, AFTER, the day the crucifixion was on, BEFORE, the women prepared their spices, BEFORE, they rested on The Sabbath.

What do Ralph Woodrow and Gary DeMar imply, saying, “It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”? The discussion is about the “three days and three nights” Jesus said He would be “in the heart of the earth like Jonah three days and three nights was in the belly of the fish”.

Now why – if Ralph Woodrow and Gary DeMar were right – did Jesus not say, “It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”? Would He be able to also say – like He did – “in the heart of the earth like Jonah in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”?

O, it need not connect with apposite Prophecy? It need not relate to the passover? It’s absolutely meaningless “the third day” of the “three days and three nights”–”three days” in order, context and content is “according to the Scriptures the third day”? “It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”?

While I give a somewhat different nucleus, I (with permission from my source, P.F. Theron who quoted from his source A.M. Ritter, who quoted from E. Lohmeyer), quote, “die gottgegebenen und darum eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit”.

The ‘God-given end-times-due fullness and wholeness’ of the “three days and three nights”–”three days”–”the third day”–unit.

But what does the “three days and three nights”–”three days”–”the third day”–unit mean to people like Gary DeMar and Ralph Woodrow? “It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”.

Do not rip apart or discard what God gave in whole and as one, because to believe and confess, “Three days and three nights”–”three days”–”the third day” means to believe and confess an eschatological and soteriological unit “the third day” of which is presupposed and understood through faith in the Scriptures, that it is the day of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

It is far more than “.... simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath” .... meaningless ‘days’ of no eschatological significance. The notion simply is unacceptable. It is as good as or worse than to delete every word of “die gottgegebenen und darum eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit” of the “three days and three nights”–”three days”–”the third day” from the Scriptures.

Now Christ said, He, came to do the Will of his Father. If the “three days and three nights”–”three days” had not been “eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit” of Jesus’ greater obedience, fulfilment and perfection of his Father’s Will and Works, He disobeyed, failed, and dishonoured His Father. “Three days and three nights”–”three days” are essentially of the “eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit” of Christ’s God-given Mission, because they are the passover-days “according to the Scriptures” and Prophecy.

The “three days”–”three days and three nights” are the ‘type’ and ‘figure’ of Christ and the Word about the Word in his every act of duty, obedience to, and fulfilment of, the Father’s will “to us-ward”, the Father having raised Christ from the dead “the third day according to the Scriptures”.

The “three days and three nights”–”three days” are like a train of three coaches that passes through a tunnel. Only when all three coaches have come out of the tunnel, has the train gone through. The Will and the Kingdom of God CULMINATE in these “three days”–”three days and three nights” ultimately “when God raised Christ from the dead”, “the third day”, “according to the Scriptures” of the “three days and three nights”–”three days”.

Ja, it is better to say, “THE three days and three nights–three days”, than to speak of ‘THESE’ “three days and three nights”-”three days”, because ‘IT’ must never be fragmented, reduced or increased. That may be why Paul in 1Cor15:3b-4 mentions “the third day” last, and before does not mention ‘day’ or ‘days’ at all. When the engine-coach has gone through the tunnel there is no chance the coaches behind are not going to follow. (Not in God’s design.)

Although to our perception the first two of the “three days”–”three days and three nights” are first in historical order, from the perspective of God they are eschatological and not merely historical. The ‘Resurrection-coach’ as it were is the engine-coach that pushes the two following coaches out in front through the tunnel and they are out of the tunnel before the power-coach appears in the open.

“What is the exceeding greatness of his Power .... which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead”, in the ‘eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit’ of the “three days and three nights”–”three days”, “the third day”! “God raised Christ according to the working of his Mighty Power which He worked ....” IN the engine-room of the grave and the dead as it were, “WHEN He raised Christ FROM THE DEAD”. That is, God operated his omni-potency and omni-presence in the grave – in the tunnel as it were – and in the body and flesh of Jesus verily, “according to the Scriptures”, and did “not allow Him to see corruption” – meaning, God did not allow Christ to undergo damnation for ever, but that He would “bring Him again from the dead”, Hb13:20.

The entombment death and interment of Jesus was as the goings-in-and-through of God in His Passover Power, and the Resurrection of Christ was as the coming-forth of God by His Passover Power by the bringing together of all the works of God in and through Jesus Christ— “And God the Seventh Day from all his works, rested.”

To say, “according to the Scriptures”, is to say, The eschatology of the Eternal Purpose and Covenant of Grace. It is to say, “Remember the Sabbath”, with looking forward to God’s works of the New Creation. To “keep the Sabbath ready (holy)”, To “keep the Sabbath ready (holy) for” “God’s rest from his own works” through Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead. “Christian faith that not totally is eschatology, totally has nothing to do with Christ.” (Karl Barth)

Therefore, is saying, “It is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”, doing justice to the Christological significance, that is, is it doing justice to “the God-given eschatologically-owed WHOLE”, of the “three days and three nights”-”three days”? IT CANNOT!

Reduced to “It is simply .....” a mere ‘day’ before and after the Sabbath, the loss of the “gottgegebenen und darum eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit” / the ‘God-given end-times-owed fullness and wholeness’, of the “three days”–”three days and three nights”, is inevitable. Guess which day-coach gets hooked off and ‘night and day’ is derailed and pushed over the cliff down into the gorge? Unnecessary to say, the ‘day’ in between “the day before .... and the day after the Sabbath”. That was the Sabbath of course, to learned men.

But the ‘God-given end-times-due fullness and wholeness’ of the “three days and three nights”–”three days” – “the third day”, find fullness and wholeness in God’s finishing Act of Rest “the third day according to the Scriptures”: the resurrection of Christ from the dead “in Sabbath’s fullness”.

“Late Sabbath’s”-‘Opse sabbatohn’ says A.T. Robertson, can be regarded as an Ablative. “God the Seventh Day finished all his works” / “God the Seventh Day’s fullness, rested” .... What is different? The sense in ‘Moses’, is as ‘Ablative’ as in Matthew! It is the exact same thing said: “By the Finishing Act of the Sabbath’s being mid-afternoon towards the First Day of the week Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to go have a look at the grave. Then, suddenly, there was a great earthquake and the angel of the LORD descending from heaven rolled back the stone from the door .... explained the angel to the women.” Mt28:1-5a.

“In these last days .... by His Son .... God assuredly thus concerning the Seventh Day spake in this manner, God did rest the Seventh Day from all his Works (ultimately).” “God on the Seventh Day ended his work, and God on the Seventh Day from all his work rested; and God (in the end) blessed the Sabbath Day and sanctified it BECAUSE THAT IN IT (at last), HE RESTED.”

Can language be more ‘Ablative’? Can something be more ‘prophetic’? Collins 1979, ‘Ablative’ .... indicating .... the agent .... or the instrument .... in passive sentences. Manner, or place of the action described.

Instrument: “By / with Sabbath(’s) .... Mary went .... there was”;

Manner: “Being Sabbath(’s) .... Mary went .... there was”;

Place: “In time the Sabbath(’s) .... Mary went .... there was”.

‘Ablative absolute’ .... in Latin construction .... in which a head noun (“Sabbatohn”) and a modifier (“opse”) .... function as a sentence modifier, e.g., ‘hostibus victis’, “the enemy having been beaten”. Matthew’s Greek use, “The Sabbath having reached fullness ....”, is as good as any Latin ‘Ablative absolute’.

The Ablative connotation of ‘opse sabbatohn’-“late Sabbath’s”, confirms the Possessive and Qualitative Genitive meaning of the phrase. It does not say ‘opse sabbatohn’ is not a case of the Genitive— is not “Sabbath’s-time”, is not “of Sabbath’s-time”. ‘Opse sabbatohn’ is, “the Sabbath’s fullness”; is, “on the Sabbath”; is, “Late ON the Sabbath”.

The Ablative emphasises the Genitive. It NEVER ‘indicates’ an Accusative like “after, the Sabbath” in ERRING ‘translations’— NEVER!

A.T. Robertson NEVER meant the Ablative in Mt28:1 to contradict or cancel the Genitive. Robertson in fact referred to the Ablative to help explain the Genitive-meaning of ‘opse sabbatohn’, PERFECTLY rendered in the KJV, “In the end of the Sabbath” for meaning “ON the the Sabbath”.

Not for a millionth of a second in time was it “the day after the Sabbath”!

The Seventh Day foretold and shadowed forth but one thing of old: the Sabbath was the day of the event IN THE END, of the resurrection of Christ from the dead that confirmed the finishing and perfection of “ALL the works of God” .... the one fact of Divine Truth the whole Gospel hinges on.

“The third day according to the Scriptures”— ‘Sabbath’s’! ‘Sabbath’s’ of God’s works, finished, in Mt28:1.

But Gary DeMar and Ralph Woodrow’s ‘third day’ is ‘simply’, “the day after the Sabbath”. ‘Sabbath’s’ of God’s REAL act of rest from all his works in raising Christ from the dead, gets “simply: the day”, ‘the Sabbath’, ‘Still Saturday’, of death’s emptiness. And ‘Sabbath’s’, position, is invaded by “the day after the Sabbath”, a pauper in pretentious apparel.

At what cost? At the price of truth, ‘simply’. Simply out of disregard for “according to the Scriptures the third day-eschatology”. Feel the expectation: “according to the Scriptures the third day” – Jesus Christ answered it; He answered it by resurrection “In Sabbath’s promise and expectations’ fullness”, “gottgegebenen eschatologischgültigen Ganzheit”.

Let us pay attention to “the Scriptures”!

It is NOWHERE ‘written’, He rose “the day after the Sabbath”;

It is NOWHERE ‘written’, He was crucified “the day before the Sabbath”;

It is NOWHERE ‘written’, “the women prepared their spices the day the crucifixion was on”.

It is ‘written’, He rose “the day the Sabbath’s”;

It is ‘written’, He was crucified “the day before the Feast”;

It is ‘written’, “the women prepared their spices” the day “they laid the body of Jesus”.

Gary DeMar:

“What about John’s account that the Sabbath was a “high day”6 (John 19:31), supposedly making it a different Sabbath?”

GE:

Would one but have stayed with what “is written”, this kind of ‘question’ would not be ‘asked’ so often.

Here Gary DeMar again assumes things that aren’t what he states as if the case in fact. Gary DeMar says, “.... the Sabbath” supposed, “was a “high day”.” He says in “Endnote 6 The word “day” is not found in the Greek text.”

Now The Scripture under discussion clearly is “John 19:31”, and “the word “day”“ clearly, is, “found in the Greek text” in “John 19:31”— “ehn megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou”. So, “What about John’s account that the Sabbath was a “high day”6 (John 19:31), supposedly making it a different Sabbath?” What about it? Gary DeMar, tells us, “Endnote 6 The word “day” is not found in the Greek text.” You decide who you believe about anything else as well.

What about, John’s, account? John’s account not “supposedly”, but in fact, makes “that (ordinary) day”, a “high day”, thus “making it a different Sabbath”— as found in the Greek text— “ehn megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou sabbatou”! In other or English words, it makes of “that day” – not of “the Sabbath” – a different, Sabbath”! In this case John, by calling “that (ordinary) day”, a “high day”, ‘makes’ “that (ordinary) day, THE high day-sabbath” of the passover, Abib 15 literally, specifically, and, exclusively.

There WAS in fact therefore, “a weekday Sabbath in addition to the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath”; but it wasn’t Thursday; it was Friday. And Woodrow is WRONG that “It” – the ‘God-given end-times-owed fullness and wholeness’ of the “three days”–”three days and three nights” –, “is simply: the day before the Sabbath, the Sabbath, and the day after the Sabbath”. The ‘God-given end-times-owed fullness and wholeness’ of the “three days and three nights”–”three days”, is John ‘making’, or calling “that (ordinary) day, THE great day-sabbath” of the passover, Abib 15.

John does not make or call Abib 14 –Crucifixion-day–

“that (ordinary) day, THE great day-sabbath”;

John 19:31 makes of Abib 15 – the day after Crucifixion Abib 14 –

“that (ordinary) day, THE great day-sabbath (of passover)”,

“since / because, it was The Preparation and

that (ordinary Fri-)day was the great day-sabbath (of passover)” ....

“WHICH WAS THE Fore-Sabbath (that) had begun when

evening had begun”-‘opsia genomenehs .... hehtis estin paraskeueh’ Mk15:42.

HERE one is at the ‘λ’-junction from where one keep on track straight ahead into the new day of Abib 15; or here is where most turn back but must fail to properly get back onto the past day again. ‘Simply’, according to natural law one cannot re-enter the past; one must loose contact with reality .... and, with truth .... all because of Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 / Jn19:31, and,

1) the ‘evening’-‘opsia’ factor; and

2) the ‘Relative Pronoun-factor in both ‘Greek texts’, ‘hehtis estin’ and ‘ekeinou ehn’.

Things could not be more indicative and specific; ‘things’— language, logic and log-keeping; ‘language’— words and grammar; logic— common sense; and log-keeping— “keeping up with the calendar month of Abib”, Dt16:1.

And so the truth emerges it is a carefully worked out LIE before anything has been considered, to propose, “Only one Sabbath is indicated”.

Two ‘sabbaths’ are indeed indicated as well as mentioned, the first one as here above, indicated as having been Friday,

a) after its evening-beginning had proceeded, Jn19:31/Mk15:42;

and indicated as having been Friday

b) “THE great day-sabbath” of passover-sabbath in Jn19:31.

And the second, ‘sabbath’, indicated in

a) Lk23:54 as “The Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment still approaching” on and while still the passover’s great day sabbath on Friday The Preparation Day (of the Sabbath),

and indicated in

b) Lk23:56b as having started after the passover’s feast-sabbath had come to an end and as having had begun when “the women had begun to rest according to the (Sabbath-) Commandment” of the Fourth Commandment— the Seventh Day Fourth Commandment Sabbath.

Gary DeMar:

“D. A. Carson comments:

GE:

Re: “D. A. Carson comments:

If parasakeuÄ (‘Preparation’) here refers to the same day as does its use in [John 19:14]”

Once again this is a blurred attempt to deceive, as “If”, “....parasakeuÄ (‘Preparation’) here refers to the same day as does its use in [John 19:14] . . . .” “Here”, “about John’s account that the Sabbath was a “high day”6 (John 19:31)”.

(7 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 608.)”

“John 19:14” and “John 19:14” are compared as “If” “John 19:31” ‘refers to’, “John 19:14”, keeping mute, “John 19:31” refers to “The Preparation day that very same day, since it was the great day-sabbath (of passover)”. Jn19:31 is fully self-explanatory, and ‘if’, another Scripture be needed, there is only the parallel texts of Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 / Lk23:50. Carson – like Gary DeMar – knew very well. They also knew very well Jn19:14 with its entire context lay more than 12 hours in the past, right in the middle of Abib 14 the day before at “six o’clock in the morning” (sunrise and “early morning” in the other Gospels). This is shameless pretending ignorance, “If parasakeuÄ (‘Preparation’) here refers to the same day”. It certainly does not.

Re: “If parasakeuÄ (‘Preparation’) here refers to the same day ..... then this sentence tells us that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before (i.e. the ‘Preparation’ of) the Sabbath. The next day, Sabbath (=Saturday), would by Jewish reckoning begin at sundown Friday evening.”

GE:

Definitely then, Yes, “if”. But it’s no “if”; it’s a definite, No!

So then it is a definite No! to everything else “D. A. Carson – here – comments”. It’s a definite No! to, “then this sentence tells us that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before (i.e. the ‘Preparation’ of) the Sabbath.” As ‘simply’ as ‘that’.

As ‘simply’ as “that day since it was The Preparation” in Jn19:31, “which is the Fore-Sabbath” in Mk15:42 (Friday, the day before (i.e. the ‘Preparation’ of) the Sabbath), was NOT, “The Preparation of the Passover” of or in John 19:14!

As ‘simply’ as ‘that’; as ‘simply’ as in Mt26:2 “the passover to be crucified was over two days” means on Abib 12 before Abib 14.

As ‘simply’ as ‘that’; as ‘simply’ as in Mk14:1 “the passover’s days of Feast (of Unleavened Bread” was over two days” means on Abib 13 before Abib 15.

As ‘simply’ as ‘that’; as ‘simply’ as in Jn13:1 “before the Feast” means on Abib 14 in its “evening-beginning” (Mk14:12/17, Mt26:17/20, Lk22:7/14) and in Jn19:14 means on Abib 14 still, in its middle of “early morning” “six o’clock in the morning”.

So, the above, with reference to, “It was a special Sabbath, not only because it fell during the Passover Feast, but because the second paschal day, in this case falling on the Sabbath, was devoted to the very important sheaf offering (Lv. 23:11; cf. SB 2. 582).7”, means, it’s a lot of nonsense.

It also means to have said, “There is no mid-week extra Sabbath ..... Only one Sabbath is indicated” all the while was a false assertion.

It also means that now that it has become clear there was, “a different Sabbath”, the assertors like a dog that got kicked in the ribs are running away, yelping, “It was a special Sabbath yelp yelp yelp falling on the Sabbath yelp yelp yelp”.

Plain, bare facts demand – plain bare facts I mentioned earlier, of ‘things’— language, logic and log-keeping; ‘language’— words and grammar; logic— common sense; and log-keeping— “keeping up with the calendar month of Abib”— demand it was a different and mid-week extra Sabbath, not, “the Sabbath”, but ‘in this case’, “the Sabbath, devoted to the very important sheaf offering”. What a mess!

No! ‘The day’, ‘devoted to the very important sheaf offering’, was, quoting: “the day (ordinary) after, the sabbath (of the passover”, Lv23:11,15.

Irony, these assertors-of-a-sudden of that “special Sabbath .... in this case falling on the Sabbath”, are the most dogmatic aggressors for a Sunday “devoted to the very important sheaf offering” ‘always after the Jewish Sabbath’. Who do they think do they bluff?

As soon as they run out of arguments, these Sunday-worship aggressors make up some more fake ones. Who claimed “the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”? Who, here, are they Gary DeMar might have thought he is arguing against? Is it the likes of himself who again presumes? Is it Gary DeMar and soul mates who claim – or suppose, not to accuse them falsely – “the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”? Or, yes; are those who say, “the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”, the devotees of Herbert Armstrong— the Wednesday-crucifixionists? You see, just in case the pigs might eat us, we won’t mix with the bran. No matter how, he that toucheth pitch shall be defiled.

Are we going to waste our breath on them who say “the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”? Surely no; no Scripture at all is implied; so why should one care to answer the claim? One must conclude from Carson’s and Gary DeMar’s remonstrance therefore, it’s yet another strategy of theirs in their war of empty words to send up smoke-signs of the real objections to their ‘investigations’ against a Sabbath-Resurrection. For that is what this ‘sermon’ of Gary DeMar’s is all about in the end, to prove the Resurrection was on Sunday, and not, “On the Sabbath”, so that the Church can be justified in its error of Sunday-worship and vindicated in its crusade against the Sabbath-Resurrection insurrection.

Let us be called The Sabbath-Resurrection Insurrection. I think it is fitting description of our cause! Choose our oppressors whom they will serve. Go, choose you, your gods from among the beggarly first principles of your ancestors. But you cannot choose the LORD like a spoilt child chooses a toy from the shop shelves. But as for me and my house, God help us, He chose us, The Body of Christ’s Own, to serve and worship Him every Lord’s Day the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD our God! Jesus rose In Sabbath’s Day; thus it is written; for the People of God. That says all we know or want to know, about the Lord’s Day. With these three things, it is answered why we believe, and, how, we believe the Sabbath of the LORD our God! Blessed be the Lord who blessed the Sabbath the Seventh Day having on it raised Christ, from all his works to rest; Holy be His Name who sanctified its Day. Lord of the Sabbath, grant us your rest; Sabbaths’ peace and joy among God’s People let us feast, of your Fullness Lord our God, in Christ to taste.

Gary DeMar:

“One last point on the special Thursday Sabbath idea needs to be made. Why would the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb when they could have gone on Friday?”

GE:

Re: “..... when they could have gone on Friday?” Against what theory is this said? Against a Wednesday crucifixion theory. It makes sense against a Wednesday theory, but since a Wednesday resurrection theory is no possibility it’s a senseless objection, which should explain why this ‘answer’ or objection to it supposes an event – that “the women have waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb” – about which no Scripture exists.

But this objection betrays Gary DeMar doesn’t understand the position of the Wednesday crucifixion theorists either, who actually theorise the women visited the tomb on Friday to do something with spices and ointments – whatever in that line; I also cannot understand them, and I am sure they don’t understand themselves either – because according to the Wednesday crucifixion theorists Thursday was the High Day Sabbath and the women were not allowed to do work on it like spices and ointment business or walking, so they waited until Friday. Or am I not understanding Gary DeMar, that he doesn’t mean what I have said he meant? However, Gary DeMar supposes something the Gospels do not mention, that “the women waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”. So we are wasting our time; let us get off this issue.

Observer:

Gary DeMar is referring to Mark the sixteenth chapter, verse 1.

GE:

You think so? Cannot be, because Mk16:1 mentions the three women only who “after the Sabbath / when the Sabbath had gone through”, that is, “had passed”. It no longer was the Sabbath’s end; it was the First Day’s beginning.

Also it cannot be, because Mk16:1 says the three women went to buy spices. It does not say they visited the tomb; not even that they “went to go have a look at the tomb”— what Mt28 says. Mt28:1 is about “In the end of the Sabbath”, but also, Mt28:1 does not say ‘the women’; it says “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” – only the two of them. And Mt28:1 doesn’t say they did actually “visit the tomb”. It only says they “departed to (go) see the tomb”. But because exactly then “there suddenly was a great earthquake”, of course nothing further came of the women’s intended visit. Therefore Gary DeMar’s supposed ‘visit’ to the tomb “the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath”, only exists in his mind. He creates smoke-signs to obfuscate the opponents of his or similar views.

But thanks for saying, now I can understand Gary DeMar! He must in fact literally mean, that “the women waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb”. Of course yes, because that is exactly what they were forced to do through the circumstances as they developed that Sabbath Day. Now I see, because I remember now that the Jews on the Sabbath’s “morning after their preparations” — which undoubtedly had been Friday’s preparations according to both Luke 23:56a and John 19:42 — asked Pilate that the grave be sealed and guarded “for the third day, because (Jesus) had said while He lived that He would rise the third day”. So the Jews warned everyone – especially “his disciples”, to stay away from the tomb until ‘Saturday’ would be over : for the Roman guard at midnight! So “the women waited until the end of the regular (Saturday) Sabbath to visit the tomb” indeed! Keen observation of Gary DeMar’s!

Unfortunately he clearly did not perceive how his own factual observation militates against a Sunday-resurrection!

Gary DeMar:

“ ..... To conclude, Jesus was crucified on the “preparation day” (Friday), that is, the day before the weekly Sabbath (Saturday).

GE:

Repetition concludes no argument. Gary DeMar must still learn that.

Re: “Supposedly support for a Saturday resurrection is found in Matthew 28:1 where we read: “in the end of the Sabbath [‘after the Sabbath’ is most likely incorrect]8 as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.”“

“Supposedly” .... right in the face of the fact it is written, and right in the face of the fact it is being agreed to, is written ‘correctly’, because “[‘after the Sabbath’ is most likely incorrect]8”. What do you ask more or better, Gary DeMar, than what is written and is written correctly? A sign from heaven before it will be better than ‘supposedly’?

Gary DeMar:

“Part of the problem may reside with the way Matthew 27 and 28 are divided. Keep in mind that there were no chapter divisions, spaces between words, or punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts. With these points in mind, let’s see how this would look in English using Matthew 27:66, the last verse of chapter 27, and 28:1, the first verse of chapter 28:

AndtheywentandmadethegravesecureandalongwiththeguardtheysetasealonthestoneintheendofthesabbathasitbegantodawntowardthefirstdayoftheweekMaryMagdaleneandtheotherMarycametolookathegrave

Now let’s add spaces between the words but no punctuation:

that Jesus’ disciples would steal the body (Matt. 27:64; 28:13). This might be the best solution.”

GE:

There is merit in the idea that the context of Mt28:1 must be taken wider, and I agree on that. In my opinion the greater reach lies between 27:62 and 27:5a – even to the end of the angel’s speaking in verse 7; so that the angel’s telling will begin in 27:62. The greater reach of the context in time therefore will lie between the Sabbath’s and the Sunday’s mornings. The events of the resurrection implied in Mt28:1-4, are central, and is both concluded and introduced with the clause in 28:5a, “Explained the angel telling the women .....”, a case of style and method peculiarly Matthew’s, as the choice of for example words in 28:1-4, is peculiarly Matthew’s. See various studies, e.g., Book 2 ‘Resurrection’, Par. 5.3.3.3.5.3. A Watershed; Par. 5.3.3.4.4. ‘Matthew compared with Matthew’.

Translation	From 28:1-4	From context		Only incidence	Other Gospels
End	*Opse*	*telos* *sunteleia*	26:58 24:3 28:20
(after)		*meta* (Ablative)	27:53, 62,63 26:2 24:29
(after)		*apo*	26:16 25:34
The Sabbath	*sabbatohn*			Genitive Not ablative
as it began to dawn	*epifohskousehi*	*prohias* *genomenehs* next day epaurion	27:1 62
as it began (drawing on near)	*epifohskousehi*	*Ginomai* *engidzoh*	27:1,57 26:45 21:34
Against the First Day				*eis mian sabbatohn*	*miai sabbatohn*
Came=set off	*ehlthen*				= arrived
to see	*theohrehsai*	*eideoh* +- 40 times	27:54 28:6 17		Looked up -Anablepsasai Sees – blepei Found -heuron	Mk16:4 Jn20:1 Lk24:2
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary	*Mariam heh Magdalehneh kai heh alleh Maria*				They (any) arrived at tomb	Mk 16:2
the other Mary				*heh alleh Maria*	Mary of James	Mk16:1 Lk24:10
sepulchre	*tafon*	*mnehmeion*	27:6028:8		*mnehmeion*	Mk16:2 Lk20:2 Jn20:11
earthquake				*seismos*
angel				*angelos*	*neaniskos* *duo andres* *duo angelous*	Mk16:5 Lk24:4Jn20:12
Of the Lord				*kuriou*
descended				*katabas*
rolled back was rolled away		*Apekulisen* aorist indicatve active			*anakekulistai* *perfect indicative passive apokekulismenon* apo – perfect participle passive**	Mk16:4 Lk24:2
Appearance	*eidea*	*Enefanisthehsan*	27:53	like lightning
Sat	*ekathehto*			upon it
Raiment (dress)	*enduma*	*Anakeimai* *Himation*	26:7,20 27:35 x16		*peribeblehmenon* *en esthehti* *(en leukois)*	Mk16:5 Lk.24:4 Jn20:12
Snow				*chiohn*
Guard (keeper)	*hoi tehrountes*	*Coustohdias*	27:6528:11		*fulacs*	Luke (Acts)
(like) dead	*hohs nekroi*	*Koimaiomai*	27:5228:13

“The angel explains and tells” all that had happened the day before:

1) since the Sabbath’s “morning after the preparations” (of the Preparation Day, Friday, before), the sealing and guarding of the tomb,

2) “BUT (despite – ‘de’), in the Sabbath’s fullness of day mid-afternoon towards the First Day of the week”, the occurrence of the events that accompanied the Resurrection : “there suddenly was a great earthquake .....”.

The following morning (Sunday after sunrise), verse 5, “the angel saying to the women, explained to them, He is not here (any more as you will understand), because (yesterday already, “On the Sabbath ....”, as I said, 28:1-4.) He rose as He told you He would ....”.

Only in this way – among other things with rendering ‘de’ with “but” and “already” – does the word ‘de’ come to its right. This way the positioning of verse 1-4 before the angel’s ‘explanation’ to the women, and its continuing after, connect meaningfully. Thus the angel’s ‘explanation to the women’ applies retrospectively to the events of the Resurrection on the Sabbath, as well as immediately to the situation on the ground on Sunday morning of an empty tomb, “the angel informing the women, said ....”. See various studies, e.g.,

“END OF SABBATH” VS “DAWN”

by Ralph Woodrow, Missing Dimension, Whistler’s Tune, 2001.

The Proposed Solution!

“There is a very simple solution”, it is claimed, “so simple that it’s a wonder that it’s often been overlooked!”

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!

“That solution is that the words “in the end of the Sabbath” were not describing when the women went to the tomb, but when the tomb was sealed and guarded, in the previous verse.”

“That solution” will soon prove to be an illusion, and no more than the promise of fools’ gold.

“Without changing the wording in the least”, it is claimed, “the entire passage can be brought into harmony with every other verse”.

But what is proposed in this thesis is impossible, even by the English words, for the change would directly contradict the time of day which Matthew 27:62 gives for the sealing of the grave, which is, “in the morning” – the Greek opposite parallel of “afternoon”, namely <epaurion> – <epi>, “in”, <aurion>, “orient” / “sunrise” / “morning” or “after-morning” – the extension and positive parallel of Mark’s <anateilantos> – <ana> plus <telloh> – “up-coming” / “rising (of the sun)” or pre-sunrise morning; “dayspring” in Luke 1. Matthew 27:62 gives the post-sunrise morning for the sealing of the grave, so it could not have happened “late on the Sabbath”.

Or the Jews and Pilate wasted all their day and defeated their own objective, to get the sealing done as soon as possible!

“Without changing the wording” is even more impossible in the Greek, for then it should have read: <… sfragisantes ton lithon meta tehs koustohdias opse sabbatohn. Tehi de epifohskousehi, eis mian sabbatohn …>, in stead of reading: <… sfragisantes ton lithon meta tehs koustohdias. Opse de sabbatohn, tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn …>. And <eis mian sábbaton> should have read <miai sabbátohn> - leaving out <eis> and changing the case of <mian> from Accusative to Dative and the case of < sábbaton > from Accusative to Genitive <sabbátohn >. Even <kai idou> – “at that very moment”, will have to be moved from after the main time-indicating phrases, to before it. (Quickly thought of changes in “the wording”: 6!)

Also the parties concerned – “Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary” will have to be changed to either only Mary Magdalene or the several other women; and the angel from one to perhaps two; and from coming down from heaven to sitting inside the tomb, etc. etc. Which makes absurd the whole notion of “simply placing the period in a different place”.

To do this is certainly out of order, for punctuation was not so much a visible part of the original text, as intrinsic to its linguistics.

“With this simple change” one’s ignorance of the intelligence of the Greek language is farcically understated.

“(T)hese two contradictory clauses (“end of the Sabbath” vs “dawn”)” glare like phosphoric eyes from the gross darkness of six centuries of stubborn refusal to admit and rectify the human error of that holy man who so rendered them first, Tyndale – who himself declared that his part in Christ be taken from him had he but in one instance translated against his conscience. While the Roman Catholic Church has excommunicated and anathematised, persecuted and killed Tyndale for his translation of the Bible, that Church has capitalised on this unfortunate translation of Tyndale’s as were he a saint by papal announcement.

“(T)hese two contradictory clauses (“end of the Sabbath” vs “dawn”)”, must be “linked together as being the same thing”, by supplying the literal meaning the word <epifohskousehi> at that point in history had had, the meaning of “day after noon” – its simplest and most easily understood English equivalent … “and Matthew’s account comes into immediate alignment with the other Gospels”.

Gary DeMar:

“..... This one bit of punctuation makes a big difference.”

GE:

Of course it will; but this is not the Greek, as we have seen. It’s an English manipulation of the Greek. The little word ‘de’ has certain and set syntactical and structural implications. It’s positional application in the Greek text rules “this one bit of punctuation” out, once for all.

Gary DeMar:

“Ralph Woodrow argues that the “end of the Sabbath” is a reference to when the guards sealed the tomb since there was fear

that Jesus’ disciples would steal the body (Matt. 27:64; 28:13). This might be the best solution.”

GE:

This is the worst ‘solution’. See above; and read Mt27:62— it was “daylight-morning”, “when the guards sealed the tomb”; not, “the “end of the Sabbath”“. But it was daylight-morning (inferred), when “The angel explained to the women, telling them ....”!

Gary DeMar:

“Most commentators take a position similar to that of R. C. H. Lenski who argues that “It is unfortunate that the [Revised Version] has translated [the Greek as] ‘now late on the Sabbath day.’”

GE:

Most commentators are just parroting one another; they seldom if ever, think for themselves. The quality of one’s ‘research’ should not be measured by the number of references made to other ‘commentators’, but nowadays it is. It is good ‘research’ if in agreement with ‘most commentators’; it’s bad when it’s not. It’s in high demand if flattering to most commentators; it’s beneath mention if insulting to the quality of most commentators’ ‘research’ and ‘conclusions’.

Now it’s arrogantly presumptuous, these quasi scholars and parrot-commentators’ ‘critique’ of the Revised Version’s translation of “the Greek as] ‘now late on the Sabbath day.’”

The Revised Version’s rendering is PERFECT! “Now” for ‘de’, is the perfect way to syntactically and contextually relate 28:1-5a, with the foregoing, 27:62-66, “Now .... the angel explained, telling the women .... The next morning after their preparation ....” etc.; as well as with the following, 28:5b to 7, “Now .... the angel explained, telling the women .... Now don’t you, be afraid (like the guard was), for I know, believe me, I know, you are looking for Jesus whom they crucified. He is not here? He is risen! As He told you! .....”.

What a heroic ‘position of R. C. H. Lenski’ – and all the drowning heroes clutching for the same driftwood .....

Gary DeMar:

“This would say the women came to the tomb late on Saturday

instead of early on Sunday. This might be the sense of the Greek words used in the classics, but in the Koine [opse] is used as a preposition and means ‘after,’9”.

GE:

“Footnotes .... 9”, “Lenski, 1943, 1964”. Twenty one years after first publication, and this embarrassing Greek scholarship goes unnoticed. Still made reference to 2009, unnoticed. O my!

This, “now late on the Sabbath day”, ‘might’ not only ‘be the sense of the Greek words used in the classics’; this, IS, “the sense of the Greek words” ‘opse de sabbatohn’ whenever “used in the classics”. Most definitely without exception, because here, in Mt28:1a IS the incidence of the use of the Greek words in Greek up to and until first century Greek. And neither does the ‘sense’ or the ‘use’ of the Greek word ‘opse’ as such differ from what it is in the phrase ‘opse de sabbatohn’, don’t worry. Not in all ‘the Greek classics’ or, “the Koine”.

For that matter, not in all “the Koine”. I (stupid plumber back-bush rhetorician from South Africa) challenge Lenski and Gary DeMar and co to show one single instance “in the Koine” where “opse] is used as a preposition and means ‘after’”. I dare them all! For I know, it is nowhere— nowhere “in the Koine”, nowhere “in the classics”. Categorically, nowhere. Not even in ‘late Greek’, as it is called where in ONE writer who wrote ‘late Greek’, Philostratus, IT IS ALLEGED, opse is used as a preposition and means ‘after’.

These ‘learned’ men, they cannot even do proper parroting. They’re worse than Polly whistling Pollie ons gaan Pêrel toe. It is Gary DeMar copying Lenski and Lenski cribbing .... whom? No, not many before him, in fact scarcely anybody before 1943. A.T. Robertson, Walter Bauer.... ‘moderns’ man, ‘moderns’. This is novelty, this, opse is used as a preposition and means ‘after’. It has no bearing whatsoever on Matthew’s use of ‘opse’ or even on ‘opse’s’ use “in the Koine”.

The AV and the RV are CORRECT and these innovative novices, are WRONG.

Gary DeMar:

“Of course, this is exactly what the Wednesday-Saturday advocates assert. It’s difficult for Lenski to make his case stick since opse is only used four times in the New Testament and is translated as “evening” or “late,” depending on the translation (Matt. 28:1; Mark 11:11, 19; 13:35).”

GE:

Due credit to you, Gary DeMar! In fact each time the meaning is purely, ‘late’ – ‘late in the day’. That is clear, seen in context in “Matt. 28:1; Mark 11:11, 19; 13:35” — “late”, and not, ‘evening’. Keep in mind the old English meaning of the word ‘evening’ which simply says ‘late’, actually. Sunday morning in no manner could be spoken of as being ‘late’ in the day.

Gary DeMar:

“Translating opse as “after” reconciles Matthew 28:1 with Mark 16:1: “And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.”“

GE:

How can “opse as “after” reconcile Matthew 28:1 with Mark 16:1....”? ‘Opse’ meaning “late”, yes! The Resurrection occurs “Late on the Sabbath” (That’s what it says!), nobody expecting and nobody aware of it; nobody near and those near struck down like dead. That was WHEN the Resurrection occurred. Matthew and only Matthew. The women still thinking the body was in the grave, “When the Sabbath had passed, bought spices so that WHEN THEY WOULD COME, they might anoint him.” Mark 16:1 and only Mark16:1. What’s wrong with that? Only that it means that tradition is haywire.

Gary DeMar:

“But the question remains: Can opse be translated as “after”? Woodrow’s explanation is attractive, but the use of the Greek word de might militate against it.”

GE:

It’s no use.

Gary DeMar:

“There are other factors to consider. The women would not have begun their journey to the tomb until after the official end of the Sabbath because they had “rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), that is, they kept the Sabbath provisions of their day. So there was time between the end of the

Sabbath and the beginning of the first day of the week (Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) to purchase spices (Mark 16:1) which would not have taken place on the Sabbath and to travel to the

tomb to anoint Jesus. It was during this time that Jesus rose from the dead.”

GE:

It was compulsory the people should stay in Jerusalem over the passover days. Mt28:2 says the two Marys planned to go see the tomb on the Sabbath, so it must have been near enough for a ‘Sabbath’s-journey’ where they stayed. Therefore the women would have had no objections to journeying on the Sabbath to and fro between the tomb and where they retired in Jerusalem. It would make no difference to it that they had “rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).

The women had to wait until after the official end of the Sabbath – sunset – to go buy spices, because that was against the Law to do on the (weekly) Sabbath. So there was time enough after the end of the Sabbath – after sunset – to purchase spices (Mark 16:1) which they would not have done on the Sabbath.

But even then they could not travel to the tomb to anoint Jesus, because there was the Roman guard still until the end of their watch at midnight and day’s end for them under official Roman rule and personal appointment by the Roman governor.

It was not during this time that Jesus rose from the dead, because Mt28:1 has made that clear already, having told us – through the report of the angel of verse 5a – that the earthquake that accompanied the Resurrection, had occurred “On the Sabbath Day, mid-afternoon, before the First Day of the week”, already. Mt28:1-4.

But nobody, in the meantime, knew of the Resurrection, so that, when “The (several) women came with their spices”, Lk24:1,10, to anoint Him (as planned when they “had bought spices after the Sabbath”, Mk16:1, and also as had been planned on Friday afternoon already before they “began to rest the Sabbath according to the Commandment”, Lk23:56b), the angels told the women who eventually had come to the tomb, that He had had risen already. And that’s why the women – in Lk24:1 further – found the tomb empty.

That then, explains the texts given above. But there are still “Mark 16:2” and “John 20:1” on Gary DeMar’s list that are not explained yet.

Gary DeMar:

“Another problem with the Wednesday view is that the disciples who met and walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus did so on the day of His resurrection (Luke 24:13). The disciples tell this “stranger” (to them) of the crucifixion and death of Jesus (24:20) and say that “it is the third day since these things happened” (24:21). If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been the fifth day since these things happened. The

GE:

“If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been the fifth day since these things happened.” How did Gary DeMar, from, “on Wednesday”, get “Sunday .... the fifth day since these things happened”? He did not reckon, “since these things happened”; he reckoned “If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday”. “Since these things happened” is exclusive; “crucified on Wednesday” is inclusive.

One cannot mix the methods so!

There is a big difference between saying “the fifth day since these things happened”, and, “the fifth day since these things happened on Wednesday”.

These things happened on Wednesday— Wednesday is day one;

on Thursday— Thursday is day two;

on Friday— Friday is day three;

on Saturday— Saturday is day four;

on Sunday— Sunday is day five, “since”;

Sunday is, “the fifth day since these things happened on Wednesday”, which is counting ‘inclusively’. It is not “the fifth day since these things happened” – which is counting exclusively.

Exclusively is to count,

since these things happened Wednesday, Thursday is day one since;

since these things happened Wednesday, Friday is day two since;

since these things happened Wednesday, Saturday is day three since

since these things happened Wednesday, Sunday is day four since....

The fourth day since these things happened, is ‘exclusive’ counting.

Therefore, suppose:

since these things happened Friday— Saturday is day one, “since”; since these things happened Friday— Sunday is day two, “since”.

So we’re in trouble.

Let’s count backwards, see if we can get out of trouble ....

Sunday is day three “.... since these things happened” – which “things”? “The disciples tell this “stranger” (to them) of the crucifixion and death of Jesus (24:20)” .... “the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

So,

Sunday is day three “since the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

Saturday is day two “since the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

Friday is day one “since the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

Thursday is the day OF “the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

Now we’re in deeper trouble.

It must be therefore, Sunday was not “THE third day” OF passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”. According to Lk24:21, “today”, ‘Sunday’, was just ‘the third day’ counted – ‘seen’ – “since” and exclusive of “the crucifixion and death of Jesus”. Keen observation!

Gary DeMar:

“Attempts to resolve this apparent contradiction center on the

mistaken assumption that “heart of the earth” is a reference to the time Jesus spent in the grave.”

GE:

Here is where Gary DeMar says “this apparent contradiction” manifests, “If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been the fifth day since these things happened. The third day was Sunday, the first day of the week. A Thursday crucifixion would have made it the fourth day. So even if Jesus was crucified on Friday and raised on Saturday, we are still missing a third night (first night, Friday, second night, Saturday).” In here are three possibilities for a possible or impossible ‘contradiction’,

1) “If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been....”

2) “A Thursday crucifixion would have made (Sunday....”

3) “if Jesus was crucified on Friday....” Sunday would have been....

Now which of the three, is “this apparent contradiction”? Obviously these: 1) “If Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday, then Sunday would have been....”, and, 3) “if Jesus was crucified on Friday....” Sunday would have been....

I don’t argue for a Wednesday-crucifixion; it is an apparent and self-destructive notion. But a Friday-crucifixion and Sunday-resurrection is actually worse.

First, for the apparent missing third night, and

next, for the apparent missing ability to count to three. Here it is again, to show what I mean:

Sunday is “the third day” “.... since these things ....the crucifixion and death of Jesus .... happened”;

Saturday is the second day “.... since these things ....the crucifixion and death of Jesus .... happened”;

Friday is the first day “.... since these things ....the crucifixion and death of Jesus .... happened”;

Thursday, is the day OF “the crucifixion and death of Jesus”.

“These things”, “happened”, “on”, NOT, “Wednesday”, but, “on”, Thursday, and there is NO, “contradiction”, and there is NO, “missing third night”! :—

“First night” that of the Fifth Day (Wednesday-night//Thursday);

“second night” that of the Sixth Day (Thursday-night//Friday);

Third night of the “three nights” of “three days and three nights”:—

that of the Seventh Day-Sabbath (Friday-night//Saturday).

‘The part represents the whole’, yes! But the whole, represents “die gottgegebene eschatologischgültige Ganzheit” – the God-given eschatologically-due/valid/owed whole of the “three days and three nights”–”three days” “according to the Scriptures” and Prophecy, the Passover-Scriptures and Passover-Prophecy.

Gary DeMar:

“Notice that Matthew 12:40 says nothing about a crucifixion, burial, or a resurrection. Here are some points to consider:

1. ..... Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’”

2. Since Matthew 12:40 is the only place in Scripture where “three days and three nights” and “heart of the earth” are used, we can

assume that it is an idiomatic expression that takes some deciphering using other Scripture passages.”

GE:

Neither of “three days and three nights” and “heart of the earth”, “is an idiomatic expression”. “Three days and three nights” refer to the ‘literal’, “three days and three nights” of Jonah’s ‘literal’ experience of ‘literally’ “three days and three nights” in the ‘literal’ belly of a ‘literal’ fish. Nothing of either “idiomatic” or ‘metaphoric’ or ‘figurative’ language! In other words, the Book of Jonah told history – something that really happened. Then the story, held ‘symbolic’, ‘figurative’, ‘prophetic’, ‘typological’, ‘metaphor’ of the future Christ; and the future Christ when He came, referred to “the PROPHET Jonah” as a ‘symbolic’, ‘figurative’, ‘prophetic’, ‘typological’, ‘metaphor’ of Himself.

But whereas “three days and three nights” refer to the ‘literal’ “three days and three nights” of Jonah’s ‘literal’ experience of ‘literally’ having been “three days and three nights” in the ‘literal’ belly of a ‘literal’ fish, it’s a different matter with the ‘expression’, “in the heart of the earth”. But, the ‘expression’ “in the heart of the earth”, although it is “an expression”, is still NOT “an idiomatic expression”. But although no “idiomatic expression”, the ‘expression’ “in the heart of the earth” is in fact, “an expression” of ‘symbolic’, ‘figurative’, ‘prophetic’, ‘typological’, ‘metaphoric’ kind and meaning.

It’s a matter of linguistics – exact linguistics; not a case for sentimental hit and miss phraseology. Only then can the Scripture Mt12:40 correctly be understood also ‘prophetically’ or ‘eschatologically’. Get the facts right first.

Gary DeMar:

“3. If Jesus was buried in the “heart of the earth,” and “heart” is a metaphor for “center” or “middle,” then Jesus was not buried in the literal heart (center) of the earth.”

GE:

Sure. What you’re saying is “in the “heart of the earth”“ isn’t ‘literal’, but “three days and three nights” is ‘literal’. Good.

Gary DeMar:

“From what we know of Jesus’ burial, He was buried above ground (Matt. 28:2) in a rock hewn grave (Mark 15:46) that could be entered and exited easily.”

GE:

Normally, perhaps; but from what we know of Jesus’ burial his grave was sealed and guarded, and closed with a virtually impossible to move big stone door.

Gary DeMar:

“4. Jerusalem was considered the “heart of the earth: “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her’” (Ezek. 5:5; cp. Ezek. 38:12; Acts 1:8).”

GE:

Sorry, Moses climbed the mountain and flew from there .... I don’t like this sort of ‘exegesis’, no. Where you put together Scriptures that have nothing to do with one another. No.

“The “heart of the earth” as you have said, “is a metaphor for “center” or “middle”“, but of Jesus’ ‘Jonah experience’ of hellish suffering of dying and death. Read Jonah which is the pertinent Scripture and explains Mt12:40. Not Ezek. 5:5; cp. Ezek. 38:12; Acts 1:8. Jesus was “in the heart of the earth”, spiritually “in the Kingdom of My Father” where through obedience He became Hero in battle, “triumphed gloriously”, and was made Lord by Victory. Read the Song of Moses and of the Lamb in Exodus 15, to understand it.

By saying Jerusalem is the heart of the earth because God “set her at the center of the nations, with lands around her”, you make “in the “heart of the earth”“ a literal ‘expression’, and contradict the fact “in the “heart of the earth,” and “heart” is a metaphor of figurative meaning and use in these places, Matthew 12:40 and the Book of Jonah.

Gary DeMar:

“5. Jesus continually points to Jerusalem as the place where He would be betrayed and crucified: “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised on the third day” (Matt.16:21).

GE:

Fine. It confirms ‘the expression’, “in the heart of the earth”, has symbolic, and not, literal meaning. Not even with reference to Jerusalem, if you insist to apply it where it is not applied.

Gary DeMar:

“6. From the time of His being “delivered up” on Thursday evening in the Garden of Gethsemane to the day He “will be raised” constitutes “three days and three nights” in the “heart of the land,” that is, in Jerusalem. The Greek word often translated as “earth” is better translated as “land.”“

GE:

Again, alright, you’re quite right. You are actually with the exception of one word, saying exactly what I say and have been saying for four decades now, “three days and three nights” are meant literally, while “in the heart of the earth” is meant figuratively or prophetically of Jesus’ SUFFERING: “From the time of His being “delivered up”“, OK, but NOT, “on Thursday evening in the Garden of Gethsemane”, but on Wednesday evening in the Garden of Gethsemane. Indeed yes, from on Wednesday evening at the table of the Last Supper. Indeed yes, from on Wednesday evening after sunset when “Came the first day of de-leavening when they always killed the passover on”:— “three days and three nights”–”three days”, “the third day”.

Indeed yes:— “the time of His being “delivered up”“ was “three days and three nights”–”three days”, “to the day He “will be raised”“, “the third day”. “The time of His being “delivered up”“ and the “three days and three nights”–”three days” lasted, from on Wednesday evening until, “the pains of death (were) loosed”, “when God raised Him from the dead”, “On the Sabbath now, Sabbath’s fullness of day” – ‘opse de sabbatohn’.

Gary DeMar:

“One last point needs to be made. The first day of the week, our Sunday, is the eighth day (seven days plus one), an expression of a new creation.”

GE:

Ja, so I have heard. Many times.....

“Three Days and Three Nights”: 'Idiomatic' Expression?

Quote, Seventh Day Adventist 'Sabbath School Lesson 12, 'Friday', December 19, 2003,

“Jesus said that He would spend “three days and three nights” in the heart of the earth; yet, He was buried late Friday and rose Sunday morning, which isn't three full days and nights; that is, a complete 72-hour cycle. Obviously, then, the phrase “three days and three nights” doesn't automatically mean exactly 72 hours. Instead, it's simply an idiomatic expression meaning just three days, such as (in this case) Friday, Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21). It doesn't have to mean a complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour Sunday. In other places, Jesus said that “in three days” He would raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be “raised again the third day” (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the “three days and three nights”; that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised from the dead over a three-day period, even if only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a complete 24-hour day. He was crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday.”

Is the “expression”, “three days and three nights”, an “idiomatic expression”?

It is not an “idiomatic expression”.

The possibility it could have been an “idiomatic expression”, would have been real, were it true - I extract from the quote from Bacchiocchi, p. 129 in this book (Part 1 / 1) -,

“... the phrase “three days and three nights”“ had “abundant Biblical ... evidence”. The possibility would have been real, were it true “three days and three nights” is “used in the Scriptures idiomatically to indicate ... complete 24-hour days” as a rule.

Matter of fact is, the claim of “abundant Biblical evidence” simply is not true, and the expression “three days and three nights” is used in the New Testament but this once, in Matthew 12:40. Meanwhile the 'rule' is to use the truly 'idiomatic' expression, “the third day”. Bacchiocchi's claim is false!

What IS an “idiomatic” expression?

Collins supplies the following explanation of an 'idiomatic' expression:

“... a linguistic usage that is grammatical and natural to native speakers of a language - the characteristic vocabulary or usage of a specific group ...”.

A word or phrase may be an 'idiomatic expression' if used representatively, that is, 'for' something in the greater whole. E.g., “day” for the whole cycle of night and day; “Passover” for the whole of the eight day feast of Passover.

An 'idiomatic' expression is a shorter reference to an assumed familiar complexity.

An 'idiomatic' expression is a general, constituent of specifics.

It usually is the colloquial or vernacular.

It not necessarily is symbolic or metaphoric.

Eleven times the 'idiomatic' expression “the third day” is used in the New Testament, and once only the specific, “three days and three nights”.

Therefore: Jesus meant what he said in Mt.12:40; He meant it as written and read. He does not say 'hours', so does not mean 'hours'; He does not say 'days' simply, and therefore does not mean 'days' simply, but specifically “three days, and, three nights”.

Taking the phrase or 'expression' “three days and three nights” means “three days and three nights”, the traditional Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection thesis, “meaning just three days”, does not hold. It “isn't three full days and nights” no matter what our cleverness. Where is our Christian honesty when dealing with this Scripture? It seems it lies with our true loyalty - with popish error and lying to make a case for Sunday.

Are these accidental errors, or negligence, or carefully framed errors? No matter which, they are inexcusable, and must be attended to if we are serious about the Bible and Christianity:-

“Three full days and nights” is not what Jesus said or meant. What did Jesus mean then? What He said!

“Jesus ... was buried late Friday...” Ah yes! But don't say “crucified” or “died”, because on Sunday, it had been “the third day since these things”!

“and rose Sunday morning...” Not true, no accident, but a fabricated lie - the lie of lies on which Sunday observance thrives. If you or I persist in parroting this lie, we in chorus with the devil who from the beginning was the father of lies, stand father to it.

“three full days and nights; that is, a complete 72-hour cycle...” I have never heard of the phenomenon called a “72-hour cycle”. Seventy two hours - as propagated by Armstrong-disciples - involve five days!

“...Friday, Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21).”

The passages “Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21” include four days. Lk.23:49 tells how the day of crucifixion ended; verse 50 how the next day began - the day that ended after Joseph had closed the grave - Friday. Friday was the second of the three days.

”... the phrase “three days and three nights” ... doesn't have to mean a complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a complete 24-hour Sunday.” It's not the hours, but the parts, “night”, and, “day” Jesus mentioned and meant. And Sunday's night - Saturday night - and Sunday's day were not included in the days and the nights of which Jesus spoke and which He meant. It is simply - that's the word, “simply” - asserted, presumed, alleged, falsely so.

“In other places, Jesus said that “in three days” He would raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be “raised again the third day” (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the “three days and three nights”...” Why then did Jesus not again in Mt.12:40 say, “in three days”, or, “the third day”? Was it for no reason He used the unusual, specific, of one time occurrence, “three days and three nights”? I don't believe!

”... that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised from the dead over a three-day period...”. Yes, but “three days and three nights” would constitute that “three-day period” - each day constituted of its night part and its day part. Jesus says, not only His crucifixion per se and His resurrection per se would constitute those three days and three nights, but His being “in the heart of the earth”. Jesus' being “in the heart of the earth” would make up the entire content of the “three days and three nights”. Jesus would suffer - dying, death, interment and grave - and be raised “the third day” from His suffering - from His being “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”. Every word of Jesus is meant and is meaningful “according to the Scriptures” because the Scriptures are the “sign” of Passover - the sign of redemption. The Scriptures witness of Christ, every word of it, especially these in Mt.12:40, because it happened exactly so. Exactly so and never as by every Word of God we must live, “... even if only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a complete 24-hour day...”.

Therefore, what error and falsity it is that “He was crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday”! Every Scripture in the New Testament that has to do with the chronology of events about Jesus' suffering and triumph are so wrangled by 'translation' as to do service to the instigator of this error and falsity, the Vatican.

”He was crucified late ...”. If 9 am - morning of day - means “late Friday” relative to the whole (Jewish reckoned) cycle of the day that started sunset the previous evening, then “late” may be the accepted time of day supposed for Jesus' crucifixion. But if 3 pm - “late” afternoon of day - the hour of Jesus' giving over the spirit is meant, it of course cannot have been the hour He had been crucified.

“He was crucified late Friday ...” Jesus wasn't crucified on Friday - the Sixth Day - but on the day before, on Thursday - the Fifth Day.

“He ... rose Sunday ...”, Wrong; He rose “In Sabbath's-time” - Mt.28:1.

“He spent Sabbath in the tomb ...”, Jesus did spend part of the Sabbath in the tomb, but, “In fulness (“late” opsé) of Sabbath's-time (sabbátohn) in the very being of light (epiphohskóúsehi) the First Day approaching ... (eis mían sábbaton)”, rose from the dead.

“On the First Day of the week, early, He appeared to Mary Magdalene (of all), first.” (Mark 16:9)

What gross nonsense then is it to declare,

“The expression “three days and three nights” is used in the Scriptures idiomatically to indicate not three complete 24-hour days, but three calendric days of which the first and the third could have consisted of only a fraction of a day.” Bacchiocci TCR p. 22/23/24 The first and the third, as the second, consisted of what Jesus in so many words said they would, namely, of a night and a day, each. The first began where Jesus said His hour was come, and that of evil men and of the power of darkness - there, Jesus' first night of woe had begun. The second night would find Jesus on the cross, hanging there – dead! Jesus' second night of suffering for man the death of sinners had begun “when it was evening already” – Mt.27:57, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:50, Jn.19:31, 38. “The third day according to the Scriptures” “in the slow hours of Sabbath's-time, it being the essence of light, the First Day of the week afar off”, saw come true Jesus' word, that “the third day I finish!”

The phrase “a day and a night” does not exist in the Scriptures of concern. The phrase “three days and three nights” however, it is true, does not refer to an exact number of hours or minutes, but “according to the Scriptures” to the precise “calendrical” days, completed. A fraction of a day whether of the night or of the day was reckoned inclusively as representing the whole day. The moments of giving over the spirit, and of taking it up again, are the moments marking the first and the third of the “three days”. Joseph's whole undertaking to have the body buried, marks the second of the “three days”.

4 August 2009

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za