Joe Viel Answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
First Delivery
Friday Aviv 15 Afternoon
Joe Viel:
Let's take a
look at some of the events in detail that occured when He died. It's clear He
died on Aviv 14.
|
Wednesday Night, Aviv 14 |
Y'shua celebrates Last Supper with His disciples. |
|
Thursday Morning, Aviv 14 |
Y'shua tried by Pilate, sentenced, sent to |
|
Thursday 12noon to 3 pm |
Y'shua hung on cross. Darkness covered land at noon until He
died at 3pm. |
|
Thursday Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14 |
Yochanan / John 19:39-40 says, "Nicodemus brought a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds. Taking Y'shua' body, the two of them
[Nicodemus and Joseph] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This
was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." Now this raises the
question, why did the women prepare other spices for Y'shua's body? Did
Nicodemus not do everything? Did he not use the entire set of mixes that was
part of the custom? Maybe he couldn't carry it all by himself - 75 litras is
about 56 pounds and I'm not sure how far he had carry those 56 pounds. The women
must have known what Nicodemus did for it says in Luke 23:55 that, "The
women who had come with Y'shua from Luke 23:56
says, "Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they
rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment." This probably
refers to what they did Thursday afternoon, while it was still Aviv 14, using
either spices they had at home or maybe spices they obtained from Nicodemus
of what he had left over or from a friend. But this may have been a partial
effort as well, since apparently they had to go out and buy more later on.
Maybe they discovered they didn't have all the spices they needed. Maybe they
ran out of time to do it all and had to stop before they were finished. The
"spices and perfumes" here are "aromata" and
"myrrhs". Nicodemus brought Myrrh and aloes. Maybe he gave them
what he had left over. |
|
Thursday Night, Aviv 15 |
High Sabbath - First day of Unleavened Bread Y'shua
in tomb, disciples rested, most Pharisaic Jews celebrate Passover. |
|
Friday Day Aviv 15 |
Day of High Sabbath. When High Sabbath Ends, regular weekly
Sabbath begins |
|
Friday Night Aviv 16 |
Regular Weekly Sabbath Begins |
|
Saturday Day Aviv 16 |
Weekly Sabbath ends at Sundown |
|
Saturday Night Aviv 17 |
Matt 28:1 says, "At the end of the Sabbaths (plural, not
singular)" Thus Matt 28:1 is talking about the two Sabbaths that
happened back-to-back. The KJV mistranslates this as "Sabbath". The
word here can mean "Sabbaths" or "Week" or
"Sevens" or "High Sabbath" but only "Sabbaths"
make sense given the translation, so the KJV probably errored here. The KJV
may have been colored by the idea of a Friday crucifixion and they may have
disgarded the plural nature of it as not making sense to them due to Catholic
tradition. Now had it said "Sabbath" [singular] that would still
have been correct, but the plural reference provides more detail. In Mark 16
it says, "As the Sabbath was ending" the two Mary's "bought
spices so they might go to annoint Y'shua' body." This could have been
done Saturday evening. They could have bought some spices from a next door
neighbor, friend, what Nicodemus had back at his house, etc. It does not say
they went to the marketplace, so there's no requirement that any shops be
open. It does
not say they prepared these spices. Maybe they didn't. Maybe this third set
of spices being dealt with was already mixed/ready. Or maybe they did more
work. We don't know. Here it mentions "aromata" but no
"myrrh". Maybe they got all the myrrh they needed from Nicodemus
when they saw him Thursday and were only short on the "aromata".
But then again "aromata" is a rather generic term that could
include the "myrrh" as well. So the
Bible may be recording 3 separate partial efforts to prepare spices for the
body of Y'shua, and each effort is duely noted and recorded separately. And what
the women were too late to do may have already been done by another woman in
Mark 14:3-9 who annointed Him BEFORE His death. |
|
At “orthou batheos” or the crack of dawn, Aviv 17 |
Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at
"orthrou batheos". |
|
Sunday Day, Aviv 17 |
Y'shua appears to all the disciples. |
Joe Viel:
“The events in detail Let's
take a look at some of the events in detail that occured when .....”
GE:
Here has
been Joe Viel’s most fatal
attraction to assert:
“Luke 23:56 says, "Then they went home and prepared
spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the
commandment." This
probably refers to what they did Thursday
afternoon, while it was still
Aviv 14 .....” Emphasis GE
We take
the chronological sequence of both the
days and dates and “events that occurred
.....” and try to work out the exclusively
Scriptural, temporal and historical
correlation between them, “when”
Jesus was ....
1)
crucified, 2) buried, 3) resurrected and 4) appeared : in that order.
1a) “Wednesday Night Aviv 14 : Last Supper ....”;
1b) “Thursday morning Aviv 14 : Y'shua tried by Pilate, sentenced, sent to
1c) “Thursday 12 noon to 3 pm : .... hung on cross .... died ....”;
1d) “Thursday Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14
.......”;
2a) “Thursday Night, Aviv 15 .......”;
2b) “Friday Day Aviv 15 : Day of High Sabbath.
When .... ends ....”;
3a) “Friday Night Aviv 16 : Regular Sabbath
Begins ....”;
3b) “Saturday Day Aviv 16 : Weekly Sabbath ends
at Sundown”;
3c) “Saturday Night Aviv 17 : Matt 28:1 says, “At
the end ....”;
GE:
With a
quick glance through the above I have noticed
1) the absence
in Joe Viel’s summary of Friday
afternoon;
2) the dominance
of just about all the old and usual obfuscations
of the
chronology and sequence of days and events at the Passover of our Saviour Lord
Jesus Christ.
Joe Viel:
(1a) “Wednesday Night, Aviv 14
Y'shua celebrates Last
Supper with His disciples.”
GE:
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures,
Mk14:12/17; Mt26:17/20; Lk22:7/14; Jn13:1/29, 1Cor11:23b.
But, where are
all the events of the past night after,
“Wednesday Night, Aviv 14 : Y'shua
celebrates Last Supper with His disciples” and before, “Y'shua tried by Pilate”?
Joe Viel:
(1b) “Thursday Morning, Aviv
14
Y'shua tried by Pilate,
sentenced, sent to
GE:
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:1/Mt27:1/Lk23:1/Jn19:14
Joe Viel:
(1c) “Thursday 12noon-3pm,
Aviv 14
Y'shua hung on cross.
Darkness covered land at noon until He died at 3pm.”
GE:
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:37–41; Mk27:50–56; Lk23:44–49; Jn19:28–30.
But, what
happened AFTER “Thursday 12noon-3pm,
Aviv 14
Y'shua hung on cross.
Darkness covered land at noon until He died at 3pm.”?
The chaotic scene of the cross and Jesus’ death was
DESERTED by ALL;
because HERE is found the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON
of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures”
ENDING, LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of
the FIRST of the “three days” STILL, UNTIL sunset 6pm. and
“Suddenly a man named Joseph ....” (Lk23:50),
contrary Joe
Viel: “Thursday Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14 ..... John 19:39-40 says, "Nicodemus brought a mixture of
myrrh”
Joe Viel:
(1d) “Thursday Afternoon 3pm
to sunset, Aviv 14
Yochanan / John 19:39-40
....”
GE:
DENIED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38, 1Cor11:23b.
For HERE BEGINS the SECOND of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures – the day whereon
Joseph WOULD BURY the body of Jesus.
Joe
Viel:
“Thursday Afternoon
3pm to sunset, Aviv 14
Yochanan / John 19:39-40
says, "Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds.
Taking Y'shua' body, the two of them [Nicodemus and Joseph] wrapped it, with
the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial
customs." .........”
GE:
DENIED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38, 1Cor11:23b, because
“Nicodemus” or “the two men” acted not “afternoon”, but, “evening” and “night”,
after sunset;
and,
DENIED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40,
1Cor11:23b.
For HERE is the NIGHT
of the SECOND of the “three days”,
“according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures –
wherein Joseph begged the body, and according to
the law of the Jews – the passover’s law (Ex12, Lv23) –
undertook and prepared to bury Jesus.
Joe Viel:
“Now this raises the
question, why did the women prepare other spices for Y'shua's body? Did
Nicodemus not do everything? Did he not use the entire set of mixes that was
part of the custom? Maybe he couldn't carry it all by himself - 75 litras is
about 56 pounds and I'm not sure how far he had carry those 56 pounds.”
GE:
To clarify:
John says Nicodemus
brought those spices to where Joseph already was busy preparing the body for “treatment
.... according to the custom / law of the Jews” – the passover-instructions
according to Ex 12-14 and Lv23. Whatever
we say more, we say more than the Gospels say.
Joe Viel:
“The women must have known what Nicodemus did for it says in
Luke 23:55 that, "The women who had come with Y'shua from
GE:
To clarify:
Those two women were
the two Marys. No other women joined. Only
they are mentioned or referred, Mk15:47, Mt27:61, Lk23:55 / 24:24. Only they were
present. No other men, either, than Joseph and Nicodemus knew because they
only are mentioned; only they were present; only they, “prepared / handled the
body”, and only they, and the two women, buried Jesus.
Totally a different picture and personae than on
the afternoon before— the afternoon
of the death and forsaking of the Lord, Lk23:48c.
Joe Viel:
“So yes, they didn't come back .....”
GE:
To clarify:
In fact, it says in
Mark 15:46c, Joseph “rolled a stone in the door of the sepulchre”, and
in Mt27:61c, Joseph “departed”, and in Luke 23:56a, the women, “went home, and prepared
spices and ointments”.
So yes, the women “left”, and “everybody left” (Lk23:48c-49a), and neither ‘came back’ again. That was after “the ninth hour”, Mk15:34a, “Thursday Afternoon ..... Aviv 14”.
Nobody came back .... not until it was “Thursday Afternoon ..... Aviv 14” NO
MORE, and “Evening already it was, The Preparation
Day which is the Fore-Sabbath” .... “when suddenly a man named Joseph
....”. Mk15:42, Lk23:50.
It says in Lk23:54,
“and that day was
the Day of Preparation still”
– ‘epefohsken’ :
‘epi’ (‘midst-over’) + ‘phohs’ (‘light-day’) + ‘(k)en’ (‘was’)” – “midst-over
lightday-was” = “mid-afternoon”,
“towards the
Sabbath” (‘eis sabbaton’), Imperfect,
literally,
“mid-afternoon
still”, the same time of day
John stipulates in
19:42, where it says exactly,
“by the time of
the Jew’s preparations”
for the pending
Sabbath Day (3 pm to 6 pm).
So yes, the women left, and the men left, and neither again ‘came
back’ again until after, “They (had) rested the Sabbath according to the
(Fourth) Commandment.” (Lk23:56b)
Because the women, according
to Luke 23:56a, after they had their
preparations done, according to Lk23:56b “began to rest (Ingressive
Aorist, ‘hehsyxasan’) the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment” ---
the Sabbath-Law, the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue— ‘kata tehn entolehn’, the ‘Moral Law’. Not,
‘ho nomos’ ‘law’ of the unusual, ‘ceremonial’, ‘sabbaths’ like the just before
sunset, past, passover’s “great day sabbath”.
But this was the day after the
day Jesus was crucified and died on!
This,
was not “Thursday Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14”;
this
was ‘Friday day’ = ‘Friday’ “afternoon” = ‘3 pm to sunset’ Aviv 15 —
for
which Joe Viel has made no provision
or space, nor gives account of, in his total scheme of hours, days or dates!
Joe Viel:
“So yes, they didn't come back because they weren't aware
Nicodemus had already done this.”
GE:
To clarify:
The women weren’t “near
the place where He was crucified”
again from after the crucifixion until they “followed after” as
the two men must have carried the body to, and into the tomb, and the two
women, “sat down over
against the grave and looked on how the body was laid.” They knew nothing of the men’s undertaking
until such time as they must have been called upon by them to come and “follow
after” in the procession to the sepulchre from the place where the two men
had prepared the body.
Again, this, a totally
different picture than at the cross while and after Jesus died.
Joe Viel:
“They saw
what Nicodemus did. .....”
GE:
Therefore denied!
The women did not
even know what Nicodemus did. Joseph
and Nicodemus had had the body prepared for the tomb before the women got
there.
Joe Viel:
“Thursday Afternoon
3pm to sunset, Aviv 14
Yochanan / John 19:39-40 says, "Nicodemus
brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds. Taking Y'shua' body, the
two of them [Nicodemus and Joseph] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of
linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs"” –
GE:
Therefore once again DENIED:
DENIED as far as time of day is concerned, and therefore
DENIED as far as date of day, is concerned.
DENIED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:46b–47; Mk27:60–61; Lk23:53b–56a; JN19:41–42.
For HERE is
the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the SECOND of the “three
days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures – when
Joseph and Nicodemus had laid the body and had closed the tomb; and men
and women together left for home, so that HERE is found day’s
ending from 3 pm. until sunset while
..... as Joe Viel quoted, “Luke 23:56 says, "Then they
went home and prepared spices and perfumes”— the equivalent time of day and afternoon found in Jn19:42, of Sabbath’s “preparations”
.... three hours left for “the
Jews’ preparations”, and before day’s end with sunset— end of the Sixth Day
“That was The Preparation Day and mid-afternoon the Sabbath was pending”,
(‘sabbaton epefohsken’).
Joe Viel:
“But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the
commandment." This probably refers to what they did Thursday afternoon,
while it was still Aviv 14, .....”
GE:
DENIED again, by these Scriptures,
Mk15:46b–47; Mk27:60–61; Lk23:53b–56a; JN19:41–42.
For HERE is
the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the SECOND of the “three
days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures – when
Joseph and Nicodemus had laid the body and had closed the tomb; and men
and women together left for home, so that HERE is found day’s
ending from 3 pm. until sunset while
..... as Joe Viel quoted, “Luke 23:56 says,
"Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes”— the equivalent time of day and afternoon
found in Jn19:42, of Sabbath’s preparations .... three hours left of, before day’s end with sunset!
Joe Viel:
“..... using either spices they had at home or maybe spices
they obtained from Nicodemus of what he had left over or from a friend. But
this may have been a partial effort as well, since apparently they had to go
out and buy more later on. Maybe they discovered they didn't have all the
spices they needed. Maybe they ran out of time to do it all and had to stop
before they were finished. The "spices and perfumes" here are
"aromata" and "myrrhs". Nicodemus brought Myrrh and aloes.
Maybe he gave them what he had left over.”
GE:
To clarify:
Unnecessary
side-issues ..... (before I say too much and get into trouble with Joe Viel
again.)
Joe Viel:
“Thursday Night, Aviv 15
High Sabbath - First day
of Unleavened Bread .....”
GE:
CONFIRMED:
This time,
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures,
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38, 1Cor11:23b.
For HERE BEGINS the SECOND of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures – the day whereon
Joseph WOULD BURY the body of Jesus.
Joe Viel:
“Thursday Night,
Aviv 15 High Sabbath - First day of Unleavened Bread”
GE:
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures,
without interruption
upon which followed, NOT,
“Thursday Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14”, BUT,
“Now being
evening The Preparation Day that IS the Fore-Sabbath”,
Mk15:42, John 19:31
saying,
“since it was The
Preparation Day being that great day sabbath”,
of the passover of
course : simultaneously— when first,
“The Jews .... and after these things
(of the Jews), Joseph ....”
verses 31 and 38 in
chronological as well as contextual order,
38 following after
31, in the night and beginning part of
The Preparation Day
and “Thursday
Night, Aviv 15
High Sabbath - First day of
Unleavened Bread ........ Yochanan / John 19:39-40 says, "Nicodemus
brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds. Taking Y'shua' body, the
two of them [Nicodemus and Joseph] wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of
linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs."”
Joe Viel:
“Thursday
Night, Aviv 15 : High Sabbath - First day of Unleavened Bread ..... most
Pharisaic Jews having celebrated
Passover”.
GE:
...... by
now.
Confirmed by these Scriptures – the
passover Scriptures –
Jn18:28 x 19:31.
Joe Viel:
“Thursday Afternoon
3pm to sunset, Aviv 14 .... Yochanan / John 19:39-40 says,
"Nicodemus brought ..... Now this ..... in Luke 23:55 ..... "The women ..... saw
the tomb and how his body was laid in it." ..... Luke 23:56 says, "Then they went home and prepared
spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the
commandment." This
probably refers to what they did Thursday afternoon,
while it was still Aviv 14 .....” Emphasis GE
GE:
Denied!
Why, denied?
Because these
Scriptures CONFIRM:
“Thursday
NIGHT,” AFTER sunset 6 pm,
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40—
“evening having come already” (Mk15:42a),
“since it was The Preparation” (Jn19:31a),
“and since that day was a great day sabbath”
(Jn19:31b),
“because it was the Preparation” (Mk15:42b),
“which IS the Fore-Sabbath” (Mk15:42c),
“John
19:39-40 says, "Nicodemus brought .........””.
Because CONFIRMED by these Scriptures is
the fact that
HERE is the NIGHT of the SECOND
of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the
passover–Scriptures – Abib 15,
wherein Joseph begged the body, and
“according to the law / custom of the Jews” – the passover’s law –
had undertaken to prepare to bury Jesus.
BY THEN
“it was” but “High Sabbath -
First day of Unleavened Bread” “having begun”— the while Jesus’
body still hung on the cross, and
Joseph was about to request for the
body.
Joe Viel:
at this point in time saying:
“Luke 23:56 says, "Then they went home and prepared
spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the
commandment." This
probably refers to what they did Thursday
afternoon, while it was still
Aviv 14 .....” Emphasis GE
GE:
Therefore DENIED indeed:
This probably
refers to what they did Thursday afternoon, while it was still
Aviv 14 .....”
..... because,
“This” – “Luke 23:56” – was the next “afternoon” – “mid-afternoon” in fact – while it still was
Aviv 15, “while still the Sabbath was approaching”.
Indeed DENIED,
as by these Scriptures it is CONFIRMED:
the Thursday NIGHT
AFTER sunset 6 pm,
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40—
“evening having come
already” (Mk15:42a),
“since it was The
Preparation” (Jn19:31a),
“and since that day
was a great day sabbath” (Jn19:31b),
“because it was the
Preparation” (Mk15:42b),
“which IS the Fore-Sabbath” (Mk15:42c),
Aviv 15 in fact HAD HAD BEGUN, and
HERE is seen the NIGHT of the SECOND
of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the
passover–Scriptures – Abib 15,
BEGINNING, wherein Joseph begged the body, and
“according to the law / custom of the Jews” – the passover’s law –
had undertaken to prepare to bury Jesus .....
These Scriptures every one, are that, that DENY and contradict Joe Viel, having said,
“Y'shua in tomb, disciples rested ....” “This
time .... ”,
“Thursday
Afternoon 3pm to sunset, Aviv 14”.
GE:
DENIED because Jesus’ body then still
hang on the cross, and “it having become already” ..... “Friday Day Aviv 15 .... Day of High Sabbath” (Joe Viel).
Joe Viel:
“Thursday Night, Aviv 15, High
Sabbath - First day of Unleavened Bread: Y'shua in tomb .....”
Emphasis GE
GE:
DENIED — again— (fourth time?)
Friday,
“mid afternoon towards the Sabbath”, Lk23:54, Aviv 15,
“great
day sabbath”, Jn19:31, on “First day of
Unleavened Bread”,
Jesus was in the
tomb for the
first time!
Joseph
only began to undertake to obtain the body in order to
prepare
it in order to bury it, “Thursday Night, Aviv 15, High
Sabbath - First day of Unleavened Bread”.
Joe Viel:
“When High Sabbath Ends,
regular weekly Sabbath begins.”
“Saturday Day Aviv 16 : Weekly Sabbath ends at Sundown”
GE:
CONFIRMED by these Scriptures:
Mk16:1, “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome, bought spices so that when they would go, they may anoint Him”;
Jn20:1, “Being early darkness still (‘proh-i skotia eti ousehs’), comes Mary to the tomb and sees the stone taken away from (it).”
Three Days and Three Nights
All these Scriptures are in PERFECT AGREEMENT in every
respect :
And yes, they have everything to do with the “three days prophecy”
BECAUSE :
1A) HERE BEGINS the NIGHT and the FIRST of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Jesus ENTERED IN in “the Kingdom of my Father” (Jesus’ Jonah’s
descent to hell) :–
Mk14:12/17; Mt26:17/20; Lk22:7/14; Jn13:1, 1Cor11:23b.
1B) HERE BEGINS the MORNING of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
in which Jesus was delivered and crucified :–
Mk15:1/Mt27:1/Lk23:1/Jn19:14
1C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the FIRST of
the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Jesus DIED and was deserted by all :–
Mk15:37–41; Mk27:50–56; Lk23:44–49; Jn19:28–30
2A) HERE BEGINS the SECOND of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
the day whereon Joseph WOULD BURY the body of Jesus :–
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38.
2B) HERE is the NIGHT of the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to
the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Joseph begged the body, and according to the law of
the Jews – the passover’s law – undertook and prepared to
bury Jesus:–
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40
2C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the SECOND of
the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body and closed the tomb;
and men and women left for home :–
Mk15:46b–47; Mk27:60–61; Lk23:53b–56a; Jn19:41–42
3A) HERE BEGINS the THIRD of the “three
days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
THAT JESUS WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD ON :–
Lk23:56b
3B) HERE is the MORNING of the THIRD of the “three days”, “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
Pilate ordered a guard “for the third day” :–
Mt27:62–66
3C) HERE is “IN the Sabbath’s Fullness MID–AFTERNOON” of the THIRD of the “three
days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD :–
Mt28:1–4.
4A) HERE begins the day AFTER the “three days” (fourth day of
the passover season) :–
that Jesus WOULD APPEAR on :–
Mk16:1, “When the Sabbath was past ..... they BOUGHT ....”
4B) HERE is the EVENING of this day,
Jn20:1–10 Mary sees the DOOR STONE was away from the tomb (discovers tomb has been OPENED);
4C) HERE is the NIGHT of this day,
Lk24:1–10 “DEEP(EST) DARKNESS” ––– “women with their spices” and ointments go to salve the body; “they found Him NOT” (discover tomb is EMPTY);
Mk16:2–8 “very early (before) SUN’S RISING” ––– women’s return–visit to ascertain; “they fled terrified and told NO ONE”.
4D) Here is sunrise (‘Sunday’ morning),
Jn20:11f, Mk16:9 “Mary had had stood behind” .... saw the gardener (sunrise); “Risen, early (sunrise) on the First Day, Jesus first APPEARED to Mary ....”
Mt28:5–10 “The angel explained to the (other) women (Mt28:1–4) .... As they went to tell .... Jesus met them” (after sunrise).
Mt28:11–15 Guard to high priests.
USE BIBLES OF BEFORE THE TWENTIETH CENTURY – they are not as wangled as the later ones. And compare those ancient translations with the modern ones to see the truth of the older ones!
Objection:
“The same verse you earlier used to assert that He resurrected on the Sabbath, can also be used to assert that He resurrected on Sunday!”
Answer:
If the verse you have in mind is Mt28:1, it CANNOT “also be used to assert that He resurrected on Sunday!”
1) BECAUSE of all the reasons I have already given from ALL the Scriptures;
2) BECAUSE of its ONLY CORRECT literal meaning:
“opse de” and in fullness / late on / in
“sabbatohn” of the Sabbath
(“sabbatohn”) the Sabbath’s / Sabbath’s–time’s
“tehi” in the
“epi” very / midst
“phohs” light / daylight / (noon)
“ousehi” in the being
“eis” towards / before / tending / against
“mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn” Acc=excluded First (Day) of the week.
3) Precisely as used in Lk23:54 for Friday “mid–afternoon before the Sabbath”.
4) BECAUSE of the Exodus and Leviticus passover instructions concerning Abib 14, 14, and 16.
5) BECAUSE of Mt12:40 and “three days AND three nights”.
THEREFORE:
1) Fifth Day : Wednesday night and Thursday day ––– Abib 14, Remove leaven and slaughter lamb;
2) Sixth Day / “the Preparation WHICH IS the Fore-sabbath” : Thursday night and Friday day ––– Abib 15, “that which remaineth” carried out and burned (interred);
3) Seventh Day Sabbath “according to the (Fourth) Commandment” : Friday night and Sabbath, day ––– Abib 16, “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD”.
End of first
delivery. 19 June 2009.
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Preparations lawful on
sabbaths?
Joe Viel answered
Delivery Two
By Gerhard Ebersöhn
Joe Viel:
The Night He Died
The
Scriptures seem to tell us that Y'shua (Jesus) died on Thursday afternoon, Aviv
14th, and rose just before dawn on Sunday morning, Aviv 17. While there was a
Sabbath day each week, several holidays were also called "Sabbaths"
(See Lev 23 and Talmud m.Eduyyot 2:10 H) and Yeshua is said to have been
crucified - not on the week Preparation Day - but on...
"It was the
day of Preparation of Passover "
(John/Yoch 19:14)
....not the
weekly Preparation Day. So this was Aviv 14, not necessarily a Friday.
So both
Friday Aviv 15 and Saturday Aviv 16 were Sabbath days, which meant that the
only day to have prepared for EITHER Sabbath - the annual Sabbath of Aviv 15 or
the weekly Sabbath - would have been Thursday Aviv 14.
Preparations for the sabbaths
Joe Viel:
“The Night He
Died
The
Scriptures seem to tell us that Y'shua (Jesus) died on Thursday afternoon, Aviv
14th, and rose just before dawn on Sunday morning, Aviv 17. While there was a
Sabbath day each week, several holidays were also called "Sabbaths"
(See Lev 23 and Talmud m.Eduyyot 2:10 H) and Yeshua is said to have been
crucified - not on the week Preparation Day - but on...
"It was the
day of Preparation of Passover "
(John/Yoch 19:14)
....not the
weekly Preparation Day. So this was Aviv 14, not necessarily a Friday.”
GE:
Re: “the only day to have prepared for EITHER”
Joe Viel, You and I are
in agreement as to on which day of the
week the Lord Jesus was crucified.
The ‘necessity’ of “It was the day of Preparation of Passover " (John/Yoch 19:14)” is absolute. It cannot be denied as it is
by just about everybody who has had something to say about it. You may with confidence, I believe, defend
the truth, our Lord was crucified and died ‘necessarily’
‘not (on) a Friday’, but necessarily, that means, “according to
the Scriptures” – the passover Scriptures – on a Thursday. Which we both are trying to
show and establish. Sela.
May I
also suggest that one should rather speak of ‘holy days’ than of
‘holidays’.
Also
perhaps, that one may safely ignore Jewish sources altogether. Who is conversed with them? Very few. Is it
necessary to know them unto salvation?
No. Are they infallible like the
Scriptures is? No. Do they (sometimes) contradict
the Bible and the New Testament specifically? They must, because they all originated after the lifetime of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and must have been written by people who to some degree must
have been inimical to the Fulfiller
of Messianic Promise and Prophecy.
I
therefore am sure, and no moment doubt, the Scriptures – the passover
Scriptures, Old AND New Testaments – clearly
tell us that Jesus died on Thursday afternoon, Aviv 14th.
Joe Viel:
“So both Friday Aviv 15 and Saturday Aviv 16 were
Sabbath days, which meant that the only day to have prepared for EITHER Sabbath
- the annual Sabbath of Aviv 15 or the weekly Sabbath - would have been
Thursday Aviv 14.”
GE:
Yes, “both Friday Aviv 15 and Saturday Aviv 16 were
Sabbath days”. But “meant” that, “that the only day to have prepared for EITHER
Sabbath - the annual Sabbath of Aviv 15 or the weekly Sabbath - would have been
Thursday Aviv 14.”?
Certainly, and necessarily, not. Not “according to the Scriptures” –
the passover Scriptures!
The Law of the passover, Exodus 12-14 and Leviticus 23
commanded, and the nature of the
passover demanded, that ‘preparations’
for Abib 14 must be made on Abib 14. For no reason than the ‘Old Testament’ Law does John in 19:14
in the New Testament Scriptures use the name of “The Preparation of the
Passover” for Abib 14.
Nowhere
is it suggested though on “The
Preparation of the Passover” Abib 14 (Thursday), preparations were being
made for the next two days after, Friday
Abib 15 and Saturday Abib 16, because they were ‘sabbaths’, as Joe Viel wants it. Nowhere either was it required that preparations for any ‘sabbath’ after, should be made
on the day before. The fourteenth day of the First Month and the ninth day of
the Seventh Month were ‘passover’ and ‘atonement’ days in own right and in themselves provided for ‘preparations’. The ‘passover’ and ‘atonement’ ‘feast day-‘sabbaths’ of the fifteenth day of
the First Month and tenth day of the Seventh Month, the same, provided in
themselves for necessary and mandatory ‘preparations’.
John
uses the Possessive: “The
Preparation OF Passover”; not the Preposition,
‘the preparation FOR the passover’. ‘Preparation’ was part and characteristic
of the day as such. Preparations needed no day before the actual
‘day-of-preparations’; the ‘preparations’ as such were the aim and purpose and
content, essence and meaning of the particular ‘feast-day’ itself.
Three
times I have noticed, the Jews insisted on certain precautionary or preparatory
measures to be taken, yes, four times:
1) They asked Pilate for the bones of the
crucified to be broken so that they could die sooner and their bodies and
crosses could be removed from embarrassing public sight on the pending ‘great
day sabbath’.
2) The Jews the morning of Abib 14 insisted to
have Jesus crucified, but they would not enter into the house of Pilate “lest
they should be defiled but that they might eat the passover” the following
night. They had no scruples to enter Pilate’s house later on, meaning the Jews
have had eaten their passover meal before they went to see Pilate.
3) “The morning after their preparations”, says
Mt27:62 – on the Sabbath day indeed – the Jews asked a guard of Pilate to
prevent Jesus’ disciples steal the body before the third day would have
expired.
4) John 19:42 mentions “the preparations of the
Jews” that still had to be made before the Sabbath; Mark called this day The
Preparation (Day) which is the Fore-Sabbath (Day), meaning Friday the Sixth Day
of the week.
These
were “the Jews’ preparations”; they were not the Law’s! They were “the traditions of men”; not
the Scripture’s. Like a ‘Sabbath Day’s
journey’ they were ‘religion’; they were not ‘obedience’.
Not that
“the Jews’ preparations” were damnable. They were allowed and even
respected. The Gospel writers do not condemn them; the Law did not condemn
them. They were acceptable. Which things clearly show and confirm that
‘preparations’ in actual fact were allowed and were made on the ‘great day
sabbaths’ of the Old Covenant without objection from the Gospel writers.
‘Preparations’
therefore cannot be ‘argued’ to prove Joseph could not have buried Jesus on the
‘great day sabbath’ of passover.
“According to the Scriptures” – the passover-Scriptures – Jesus had to be, buried on Abib 15 the passover’s
“sabbath day”: Ex12:10. Cf. 12:34-39,51. (Abib 14 ending night time in Exodus,
is Abib 15 beginning night time in
all other Books that mention the eating or feasting of passover and Unleavened
bread.)
I have
shown this many times. And shall now
again show it.
1) “The first day” (Ex12:15b):—
Abib 14, “The PREPARATION of Passover” Jn19:14,
THURSDAY BEGINNING:—
“Even the first day” Ex12:8:—
Jn13:1a;
Mk14:12a, Mt26:17,
“the
day to de-leaven” Lk22:7,
“before the Feast” :
BEGINNING, was its very
“night”, “The Preparation—Night—of
Passover”:—
1a) “It was NIGHT”:—
“The Night” (WEDNESDAY NIGHT):—
The
first NIGHT of the “three nights
and three days” Mt12:40)
Mk14:12/17
to 15:15 / Mt26:17/20 to 27:26b / Lk22:7/14 to 23:25 / Jn13:1 to 19:16a
Mark 14:12/17 to 15:15:—
“Where
wilt Thou that we go and prepare
.... that Thou mayest eat .... The Son of Man indeed goeth
as it is written of
Him .... this day in this night”;
Matthew 26:17/20 to 27:26b:—
“The
first day to unleaven had
begun .... where willest Thou that we may prepare, for Thee, to eat .... my time is at hand .... The Son of Man goeth as
it written of Him .... this night”;
Luke 22:7/14 to 25:—
“Then
came the day to unleaven when the passover had to be killed .... prepare the passover ....
where wilt Thou that we prepare?”;
John 13:1/30 to 19:16a:—
“Before
the Feast of Passover came the
hour that He should pass over
out of .... Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him ....
for the Feast .... It was night .... before it come to
pass .... the hour is come”;
Jesus
and his disciples “PREPARED”,
“The
Preparation—Night—of Passover”—
for, the coming ‘passover-day’, the SAME
day “when”,
“between
the two nights”, “daylight”
(‘behn ha arbayim’),
“they
had to kill the Passover” of God, on.
Mk15:16-41,
Mt27:27-61, Lk23:26-49, Jn13:1-19:16a.
1b) “The Preparation of Passover” Abib 14
“the
first day” of passover, was its very
“DAY”, “The Preparation—DAY—of
Passover”,
Thursday DAY on which the Passover Lamb was crucified and killed “according
to the Scriptures” – the passover Scriptures –
14 Abib, everywhere in the
Scriptures.
The day in itself of Abib 14
consisted of both its own ‘preparation’ and fulfilled event, the Suffering of
dying death, and the Sacrifice by dying and death of Our Passover Lamb.
Nowhere is mention being made of, “to have prepared for EITHER Sabbath - the annual Sabbath of Aviv 15 or the weekly Sabbath”. (Emphasis GE)
Most
conspicuously NO ‘preparations’ are
being made mention of or alluded to on “The Preparation of the Passover”—
not anywhere, and not specifically where “The Preparation of the Passover”
is being mentioned in Jn19:14— right in the middle of the day! Because
everything that happened on “Thursday
Aviv 14” WAS,
‘preparation’— was, preparation for and of and on, the Passover of God— Christ in his goings in, and through, and
out of the “heart of the earth” figuratively (for prophetically and
‘spiritually’) as well as ‘literally’ (for physically), “three days and three
nights”. And the mention of THIS Divine
‘Preparation’ is specifically being mentioned at, or rather on and in, the
beginnings of “Thursday
Aviv 14”,
Mk14:12/17 and further, Mt26:17/20 and further, and Lk22:7/14 and further, and
Jn13:1 and further.
Here, and this, were the ‘preparations’ of the Passover’s Sacrifice of
God— the preparations of “The
Preparation of the Passover” “according to the Scriptures”— John 19:14 = Mk14:12/17 and further =
Mt26:17/20 and further = Lk22:7/14 and further — NO ‘preparations of the “Feast”,
“great day sabbath” of Jn19:31 the day after,
or preparations for the Sabbath of Lk23:54
two days after were made on this day, ‘Thursday
Aviv 14’.
2) “The day after” (Joshua 5:11a):—
Mark 15:42 and John 19:31 describe
the actual eventuality when in the year of our Lord’s
death
“Friday Aviv 15” coincided with
“The Preparation” –
“The
Preparation that is The Fore-Sabbath”.
John’s definitive statement declares “that
day” or “the day of that sabbath” as having become the reason for
the Jews’ request, “Because was great
the day of that sabbath the Jews
asked”. The Jews did not before, mind the crucified or the
crosses; in fact they before – on the very day before, Abib 14 – have asked for it! Why did they not ‘prepare’ for this eventuality if
‘preparation’ were the institutional requirement?
John
indicates
“That
day” (‘ekeineh hehmera’)
“because
it was” (‘epei ehn’)
“The Preparation” (‘paraskeyeh’)
“on/in the sabbath .....”
(‘en tohi sabbatohi’)
“because
was great” (‘ehn gar megaleh’)
“the
day of that sabbath” (‘heh hehmera ekeinou tou sabbatou’)
“the
Jews therefore asked
.....” (‘hoi oun Ioudaioi ehrohtehsan”)
“The
Preparation”, here in Mk15:42, Mt27:57, Jn19:31 and Lk23:50 was in, its beginning stage or hours
2a) “The Night” of “The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath”
of
Abib 15— “of that great day sabbath”,
Jn19:31
(Thursday night) :
John’s
statement presupposes “The Preparation’s”-a-while-ago-beginning, just like Mark’s Constative as well as Ingressive Aorist
statement describes “The Preparation” as having started a while ago “already”
but still that same evening (after sunset).
John and
Mark presuppose, this day’s largely remaining
night and day. “Evening having come because / now The Preparation it was”—
was the yet prospective “great day sabbath” itself .... “when suddenly a man named Joseph .....”
Lk23:50.
Later that day – in the end of it – Luke records that the women
went home and prepared spices and
ointments – and of course also their other usual “preparations of the Jews”
(Jn19:42) for the weekly Sabbath.
2a1) This day “was” –in its beginnings “evening having come”–
‘Friday Aviv 15’
in all
of its passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”,
Mk15:42/Mt27:57,
Jn19:31/38, Lk23:50 ---
until in its endings – Lk23:54-56a /
Jn19:42.
2a2) In
between, “it was” – in its night and day –
‘Friday Aviv 15’
in all
of its passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”,
Mk15:42 to 46a, Mt27:57 to 60, Lk23:50 to 53a,
Jn19:31 to 40.
2b)
“It was” – in its endings
“mid-afternoon” until sunset –
Friday Aviv
15’
in all
of its passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”,
Mk15:46b-47
/ Mt27:57-61 / Lk23:53b-56a / Jn19:41-42.
2b1) It was on this day still, therefore, that
John declared that “They, by
the time of the Jews’ preparations, there laid Jesus”
(‘ethehkan’
Constative Aorist statement of a past event), with
three
hours before sunset left – not past!
(Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel)
2b2) “It was” – in its endings – ‘Friday Aviv
15’ in all of
its passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”,
Mk15:46b-47
/ Jn19:41-42 / Lk23:53b-56a / Jn 19:41-42 --- until sunset and
the Sabbath would have begun, and the women “had begun to rest the Sabbath”,
Lk23:56b.
The day in itself of Abib 15
consisted of both its own ‘preparation’ and fulfilled event, Joseph’s
undertaking and preparing of the body of Jesus for burial, and his eventual
entombing the body and closing of the grave.
As noted
before, John in 19:42 tells us, at
the closing of this same ‘Fore-Sabbath Preparation Day’, that “the
preparations of the Jews” still had to be made between after Joseph had
closed the grave and before sunset on
this very day, still.
Luke says no different in
23:54-56.
FACT IS, all preparations for the weekly Sabbath day were being
made on “Friday
Aviv 15” the “great day sabbath of
the passover” in four out of four Gospels, no matter how any may argue
against it.
Yet
another aspect of this information given by the New Testament – besides it
having been given without a semblance of doubt about its eventuality – is that all the Gospels regard its eventuality as
having been the fulfilment of the
Scriptures and of God’s own Promises and Laws and as the confirmation of His Eternal Will.
The two
things of it having been “The Preparation” and “Fore-Sabbath” and the obvious
“great day sabbath” of Passover’s holy “Feast Day”– the week’s Sixth Day and
the First Month’s fifteenth day at once
on the same day – these two things having happened together particularly –
the eventuality of it – is of utmost
significance.
Just as
important is the way in which the
Gospels are not obscure about
it but endorses these events as
truth in itself, and for, the truth contained in it and implied by it. Preparations
were made on “great day sabbath” and “Holy Feast Day Of Passover”,
“Friday Aviv 15”. Such was the Messiah’s fulfilment of, and as, the Passover of God,
of “great day sabbath” and “Holy Feast Day Of Passover”, “Friday Aviv 15”.
Do not
forget the Law’s clear instructions
as to all the holy DUTIES commanded FOR and ON the ‘holy’ and ‘feast’ day
‘sabbath’ of the passover, “Friday Aviv 15”.
“With
all your power you must go out!”
“On the fifteenth day of the First Month they went out”, “Carrying on
their shoulders unleavened dough”, and bringing spoils, gold and other, and
driving livestock, bringing out also “that which remain(ed)” of the
sacrifice – until at Succoth (at mid-afternoon only) they encamped – on order
of God through Moses –, encamped and burned the remains so returning it to the
earth – ‘interring’ it – as the type of the promised Messiah’s ‘remains’ whose
body was interred ON “great day
sabbath” and “Holy Feast Day Of Passover”, “Friday Aviv 15” : “Friday
Aviv 15” from that “evening it had become” , Mk15:42, until “mid-afternoon
and the Sabbath was approaching”, Lk23:54.
And so
are neutralised and demolished all arguments Christ could not have been buried – in fulfilment of the Law of God – ON “great day sabbath” and
“Holy Feast Day Of Passover”, “Friday
Aviv 15”.
Ironic,
is it not, that the ‘argument’, ‘work such as preparations for sabbaths was not
allowed on sabbaths’, is as old and hackneyed as the ‘argument’ that Jesus was
crucified and buried on Friday. The whole
of both ‘arguments’ boils down to but one thing, that Jesus must have been
buried on the same day that He was
crucified. Which is contrary all the Scriptures!
So four
points of difference emerge,
1) That preparations and other works were not
only allowed on this particular ‘great day sabbath’ but were customary, stated for having been done.
2) That preparations and other works were not
only allowed on this particular ‘great day sabbath’ but were customary, stated
for having been done, and in fact were contingencies of the Law’s.
3) That preparations and other works were not
only allowed on any ‘sabbath’, but were customary, stated for having been done,
and in fact were contingencies of the Law’s and, intrinsic of the days
as such.
4) That “The Preparation” has been given account
of in all four Gospels from its beginning, after
sunset, until its last three
hours and after, up to sunset. The Gospels don’t make mention of either only the beginning or only the ending of day. They make
mention of 1) both the beginning and
2) the ending of ‘Friday’, and they make
clear mention of 3) the evolution of
that day in between its beginning and ending,
and further imply 4) the last three hours on Friday of “the
Jews’ preparations” between when
Joseph had closed the grave “when mid-afternoon the Sabbath started
approaching” until “the women
had begun to rest the Sabbath” from Friday sunset on— the three hours on Friday still, implied in also John
19:42.
3)
“According to the Scriptures
the third day ....”
‘Saturday Aviv 16’ “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD”
The
Sabbath “on the day after the Sabbath” Lv23:11,15,
in all
of its passover-significance “according to the Scriptures”,
beginning:—
Lk23:56b
/ (Jn19:42).
Where
usually people insert a day between two assumed ‘sabbaths’ to provide so that
preparations should not be made on the Feast-sabbath or on the weekly Sabbath, Joe Viel simply placed the preparations
for both “back to back sabbaths”, together on the “Preparation of the Passover”,
Abib 14.
But Joe
Viel was self-assured when he insisted that the Plural in Mt28:1, ‘sabbatohn’
must be literal. He is slow to see ‘sabbaton’ in both Lk23:54 and Jn19:31 is Singular, and that it is nowhere
written that preparations were being made for “both
Friday Aviv 15 and Saturday Aviv 16 ..... Sabbath days”, Plural.
“Sabbath”
in its middle of the day,
“in
the morning after the preparations” of Friday the day before,
Mt27:62.
“Sabbath”
in “Sabbath’s-time in fullness of day mid-afternoon before
/ towards the First Day of the week”,
Mt28:1-4.
4)
“Sunday Aviv 17”
in its beginnings—
“When
the Sabbath had gone through ....”
Mk16:1, Jn20:1 further.
Events of
different days
Preparations for
two sabbaths
Joe Viel answered
By Gerhard Ebersöhn
Third Delivery
Joe Viel:
“One piece of evidence that 2 Sabbaths happened
back to back is found in Luke 23:53 etseq , which tells us:
Then he
[Joseph of Arimathea] took it [the body of Y'shua] down, wrapped it in linen
cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been
laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who
had come with Y'shua from
So they
rested because the Sabbath had come. Now had a day existed BETWEEN the
High Sabbath and the Weekly Sabbath, the women could have gone to the grave
that day, rather than waiting until the first day of the week. The only reason
they would have waited until Sunday morning would have been the fact that there
were 2 Sabbaths back-to-back.”
GE:
Re: “So they
rested because the Sabbath had come.”
Yes, it
is so, “they rested because the
Sabbath had come”. Luke says in 23:56a after the women had gone home, they prepared spices. “And
that day, was The Preparation (of the Sabbath) and the Sabbath (itself, the Seventh Day “Sabbath according
to the Commandment”) drew on”. No doubt therefore, the women had to have
made their preparations on ‘Friday’, the Sixth Day of the week, in between when “the Sabbath had come” – sunset 6 p.m. – and “the
Sabbath began to draw near” – 3 p.m.. That leaves three hours for the women to have “returned home and
prepared spices and ointments”. Not
on Thursday.
“They
rested the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment” – a clear reference to
the Decalogue and ‘moral law’ – ‘heh entoleh’ –, and not to a ‘sabbath’ of the
‘ceremonial law’ or ‘nomos’. So the
women the Friday before the weekly Sabbath made preparations, but on the
immediately following day of the Sabbath according to the Fourth Commandment, “began
to rest”— from sunset on, naturally.
And yes,
“2 Sabbaths happened back to back”; that is also clear from the
above. So the Marys had to have made
preparations on the first of the two ‘sabbaths’ for the last of the two
‘sabbaths’.
The
women had to have ‘prepared’ on the first ‘sabbath’ of these “back to back” sabbaths, on “that great day sabbath .... because it
was .... the Preparation” when first the Jews, Jn19:31, and “after these
things”, Joseph, verse 38, went to see Pilate. Luke speaks of the first ‘sabbath’, saying, “That
day was The Preparation” (23:54a); he calls the second of these ‘back to back sabbaths’, “the Sabbath according to
the Law” (54b).
John like Mark describes “The
Preparation Day” as just after it had started and therefore as yet
prospective, “Therefore .... because it was The Preparation .... because was
great the day of that sabbath”. (‘oun .... epei paraskeyeh ehn .... ehn gar
megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou sabbatou’)
The women made their preparations on
this, “that”, at once, “great day sabbath” of
the passover and “The Preparation” of the Sabbath.
“And then they rested”, or, “And then
in fact”, ‘kai to men’, “And
then in fact they had begun to rest the (prospective) Sabbath Day
according to the (Fourth) Commandment”.
“Because
the Law commanded”; not ‘because the Sabbath
....” because it
was a ‘sabbath’ the women in fact
made preparations on! The context in which Joe Viel therefore
noted that, “So they
rested because the Sabbath had come” has changed the true meaning into something completely wrong, namely,
that it had not been a ‘sabbath’ the women prepared spices on. A masterly
subtle manoeuvre the failure it exposed itself for having been.
Besides
for
1) common
mistakes, like,
“the Sabbath had come” being the opposite of “the Sabbath was .... to begin”, and, like,
“The Sabbath was about to begin”, while the beginning of the
Sabbath – sunset – was not “about” nearly, but was still one whole halve
of the afternoon future .....
2) Grammatically. “And that day, Preparation was”—
factual statement, Constative Aorist. That day neither at this point in time
and event began, or had ended yet; “that day, Preparation was”, fact. Or interpret ‘ehn’ as an Imperfect; then “that
day, Preparation was still”
ongoing. It hadn’t finished yet;
3) Eventually. That day hadn’t finished yet, also because of
the obvious actions the women after the real point in time of day, went home,
and then prepared still, both “spices and ointments”, and, ordinary
preparations for the coming Sabbath, before day’s end.
4) Contextually.
That day hadn’t finished yet because of also the Verb, “drew near”,
‘epefohsken’, in the clause in Lk23:54,
“And that day was The Preparation and the Sabbath drew near”, in Tense –
Imperfect – and to literal meaning, “mid-after-noon-was”, ‘epi’ + ‘fohs’
+ ‘(k)en’. The word necessarily means
afternoon was still on; it had not yet been sunset; three hours before sunset
is “mid-afternoon”.
5) Comparatively. That day hadn’t finished yet, finally. John 19:42 says what time of day it
actually had been,
“by
the time of the Jews’ preparations (was near)”,
(‘dia
tehn paraskeyehn tohn Ioudaiohn (hoti engys ehn)’).
.....
All these things besides, one is still to conclude that indeed
preparations had been made on the day so correctly implied, and had been made
on “that day of great day sabbath”,
“Preparation which is the
Fore-Sabbath”,
“Friday Aviv 15”—
not, on “Thursday Aviv 14”.
Joe Viel:
“Now had a day existed BETWEEN the High
Sabbath and the Weekly Sabbath, the women could have gone to the grave that day,
rather than waiting until the first day of the week. The only reason they would
have waited until Sunday morning would have been the fact that there were 2
Sabbaths back-to-back.”
GE:
Re: “The only
reason they would have waited until Sunday morning would have been the fact
that there were 2 Sabbaths back-to-back.” “The only reason”? Not at all the reason!
Suppose
the women “waited until Sunday morning”. Suppose they waited from
Thursday. If they waited from Thursday, they must have waited from the time of
day found in the Gospels after the burial,
“mid-afternoon”, 3 p.m.. That was “the
ninth hour” – the hour Jesus died!
Buried when scarcely He had died?
However,
Thursday until sunset the women waited; Friday and Saturday the women waited,
Saturday night the women waited: four
days!
Did
Jesus resurrect on the fourth
day?
Mt27:62-66 tells of the guard’s
appointment, “lest his disciples come by night and steal him away.”
Surely the Jews made sure the disciples of Jesus would know about the guard.
That was one reason the women had to wait to go to the tomb until after
midnight Saturday night, Lk24:1, ‘orthrou batheohs’.
The
question here is, Since when would
the two women have had to wait?
Matthew
says the guard was stationed “the morning after the preparations” of the
Jews the very afternoon of the day before! Matthew in 27:62, “next morning
after their preparations”, was the Sabbath’s morning therefore.
This was
the Sabbath also because it was the day
before Jesus appeared to Mary, Mark 16:9, “early on the First Day of the
week”. If they learned of the guard
almost immediately after their stationing, the Marys had to have waited the
Sabbath Day and until midnight the night of the First Day after it – altogether
perhaps twelve hours? That is, if we
supposed the women did wait.
What
therefore has been ascertained decidedly from Mt27:62-66, is that the guard was
appointed “the morning after” the Jews’ preparations, on the Sabbath
thus implied, and therefore, “In Sabbath’s-time” still, as mentioned in 28:1-4;
the very same day.
The
women made their preparations on the
Friday afternoon. They made their preparations on Abib 15, “the
great day sabbath” and, “The Preparation which is the
Fore-Sabbath”, ‘Friday’. No two ways
about it; no two ‘seeming’ ‘sabbaths’, about it; they were
real ‘sabbaths, and the women prepared on no other day than only one of them;
which had to have been the first in sequence, the passover’s ‘great day
sabbath’, exactly as John explains it.
Joe Viel:
“..... the Mishnah (See Moed Qatan for examples) tells us that during the days of
unleavened bread, the only commerce that was allowed was commerce directly
involved with the festivals. So shops would not have been allowed to sell any
perfumes on such a "Thursday between Sabbaths" anyway.”
GE:
Imagine
“commerce that was allowed was commerce directly
involved with the festivals”, yet, “shops would not
have been allowed to sell any perfumes on such a "Thursday between
Sabbaths" anyway.”?
That “.....the Mishnah (See Moed Qatan for examples) tells us that during the days of
unleavened bread, the only commerce that was allowed was commerce directly involved with the festivals”, only confirms that
preparations were in fact made on
the Feast-sabbath of Abib 15 that coincided with the Preparation Friday in the passover that Jesus was
sacrificed and interred.
Whether
Joseph realised it or not, what he was doing was directly – yea, Divinely – “involved with the festivals”.
Joe Viel:
“Several aspects of Jewish Law would have
forbidden them from visiting the grave on the Sabbath.”
GE:
If we
supposed the women waited,
Why, would we assume they waited, seeing, “Jewish
Law did permit obtaining goods on
Sabbath and paying for them later in certain emergency circumstances .....”?
If we
supposed the women waited since Thursday
afternoon,
What difference would when they eventually
went, have made to their assumed ‘problem’ of “moving the
stone”?
If we
supposed the women waited since Thursday
afternoon,
to “move the
limbs of a corpse on the Sabbath” would never have been
considered in any case.
What
difference would it have made “to prepare the spices” if we supposed the women waited
since Thursday afternoon? — they
would not have given ‘preparation’ of spices and ointments a thought any longer
when “they came with their spices”
on Sunday morning. And who on Thursday afternoon would have known the body
would indeed be buried?
That the
women “bought spices from Nicodemus
the day Y'shua was crucified” is not written or implied even. In stead it is stated the women went home and everybody else went home. Nobody, obviously, thought about a burial at that stage in
the event of things when Jesus had scarcely died and the earthquake occurred
the darkness with sudden brightness of light vanished and the graves were
opened so that flying rocks bulleted through the air. Nobody would have thought to bury Jesus; nobody would have thought to buy spices and ointments to prepare
him for burial. No chance under circumstances.
It’s ridiculous.
Why, if
Nicodemus had spices and ointments ‘in stock’; why not the women also? It’s all
unnecessary speculation.
And who, said, the women bought spices and
ointments on Crucifixion day – or, for that matter – on the great day sabbath
after? The Gospels don’t say anyone ‘bought’, then? Again, who would even have thought Jesus
would be buried, what, of buying spices and ointments for burial?
That the
women on Crucifixion day “went home
before” whatever
kind of “sabbath”, does not say they also “prepared whatever spices they had available”, whether they waited since
Thursday afternoon or not, or had to buy those things or not.
If we
supposed the women waited since Thursday, Crucifixion day, it would still
not explain why they “Bought more
spices immediately after the Sabbath completed (Mark 16:1) and prepared them
that night”,
or,
why they
“went to the tomb the next morning.”
If we
supposed the women waited since Friday
afternoon,
the same
questions remain, proving their irrelevancy.
If we
supposed the women waited since Friday
afternoon, what difference would it have
made to their ‘problem’ of “moving the stone”? To “move the limbs of a corpse on
the Sabbath” would still not have been considered. To have “bought
spices from Nicodemus” even after “the day
Y'shua was crucified” would still be most improbable.
Only
difference is Luke mentions the fact
the women did prepare
spices
and ointments after Joseph had finished to close the grave. Luke says they went home and prepared – not that
they remained behind after the crucifixion and before the burial, and not as
assumed, on the day of the crucifixion before.
Neither
that the Marys after the crucifixion went home to prepare spices even while the
body still hung on the cross. If one supposed the women – directly after Jesus
had died – prepared spices and ointments, then when did they ever go home to do
it? Then Luke must be in error, and the
women must have prepared spices right there at the chaotic scene of
crucifixion.
And
Joseph, in order to go buy the linen, must have taken the body down and left it
with the rabble that – supposedly – remained behind. When did he go to ask Pilate permission to do
it? Before or after the Jews came with
their request?
A myriad
such impossibilities should be expected, ‘waited’ the women since crucifixion.
If the
women waited from after the burial on
Friday afternoon, and they afterwards “went
home before Sabbath and prepared. whatever spices they had available” it could have been expected,
and was just what the women did and what Luke had written that they did.
And that
the women then began to rest the Sabbath afterwards, obviously was the only
plausible thing left for the women to do.
Then, if
the women waited since Friday afternoon and we take into consideration only the two Marys attended the burial
and that Salome more than a day later,
“immediately after the Sabbath
completed”
joined them, it explains why they “bought more
spices immediately after the Sabbath .... and prepared them that night”.
“When
the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought
sweet spices, that they, when they go,
might anoint Him.”
That
also explains why the women “went to the
tomb the next morning” and not on the Sabbath Day already.
As far
as all and everybody’s ‘laws’ are concerned, everything is much easier
understood and much better explained from the ‘since-Friday-waiting’
standpoint.
And if
we supposed the women waited since Sabbath
afternoon? That would be a very
interesting answer, one very much self-explanatory. Matthew gives us that information in 28:1-4
(provided one read a real translation).
Joe Viel:
“So the order of events for the women may have been...
·
Possibly
bought spices from Nicodemus the day Y'shua was crucified and buried.
·
Went home
before Sabbath and prepared whatever spices they had available.
·
Rested both
Sabbath days.
·
Bought more
spices immediately after the Sabbath completed (Mark 16:1) and prepared them
that night
·
Went to the
tomb the next morning.”
GE:
No, let us abide
with the order and sequence the Gospels give; and do not forget or ignore a
single aspect or fact.
To begin with, the
very first thing stated for fact as factual as any other in the records found
in the Gospels but never seen in ‘same-day-buried-as-crucified’ arguments, is
this ....
Immediately after
Jesus died, “everybody” / “all the people”, ‘in mad confusion’
– “running” and “shouting” and “breast-beating” – left and deserted the site of the
crucifixion, Mk15:36,39 Lk23:48b. Nobody would return for the rest of that
whole day; and nobody did return until “Suddenly Joseph ....”, “when
having been evening already The Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath ....”.
Lk23:50, Mk15:42.
Indeed, even the
guard that overlooked the crucifixion, fled the scene. Pilate had to order them
back to go do what he promised the Jews, and shortly after them, what he
promised Joseph, to “deliver the body” of Jesus to him. “Then came the soldiers ....”
Jn19:32.
People always fuse
the two events of Jesus’ death and burial into one. It is of their biggest
mistakes! The Gospels separate the
Crucifixion and the Burial in every possible aspect and from every possible
perspective, and make big difference between them,
“according to the Scriptures”, the
passover Scriptures!
So ‘the
order of events for the women’, greatly disappointed, confused and scared, must have been that they deserted their crucified and deceased
Lord and the scene of his tragic death and phenomenal events.
The
three Synoptists state many women had been present at the crucifixion –
implying for fact also all had left their crucified and deceased Lord after He
died. “As many as came together for that sight”, as many women and other
people left afterwards.
John
also, implies the return home of the
women, with everybody else. He pictures
the Jews as having spoken to Pilate after they have eaten their passover meal— everybody having been at home since Jesus had
died.
The
confusion caused by the earthquake, sudden light and graves that opened when
Jesus died, caused fear and chaos that forced everybody to leave first, and
then to pay attention to catastrophic effects at home.
“Everybody left”, because
everybody had to leave, and because
the Gospels simply say so. There was no chance or thought to have
anybody buried on that eventful day; much less to purchase spices and ointments
or linen or to prepare it before things have settled down again, hours later.
Once the
first point of ‘the order of events for the women’ has been
established
correctly, the rest will more probably follow in the correct order as well.
So the women do not
feature in the story of either the Crucifixion or the Burial again, until we
read of the two Marys only, that
they “followed after” in the procession to the grave, and there, “sat
over against the grave and looked on”, “and beheld how his body was
laid”.
Notice the stark contrast of the Crucifixion scene where
the women were “standing”, and “from far” in the outer circle of
the mad “crowd”, watched, “beholding the things which were done”. One doesn’t read of any women again on that
day.
So the two Marys “followed after” in the procession to the
grave the next day, and even though it was the day after ‘Y'shua was crucified’, they still haven’t thought to buy spices
even from Nicodemus, but went home before Sabbath and prepared
whatever spices they had available of their own.
That
they “rested both Sabbath days”, one will read no word of.
But most
naturally one will read, “And
they indeed the Sabbath according to the Commandment began to rest” as soon
as it had begun when the sun had set.
Most naturally one will read,
the women “Bought more spices
immediately after the Sabbath completed (Mark 16:1) and prepared them that
night ....”, “so
that when they went” – “to the tomb
the next morning”
– “they might anoint him”.
Of
course in stead of that “they might anoint him”, they “just after
midnight” “the next
morning” on the
First Day of the week, Sunday in fact, Abib 17, found the tomb .... EMPTY ....
the body .... GONE!
23 June 2009
Three days and three nights
Joe Viel answered by
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Fourth delivery
Joe Viel:
3 days/3 nights
Y'shua said He'd spend 3
days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Had he died on a Wednesday, He
would have had to have risen BEFORE Saturday Evening to satisfy the "3
days 3 nights" requirement. Thus Sunday morning would have been the 4th
day, beyond the 3 days in which they have a window to apply the perfumes to the
dead body. But the Word tells us in Mark
16:9 that "Y'shua rose early on the first [day] of the week", not
BEFORE Saturday night, not Saturday night, but on or after Sunday morning had
arrived. So His body was still in the grave Saturday night. If He died on a
Wednesday, His body would have spent Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday
night and Saturday night in the grave - that's 4 nights!
But if He died on a
Thursday afternoon, you have Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights as 3 nights.
You have all day Friday and Saturday and He died at 3pm on Thursday. That
wasn't just 3-5 hours of daytime death, but since there was darkness from 12
noon to 3pm, it was an entire day of being dead, since the darkness lifted when
He gave up His spirit and a 'day', by the Biblical definition, is defined by
the presence of light or darkness, not by the passage of a certain number of
hours. (See Genesis chapter 1)
Matthew
12:40 tells us He spent 3 days and 3 nights, not 3 nights and 3 days. The
first "day" of His death preceded the first "night" of His
death. You have to count the nights first to go with a Wednesday crucifixion
and you have to eliminate a night to go with a Friday crucifixion.
Does the order the
"days/nights" are mention matter? Possible not. One wouldn't jump to
that conclusion if the phrase only appeared once in scripture. But it's
reported as "3 days and 3 nights" in several places in scripture, not
just one. The rabbis have often said that there are places in scripture where
order is indicative. For example, Genesis / Bereshit chapter 1 says the
choronology of creation was plants>animals>man, but chapter 2 gives it as
plants>man>animals. Perhaps this is because both where created at the
same time, and this is indicating by reporting it with one order one time and
another order another time. If Y'shua died on a Wednesday, then why isn't His
death listed as lasting "3 nights and 3 days" in at least ONE of the
accounts in which it appears?
Why The Resurrection had
to be 3 days/3 nights but still less than 72 hours
Had Y'shua been buried
on a Wednesday it would have been a serious violation of Jewish custom to have
waited until Sunday to have gone to the grave. Jewish custom demands a burial
within 3 days of a death. Once someone is laid to rest, the grave is not
revisited after 3 full days have expired. To bury someone after 3 days have
expired since they died or disturb the grave thereafter is considered a
desecration by Jewish custom.
The Bible tells us
"You [God] will not let your Holy One see decay" (Acts
2:27, Acts
13:35). A corpse begins decaying after 72 hours, thus any crucifixion
involving more than a 72 hour span would be ruled out. That would eliminate a
Wednesday crucifixion, since even a Saturday evening Resurrection is more than
72 hours after the death/burial of Y'shua. He had to have been buried 30-60
minutes before Wednesday Evening arrived, since Joseph, Nicodemus, and the two
Mary's had to do work after He was buried and before the Sabbath came. (They
had to walk home before sundown of the Sabbath.) In order to avoid violating
the Sabbath, His body would have had to been placed in the tomb far enough
BEFORE sunset they could return home before sunset - or at least close enough
to home to be within a Sabbath Day's Journey, which would be within 2-4,000
cubits (slightly over half a mile to a mile for you Americans out there)
outside of their own "camp". Yeshua was killed "outside the
camp" [of
The women didn't finish
annointing His body, but they didn't realize that someone else already had done
so and completed Jewish custom in this manner. The annointing was done in Mark
14:2-8.
Now how does Jewish
tradition count days? The Talmud says
"part of a day is
like a whole day" (Talmud, Pesachim 4a - See also Shabbat 9.3 of the
Now this Talmud quote
appears in The Second Book of Jewish Why in explaining how to count the number
of days for mourning for the dead. Here's what it says:
"If a burial is
completed just before nightfall and the mourner simply removes his shoes in the
cemetary as a token sign that mourning has begun, this counts as the first day
of mourning"
and elsewhere the same
author also says:
"If a mourner sits
shiva for as little as one hour on the day of the funeral, that is considered
as one full day of shiva" immediately after citing the teaching of the
Talmud in Pesachim 4a as well. (The Jewish Book of Why , page 69)
This rule is about as
close as you're going to get to a rule on how to count the time, since there's
no Jewish tradition on how to count the time spent by dead Saviors. But the
parallels on how many days mourners are required to mourn for the dead after
they died would certainly be counted the same way.
So the Day He died on
the cross, even though it was a few hours before nightfall, would have counted
as a "day" in the "3 days, 3 nights" count of things. Over
and over again, He says "3 days and 3 nights" and never "3
nights and 3 days". So we start the count of the days first, then the
nights, which could only be done for a Thursday Resurrection.
Also, since ANY PART of
the evening would count as a "night", He would have had to have Risen
BEFORE Saturday night if He died on a Wednesday afternoon. Thus, He would have
had to have Risen on the Sabbath, not AFTER the Sabbath. Yet the Word tells us
in Mark
16:9 that "Y'shua rose early on the first [day] of the week", not
BEFORE Saturday night, not Saturday night, but Sunday morning. So His body was
still in the grave Saturday night.
Joe Viel:
“3 days/3 nights
Y'shua said He'd spend 3
days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Had he died on a Wednesday, He
would have had to have risen BEFORE Saturday Evening to satisfy the "3
days 3 nights" requirement.”
GE:
So what do you
say? You say, “Had he died on a” Thursday,
“He would have had to have risen BEFORE Saturday
Evening to satisfy the "3 days 3 nights" requirement.” But
would Joe Viel or anyone else admit it?
You bet they won’t! Why won’t
they? Because that “He would have had to have risen BEFORE Saturday Evening” is the only possibility of both the
‘Thursday-Resurrection’ fundamental and that “Y'shua
said He'd spend 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth”. Why
won’t the Sundayists admit? Because they
want it – they must have it at any cost – that Jesus rose on a Sunday! But here the true logical implication and
consequence of any and all ‘Sunday-resurrection’ theories emerge inadvertently
but just as inevitably for being contrary simplest of logic and reality. So
what in the end do they do to get it that Jesus rose from the dead “In
Sabbath’s daylight”? (Mt28:1a,b,c) We
shall see.
Joe Viel:
“Thus Sunday morning would have been the 4th day, beyond the
3 days in which they have a window to apply the perfumes to the dead body.”
GE:
According to the
logic Joe Viel here applied, even his logical thinking becomes
questionable. As I have before shown, If
Jesus on Thursday 3 p.m. died (which He did), then Thursday MUST be counted the
WHOLE Fifth Day of the week, “night and day”, for having been the first of the
prophetic “three days”— on the third day of which He would rise from the dead
again.
A) ‘Part represents
the whole’-principle; true? And B) “night” and “day”, are the whole; are the one
day; true? Then Friday is the second,
and Saturday— the WHOLE of the Seventh Day of the week “night and day”— only
it; not “beyond” it, MUST be reckoned “the third day according to the Scriptures”
on which the Messiah in fact resurrected.
“And God the SEVENTH DAY, RESTED”.
This thing – if
Jesus on Thursday 3 p.m. died, then Friday is the second, and Saturday “the
third day” – the world of unbelievers palate as much as they palate the Divine
Truth of Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead. For me this truth shall remain the only as
long as it shall remain the utter aversion of non-believers and any other than
‘old fashioned’ Christians who believe the Scriptures because it is the
Scriptures.
‘Sunday
morning’ will always either be “beyond the 3 days” of Jonah’s prophecy; or will always come short of “the third day” of
Bible prophecy like Hosea’s, “After two days He (in Jesus Christ) will
revive us; in the third day He (in Jesus Christ) will raise us up, and
we (in Jesus Christ) shall live in in His sight. Then shall we
know if we follow on to know the LORD: His
going forth is prepared as the morning.”
Joe Viel:
“But the Word tells us in Mark
16:9 that "Y'shua rose early on the first [day] of the week", not
BEFORE Saturday night, not Saturday night, but on or after Sunday morning had
arrived. So His body was still in the grave Saturday night.”
GE:
No; it’s not true. The
Word does not tell “us in Mark
16:9 that "Y'shua rose early on the first [day] of the week".”
You wish it did.
If, what the Word
really tells us is true, That Jesus, “Risen / as the Risen One / having been
raised .... appeared to
Mary first, early on the First Day”, then,
He rose, before, “early on the First Day
of the week”— even “BEFORE Saturday night”. “Not Saturday night” indeed.
Then, He rose, in truth – not
only ‘in cold fact’, but, in warm,
living, prophetic, divine, truth – “BEFORE Saturday night had arrived”. Then He in truth, “In Sabbath Day’s
fullness” rose, “noon, mid-afternoon”. So Jesus rose from the dead and grave “Sabbath’s
mid-afternoon toward the First Day of the week”. So Jesus rose – the Word tells us in Mt28:1
–, “BEFORE Saturday night had arrived”— with which bare and literally completed
fact, Mark 16:9 is in serene and bare, clear and literal, complete and divinely
beautiful, agreement. Law and Grace embraced “In Sabbath Day’s fullness, noon, indeed,
in the mid-afternoon”.
[[“In Sabbath
Day’s” – ‘sabbatohn’;
“Sabbath Day’s
fullness, noon” – ‘opse sabbatohn’;
“fullness, noon”
– ‘opse’;
“fullness, noon,
indeed” – ‘opse de’;
“in the
mid-afternoon” – ‘tehi epi-fohs-k-ousehi’;
“indeed in the
mid-afternoon” – ‘de .... tehi epi-fohs-k-ousehi’]]
“So”, that
“His body was still in the grave Saturday night”, is irreconcilable with and contrary to
what the plain Written “Word tells us”.
Joe Viel:
“If He died on a Wednesday, His body would have spent
Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night in the grave -
that's 4 nights!
But if He died on a
Thursday afternoon, you have Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights as 3 nights.”
GE:
Everybody can see
that. But not everybody remembers we don’t work with “Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights” here. We work with the nights and the days
that comprised “three days”—
the first, the
second, and, “the third day”,
“according to the
Scriptures”, the passover Scriptures.
We don’t work with “Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights” here. We work with the nights and the days
that comprised
1) “the fourteenth day of the First Month”, and
2) “the fifteenth day of the First Month”, and
3) “the sixteenth day of the First Month”—
the nights and the days
1) “the first day
they removed leaven and slaughtered the passover on / the Preparation of the
Passover”, and
2) “the Feast” /
“Sabbath” / Day of Unleavened Bread / “great day sabbath”, and
3) “the day after
the sabbath” / “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD”,
consisted of.
And that, excludes, ‘Saturday
night’ as part of the
Seventh Day; and includes,
‘Wednesday night’ as part of the Fifth Day of the week.
And then we have not
looked, at the eschatological, prophetic, typological, Christ-centred,
Christological and soteriological Content and Essence and Nature of this
‘Wednesday night’ as night of the Fifth Day of the week and, of the first of
the “three nights” of the “three days and three nights” prophecy of Jonah and
Mt12:40.
Joe Viel:
“You have all day Friday and Saturday and He died at 3pm on
Thursday.”
GE:
That’s right, yes.
1) Jesus “died at 3pm on
Thursday”— ‘mid-afternoon’;
that, “according to the Scriptures”— marks the Fifth Day, whole day, the first
of the “three days” inclusive of both ‘night’ and ‘day’.
2) Jesus was entombed, “mid-afternoon”, that is, “at 3pm”—
on Friday— that, “according to the Scriptures”— marks the Sixth Day, whole day, the second
of the “three days” inclusive of both ‘night’ and ‘day’.
3) Jesus resurrected,
“mid-afternoon”, that is, “at 3pm”— “Sabbath’s-time”— that, “according
to the Scriptures the third day”— marks the Seventh Day, whole day, the third
of the “three days” inclusive of both ‘night’ and ‘day’.
Joe Viel:
“That wasn't just 3-5 hours of daytime death, but since there
was darkness from 12 noon to 3pm, it was an entire day of being dead, since the
darkness lifted when He gave up His spirit and a 'day', by the Biblical
definition, is defined by the presence of light or darkness, not by the passage
of a certain number of hours. (See Genesis chapter 1)”
GE:
“3-5 hours of daytime death” plus “darkness from 12 noon to
3pm” don’t give “an entire day of being dead”, anyhow.
Jesus’ first day of
Passover being Sacrifice slaughtered – since its inception when He declared, “The
hour is come” that marked the first of the “three days” “according to the
Scriptures” –, itself was marked by his having died and suffered death and hell
alive and fully conscious— itself was marked “the first day”, life like leaven
being extracted from his soul until He surrendered his spirit into the hands of
His Father mid-afternoon. It was “the first day” of Jesus’ ‘Passover’, He
having entered in into the Father’s Kingdom of the Son’s victorious and
triumphant Suffering “as soon as even was come” “And the hour was
come”, Mt26:20, Lk22:14, (Jn13:1).
“The first day”
was Jesus’ Passover in both aspects of it, of leaven being removed, and of
sacrifice being sacrificed. Even in its exact sequence in time: first the
leaven must be removed; after which the sacrifice must be killed. “Keep it until the fourteenth day of the
First Month .... and
Joe Viel:
“Matthew
12:40 tells us He spent 3 days and 3 nights, not 3 nights and 3 days. The
first "day" of His death preceded the first "night" of His
death. You have to count the nights first to go with a Wednesday crucifixion
and you have to eliminate a night to go with a Friday crucifixion.”
GE:
Not if you see them
they way I just explained it. You insist
on the sequence the words follow one another. That is all. Doing so you miss everything else of
importance with bearing on the specific sequence as found recorded.
(I have many times
spoken on this issue. You may be
interested to look some places up. Use your ‘Tools - search’ buttons right hand
top corner of your ‘my documents’ ‘files’ menu for the files; then use your
‘edit – find’ buttons to find the words you are looking for.)
Jesus spoke as if
looking back onto his past experience of going through hell, death and the
grave like being “in the heart of the earth” – to the type of Jonah. Jonah’s story is told in the same manner:
“Jonah WAS in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” Matthew quoted exactly. Retrospectively the days come before the
nights; historically they are seen the other way round, first the nights, then
the days.
But the three days
and the three nights are not arbitrary nights and days; they belong. They
belonged to the Scriptural “three days” that prophetically were symbolic of the
days of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, the passover’s own and only
‘three days’: Abib 14, 15 and 16.
Each of them was a
‘first’ day in own right. Abib 14 was “the first day” of the passover in whole,
more specific of the eight days of passover feast period that included Abib 14
“Preparation of the Passover plus, the seven days that unleavened bread was eaten
from Abib 15 to Abib 21.
Abib 15 was the
first of the seven days unleavened bread was eaten— the passover Feast, or
passover-sabbath;
Abib 16 was First
Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD, “the day after the (passover-)sabbath”— the first day of fifty days to Pentecost.
These and these
“according to the Scriptures” “three days” only, are those “three days and
three nights” Jesus meant when He referred to the Jonah metaphor, “in the
heart of the earth” a real – ‘Biblical’ – “three days”, of “three days and
three nights” each.
Not six day-halves
from four real days. Or, if supposing a Wednesday-crucifixion, six day halves
from five, real days. What nonsense people believe!
Joe Viel:
“Does the order the "days/nights" are mention
matter? Possible not. One wouldn't jump to that conclusion if the phrase only
appeared once in scripture. But it's reported as "3 days and 3
nights" in several places in scripture, not just one.”
GE:
Which is incorrect.
Not “several places in scripture”. Only once in the Old Testament; only once
in the New. Nevertheless ‘the order the "days/nights" are mentioned”, “does
matter”. Everything
‘mentioned’ in the Scriptures matter!
Also the order things are mentioned matter where the order is that which
is meant to be mentioned.
Joe Viel:
“The rabbis have often said that there are places in
scripture where order is indicative. For example, Genesis / Bereshit chapter 1
says the choronology of creation was plants>animals>man, but chapter 2
gives it as plants>man>animals. Perhaps this is because both where
created at the same time, and this is indicating by reporting it with one order
one time and another order another time.”
GE:
‘Indicative’ of
what? Do you mean ‘indicative of ‘meaning’ and ‘importance? How can ‘order’, not be ‘indicative’,
meaningful, and ‘important’?
Joe Viel:
“Why The Resurrection had to be 3 days/3 nights but still
less than 72 hours ..... Had Y'shua been buried on a Wednesday it would have
been a serious violation of Jewish custom to have waited until Sunday to have
gone to the grave. Jewish custom demands a burial within 3 days of a death.”
If you are correct
that “Jewish custom demands a burial within 3 days of
a death” – and why not, in
this instance? – then it was no ‘violation of Jewish custom’ to have
waited until after sunset and the evening of the Sixth Day to begin undertaking
to have Jesus buried next day and to have finished entombment by “mid-afternoon
towards the Sabbath” on Friday finally.
Also for the women to have gone to the grave or rather, to have wanted “to
go have a look at the grave mid-afternoon Sabbath’s-time”, would have been
no ‘violation of Jewish custom’; the Deceased would still be buried “within 3 days of death”.
Joe Viel:
“Once someone is laid to rest, the grave is not revisited
after 3 full days have expired. To bury someone after 3 days have expired since
they died or disturb the grave thereafter is considered a desecration by Jewish
custom.”
GE:
Well, supposed He
was laid in the tomb on Thursday afternoon, seen from the ‘inclusive’ point of
view, we have “a serious violation of
Jewish custom” in the case
of Jesus’ burial if the women only on Sunday morning went to the grave with the
intention to “disturb the grave”.
But why worry, since
Joseph finished to bury the body of Jesus the very next day, more or less
exactly 24 hours after He had died?
And why worry, since Joseph, says John, in fact buried the
Deceased “according to the custom of the Jews to bury”. In this case, “the
custom” was the Old Testament Law concerning the Passover Sacrifice, that
after the day of Abib 14 in which they killed it, and after the night of Abib
15 in which they ate it, “Ye shall burn with fire that which remaineth until
the morning”, Ex12:10, and shall return it to earth. Also another law of custom (Dt21:22-23)
stipulated, “His body shall not remain all night on the tree!” (See studies ‘Buried on same day before
sunset’ etc. See appended, ‘Deuteronomy 21:22-23’) Joseph accordingly, buried the body “that
same day” still, and finished, closing the tomb, precisely,
“mid-afternoon”.
Joe
Viel:
“The Bible tells us
"You [God] will not let your Holy One see decay" (Acts
2:27, Acts
13:35). A corpse begins decaying after 72 hours, thus any crucifixion
involving more than a 72 hour span would be ruled out. That would eliminate a
Wednesday crucifixion, since even a Saturday evening Resurrection is more than
72 hours after the death/burial of Y'shua.”
GE:
Yes; it is not a Wednesday-crucifixion theory that
is under critique; but the theory of a Thursday-Crucifixion-Sunday-Resurrection
of Joe Viel’s that does not allow for a Friday-Burial.
Therefore is it not true, “..... if He died on a Thursday afternoon, you have Thursday,
Friday and Saturday nights as 3 nights”. If He died “on a Thursday afternoon, you have Thursday, Friday and
Saturday” as whole
days of night and day each giving three days each giving one
day and one night of its own.
You confirm the part for the whole principle, “So the Day He died on the cross, even though it was a few
hours before nightfall, would have counted as a "day" in the "3
days, 3 nights" count of things.” And again, “So at least PART of the day He was crucified must have
expired AFTER His body was put in the tomb”.
Then take it “He had to
have been buried 30-60 minutes before (Thursday) Evening arrived”,
and “So the Day He died on
the cross, even though it was a few hours before nightfall, would have counted
as a "day" in the "3 days, 3 nights" count of things”,
it would not only have ‘counted’ for halve of the day involved, its last halve
or day as such; it would ‘count’ for the whole of it, for both its opening halve, night, and
its second, closing halve, day as such.
The “three days” of the passover Scriptures cannot be contorted into
something not those “three days”.
Whatever time after sunset Saturday afternoon Jesus
might have risen, it by the same principle must count not only for halve of the
day involved; it should ‘count’ for the whole day, which would have counted as a fourth "day" that add up to four day-parts and four night-parts – your method ‘in
the count of things’.
Counting the part for the whole – any part, be it
one minute or ‘at least a few hours’ – counting the part would also, give 72
hours, but not as the principle of things to work from; but as an incidental
result. It would also give ‘more than 60
hour’, but again not as the principle of things to work from; but as an
incidental result. The only principle to
work from or with, is the “three days”, “according to the
Scriptures”, the passover Scriptures, and therefore from or with the passover’s “three days” as well
as the passover’s “three nights
and three days”.
Joe
Viel:
“He had to have been
buried 30-60 minutes before Wednesday Evening arrived, since Joseph, Nicodemus,
and the two Mary's had to do work after He was buried and before the Sabbath
came. (They had to walk home before sundown of the Sabbath.) In order to avoid
violating the Sabbath, His body would have had to been placed in the tomb far
enough BEFORE sunset they could return home before sunset - or at least close
enough to home to be within a Sabbath Day's Journey, which would be within
2-4,000 cubits (slightly over half a mile to a mile for you Americans out
there) outside of their own "camp". Yeshua was killed "outside
the camp" [of
GE:
Of course this what you say must also apply in case
Jesus was crucified on Thursday .... not just for in case He was crucified on
Wednesday, and up to now in what you say, should be acceptable. But where you go on, it can no longer be
acceptable; because you further say,
Joe
Viel:
“..... That could have
been an hour, 30 minutes, or whatever, but would require some part of the day .....
before the Sabbath arrives.”
GE:
“That could have been an
hour, 30 minutes.....”. Then “that”, according to Joe Viel
who places the going home of the women, and, the preparations they made, after
“the ninth hour” that Jesus died and before sunset, 6 p.m.. Joe Viel,
artificially, leaves one solid and
full halve an hour, for from that
first “The Jews ....”, and, “After them .... Joseph”, went to
Pilate with their conflicting interests, until “mid-afternoon toward the
Sabbath” (no matter which for the sake of argument) when Joseph had the
body prepared and buried and the grave closed. Joe Viel allows Joseph’s whole
undertaking as much time he allows the women’s after the burial
activities. And wants to be
believed.
Joe Viel wants to be believed despite Luke
explicitly stated the hour Joseph closed the grave was
“mid-afternoon before toward the Sabbath it was”,
‘epefohsken sabbaton’— Jn19:42 “by the time of the Jews’ preparations”.
“before toward”— “before” because of
Accusative, ‘sabbaton’; and
“toward” because of ‘epi’ that means both
“midst”, ‘acme’, and “tending / hovering over towards”— and
“daylight tending”, because of ‘fohs’, ‘light
hovering over / light 45o’—
giving: “mid-afternoon”.
Note, clearly, “mid-afternoon before toward the Sabbath it
was”— Joseph closed the grave ‘3 o’clock’ before the second halve of
afternoon; he ‘3 o’clock’ finished burial, after the first halve of
afternoon. Joseph finished burying the
body the exact hour of day than the hour of day Jesus rose from the grave: according
to all Sunday-resurrectionist theories, no matter which!
Joe
Viel:
“So at least PART of the
day He was crucified must have expired AFTER His body was put in the tomb and a
Wednesday death / Saturday Evening Resurrection definitely gives you something
in excess of 3 days of His body in the tomb and His Soul in the heart/center of
the earth.”
GE:
Here is an extremely important distinction made by Joe Viel:
“.... His body in the tomb and His Soul in the heart/center of the earth”. It seems though Joe Viel had not himself
realised the importance contained in his distinction. Had he really seen the importance, he would
have enlarged; he does not. Had he really seen the importance, he would have concluded
differently. He concluded in the same way as before and as always he does. Had he seen the importance, he would not have
given alternative, “Soul in the heart/center of the earth”.
I have in a previous delivery answered the
implications of this distinction. “His body in the tomb” is ‘literal’— it means
just that, “His body in the tomb”—
no metaphor or figure. “His Soul in the heart ....
of the earth”— the meaning is obviously not literal, but
figurative; it is metaphorical language used to portray the ‘spiritual’ and
prophetic meaning meant by Jesus as well as Jonah.
“Center”
as an equivalent for “heart”
is not good because ‘center’ is a word better used for metrical middle point
than for symbolic expansiveness.
Then one must be correct, and never say what Jesus
didn’t say. Jesus never said, ‘So shall the Son of Man be in the grave three
days and three nights’. Jesus didn’t
say, ‘As Jonah was in the heart of the earth three days and three nights’. He
said what He meant, and He meant what He said, “There shall no sign be given
but the sign of the prophet Jonas,
for as Jonas was: three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so, shall the Son of Man be: three
days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.” The similarity is “three days and three
nights”; the difference was, “in
the whale’s belly Jonah”, “in the heart of the earth the Son of Man”.
So a Thursday “ninth
hour” death / Friday “mid-afternoon”
burial / Saturday “mid-afternoon”
Resurrection, definitely gives you “in
the heart of the earth” of “His Soul”, “three days and three nights”. It does not give you “three
days and three nights”, “of His body in the tomb”.
Joe Viel:
“The women didn't finish annointing His body, but they didn't
realize that someone else already had done so and completed Jewish custom in
this manner......”
GE:
No women at any
stage anointed the body of Jesus – not before or after his burial. Only men did embalming, for-to-be-buried
“according to the custom / law of the Jews to bury”— which had its provisions
and precedent in the passover sacrifice in the Torah.
Forget Judaistic
laws from the era after Christ.
Joe Viel correctly
observed “The women .... didn't realize that
someone else already had done so and completed Jewish custom in this manner.” The
women did not realise because they didn’t know even. Joseph initiated action “in secret for
fear of the Jews”, but “boldly” in fear of God. Only much later Nicodemus also got there
where Joseph was “handling” or “treating the body” and the two of
them further “handled the body” (John) in seclusion from public eye! We hear about the two Marys that they arrived
in time for the procession to the grave next day, when they and ONLY the two of
them, “followed after”. (Luke)
Only a few – two men
and two women – witnesses Jesus’ burial— from initiation to the closing of the
grave. The Jews must have found out long while too late after, so that they
only on the Sabbath “morning which is after the preparation/s” (‘tehi
epaurion hehtis estin meta tehn paraskeyehn’) once again – fifth time in three
days –** bothered Pilate to have the grave sealed and guarded. During Friday night the whole city of
Joe Viel:
“The annointing was done in Mark
14:2-8.”
GE:
‘Anointing was done’
only, in the Gospel of John. ‘Buying linen’ was done only in Mark. ‘Wrapping
the body’ was done in three Gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, which implies
‘anointing’. John says, “They treated
the body of Jesus, wounding it in linen clothes with the spices”. Mark 14:2-8 does not say “The anointing was done”. It expressly states that “after the Sabbath was past Mary
Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome, bought sweet spices so that they might anoint him when they would go (to the
tomb).” Therefore, no “anointing was done in Mark
14:2-8”!
No women ever did any ‘anointing’.
Joe Viel:
“Now how does Jewish
tradition count days? The Talmud says
"part of a day is
like a whole day" (Talmud, Pesachim 4a - See also Shabbat 9.3 of the
Now this Talmud quote
appears in The Second Book of Jewish Why in explaining how to count the number
of days for mourning for the dead. Here's what it says:
"If a burial is
completed just before nightfall and the mourner simply removes his shoes in the
cemetary as a token sign that mourning has begun, this counts as the first day
of mourning"
and elsewhere the same
author also says:
"If a mourner sits
shiva for as little as one hour on the day of the funeral, that is considered
as one full day of shiva" immediately after citing the teaching of the
Talmud in Pesachim 4a as well. (The Jewish Book of Why , page 69).
This rule is about as
close as you're going to get to a rule on how to count the time, since there's
no Jewish tradition on how to count the time spent by dead Saviors. But the
parallels on how many days mourners are required to mourn for the dead after
they died would certainly be counted the same way.
So the Day He died on
the cross, even though it was a few hours before nightfall, would have counted
as a "day" in the "3 days, 3 nights" count of things.”
GE:
O no! You are directly contradicting the very
principles of reckoning you are quoting!
“(E)ven though it was a few hours before
nightfall, (it) would have counted as a "day" in the "3 days, 3
nights" count of things”,
means “a "day"” as a
whole unit in Bible terminology and reckoning wherein the night forms the
beginning halve and daylight the closing halve— no matter the sequence of words, “in the
"3 days, 3 nights" count of things”.
1) Say for instance, if a mourner sat shiva for
as little as one hour on the last
day of ‘shiva’, that should be “considered as one full
day of shiva"” as well,
surely! The first one hour after sunset
as much should count for the whole full day as should the last one hour before
sunset. As stated Joe Viel, to quote his own words:
“..... since ANY PART of the evening would count as a
"night", He would have had to have Risen BEFORE Saturday night .....”
since ANY PART of the evening would count as a FULL DAY!
This was the case, in
fact, the Fifth Day – Thursday – having started Wednesday evening right after
sunset, night and day; the Sixth Day night and day; the Sabbath, night (Friday
evening after sunset) and day, ‘Saturday’ day. Therefore, having been crucified
on Thursday, and “since ANY PART of the
evening would count as a "night", He would have had to have Risen
BEFORE Saturday night .....”
2) Besides,
both the statements about “the "3 days, 3 nights"” (in
Mt12:40 and Jonah 2), are made from an after-view
viewpoint: “Jonah was .... so
shall the Son of Man (have been) in the heart of the earth three days
and three nights.”
3) Also,
“the "3 days, 3 nights"” must be “considered
as” three full days— THE,
“three days”, “according to the Scriptures” the passover Scriptures of Abib 14, 15 and 16.
4) And,
how many times is it written the Son of Man would rise “the third DAY” – meaning ‘in day ‘light’-DAY’? Is it just forgotten or designedly ignored,
the fact of it Jesus would and Jesus
did rise, “the third DAY according to the Scriptures”:
“IN SABBATH’S FULLNESS OF DAY IT BEING
IN THE MID NOON-AFTER”?
5) What time of the (whole) day was the “First-Sheaf-Offering”,
“raised-and-waved-before-the-LORD”?
Was it “raised-and-waved” in night-of-day, or was it “raised-and-waved”
in light-of-day? In light-of-day, of
course! So why did anyone begin to
think Jesus rose from the dead in night of day?
“So also is the resurrection of the Dead .... it is raised in glory
.... it is raised in power .... God giveth a body as it pleaseth Him .... one
....” of the Son of Man— “the Glory of One .... HIS OWN” (1Cor15), “the
Sun of Righteousness” (Mal4:2), “above the brightness of the sun”
(Acts 26:13). Compare Acts 2; does it
speak of night, or of day and daylight?
You may decide for yourself, but as far as I am concerned, God is the
God of Light and Life and so did He reveal Himself through Jesus Christ the
Lord in the resurrection of Him from the dead.
Therefore to believe
that God raised Christ in the daylight of the day of his resurrection from the
dead, “in fullness of the Sabbath’s Day”, is but to believe God and the
Scriptures.
Joe Viel:
“Over and over again, He says "3 days and 3 nights"
and never "3 nights and 3 days". So we start the count of the days first,
then the nights, which could only be done for a Thursday Resurrection.”
GE:
Incorrect! How come you are so observant it “never (says) "3 nights and 3 days"”, but don’t see it in the NT but once “says
"3 days and 3 nights"”—
Mt12:40, ‘never over and over again’? How
come you are so unobservant it in the NT ‘over and
over again, says’, “the
third day”, “in three days” etc.? Because you presumed a
Sunday-resurrection.
Also, how can you
insist on a ‘night-resurrection’ but “start the
count of the days first, then the nights”, and talk of a Sunday-morning resurrection – an
after-sunrise-morning, daylight, resurrection --- which rather than the ‘old’
just after midnight resurrection has been the trend for many years?
Joe Viel:
“..... since ANY PART of the evening would count as a
"night", He would have had to have Risen BEFORE Saturday night if He
died on a Wednesday afternoon.”
GE:
Nonsense; if the
factors you mention are all taken into consideration, “if He died on a Wednesday afternoon” and rose on Sunday morning, ‘He would have had to have risen’ on the FIFTH
day since crucifixion-day. If He died on
a Thursday afternoon as YOU maintain and rose on Sunday morning as YOU maintain,
He would STILL have had to have risen on the FOURTH day since crucifixion-day.
And a miss is as good as a mile.
Then the facts He would rise and did rise “the THIRD day according to
the Scriptures”, are still
disregarded. It is your
arithmetic, Joe Viel; not mine. It’s
yours, against the Scriptures’.
Joe Viel:
“Thus, He would have had to have Risen on the Sabbath, not
AFTER the Sabbath. Yet the Word tells us in Mark
16:9 that "Y'shua rose early on the first [day] of the week", not
BEFORE Saturday night, not Saturday night, but Sunday morning. So His body was
still in the grave Saturday night.”
GE:
And so we end where
we started, with the whoremongers of lies’ rape of the Holy Scriptures, “After the Sabbath”.
Appendix
Deiteronomy
21:22-23
Buried
Before Sunset, or, After
Appendix
to Par. 5.2.1.4. P.106
An unknown author quotes
““ Deut.16:6 – “But at the place which Yahweh thy
Elohim
““ shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice
““ the passover at even ["ba ereb"],
““ at the going down of the sun,
““ at the season that thou camest forth out of
He
asks,
““ What does the phrase "going down of the sun" mean?
And
answers,
““ The same Hebrew construction is found in Josh.8:29 –
““… "And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide [ereb]:
““ as soon as the sun was down ,
““ Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down
““ from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city,
““ and raise thereon a great heap of stones…”“
The
author also quotes,
““ Josh.10:26,27
, "... and they were hanging upon the trees
““ until the evening [ereb]. And it came to pass
““ at the time of the going down of the sun,
““ that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees,
““ and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid,
““ and laid great stones in the cave's mouth…”“
He
then claims,
““ The underlined words in both verses
““ are the equivalent Hebrew of
““ "at the going down" in Deut.16:6.
““ Notice one verse says the sun was already down
““ and the other verse says it was going down.
““ To understand what the status of the sun really was,
““ we must look at the commandment that led Joshua to order
““ the king's body taken down. It is found in Deut.21:22,23…
““ Deut.21:22,23 - "And if a man committed a sin worthy of death,
““ and he
be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
““ His
body shall not remain all night upon the tree,
““ but
thou shalt in any wise bury him that day ;
““ (for
he that is hanged is accursed of Elohim;)…”“
The author then asserts,
““… Joshua was obeying Yahweh's commandment … -
““ The body had to be buried the same day it was hung on the tree.
““ That means it had to be buried before sunset.
We wish to differ on several aspects.
First we must stress the fact we agree with the
unknown author on the Nisan 14 (end-time
of day) slaughter of the Passover lamb, and its eating in
the night of Nisan 15. But this very Passover-arrangement is in contradiction
with his ideas on the meaning of the Deuteronomy instruction as well as with
both the Joshua passages.
Deut.21:22,23 - "... if a man be put to death ... and thou hang
him on a tree, His body shall not remain all night upon the tree,
but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day” – meaning he must
be buried the current day that had begun with “night” - during which the
body had been hanging on the tree. It implies the body had to be
removed from the tree before sunrise with the view to its
interment during the following daylight!
Thus Joseph of Arimathea removed Jesus’ body
from the tree far into night and very probably only before sunrise. “Thou shalt
in any wise bury him that day” – which exactly Joseph did: during
daylight of “that day”, after the day on which
Jesus had been crucified.
“Shemesh” in Josh.8:29 is translated “sun”
in the KJV, and per se means the rising of the sun -
Gn.19:23, Josh.12:1 and many other places. (It is also used for
other times of sunlight, e.g. Josh.10:12.)
The words supplied in
Josh.8:29, “and as soon as … was
down”
- because the opposite of “ereb” - should be: “and as soon as the sun began to rise” “shemesh”. And
the words supplied in 10:27, “going down”, should be, “at the time of the dawning / rising of
the sun” “shemesh”.
See the close nexus between “east” – mizrach,
and “morning” – shemesh, in the combination “early dawning” – mizrach
shemesh. Compare the
s-h-a- in shachar, “morning” / “dawn”, and in shakam,
“to awake” / “rise”, with the s-h-e- in shemesh, “sunrise”.
Then also compare the
m-i-s-h- in mishchar, “morning”, and in mishap
– “dawning of day”, with the –m-e-s-h in shemesh, “sunrise”.
Now put the two together, and it becomes s-h-a + m-e-s-h, then
becomes she-mesh. Then just to confirm this type of combination, see
Dn.6:19, shepharpara, “very early in the morning”. Eth eber and shemesh
it is clear, are the opposites of day-time and night-time, respectively
“afternoon” / “towards sunset”, and, ‘afternight’ / “towards sunrise”!
Therefore in the case of Joshua 10:26,27,
instead of to translate, "...
and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening [ereb]”, rather
translate, "... and they hanged them upon the trees while the sun
was setting [ereb]. And it came to pass that at the time of the rising
of the sun “shemesh”, Joshua commanded, and they took them
down off the trees.” “Eth ereb” indicates the time of day of the
hanging;
“shemesh” the time of night of Jushua’s commanding.
We
are compelled to conclude, that the phrases in the two texts, namely, “as soon as the sun was rising”
“shemesh”, and, “at the time of the rising of the sun”
“shemesh”, are NO equivalent Hebrew
of "at the going down" “eth ereb / ereb” in Deut.16:6, where it is
the rendering of the word bo, and, meaningfully, is used in conjunction
with the statement, “at the sea” – which is to the west of the land and just
the opposite of shemesh, “sunrise” in the east!
Joshua
was obeying Yahweh's commandment. The body / bodies had to be buried the day after they were put to the tree - after the night during which they “remained on the tree”.
There is absolutely no possibility or implication the bodies could have been removed from the tree “before sunset” before “all
(this) night”. And that means the dead had to be buried
in the daylight following the
night = “that same day”.
There
would have been no sense in having
the bodies hung just before sunset only to remove them, again just before
sunset. Therefore, instead of translating like the KJV, “And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide [ereb]”, rather translate, “And the king of Ai he hanged
on a tree before
sunset
[ereb]: and as soon as the sun dawned, “shemesh” Joshua commanded they should take his
carcase down.”
In
both events stone-mounts of such hugeness were built over the graves they “remained
unto this day” – an immense task scheduled certainly for daylight and
impossibly for night-time.
Indeed,
just so, Joseph was obeying Yahweh's commandment. Jesus’ body had to be buried
the day after they hanged Him - in fact
after the night in which the body
“remained on the tree”. There is absolutely no possibility or implication the
body of Jesus could have been removed from the tree “before sunset” of the day
before - not before “all night” of the day that afterwards did begin - He “shall not remain all night”, but “before the sun had risen”
shall be taken “down off the tree”, and “that (same) day” be buried.
That
would bring the exact and full fulfillment “according to the Scriptures the
third day” of the typology of the Passover as prophesied: Deut.16:6 – “But at
the place which Yahweh thy Elohim shall choose to place his name in (i.e.,
in Jerusalem, in Jesus Christ!), there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at
even ["ba ereb"], at the going down of the sun, at the season that
thou
camest forth out of
That
was the sacrifice of Him. Then, o sinner, they lifted Him upon the tree “before
the sun did set” and before “it was evening”, “so that the Scriptures might be
fulfilled”: “His body shall
not remain all night (Mk.15:42, Mt.27:57) upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise
bury Him that day”. “And after this Joseph of Arimathea came” ... “he took
the body down ... and the women beheld how his body was laid ... and the sun
declined towards the Sabbath Day.”
28 June 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill
2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
“The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn”
Joe Viel answered
Fifth delivery
Joe Viel:
Why The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn
The Greek
version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou
batheos", which means the earliest part of sunrise or what
southerners might call "the crack of dawn." "Orthrou" means
early morning and "batheos" is an intesifier to that. It refers to
when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon. (The Peshita calls
it "Dawn, while it was still dark" - basically the same thing.)
The gospel of Yochanan / John tells us it happened while it was "still dark"
(similar to the Peshitta Luke), and Matthew and Mark use a bit more ambiguous
terms which have been translated "dawn" since that's the only meaning
that will agree with Luke and John.
Some people
have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at
"episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to
"prove" a Saturday night Resurrection. First, the word here is a bit
vague since it could mean dawn or dusk, so it neither proves nor disproves the
point being made. But also, it must agree with the rest of scripture, if it too
is to be believed, and the KJV translates it "dawn" since it has to
be referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly refers to the
earliest part of dawn. Let's take a look at all 4 gospel accounts and harmonize
them...
Greek
Matthew 28:1
After the sabbaths, toward the dawning of
the first of the week, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre,
Mark 16:2
and early in the morning of the first of the
week, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,
Luke 24:1
And on the first of the week, at early dawn,
they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others]
with them,
John 20:1
And on the first of the week, Mary the
Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth
the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,
Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of
things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close. OK,
let's assume that's true. If it's true, we have a problem necause it
disagrees with the other 3 accounts. Matthew 28:1 is an account of when
the women WENT TO THE TOMB! In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the
women went to the tomb, which may or may not be the same as when He rose.
They went there on or after the timing of His rising.
Greek Matt
28:1 places it "after the Sabbaths, towards the dawning of the first
of the week..."
Mark 16:2 places it "early in the morning...at the rising of the sun"
Luke 24:1 places it "at early dawn"
John 20:1 places it "early (there being yet darkness)"
John 20:1
tells us it was STILL DARK. Now if the sun just set, what's the point of
saying it was "still dark". It just got dark, so there's no
"still" to talk about. The phrase "still dark" makes
sense if this happened at sunrise, since it tells us if this is just before
sunrise or just after. But it makes no sense if this happened at
sundown. If it happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK",
not "STILL DARK". Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising
of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the
same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.
Now the
Hebrew version of Matthew 28:1 gives some
insights on timing that are rather hard to reconcile without a little
background knowledge. Click here for
more detail.
Is it
possible Y'shua rose sometime in the night on Saturday evening? No. Y'shua
appeared to Mary and said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father" in John 20:17
during
early dawn. Also, Mark 16 clearly tells us that the earthquake and removal of
the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to visit
Y'shua's tomb. Also, the Torah makes it clear that the sacrifice Y'shua was to
fullfill was to be offered in the morning as we'll see in the next section.
Occasionally
people have suggested that Yeshua rose on a day PRIOR to the first day in the
week, and they point out that Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1
don't say He rose on the first day of the week, just that His tomb was found
empty on the first day of the week. But the fact is it DOES tell us that this
is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and that He appeared to the
women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17 . So those verses do seem to make it clear that this was indeed
when He rose.
Now some
Sabbath keepers have concluded that Y'shua rose on Saturday night because it somehow
disproves the Christian tradition of celebrating on Sunday morning. But we
should not allow a "sabbath" agenda to determine how we interpret
when He died or rose, but rather read the scriptures for what they have to say
without attaching an agenda to how we interpret facts.
JoeViel:
“Why The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn
The Greek version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos", which means the earliest part of sunrise or what southerners might call "the crack of dawn." "Orthrou" means early morning and "batheos" is an intesifier to that. It refers to when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon. (The Peshita calls it "Dawn, while it was still dark" - basically the same thing.) The gospel of Yochanan / John tells us it happened while it was "still dark" (similar to the Peshitta Luke), and Matthew and Mark use a bit more ambiguous terms which have been translated "dawn" since that's the only meaning that will agree with Luke and John. ”
GE:
You will have to decide what you actually believe.
1) Do you believe, “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”, or do you believe, “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"”?
2) You will also have to decide whether you speak about the time “The Resurrection had to be Sunday”, or about the time “the two Mary's found the tomb empty”?
3) Then you will have to make sure whom you are talking of, “the two Mary's”, or, Luke’s “version of” who the women were who came to the tomb, 24:10?
4) And you will have to establish what happened at the time you have in mind, “The Resurrection”, or, that they “found the tomb empty”?
Now as it sounds to me, you have precluded, “The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn”. But as it sounds to me, you have also concluded, “the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos" .... version of Luke 24:1”. Which is it? How is it possible that the Resurrection was the same point in time of day, but the women “found the tomb empty”? The resurrection must have happened any unspecified time before.
“The Greek version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos",” Absolutely so! Luke tells us the women brought their “spices with them”— which implies a lot! It implies two things, before anything else:
1) That they already knew the tomb was opened though not that it was emptied. They knew it was open; now they “found” the tomb was empty as well; they have brought their spices with them in vain. Mary’s worst fears are confirmed— ‘they’, must have removed the body.
2) So the next thing implied is that Mary before this visit at the tomb must have seen the tomb opened, but did not investigate further. For this information one must turn to the Gospel according to John, in chapter 20, from verse 1 to verse 10. John in fact recorded how “Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre— Then she runs and arrives at” Peter and John.
These consequential inferences prove Mary had to have seen the grave at an earlier stage than the time of the women’s actual visit with the intention to embalm the body. So Joe Viel cannot be accurate when he alleges “John tells us it happened while it was "still dark" (similar to the Peshitta Luke)”— it wasn’t “similar”. Mary made her first observation of the opened grave before midnight; the women came to salve the body, only to find the body was gone, after midnight.
“John tells us it happened ....”, “it” .... referring to what? Joe Viel obviously must have had in mind, “it” .... both “The Resurrection .... Sunday just before Dawn”, and, “the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos”— both.
Both at the same time of night, disregarding that Luke wrote, “orthrou batheohs” = “morning of night’s deep / just after midnight”; not, “when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. And John wrote, “proh-i skotias eti ousehs” = “early darkness still being”. John wrote not of after midnight, but of before midnight. In fact, John wrote, “before/early-dark / before/early-late night” and “still being early-dark / still being before-late night / still being early / still being before-night”. John emphasised with using “proh-i”; he didn’t only say, “while yet dark” the way this passage gets translated, as though John only wrote “skotias eti ousehs”. No; John wrote “proh-i skotias eti ousehs”—“early, fore-part darkness still being”. Which simply means, ‘dusk’ or ‘evening’ after sunset; literally, “before dark, still”.
Joe Viel:
“Some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection.”
GE:
The fact remains, it is Joe Viel who maintains it is Matthew “which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"”, whether “some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1” or not.
Matthew does not say
1) “the tomb was found” by any; or that any,
2) found the tomb, “empty”.
We have just established it was Luke, who stated “the tomb was found .... empty”. But Luke does not say “the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"”. Luke states the tomb was found to be empty “orthrou batheohs”, “just after midnight”.
If these ‘people’ use “"episooskousé" (they cannot “quote” it) to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection”, then surely “there are several problems” awaiting them, for “sabbatohn tehi epifohskousei” – “Sabbath’s-time in the very midst of light-being”, disproves “a Saturday night Resurrection” as it disproves a Resurrection “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"” or “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. “Sabbatohn tehi epifohskousei” disproves any Resurrection other than “In Sabbath’s fullness-of-day, Sabbath’s-time-mid-afternoon” – ‘Opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi’.
Neither Luke nor Matthew says “the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"” (sic.)— Joe Viel’s transliteration-spelling does not show the Dative, ‘-ousehi’; and he omits the Dative Article ‘tehi’, so that it looks like an Accusative construction, “at / before” whatever else – like “a Saturday night Resurrection” at “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"” or “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. Only not what is written!
Joe Viel does not show the actual Dative, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’ – “in-the epi-centre-in-light-being”, so that
1) the connection, correlation and relation with the Genitive “Sabbath’s (time) in mid-afternoon (it) being” can get lost, and
2) the real Accusative, ‘eis mian sabbaton’ – “tending towards the First Day of the week” must seem pleonastic and virtually superfluous.
The meaning of “still dark” will not agree with either Luke or John. It may be “similar to .... Mark”, who uses the terms ‘lian proh-i anateilantos tou hehliou’, which may be translated “dawn” or “still dark”, or more literally, “very early up-coming of the sun”. But even then, Mark’s use of terms is unique, and unambiguously is “similar to .... Matthew” or John’s use of terms in no way whatsoever. It is ONLY when the Gospels are ostentatiously telling of one and the same event of the Resurrection that any irreconcilabilities begin.
Tricks an old dog should know; knowing of which translators hate him for.
Joe Viel:
“Some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection. First, the word here is a bit vague since it could mean dawn or dusk, so it neither proves nor disproves the point being made.”
GE:
Re: “the word here ("episooskousé") is a bit vague since it could mean dawn or dusk”.
Yes, in fact it so “the word here”, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’, “could mean dawn or dusk”— depending on the English one may be using. The ‘bit of a vagueness’, mustn’t be blamed on the Greek which is very precise and very specific, and should as far as possible be literally interpreted.
No one has solved this ‘difficulty’ more authoritatively than A.T. Robertson.
Quote begins: Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week (opse de sabbatwn, th epipwskoush eiί mian sabbatwn). This
careful chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that
before the sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women
was made "to see the sepulchre" (qeorhsai ton tapon). They had
seen the place of burial on Friday afternoon (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61; Luke 23:55). They had rested on the sabbath
after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke 23:56), a sabbath of unutterable
sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices after sundown when the new day has
dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark 16:1). Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke 23:54) use dawn (epipwskw) for
the dawning of the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the
twelve-hour day at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses.
The so-called Gospel of Peter has epipwskw in the same sense as Matthew
and Luke as does a late papyrus. Apparently the Jewish sense of
"dawn" is here expressed by this Greek verb. Allen thinks that
Matthew misunderstands Mark at this point, but clearly Mark is speaking of
sunrise and Matthew of sunset. Why allow only one visit for the anxious women? Quote ends “Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Only point I differ with Robertson on, is that he thinks the women’s
visit “was
made”; that it was “one visit for the anxious women” that must be ‘allowed’ as though
they accomplished it. But Matthew only
wrote that the women “departed to see / set out to go have a look at the
grave”. Matthew does not say that the women’s intended visit realised.
Matthew wrote “they went”; but he didn’t write, “they saw”. Matthew instead
wrote, “suddenly there was a great earthquake”— which must have
prevented the women to accomplish their intended visit. That they did not finish their excursion is certain
from the simple fact they afterward were
to learn about the grave that was opened; were to learn about the grave that was empty, and were to learn about every other detail
of before and after the Resurrection— things they would have experienced first
hand, had they actually visited the tomb at the time Matthew wrote of. The women were to learn about every
detail of before and after the
Resurrection and of the Resurrection itself
from “the angel”, who, in Mt28:5, “answered / explained / informed
the women, saying .....” the things Matthew recorded from verse 1 to verse
7 at least; or more probably, from 27:62 to 28:7.
Joe Viel:
“But also, it (a Saturday
night Resurrection the point being made) must agree with the rest of scripture,
if it too is to be believed, and the KJV translates it "dawn" since
it has to be referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly
refers to the earliest part of dawn.”
GE:
I acknowledge “a Saturday
night Resurrection” does not “agree
with the rest of scripture”. Neither does a Sunday-resurrection. Only a
‘Sabbath Resurrection’ does: compare Scriptures like Hb4:3-4, 8-10, Gn2:3. “Because that God in the Seventh Day
RESTED.”
That does not mean, however, that “the
Greek Matt 28:1”, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’ “too is to be
.... referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly refers to
the earliest part of dawn”. Matthew
and Luke are ‘referring’ to neither “the same
event” nor to the same time of day or night. Matthew records the angel as
telling the women (verse 6a) of the Sabbath’s-events when the angel opened the grave
and Jesus rose from the dead (verses 1-4). “Luke
24:1” does not
even refer to “the earliest
part of dawn”; Luke records that the women arrived at the tomb to salve the body,
but discovered it was gone— the earliest part of “morning” – ‘orthros’, “orthrou
batheohs”, which is right after midnight and long before “dawn”.
Which makes easy and perfect logical and chronological sense.
Make them speak of the same event and same time and both Matthew and
Luke — no! he who makes them speak of the same event and same time — speaks
utter nonsense.
Joe Viel:
“...... Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close.”
GE:
So confused does everybody make it. To say “the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close” is self-contradictory. “As the sun sets” is not “on Saturday” or, “as the Sabbath comes to a close”. “As the Sabbath comes to a close” is before the Sabbath came to a close “as the sun sets”.
It’s the same confusion and obfuscating of the ending of the Sabbath we have before discussed when we discussed Luke 23:54. Luke 23:54-56a supposes and implies the last three hours of “after noon” of daytime on Friday. Precisely the same, in John 19:42. Those three hours are “as the Sabbath comes to a close”. Those three hours are past “as the sun sets”. Those are the three hours after noon and before sunset: “mid-afternoon on the Sabbath toward (before) the First Day of the week” – ‘eis mian s.’ – the Sundayworshippers ignore dead. These three hours are that “toward” of the KJV which itself is the “dawn” of the KJV— that ‘later part or latter halve of afternoon’ in perfect synchronism with “Late on / in the end of, the Sabbath” – ‘opse sabbatohn’.
Sunset per se are the few seconds it takes the upper curve of the sun to disappear behind the horizon from where one observes; it is neither the past or the new day; it cannot be dated. Sunset observed with the eye is like a full stop that marks the instantaneous and simultaneous end of the previous day and beginning of the next.
Joe Viel:
“...... Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close. OK, let's assume that's true. If it's true, we have a problem because it disagrees with the other 3 accounts.”
GE:
But of course “Matthew 28:1 .... disagrees with the other 3 accounts”! There is nothing it agrees in with the other three accounts! Why must it agree with the other three accounts? There’s where “we have a problem”— with the ‘why’ everybody must find Matthew – not in agreement with the other Gospels, but –in agreement with his own views of what ‘agreement’ consists in. As long as Matthew is not allowed to tell his own story, and each of the other Gospels its own story, ‘disagreement’ must rule. But let each Gospel tell his part of the whole of the Gospel, and all the Gospels fully agree and every “problem” is solved.
Joe Viel:
“Matthew 28:1 is an account of when the women WENT TO THE TOMB!”
GE:
Yes! “..... of when the women went to the tomb”; not, that, or, of when, the women arrived, at the tomb.
What was the women’s purpose, according to Matthew’s Gospel? “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to go have a look at the grave.” Does that say they did see or did arrive at the tomb? We have dealt with this before. I cannot see why we should repeat. Enough is enough for those with eyes to see and ears willing to hear.
Joe Viel:
“Matthew 28:1 is an account of when the women WENT TO THE TOMB! In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the women went to the tom ......”
GE:
They are not the same.
Three Gospels give accounts that are about when the women actually got to the
tomb at different occasions. Matthew does tell of women who got to the
tomb— it is clear from verse five on. The angel explains to them, “He is not
here”, which implies the
angel is at the grave, and is speaking to the women who therefore must have
been at the grave as well. “And they
departed quickly from the sepulchre”— which says it all. The women are at the grave on Sunday morning after Jesus had first appeared to Mary only. (Mk16:9, Jn20:11f) What Matthew and only Matthew tells us, is
that the women afterwards, were at
the grave again.
But we know this
from what Matthew tells us from verses 5 to 8.
Matthew in verses 1-4 accounts another
event or events— which other event, the angel
actually “explained, and (then and there went on and) told the women,
He is not here, He is risen .... (as I have just explained to you).”
So yes, Matthew does
tell that the women went to the tomb before Jesus’ second appearance on Sunday
morning. It must have been quite some time after sunrise already (this second
appearance), considering Jesus “appeared to Mary Magdalene first” in the
garden when she thought He was the gardener (who normally starts working from
sunrise). John 20:11-17.
Therefore “In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the
women went to the tomb” yes, but Matthew’s does not say or imply the women actually got
to the tomb; but on the contrary implies they did not get to the tomb due to
the great earthquake. And since no earthquake occurred again and since the
guard’s watch expired at midnight, it is
to be expected any endeavour to go to the tomb after midnight, succeeded— which
is indisputable the case in Luke 24:1.
Yet no resurrection occurred during any visit at the tomb because the
Resurrection had happened much time earlier on the Sabbath Day before, as
Matthew without a doubt explained in 28:1-4 (and 5).
Joe Viel:
“..... all 4 of these accounts are when the women went to the tomb, which may or may not be the same as when He rose.”
GE:
Definitely Jesus arose at no visit of any women at the tomb. No ‘account’ of a Gospel of ‘when the women went to the tomb’ is indicative of when Jesus rose from the dead, except Matthew’s account of when the two Marys “departed” or “set out” from home with the idea, “to go have a look at the grave”. It’s another thing than to arrive at the grave and to see the events described in 28:1-4 happen! No women saw or was present or even near. No human eye beheld “the same as when He rose”. Therefore, neither of all 4 of these accounts of when the women went to the tomb, was “the same as when He rose.”
The simple fact an angel or angels at every visit at the tomb told the women that Jesus was risen, proves none of all four of these –virtually identical – accounts recorded in the four Gospels of when the women actually were at the tomb, are ‘the same as when He rose’— none!
Also, the simple fact an angel or angels at every visit at the tomb told the women that Jesus was risen, proves that none of these at-the-tomb-events is the same as another.
Only a fifth visit — the first in Matthew’s account in 28:1-4, intended, but in 28:5-8 last recorded visit, “when went Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre suddenly there was a great earthquake : for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door” — was “the same as when He rose”.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His rising.”
GE:
For every and all the reasons given above, they did not!
What on earth for would
1) the angel have explained to the women – four times and every time in their presence at the tomb – that Jesus was risen, if “They went there on .... the timing of His rising”?
2) And why would the angel or angels’ supposed only account in each Gospel differ and contradict itself – however little or much – if “They went there on or after the timing of His rising” (only once)?
3) And why would the Gospel writers’, separate accounts, differ so with one another if “They went there on or after the timing of His rising” — only once?
4) Why does every Gospel writer supply a different time of day?
5) Why does every Gospel writer describe a different event?
6) Why are the angel / angels described differently?
7) Why are localities so different?
8) Why are the persons different?
9) Why are the actions and reactions of the women so different?
Why is there absolutely NO harmony or consensus between more than one factors? Why are no two things in agreement or reconcilable? Only because the Resurrection must be on Sunday. The Word of God will be infested with myriads of lies, to prove Jesus rose on Sunday. Blasphemy! “They went there on or after the timing of His rising”, sums it up.
No! The women went to the tomb, and arrived there, in each Gospel as each Gospel writer gives account of another visit of the women’s, which therefore could only be accounts of separate occasions and times of night or day “on the First Day of the week”, AFTER the Sabbath.
All the four Gospels – Matthew included (except in 28:1-4 where the angel “explained to the women” (28:5a) the circumstances of Jesus’ resurrection “On the Sabbath”) – record,
1) the women’s visits at the grave, and,
2) the angel / angels’ accounts to the women of Jesus’ resurrection at each visit.
No one went to the tomb on or immediately after Jesus’ rising! Everybody
who went to the tomb and got there, went there after midnight or after on Sunday.
Jesus’ rising was “On the Sabbath”
before.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising.
Greek Matt
28:1 places it "after the Sabbaths, towards the dawning of the first
of the week..."”.
GE:
Incorrect! Everyone went
there after the timing of His
rising.
Greek
Matt 28:1 places it “In the end of the Sabbath, towards the dawning of
the first of the week...” or more precisely see above.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... Mark 16:2 places it "early in the morning...at the rising of the sun"”
GE:
Yes,
everyone went there after the timing
of His rising. “Mark 16:2
places it “early in the morning...at
the rising of the sun””.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... Luke 24:1 places it "at early dawn"”.
GE:
No; Luke says the
women had come to the tomb to embalm Jesus’ body “deep(est) morning”,
that is, just after midnight morning.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... John 20:1 places it "early (there being yet darkness)"”.
GE:
Everyone
who visited at the tomb went there after
Jesus’ resurrection. John 20:1 places Mary’s first glimpse of the opened
grave shortly after the Sabbath "while still early dark / before
darkness yet on the First Day of the week”.
If “early (there being yet darkness)”, the women must have entered
the grave even before Mary had seen it opened “early
in the morning...at the rising of
the sun”.
Joe Viel:
“John 20:1 tells us it was STILL DARK. Now
if the sun just set, what's the point of saying it was "still
dark". It just got dark, so there's no "still" to talk
about. The phrase "still dark" makes sense if this happened at
sunrise, since it tells us if this is just before sunrise or just after.
But it makes no sense if this happened at sundown.”
GE:
John
20:1 does not “tell us it
was STILL DARK”. The Greek, ‘proh-i skotias eti ousehs’,
literally is, “early dark / night / before-darkness still / yet being”. (See above.)
It was the “before-darkness” still; simply, it was the evening
after sunset yet and fore-part of night when Mary went to the grave and saw it
opened. The sun just set, that's John’s
point of saying it was "still dark". He actually is saying it
was “still early darkness”,
you see. If “It just got
dark .... there's no "still" to talk about”, you’re quite right! The point is it did not just got dark .....
it was “early darkness still”.
Joe Viel:
“If it happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK", not "STILL DARK". Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.”
GE:
“If it happened”— what “it”? The Resurrection, “Since all 4 record the same events”? Or, “Since all 4 record the same event....” Singular; the Resurrection? Not one – not even Mt28:1-4 – records “the same event”, or the “events” of the Resurrection. Mt28:1-4 records the events that accompanied the Resurrection; it does not record the Resurrection directly. Mt28:1-4 in fact is only the angel’s explanation to the women that is ‘recorded’; not the accompanying events of the Resurrection even, directly.
So, “If it” – the Resurrection – “happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK", not "STILL DARK"”, yes; ‘if ....’. But now John doesn’t say the Resurrection “happened Saturday night”; he is not even saying the Resurrection “happened”. John tells of Mary who saw the grave’s stone door removed; he doesn’t tell of Jesus’ ‘rising’, or, of “the timing” of Jesus’ ‘rising’.
Joe Viel:
“Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.”
GE:
Yes, anyone should read
Mark 16:2 clearly says "early dawn at the
rising of the sun" and Luke "deep darkness of morning". But anyone may just as clearly discern Mark
and Luke are saying nothing about the Resurrection in the verses you refer to,
but that they are clearly recording separate
visits the women brought the tomb.
It’s impossible “we can .... conclude
that Matthew” in
28:1-4 “is saying the same thing”. He is not.
Joe Viel:
“Now the Hebrew version of Matthew 28:1
gives some insights on timing that are rather hard to reconcile without a
little background knowledge.”
GE:
For me
A.T. Robertson (above) has said enough about the ‘Hebrew factor’. According to
him it confirms a Sabbath’s Resurrection.
Joe Viel:
“Is it possible Y'shua rose sometime in the night
on Saturday evening? No.”
GE:
I agree,
but not because I believe a Wednesday Crucifixion or a Friday Crucifixion; or
depend on a Hebrew translation of Mt28:1. Simply because I believe the Gospels
as we have them do not contradict.
Joe Viel:
“Y'shua appeared to Mary and said, "Touch me
not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" in John 20:17
during early dawn. Also, Mark 16 clearly tells us that the earthquake and
removal of the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to
visit Y'shua's tomb.”
GE:
“Clearly”? Where does Mark
do that? Clearly, Mark does not “tell
us” anything of
1) “the
earthquake”, or,
of
2) “the removal
of the stone”,
or, that
3) “the removal of
the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to visit
Y'shua's tomb.”
On the
contrary, it seems Mark is telling
us of a return-visit to the tomb to ascertain the women’s findings at their
first visit according to Luke, and
at which visit Mary, according to John
20:11, “had had stood after at the sepulchre”. (See several times elsewhere
considered.)
Joe Viel:
“Occasionally people have suggested that Yeshua
rose on a day PRIOR to the first day in the week, and they point out that Matt
28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 don't say He rose on the first day of
the week, just that His tomb was found empty on the first day of the week.”
GE:
In fact
“Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and
John 20:1 don't say He rose on the first day of the week”. Quit right.
And, “Mark 16:2,
Luke 24:1 .... just say that His tomb was found empty on the first day of the
week”; not “John 20:1” though. Quite right again. “John
20:1” states
Mary saw the tomb opened – “the door stone moved away from the sepulchre”;
not she saw it was empty.
Very
‘occasionally’ one might find someone who noticed only Matthew mentions – and
that he only in one place mentions – the circumstances that surrounded the
Resurrection. Very ‘occasionally’ one might find someone who noticed that not
even Matthew mentions the Resurrection as such, but that he supposes Jesus’
resurrection to have taken place in space in time in glorified and
incorruptible body of flesh, “In the end of the Sabbath”-‘opse
sabbatohn’ – that is, while it was still Sabbath and “mid-afternoon
Sabbath’s”-‘sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi’.
I think Joe Viel also has seen it; but he won’t admit, I think.
Joe Viel:
“But the fact is it DOES tell us that this – on
the first day of the week – is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and
that He appeared to the women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17 . So those verses do seem to
make it clear that this was indeed when He rose.”
GE:
The fact
is, it does NOT tell us “that”, that “He rose on the first day of the week”, or “this”, that “on the first
day of the week is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and He appeared
to the women”. Both are plain, untrue.
Then,
yes, it is true “He appeared
to the women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17
”. So what does that tell us about when He rose
from the dead “On the Sabbath” the day before?
It only tells us He has not yet ascended to his Father. So it’s another mistake to have said “having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17”. In Jn20:17 Jesus said
‘ascended’; He did not say ‘arose’. Very
different things! See many comments; you
may find them with a few clicks on your mouse.
It’s
important to distinguish because “God raised Christ by / in the Glory of the
Father” and of the Father’s Presence.
Many other Scriptures state God, or God the Father, or God the Holy
Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. So
the Father and the Son in the Full Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit worked in unison to, raise Christ up out of death, and when, Christ was raised from the dead—
right inside the tomb in space, and
right “Inside the Sabbath” in time,
right inside the body of Him whose
flesh God declared would not see corruption.
Three dimensional REALITY and DIVINE TRUTH.
So some
of those verses do make it clear that this was indeed when He appeared! Not when He rose!
Joe Viel:
“Now some Sabbath keepers have concluded that
Y'shua rose on Saturday night because it somehow disproves the Christian
tradition of celebrating on Sunday morning. But we should not allow a
"sabbath" agenda to determine how we interpret when He died or rose,
but rather read the scriptures for what they have to say without attaching an
agenda to how we interpret facts.”
GE:
I am a
Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant, Christian; yet I do not believe the
‘Sunday-agenda’ that directs and inspires the Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant,
Christian Church to disregard and where
necessary to change the Scriptures to suit its ‘Sunday-agenda’.
For most
basic Confession of Faith I accept, believe and confess and to the best of my
sinful abilities, try to ‘keep’ the Apostolic Confession. I believe the Seventh
Day Sabbath is included in the greater scope and extent of the Apostolic
Confession of Faith, in that I believe He was “raised the third day according
to the Scriptures” and the Confession, and this “third day” had been the
Seventh Day Sabbath predetermined and predestinated and pre-appointed by God
since before the creation of the world.
I do not find the First Day of the week anywhere in Scriptures or
Confession so “blessed” or “sanctified” or honoured unto the service, glory and
honour of, and to, Jesus Christ.
Therefore
to allege “we (Sabbath-believers) allow a "sabbath" agenda to determine
how we interpret when He died or rose” is utterly false accusation against us, the contrary of
which is the blatantly assuming and openly defiant Sunday-agenda of
Sunday-believers “to determine
how we interpret when He died or rose” on Sunday by all means, whether by means of defacing the
Written Word of God or by defaming God, Christ and all Truth. For thus — rather
than to read the Scriptures for what they have to say
without attaching an agenda to how we interpret facts — “the
Christian tradition of celebrating (the Resurrection) on Sunday morning” came into being and is insured
to stay.
1 July
2009
Joe Viel
answered 6
The Torah Types
The Scriptures provide an interesting insight as to why Y'shua
must have rose just before Mary / Miriam got to the tomb on “very early dawn”,
as recorded in Luke 24.
John says in Yochanan / John 19:36 that Y'shua's bones weren't
broken, against the norm for someone crucified, in order “that the scriptures
would be fullfilled.” What Scriptures? No where is there a Messianic prophecy
that says the bones of the Messiah would not be broken. But there is a type of
this in the Passover regulations of Exodus/Shemot 12:46 and Num 9:12. John said
this because He knew Y'shua had to fullfill the typology and regulations of the
Law prescribed and God would follow the regulations for the Passover sacrifice when
sacrificing the ultimate Paschal Lamb for our sins, for it was THIS sacrifice
that God was really concerned about when He wrote those regulations. God wasn't
really concerned whether an animal lamb had it's legs broken, but it was
important only because it foreshadowed the Messianic sacrifice that was to
come.
Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of the type of
Firstfruits. The regulations for Firstfruits, given in Leviticus/Vayikra
23:9-14, require a lamb to be offered as a burnt offering. These requirements
are given in Lev/Vay 1 and 6:8-13. According to these regulations in Lev/Vay
6:8, “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the
night, 'till morning.” So if
Y'shua fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly
before “the crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the
Firstfruits regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered
the next morning, not when evening arrived.
Also, the Hebrew words for “offering”, “bring near” and “morning”
all share the same Hebrew roots and all are important in describing regulations
for the burnt offering, indicating there may be a deeper connection than we
truly understand. The offering or “Korban” was always brought near or “kerav”
[the 'v' and 'b' come from same Hebrew letter] to the altar at morning or “boker”. It's inner parts or “kerev” were always washed. The firstfruits
offering was made in the morning and the word for firstfruits “bikkur(im)” also
sounds similar to the word for 'morning'. So the connection between these is
much deeper than we realize just reading it in English.
Y'shua did not want Miriam / Mary to touch him before He ascended.
It was only lawful for the priests to touch/offer this sacrifice. For most of
the offerings made at the temple, the Torah specifically says what touches it
is made Holy, because it's Most Holy. The burnt offering was Holy when burnt,
and therefore couldn't be touched, even by the priests. So for her to touch Him
would really destroy the typology.
Also, when we look at the oral interpretations of the requirements
of Leviticus/Vayikra 6:8, we find this also supports his resurrection being
sometime in the dark hours of the day of Firstfruits..
The
Mishnah teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a
requirement that one reap it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped
by day, it is invalid.” This
is logical deduction from scripture since the firstfruits was to be reaped the
day it was offered AND had to remain on the altar all night. No way to fullfill
these requirements without reaping the harvest itself the evening before it was
to be offered. (The Mishnah also teaches that it cannot be reaped before Passover
in Menahot 10:7C, which again would follow from logical deduction of Lev
6:8.) The Mishnah also teaches in several places in this same chapter
(Menahot 10) that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv
falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat.
Another interesting thing I noticed is that the tomb fullfilled a
type of altar made of rock. I noticed as I was reading in the gospels that the
tomb must have looked as sketched below...
...because it says his tomb was “cut out of rock” and it says in
John 20:12 that one angel was seated where His head had laid and another sat
where His feet had been. In order for the angels to have had room to have sat
down, it means both the side and the top of where His body laid was exposed to
the open air of the cave (which had been sealed), thus it really looked like an
altar of sorts! Neat huh? Don't know if that means anything significant, but I
just thought it was neat! His body wasn't actually underground or in the earth,
but above the earth, on an altar, concealed in a tomb.
‘Torah Types’
Joe Viel answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Sixth delivery
Joe Viel:
“.... Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of
the type of Firstfruits. The regulations for Firstfruits, given in
Leviticus/Vayikra 23:9-14, require a lamb to be offered as a burnt offering.
These requirements are given in Lev/Vay 1 and 6:8-13. According to these
regulations in Lev/Vay 6:8, “the burnt
offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, 'till morning.”
So if Y'shua
fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly before “the
crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the Firstfruits
regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered the next
morning, not when evening arrived.”
GE:
Re: “.... “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar
hearth throughout the night, 'till
morning.” ..... He must have remained in the tomb until
shortly before “the crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb.”
Joe Viel claims the tomb is the altar. He
gives this illustration,
“Another interesting thing I noticed is that the
tomb fullfilled a type of altar made of rock. I noticed as I was reading in the
gospels that the tomb must have looked as sketched below...
...because
it says his tomb was “cut out of rock” and it says in John 20:12 that one angel
was seated where His head had laid and another sat where His feet had been. In
order for the angels to have had room to have sat down, it means both the side
and the top of where His body laid was exposed to the open air of the cave
(which had been sealed), thus it really looked like an altar of sorts! Neat
huh? Don't know if that means anything significant, but I just thought it was
neat! His body wasn't actually underground or in the earth, but above the
earth, on an altar, concealed in a tomb.”
The tomb
is not the altar though. The cross and before it, the night of Abib 14, were the altar, the
place where, the Passover suffered,
being “KILLED”. That day happened to be
dominated by darkness of hell’s night— 12 hours in darkest of nights, and three
hours darkest of darkness in midst of daylight.
Although
under the Old Covenant no sacrifice was allowed during the night of day, in
hell under the New Covenant sacrifice endured all night and day long, until the
Son of God yielded his life-spirit into the hands of His Father, when it was
the hour mid of afternoon, “when they always had to kill the passover”—
“between the pair of nights”-‘behn ha arbayim’.
Now is
it not most significant that, in ‘fulfilment
of the type’,
the Lamb of God, our Passover, as also God’s “burnt offering”,
was “to remain on the altar hearth
throughout the night, 'till morning’” when – eventually – Joseph who,
“When it had been evening already”, and “after these things” of
the Jews before him (Jn19:31/38), “came”, and after how long no one
knows, obtained permission to have Him removed from the ‘altar’. Joseph at last
went to begin — the very point in
time and events of ‘types’, being ‘fulfilled’, in Christ, so denied and scolded by Sunday-resurrectionists
— and he “took the body down” for the preparations of it for proper
burial “according to the custom-law of the Jews to bury”, the
passover-Scriptures. He did not “remain
on the tree-altar all night”, but “before sunrise” was “taken
down”— and, “the same day”, was “buried”, exactly, “according to the
Scriptures”, the Passover Scriptures-Word of God in Dt21:22-23 and all four
the Gospels.
If the
tomb is made the ‘altar’, not Christ’s giving of his Life and Blood would make
atonement, but merely the dust of the earth to which his human body belonged. If the
tomb must be the ‘altar’, his descent into hell would not have been Jesus’ willing obedience by the reconciling
offering of Himself. If the tomb were
the ‘altar’, the Roman Catholic heresy should be accepted Christ after He died,
descended to hell passively, and while dead and in the grave, without life or blood, consciousness or
conscience, made atonement for the sins of the damned (Hans Urs von
Balthasar, ‘Theo-Drama’, 4.), which negates and demeans the proficiency of the
atonement Jesus had finished and perfected on and through the real altar of his suffering
of death and dying for the elect.
Joe Viel:
“Now the Resurrection was a fullfillment of the
type of Firstfruits. .... According to these regulations in Lev/Vay 6:8, “the burnt offering is to remain on the altar
hearth throughout the night, 'till
morning.”
So if Y'shua
fullfilled the type, He must have remained in the tomb until shortly before “the
crack of dawn”, when Mary discovered the empty tomb. In the Firstfruits
regulations, the lamb, together with the barley, etc., was offered the next
morning, not when evening arrived.”
GE:
The fire
was to stay burning on the altar all night with the sacrifice on it; but the
sacrifice was killed, before the
night began. Christ though, laid down
his life by dying death, accumulating all and the total humiliation and
debasement of his entire life in climactic suffering on the Altar of His Self Sacrifice, night and day of the LORD’S PASSOVER. “The fourteenth day of the
First Month they kept passover.” Sacrifice was : “Finished! And He bowed
his head, and gave up the spirit.”
“The fifteenth day of the First Month they kept Feast of passover.”
The
grave was no altar; the grave was narthex from the dead and grave into
resurrection and Passover realms of exalted heavenly glory.
Joe Viel:
“..... The firstfruits offering was made in the morning
and the word for firstfruits “bikkur(im)” also sounds similar to the word for
'morning'. So the connection between these is much deeper than we realize just
reading it in English.”
GE:
Above
you have stated “The Mishnah
teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve
of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a requirement that one reap
it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped by day, it is invalid.” ”
It
contradicts.
Now to
‘reap’, is not to offer or make sacrifice of ‘the
firstfruits’. No matter what time of night or day the first
sheaf was ‘reaped’, it was ‘offered’ or “waved before the LORD” in the ‘day’—
“yom” : “That day when
ye wave the sheaf”, Lv23:12a and 15.
In fact, “on the morrow
(light of day) after the sabbath (of passover), the priest shall wave
it.” ‘Morrow / day’ from ‘mochorath’, ‘morrow’ 23; ‘morrow after’ 6; ‘next day’ 2; ‘next (day)’ 1 (Young’s Analytical).
In the morning of the day
after the passover sabbath the first sheaf was reaped, that “day”, to
be “offered / brought / waved before the LORD”.
The
manna fell in the early light of day – ‘morning’. It says in Josua 5:11-12, “They
ate of the old corn of the land on the morrow / next day after the passover
(Abib 14— verse 10), unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day (passover
sabbath of Abib 15). And after they
had (on Abib 15) eaten of the old
corn of the land, the manna on the morrow after / next day (of Abib 16)
ceased.”
So they
had to go reap the first sheaf of the new
harvest after the usual time that
the manna rained, in order to that same ‘day’
still, “bring / offer / wave it before the LORD”. It does not mean the ‘offering’ of the first sheaf happened in the morning or night; it
was “waved before the Lord” after the morning during which it was
reaped, implying it was “waved before the Lord”, in the ‘afternoon’.
Joe Viel:
“Y'shua did not want Miriam / Mary to touch him
before He ascended. It was only lawful for the priests to touch/offer this
sacrifice. For most of the offerings made at the temple, the Torah specifically
says what touches it is made Holy, because it's Most Holy. The burnt offering
was Holy when burnt, and therefore couldn't be touched, even by the priests. So
for her to touch Him would really destroy the typology.”
GE:
There is
no point in your comparison, because the “burnt
offering” may
not be touched until it was burned
or ‘offered’. It may be touched
afterwards, because “the typology”
was finished through its
burning. Mary could not by touching
Jesus “destroy the typology”; He was already ‘burned’ by
hell’s fire through the suffering of all the night and day of Abib fourteen, “the day they had
to kill the passover”.
Mary
could not by touching Jesus “destroy the
typology”; Jesus
was no type; He is the Antitype of all types. He is the Reality, and to touch
Him would be to touch reality.
Jesus
did not forbid Mary to touch Him; He told her not to linger and to go straight
on and tell his disciples.
Why
would Jesus forbid Mary but allow the other women to cling at his feet? And beg
Thomas to touch Him, even though He had not yet ‘ascended’ to the Father?
Because
He in Divine Truth had had ‘ascended to the Father’ already through and in that God “exalted Him” through and in that, and whereby, “God,
raised, Christ, in and by, the Glory,
of the Father”, “and
exalted Him at his own
right hand in heavenly realms”. That
kind of ‘ascension’, Jesus already had had received and already had had
undergone, over, and above, the altar of his suffering “WHEN God raised Him from the dead”— IN
having been resurrected from death
while still inside the grave even – which was the “waving before
the LORD” of Him God’s First Sheaf Wave Offering— before the Face, and in
the Most Holy Presence and Innermost Sanctuary of God’s Own Personal Being—
through and in ‘The Full Fellowship’* of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Moving Spirit of God, of the Very First Sheaf Wave Offering of Christ’s LIFE— no longer or again, of his blood
or death!
[*Klaas
Schilder]
‘Tell my
disciples I have not yet ascended to my Father; I’ll meet them in
On
strength of his ‘exaltation- / glorification-ascension’ through and in
resurrection from the dead, Christ can now go, and forty days later, when He
‘ascended to his Father’, indeed did ‘go, to heaven’ physically and
topologically. On strength of his
‘exaltation- / glorification-ascension’ of resurrection from the dead, Christ
can now so comforting yet authoritatively speak, to mortal but redeemed,
sinners, “Touch Me not Mary, (don’t linger with Me; don’t so much as wait
one moment), but go straight forward, and tell my disciples!” The urgency
arises from the fact “AS THE RISEN
He appeared to Mary”! I have now
spoken to you, Myself, Mary; I LIVE! I AM RISEN! Why would you touch Me, Mary?
I have spoken to you, and now am commanding you to go and tell my disciples!
Jesus “appeared to Mary first early
on the First Day.” What, in any
case, can all this frivolous nonsense Jesus would not allow Mary to touch him
because He had not yet ascended to his Father be worth to ‘prove’ He resurrected before (or after) sunrise
on Sunday morning? “AS THE RISEN He appeared to
Mary”! His resurrection an
established, past, fact.
When He rose is here at his (first) appearance (to any), no issue; is here, the day after He rose, only of consequence. Of only consequence here and when “He
appeared”, is the Truth: “He, as the RISEN, appeared”.
Elsewhere, where He actually did rise from the dead, the factor of time and day WHEN, shall be the issue and of
consequence— only, where it is written,
“In the Sabbath’s while being fullness of daylight”.
Joe Viel:
“Also, when we look at the oral interpretations
of the requirements of Leviticus/Vayikra 6:8, we find this also supports his
resurrection being sometime in the dark hours of the day of Firstfruits..
The Mishnah teaches in Menahot 10:3 to reap the omer used for the wave sheaf “on the eve
of the festival”
Also, Menahot 10:9 VI I-J says “It is a requirement that one reap
it (the firstfruits) by night. If it is reaped by day, it is invalid.” This is logical deduction from scripture
since the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered AND had to remain
on the altar all night.”
GE:
Nothing
“supports his resurrection being
sometime in the dark hours of the day of Firstfruits.” Lv6:8 does not deal with the First Sheaf Wave
Offering.
Assuming
Abib 15 ‘passover-feast’ “the festival”, that “the wave
sheaf” had to be
reaped “on the eve of the festival” makes no sense, since that
would mean the First Sheaf had to be reaped on Abib 14 whereas the Law is clear it should be reaped “the day after
the sabbath” of the passover of Abib 15. In other words, the first sheaf should be
reaped on Abib 16; not “on the eve” of the passover, but “on the
day after, the sabbath”
or “the festival” of Abib 15!
That “.... the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it
was offered AND had to remain on the altar all night”, is NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear and ‘logical’ contradiction, “the firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered”, but, according to “The Mishnah ... Menahot 10:3 .... the omer used
for the wave sheaf”,
had to be reaped “on the eve of the festival”.
This is
NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear
contradiction “the
firstfruits was to be reaped the day it was offered AND had to remain on the
altar all night”
as if the same day still, night followed
the day. The ‘following’ night is
the beginning-halve of another day; the beginning of the
following date— against Joe Viel who thinks of the night after the day as were
it the same day and date still. Refer to
my answer re Joseph who the next day
– beginning after sunset –, began to undertake to bury the body of Jesus that
was ‘on the altar’ of the cross, still, after night “when it had become
evening already”, had had begun.
This is
NO “logical deduction from scripture”, since it is a clear oversight
the First Sheaf Wave Offering was no ‘ordinary’, “firstfruits” or ‘burnt offering’.
Joe Viel:
“No way to fullfill ....” (sic.) “(There is) no way to fullfill these requirements
without reaping the harvest itself the evening before it was to be offered.
(The Mishnah also teaches that it cannot be reaped before Passover in Menahot
10:7C, which again would follow from logical deduction of Lev 6:8.) The
Mishnah also teaches in several places in this same chapter (Menahot 10) that
it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv falls on
Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat.
GE:
Again
your deductions are flawed and self-contradictory. The only way “to fullfill these requirements” would be “reaping the harvest the evening before it was to
be offered” ---
but --- “The Mishnah teaches it cannot
be reaped before Passover ....” Which is which? But how
on earth can you say, “which again
would follow from logical deduction of Lev 6:8”? (Sic. I assume you meant
“Lev 6:8 to 13”?)
However,
this, “The Mishnah also teaches that
it cannot be reaped before Passover in Menahot 10:7C”, implies the above, that the
sheaf had to be reaped in the night before day, must be wrong, because the
night before the day is the same day of passover whichever day of passover is
supposed.
Nevertheless,
that “The Mishnah .... teaches in several
places in .... Menahot 10 that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th
of Aviv falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”, is splendid resemblance of
Matthew 28:1, “In the Sabbath’s fullness of being Sabbath’s daylight
mid-afternoon”— “only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”! First Sheaf of God Almighty and our Passover First
Sheaf Jesus Christ, reaped on
the Sabbath Day! Beautiful!!
How clearly correct are the Jews, yet unable to recognise the Messiah in perfect fulfilment of their own Laws! They deserve our empathy and prayers.
Ed Sutton:
Only our
friend Gerhard Ebersöhn could have the sun start to 'rise' at midnight in order
to make the Son rise on the Sabbath.
GE:
My friend Ed Sutton, Let me help you here a bit; not only me, but others - big
names; I have them on my shelves - have the sun start to 'rise' at midnight in
order to make the Son rise on SUNDAY. Meanwhile when the sun rises doesn't
matter - it is when the sun declines that Matthew refers to in 28:1 : he in
fact as it were 'measures' its decline so significantly it was precisely “in
the very midst of daylight after noon towards the First Day of the week”;
exactly as the day before after Joseph had closed the grave it was “in the
very midst of daylight after noon towards the Sabbath Day”; exactly as the
day before it was in the very midst of daylight after noon, “the ninth hour”
- 3 p.m. - when the Saviour of us two sinners, friend Ed Sutton, died for us.
What is most significant, is that THIS happened, “according to the
Scriptures”, because THIS is why people (I am persuaded not my friend Ed
Sutton), take exception and are offended.
Said one
Joe Viel, this notable thing: “The Mishnah .... teaches in several places in
.... Menahot 10 that it is PERMISSIBLE to reap on Shabbat IF the 16th of Aviv
falls on Shabbat. But only IF the 16th falls on Shabbat”. By the Holy Scriptures though,
it not only was 'permissible', but inevitable, obligatory and mandatory of the “First
Sheaf Wave Offering before the LORD” that was Christ. Because “First Sheaf Wave
Offering before the LORD” in “reaping” as well as in “bringing” and “waving”
was promise, prophecy, and type of Him: by resurrection from the dead “BEFORE
THE LORD” - that is, was promise, prophecy, and type of Him: in the return into
the immediate presence of God in the full fellowship and self-enjoyment of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit: was promise, prophecy, and type of God “into His
Rest” through Christ and the finishing of all the works of God”, “IN HIM”.
'Sela', 'Peace'; 'STOP', 'SABBATH'.
Daarom
móét ek tog ook vir jou sê, desondanks jou lieflike en Christelike brief
geskryf aan my, broeder in Christus Jesus Mike Kitshoff, hoe onmoontlik dit is om die Sabbat van die
Nuwe-Testament, “die Sewende Dag Sabbat van die HERE jou God” en “Dag van die
Here” Jesus Christus, as ‘nie-wesensnoodsaaklikheid’ te kan ‘afsluit’ en as afgehandel te bejeën.
Want die Sabbatdag waarvan Jesus Christus deur opstanding uit die dode Here en
Christus van die Volk van God geword het, is
1) deur sy opstanding uit die dode en deur Hom,
volgens die Wet afgesluit en afgehandel, om
2) volgens die Evangelie van Christus Jesus deur
sy opstanding uit die dode, met Hóm, geïdentifiseer te begin word.
Calvyn
het die eerste raakgesien; hy het nie die tweede en belangriker waarheid,
opgemerk nie. Dalk sien mense soos jy
dit eendag raak, is my gebed.
Hoor mooi, wie jy ookal mag wees, Mike Kitshoff, leek of predikant of
professor of profeet of apostel - maak g'n saak wat die volgende aanbetref nie:
'die Bybel', vandag, is meer as net die Woord van God; is vandag, soms ook
minder as die Woord van God; is - vandag - selfs téén die Woord van God.
Eenvoudig en onvermydelik omdat 'die Bybel', vandag, in by voorbeeld
Afrikaans, mensewerk is. Moet dit, nooit vergeet nie vir alles wat dit
ookal mag,
13 July
2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2517
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Six
days before Passover
Joe Viel answered
By Gerhard Ebersöhn
Seventh Delivery
Joe Viel proposes:
Another Dating Clue from Events in Crucifixion Week
Did Palm
Sunday happen on a Sunday, Saturday , or some other time? If it happened on a
Sunday, as tradition holds, it would have been the 10th of Aviv, making
Wednesday Night/Thursday Day the 14th. Why is it believed this happened on a
Sunday?
·
John 11:54
puts him in Ephraim shortly before Passover.
·
Then,
Yochanan / John 12:1 tells us, "6 days before Passover, Y'shua
arrived at
·
Verse 2
tells us "Here a dinner was given in Y'shua's honor."
·
Yochanan /
John 12:12 tells He rode into
Now
determining when John 12:1 happened is not as easy as it might look at first.
It says "6 days before Passover"
but is Passover reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or
when the meal was eaten on the 15th? Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover? Also, if he was travelling
that day, is it possible he got there just
before the day expired and if so, does the "6 days" include or exclude that
travel day?
With all
these ambiguous questions, we see His trip to
Now was the
dinner on the same day he travelled or later that evening? That is, the 8th
would have become the 9th at sundown. "Dinner" is something eaten at
5-7pm for most Americans, but 7-9pm for many Europeans. So when did first
century Israelites eat dinner? Well, Passover was rather late at night, and
they may have used the more European timing, which was based on using as much
daylight to accomplish work as you could before you ate at night. So was the
"next day" the day after He travelled or the day after the dinner? My
guess is that He travelled on Friday the 8th, and they held a Sabbath day
dinner for Him that night. The "next
day" is the next day after the dinner. Other verses help put these
clues together, with the book of Mark giving us the most clues on dating of
these events. Let's take a look at two possibilities...
·
Possibility
#1: "6 Days Before Passover"
refers to 6 days before the 14th of Aviv and is counting EXCLUSIVELY. This
would put the trip to
o
Aviv 8 -
Y'shua arrives at
o
Aviv 9
(Evening) - Dinner for Y'shua.
o
Aviv 10 -
Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)
o
Aviv 11 -
Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" (Mark 11:12) after His
triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua
travelled between
o
Aviv 12 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
§
Topics
discussed that day were...
§
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
§
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
§
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
§
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
§
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
§
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)
o
Aviv 13 -
Y'shua annointed at
o
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" Now
there's two timing clues on the date here...
§
"the first day
of unleaveness". This
could be talking about Aviv 14 or 15. Aviv 15 was the first LEGAL day of
Unleavened Bread, but Jews would get their house ready by the 14th in order to
be ready for the start of it on the 15th. So the 14th was the first day on a de facto basis.
§
"when they
killed the passover". There's no ambiguity to this one. The lamb was
killed on the 14th "between the mixings". So the timing for this day was the 14th
of Aviv. It would have been the evening of the 14th, since Y'shua was killed on
the afternoon of the 14th. History tells us that the Essenes and Samaritans,
and probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the 14th, while
the Pharisees and Saduccess ate it on the eve of the 15th. The Law does not
prescribe when the lamb must be eaten, only when it must be killed.
o
Aviv 14
(Daytime) - Begins with the arrest of Y'shua and His trial. Yochanan / John
19:14 tells us it was not yet Passover, as it was celebrated by greater
·
Possibility
#2: "6 Days Before Passover"
refers to the 15th of Aviv and is counting INCLUSIVELY. This would put the trip
to
·
Aviv 10-
Y'shua arrives at
·
Aviv 11 -
Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)
·
Aviv 12 -
Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" (Mark 11:12) after His
triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua
travelled between
·
Aviv 13 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
o
Topics
discussed that day were...
§
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
§
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
§
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
§
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
§
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
§
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)
·
Aviv 13 -
Y'shua annointed at
·
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" This
is similar to the chain of events as listed in the previous chronology.
Now there's
not much room to make the sequence of event shorter than what I have here. Mark
puts enough "the next day" markers in here to tell us we can't put
the temple clearing and the teachings on Taxes, etc., on the same day.
Could Mark
failed to have noted a day? Well, that's entirely possible. Nearly all of the 4
gospels list events that the other 3 don't. But if you try to add more time,
you run into a problem where you have Y'shua travelling between
By the first
possibility of chronology, indeed, Palm Sunday was a Sunday, the 10th of Aviv,
which began on Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. Making Monday during
the day the 11th, Tuesday the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Wednesday Night
thru Thursday sundown the 14th and day of His crucifixion. By the second, His
entry into
Many have
suggested that His entry into
Exodus/Shemot
12:6 required
Six
days before Passover
Joe Viel answered 7
By Gerhard Ebersöhn
Joe Viel proposes:
Another Dating Clue from Events in Crucifixion Week
Did Palm
Sunday happen on a Sunday, Saturday , or some other time? If it happened on a
Sunday, as tradition holds, it would have been the 10th of Aviv, making
Wednesday Night/Thursday Day the 14th. Why is it believed this happened on a
Sunday?
·
John 11:54
puts him in Ephraim shortly before Passover.
·
Then,
Yochanan / John 12:1 tells us, "6 days before Passover, Y'shua
arrived at
·
Verse 2
tells us "Here a dinner was given in Y'shua's honor."
·
Yochanan /
John 12:12 tells He rode into
Now
determining when John 12:1 happened is not as easy as it might look at first.
It says "6 days before Passover"
but is Passover reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or
when the meal was eaten on the 15th? Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover? Also, if he was travelling
that day, is it possible he got there just
before the day expired and if so, does the "6 days" include or exclude that
travel day?
With all
these ambiguous questions, we see His trip to
Now was the
dinner on the same day he travelled or later that evening? That is, the 8th
would have become the 9th at sundown. "Dinner" is something eaten at
5-7pm for most Americans, but 7-9pm for many Europeans. So when did first
century Israelites eat dinner? Well, Passover was rather late at night, and
they may have used the more European timing, which was based on using as much
daylight to accomplish work as you could before you ate at night. So was the
"next day" the day after He travelled or the day after the dinner? My
guess is that He travelled on Friday the 8th, and they held a Sabbath day
dinner for Him that night. The "next
day" is the next day after the dinner. Other verses help put these
clues together, with the book of Mark giving us the most clues on dating of
these events. Let's take a look at two possibilities...
·
Possibility
#1: "6 Days Before Passover"
refers to 6 days before the 14th of Aviv and is counting EXCLUSIVELY. This
would put the trip to
o
Aviv 8 -
Y'shua arrives at
o
Aviv 9
(Evening) - Dinner for Y'shua.
o
Aviv 10 -
Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)
o
Aviv 11 -
Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" (Mark 11:12) after His
triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua
travelled between
o
Aviv 12 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
§
Topics
discussed that day were...
§
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
§
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
§
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
§
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
§
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
§
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)
o
Aviv 13 -
Y'shua annointed at
o
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" Now
there's two timing clues on the date here...
§
"the first day
of unleaveness". This
could be talking about Aviv 14 or 15. Aviv 15 was the first LEGAL day of
Unleavened Bread, but Jews would get their house ready by the 14th in order to
be ready for the start of it on the 15th. So the 14th was the first day on a de facto basis.
§
"when they
killed the passover". There's no ambiguity to this one. The lamb was
killed on the 14th "between the mixings". So the timing for this day was the 14th
of Aviv. It would have been the evening of the 14th, since Y'shua was killed on
the afternoon of the 14th. History tells us that the Essenes and Samaritans,
and probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the 14th, while
the Pharisees and Saduccess ate it on the eve of the 15th. The Law does not
prescribe when the lamb must be eaten, only when it must be killed.
o
Aviv 14
(Daytime) - Begins with the arrest of Y'shua and His trial. Yochanan / John
19:14 tells us it was not yet Passover, as it was celebrated by greater
·
Possibility
#2: "6 Days Before Passover"
refers to the 15th of Aviv and is counting INCLUSIVELY. This would put the trip
to
·
Aviv 10-
Y'shua arrives at
·
Aviv 11 -
Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)
·
Aviv 12 -
Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" (Mark 11:12) after His
triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua
travelled between
·
Aviv 13 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
o
Topics
discussed that day were...
§
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
§
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
§
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
§
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
§
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
§
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)
·
Aviv 13 -
Y'shua annointed at
·
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" This
is similar to the chain of events as listed in the previous chronology.
Now there's
not much room to make the sequence of event shorter than what I have here. Mark
puts enough "the next day" markers in here to tell us we can't put
the temple clearing and the teachings on Taxes, etc., on the same day.
Could Mark
failed to have noted a day? Well, that's entirely possible. Nearly all of the 4
gospels list events that the other 3 don't. But if you try to add more time,
you run into a problem where you have Y'shua travelling between
By the first
possibility of chronology, indeed, Palm Sunday was a Sunday, the 10th of Aviv,
which began on Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. Making Monday during
the day the 11th, Tuesday the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Wednesday Night
thru Thursday sundown the 14th and day of His crucifixion. By the second, His
entry into
Many have
suggested that His entry into
Exodus/Shemot
12:6 required
Six
days before Passover
Joe Viel answered
By Gerhard Ebersöhn
Part Seven
Gerhard Ebersöhn
answers Joe Viel:
To facilitate our analysis of this section of Joe Viel’s thesis, it may be of help that I first present a short summary of my own view on the subject of “The Last Week”. Then we afterwards may readily make comparisons to reach conclusion as to which would be the more likely correct interpretation.
|
NISAN 8 |
TEXT * |
DAY
BEFORE PASSOVER |
PLACE |
EVENT |
|
9 |
Jn.12:1 |
SIXTH = Saturday |
‘where Lazarus stayed’ |
Meal Mary anoints Jesus’ feet |
|
10 |
Lk.19:29-44
Mk.11:1 Jn.12:12 Mk.11:11 |
FIFTH = Palm Sunday ‘the next morning’ ‘late hour’ |
Village Into in temple To |
Colt, palm branches ‘looked around’ |
|
11 |
Mt.21:18
Mk.11:12 Mk.11:15 Lk.19:45-48 Mk.11:19 |
FOURTH = Monday ‘early’ ‘next morning’ ‘when it got late’ |
From ‘came to ‘out of city’ |
Fig tree cursed Cast out money changers |
|
12 |
Mk.11:20
21,27 Mt.22:23 Lk.20:1-8 Mk.13:1, 3 Mt.26:2 |
THIRD = Tuesday ‘early’ ‘on the same day’ after two days crucified |
‘returning’ (from ‘to ‘out of temple’ Lk.21:37 |
Fig tree withered Jesus preaches Kingdom of heaven |
|
13 |
Lk.21:38 Mt.26:3 Mk.14:1-3
|
SECOND = Wednesday ‘After two days Passover/Feast’ |
‘being in ‘Simon’s house’ |
CONSPIRACY Meal Woman anoints Jesus’ head |
|
14 |
Jn.13:1,29
Mk.14:17 Mt.26:21 |
FIRST = THURSDAY ‘BEFORE the FEAST’ /
‘TOWARD the FEAST’ “When the even was come” |
||
|
Mk.14:2 Mt.26:5 Mt.26:17
Mk.14:12 |
‘NOT on the Feast Day’ ‘on the first day of de-leaven ‘on the first day of de-leaven |
when they always sacrificed the Passover’ |
||
|
Lk.22:7 |
‘came the day of de-leaven whereon passover must be |
SLAUGHTERED’ |
||
|
Lk.22:14 |
‘when the hour was come’ |
LAST
SUPPER |
||
|
Jn.13:30 |
‘It was night’ |
|||
|
Mk.15:1 |
‘early
morning’ . |
|||
|
Lk.22:66 |
‘Came their day’ |
TRIBUNAL |
||
|
Jn.19:14 |
‘Preparation of Passover’ ‘THE SIXTH HOUR’(6AM.) |
DELIVERED |
||
|
Mk.15:25 |
‘THE THIRD HOUR’ |
CRUCIFIED |
||
|
Mt.27:45 |
‘the sixth hour’ |
darkness |
||
|
46,
50 |
‘the ninth hour’ EARTHQUAKE RETURNED BREAST
BEATING |
DIED |
||
|
15 |
Mk.15:42
Mt.27:57 |
‘IT WAS
EVENING’ |
|
|
Jn.18:28 Jn.19:31
Mk.15:42 |
FEAST ‘might eat the Passover' ‘Because it was preparation ‘being the Fore-Sabbath’ |
the Jews asked Pilate After these things Joseph asked Pilate |
|
|
Mk.15:45 Lk.23:53 Jn.19:38c Jn.19:40a 42 |
Pilate “granted” Joseph Jesus’ body ‘He took the body down’ ‘He therefore took the body of Jesus
away’ ‘Then they prepared the body of Jesus’ ‘There laid they Jesus’ |
||
* 8th Nisan: “The
people were come in great crowds to the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the eighth
day of the month Xanthicus” (or Nisan / Abib), Josephus, Wars vi, 5:3. Also Megallit
Ta’anit (Die Festenrolle – Eine Untersuchung Zur
Judisch-Hellenistischen Geschichte, H. Lichtenstein, HUCA 8-9, 1931-32.
All right then; let’s hear how Joe Viel sees things.
Joe Viel:
“Another Dating Clue from
Events in Crucifixion Week
Did Palm
Sunday happen on a Sunday, Saturday , or some other time? If it happened on a
Sunday, as tradition holds, it would have been the 10th of Aviv, making
Wednesday Night/Thursday Day the 14th. Why is it believed this happened on a
Sunday?
·
John 11:54
puts him in Ephraim shortly before Passover.
·
Then,
Yochanan / John 12:1 tells us, "6 days before Passover, Y'shua
arrived at
·
Verse 2
tells us "Here a dinner was given in Y'shua's honor."
·
Yochanan /
John 12:12 tells He rode into
Now
determining when John 12:1 happened is not as easy as it might look at first.
It says "6 days before Passover"
but is Passover reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or
when the meal was eaten on the 15th? Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover? Also, if he was travelling
that day, is it possible he got there just
before the day expired and if so, does the "6 days" include or exclude that
travel day?
With all
these ambiguous questions, we see His trip to
GE:
Re: “It says "6 days before Passover" but is Passover reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or when the meal was eaten on the 15th? Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover?”
“Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover?” Joe Viel deservedly calls his own questions, “ambiguous”. But he himself creates the ambiguity with his questions. “It says "6 days before Passover" but is Passover reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or when the meal was eaten on the 15th? Is it counting including the day of Passover or excluding the day of Passover?”
“It says 6 days before Passover” (‘pro tou pascha’); that is, “exclusive”, of the “Feast”— Abib 15 when they always ATE the passover; and “inclusive” of “the first day when they had to kill the Passover”, Abib 14, Ex12:15, Mk14:12 et al.
But both Abib 14, “when the
sacrifice was slaughtered” and Abib 15, “when
the meal was eaten”, ‘are counting’
as, and are ‘included’ under, ‘passover’, and
were, ‘days of passover’. And so they are described and named, in both
the Old and New Testaments! “The first day when .... they
always killed / had to kill the passover”— obviously, Abib 14; “two days before the Feast of passover”—
obviously two days before Abib 15
when “thou shalt eat the
passover”; “that they might eat
the passover”, Jn18:28.
Therefore, ‘passover’ ‘included’ “the 14th” and “the 15th”, no
question about it. It would have been
much easier for Joe Viel to have understood as well as for us, stopped he after
having asked, “.... is Passover
reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or when the meal
was eaten on the 15th?”, because ‘passover’ meant “counting” and “including the day of
Passover when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th”, and, “counting” and “including the day of
Passover when the meal was eaten on the 15th”.
But in
Jn12:1 the full meaning clearly is both
exclusive of the Feast of Abib 15 and inclusive of the day of Abib 14 when the
passover was killed. See scheme again.
Joe Viel:
“Also, if he was travelling that day, is it possible he got there just before the day expired and if so, does the "6 days" include or exclude that travel day?”
GE:
The difficulty or ambiguity arises from not having taken
into account the actual locality where
Jesus “came”. It does not state Jesus ‘arrived’ in
Joe Viel:
“.... we see His
trip to
GE:
Joe Viel would have been right, had he only said, “.... we see His trip to
Joe Viel:
“Of course, the best clue is found in John
11:55-57. Traditionally, Jews would arrive in
GE:
Beautifully explained! Something I have never noticed! Thanks!
Joe Viel:
“Now was the dinner on the same day he travelled or later that evening? That is, the 8th would have become the 9th at sundown. "Dinner" is something eaten at 5-7pm for most Americans, but 7-9pm for many Europeans. So when did first century Israelites eat dinner? Well, Passover was rather late at night, and they may have used the more European timing, which was based on using as much daylight to accomplish work as you could before you ate at night.”
GE:
It is another unnecessary ‘ambiguity’ created by Joe Viel;
quite a common one, I must say.
Nevertheless, whenever during the day of its eating, the meal was after
the day or after the last day of Jesus’ travelling. The meal in Lazarus’ house, was on the first day
after Jesus’ arrival in
Abib 15 excluded, first of all because the day of Jesus’ crucifixion Abib 14 in Jn19:14, is called “The-Preparation-Day-of-the-Passover” which chronologically MUST be the first day before the “The Feast Day of Passover”— head-day or “great-day-sabbath” of passover Abib 15 in Jn19:31.
The meal at Lazarus’ was on the Sabbath, Abib 9, before “the next day” of Jn12:12, Abib 10 which was ‘Palm Sunday’, agreed.
Joe Viel:
“So was the
"next day" the day after He travelled or the day after the dinner? My
guess is that He travelled on Friday the 8th, and they held a Sabbath day
dinner for Him that night. The "next
day" is the next day after the dinner.”
GE:
And I
fully agree. Only I dare say I don’t
guess; the Scriptures are clear no guessing is needed.
Then
too, because the meal was on the Sabbath that fell on Abib 9, it could have
been ‘dinner’ at the beginning of the Sabbath day; but I should say it rather
was ‘lunch’ of the Sabbath Day itself. Jesus seems to have stayed over with
Lazarus after his journey of the day before. So he ‘arrived’ or ‘went
in where Lazarus stayed’ as soon as He arrived the evening of the Sabbath
Day, rested the Sabbath’s night, and next day was served dinner— or ‘lunch’, in
stricter terms.
We now have found two days of the “six days before passover”, the first two Saturday and Sunday, sixth and fifth days “before the (passover) days (of unleavened bread)”, Abib 15, passover Feast.
Joe Viel:
“Other verses help put these clues together, with
the book of Mark giving us the most clues on dating of these events. Let's take
a look at two possibilities...
·
Possibility
#1: "6 Days Before Passover"
refers to 6 days before the 14th of Aviv and is counting EXCLUSIVELY. This
would put the trip to
o
Aviv 8 -
Y'shua arrives at
o
Aviv 9
(Evening) - Dinner for Y'shua.
o
Aviv 10 -
Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11) .....................”
GE:
That
would be impossible if “the 14th of
Aviv .... counting EXCLUSIVELY”. Abib 14 must be counted in, in order to get to a ‘Saturday’ “Dinner
for Y'shua” on “Aviv 9 (Evening)” and the “Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th”. Look at the scheme above.
Joe Viel:
“Possibility #2: "6 Days Before Passover" refers to the 15th of Aviv and is
counting INCLUSIVELY. This would put the trip to
·
Aviv 10-
Y'shua arrives at
GE:
“15th of Aviv” cannot be ‘counted’ “inclusively” because if counted, Jn12:1
should have said, ‘seven days before
passover’.
“15th of Aviv” cannot be ‘counted’ “inclusively” if Abib 14 was a Thursday –
which Joe Viel himself believes was the case.
Therefore,
the only possibility is, “"6 Days Before Passover" refers to the 15th of
Aviv and is counting” EXCLUSIVELY. This would mean:
On the 8th
of Abib .... trip to
Abib 9
- Jesus “came where Lazarus stayed in
There
was only one way to getting to the result,
“Aviv
10 - Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)”—
|
9 |
Jn.12:1 |
SIXTH = Saturday |
‘where Lazarus stayed’ |
Meal Mary anoints Jesus’ feet |
|
10 |
Lk.19:29-44
Mk.11:1 Jn.12:12 Mk.11:11 |
FIFTH = Palm Sunday ‘the next morning’ ‘late hour’ |
Village Into in temple To |
Colt, palm branches ‘looked around’ |
Joe Viel:
“Aviv 11 - Y'shua clears the temple on "the
next day" (Mark 11:12) [Monday] after His triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua travelled between
GE:
|
11 |
Mt.21:18
Mk.11:12 Mk.11:15 Lk.19:45-48 Mk.11:19 |
FOURTH = Monday ‘early’ ‘next morning’ ‘when it got late’ |
From ‘came to ‘out of city’ |
Fig tree cursed Cast out money changers |
Abib 11 (Monday) ended here: Verse 19, “When late it became (‘hotan opse egeneto’) they went forth out
of the city.”
Up to
here .....
(Friday Abib 8,
seventh day before passover
Abib 15),
Saturday
Abib 9, “sixth
day before passover” Abib 15,
Sunday Abib 10,
fifth day before passover Abib
15,
Monday Abib 11,
fourth day before passover Abib
15
..... it
seems it’s more or less agreed.
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 1:
Aviv 12 - They notice
the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the [Tues-] day after He cleared the temple [on Monday] . Note
that Y'shua travelled between
Topics
discussed that day were...
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)”
GE:
|
12 |
Mk.11:20
21,27 Mt.22:23 Lk.20:1-8 Mk.13:1, 3 Mt.26:2 |
THIRD = Tuesday ‘early’ ‘on the same day’ after two days crucified |
‘returning’ (from ‘to ‘out of temple’ Lk.21:37 |
Fig tree withered Jesus preaches Kingdom of heaven |
Up to
here .....
Tuesday Abib 12, “after
two days Passover” Abib 14
Matthew
.....
the difference is obvious.
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 2:
Aviv 12 – Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" [Tuesday] (Mark
11:12) after His triumphal entry. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
GE:
Out of
the question; there is only one
possibility. Everything is working out
nicely; why create discrepancies?
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 1:
Aviv 13 [Wednesday] - Y'shua annointed at
GE:
|
13 |
Lk.21:38 Mt.26:3 Mk.14:1-3
|
SECOND = Wednesday ‘After two days Passover/Feast’ |
‘being in ‘Simon’s house’ |
CONSPIRACY Meal Woman anoints Jesus’ head |
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 2:
Aviv 13 - They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark
11:20) the day after He cleared the temple. Note that Y'shua travelled between
GE:
Lost
case; there is only one
possibility.
Up to
here therefore .....
(Friday Abib 8,
seventh day before passover Abib 15),
Saturday
Abib 9, “sixth day before passover” Abib 15,
Sunday Abib 10,
fifth day before passover Abib 15,
Monday Abib 11,
fourth day before passover Abib 15
..... it
seems it’s more or less agreed.
Up to
here .....
Tuesday Abib 12, third
day before passover Abib 15 and
“after two days : Passover” ‘killed’— Abib 14, Matthew,
Wednesday
Abib 13, second day before
passover Abib 15 and
“after two days : Feast of Unleavened Bread”— Abib
15, Mark,
.....
the difference is obvious: I differentiate between the first two head-days of
the Passover, the day of the Crucifixion, and the day of the first eating of
unleavened bread. Joe Viel – it seems – does not regard Abib 14 for real
‘passover’. That’s why he says (in his
following statement), “"the first day
of unleaveness". This
could be talking about Aviv 14 or 15 .... the 14th was the first day on a de facto basis.”
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 1:
Aviv 14 (evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" Now
there's two timing clues on the date here...
"the first day
of unleaveness". This
could be talking about Aviv 14 or 15. Aviv 15 was the first LEGAL day of
Unleavened Bread, but Jews would get their house ready by the 14th in order to
be ready for the start of it on the 15th. So the 14th was the first day on a de facto basis.
"when they
killed the passover". There's no ambiguity to this one. The lamb was
killed on the 14th "between the mixings". So the timing for this day was the 14th
of Aviv. It would have been the evening of the 14th, since Y'shua was killed on
the afternoon of the 14th. History tells us that the Essenes and Samaritans,
and probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the 14th, while
the Pharisees and Saduccess ate it on the eve of the 15th. The Law does not
prescribe when the lamb must be eaten, only when it must be killed.
Aviv 14
(Daytime) - Begins with the arrest of Y'shua and His trial. Yochanan / John
19:14 tells us it was not yet Passover, as it was celebrated by greater
GE:
Re:
“Aviv 14 (evening) - Begins as we reach Mark
14:12 which says..."in the first day of unleaveness, when
they killed the passover, his disciples say to him, `Where wilt thou, [that,]
having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover?" Now there's two timing clues on the date
here...
"the first day
of unleaveness" .... "when they
killed the passover".....”
|
14 |
Jn.13:1,29
Mk.14:17 Mt.26:21 |
FIRST = THURSDAY ‘BEFORE the FEAST’ /
‘TOWARD the FEAST’ “When the even was come” |
|
|
Mk.14:2 Mt.26:5 Mt.26:17
Mk.14:12 |
‘NOT on the Feast Day’ ‘on the first day of de-leaven ‘on the first day of de-leaven |
when they always sacrificed the Passover’ |
|
|
Lk.22:7 |
‘came the day of de-leaven whereon passover must be |
SLAUGHTERED’ |
|
|
Lk.22:14 |
‘when the hour was come’ |
LAST
SUPPER |
|
|
Jn.13:30 |
‘It was night’ |
||
|
Mk.15:1 |
‘early
morning’ . |
||
|
Lk.22:66 |
‘Came their day’ |
TRIBUNAL |
|
|
Jn.19:14 |
‘Preparation of Passover’ ‘THE SIXTH HOUR’(6AM.) |
DELIVERED |
|
|
Mk.15:25 |
‘THE THIRD HOUR’ |
CRUCIFIED |
|
|
Mt.27:45 |
‘the sixth hour’ |
darkness |
|
|
46,
50 |
‘the ninth hour’ EARTHQUAKE RETURNED BREAST
BEATING |
DIED |
|
Seeming
agreement, marred, by ....
Joe Viel:
“This could be talking about Aviv 14 or 15. Aviv
15 was the first LEGAL day of Unleavened Bread, but Jews would get their house
ready by the 14th in order to be ready for the start of it on the 15th. So the
14th was the first day on a de facto
basis.”
GE:
No one
day could be either or another. This was Abib 14, more than any other day, ‘the
first LEGAL day’
of the passover proper. According to Exodus the lamb had to be slaughtered and eaten on the “fourteenth day of the First Month”; according to Exodus leaven had to be removed from the land
on the “fourteenth day of the First
Month”; and according to Exodus the sacrifice
as well as unleavened bread had
to be eaten on the “fourteenth day of the First Month”. So
strictly ‘legal’ was the day of Abib 14,
set apart for every of these holy
purposes.
Only
long after, the rest of the whole of the Old Testament shared the duties,
privileges and ‘distinctives’ of ‘Abib
14-Passover’, between Abib 14
and Abib 15, so that the night-ending
of Abib 14 was transferred to the night-beginning
of Abib 15, and ‘The Feast’, was
carried over from the fourteenth onto the fifteenth day of the First Month.
According
to Exodus leaven had to be removed from the land on the “fourteenth day of the
First Month”, and at the historical first time, unleavened bread was only on the following
day (later Abib 15) eaten the first time. The command though had already in Exodus been given that the lamb and the unleavened bread should be
eaten together at the passover meal
in the same night after the day the lamb was slaughtered on. Ex12:8 and
context.
Exodus
still reckoned the ceremonial festival days from sunrise to sunrise, unlike the
rest of the Old Testament that reckons all days –irrespective whether they were
ceremonial feast days or not – from sunset to sunset.
And so
Mark, Matthew and Luke call this “first day they always had to kill the
passover”, “the first day of un-leaven”, just like Joe Viel explained it, “Jews would get their house ready .... the 14th in order to be ready for the start
of (the
first....day of Unleavened Bread) on the 15th”. John called this day of passover – Abib 14 – “The Preparation of the Passover” (19:14) and the day “before the Feast Day”
(13:1)— before the Feast Day of Abib 15,
of which John said that “that day was a great day sabbath” (19:31).
But,
where John in 13:1 calls Abib 14 “(the
day) before the feast of passover” – ‘pro tehs heortehs tou pascha’, he in
12:1 implies Abib 15 saying, “six
days before the days
(Plural) of passover” (‘pro hex hehmerohn tou pascha’). It is therefore
not “six days before” ‘the first day’ of passover: Abib 14; but “six
days before” that aspect of passover known
for its ‘days’— which was the “seven
days thou shalt eat unleavened bread” (Ex12:15a): beginning on
Abib 15 and ending on Abib 21 (Ex12:18c).
So Abib
14, Thursday, was the first and “Preparation (Day) of Passover”, “before
the passover” of Abib 15 Passover Feast Day.
Abib 13,
Wednesday, was the second day “before the passover” of Abib 15 Passover
Feast Day.
Abib 12,
Tuesday, was the third day “before the passover” of Abib 15 Passover
Feast Day.
Abib 11,
Monday, was the fourth day “before the passover” of Abib 15 Passover
Feast Day.
Abib 10,
Sunday, was the fifth day “before the passover” of Abib 15 Passover
Feast Day.
Abib 9,
Saturday, was the sixth of the “six days before the days of the passover”
of Abib 15 Passover Feast Day, specifically.
What would you want more or
better? Conclusion: Jesus was crucified on Thursday,
and “the third day after”, rose from the dead “On the Sabbath Day”.
The impossible? ..... that “before the days
(Plural) of passover” must mean – Singular and exclusive – ‘before the first day, of passover’— therefore,
must mean ‘before, Abib 14’.
Then John 12:1 will relate how Jesus “came” – meaning his journey
as such – to
Which
leaves us with no other option than to accept the Sabbath was the sixth of
the “six days before the (FEAST-) days
of the passover”, so that Thursday Abib 14 and day of Crucifixion, will
be “the day before the Feast” and “Preparation Day of the Passover
(Feast)” of Unleavened Bread, Abib 15.
Tradition
as far as the dates are concerned for once is in the right to have accepted
‘Palm Sunday’ for having been Abib 10, and ‘Good Friday’ for having been Abib
15. Unfortunately tradition made of Friday Abib 15, Abib 14 as well by having
moved Abib 14 forward onto Abib 15— so to get a Sunday-Resurrection for
Jesus. Joe Viel followed another route
to the same destination, by having moved ‘Good
Friday’ Abib 15 back onto Abib 14 “Good
Thursday”.
Joe Viel:
“"when they killed the passover". There's no ambiguity to this one. The lamb was
killed on the 14th "between the mixings". So the timing for this day was the 14th
of Aviv. It would have been the evening of the 14th, since Y'shua was killed on
the afternoon of the 14th. History tells us that the Essenes and Samaritans,
and probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the 14th, while
the Pharisees and Saduccess ate it on the eve of the 15th. The Law does not
prescribe when the lamb must be eaten, only when it must be killed.”
GE:
There is
no ambiguity; you’re right. Then why
create ambiguity where it does not exists?
(And what is, “between the mixings”? Do you mean “between the pair of nights”,
‘behn ha arbayim’ the “Dual of ‘night’” (Young)?)
The
problem with your “timing for
this day”, Joe
Viel, is that you confuse its beginning and ending. You talk of “evening” as the “afternoon” or “eve” as were they the same
thing. .... “It
would have been the evening of the 14th, since Y'shua was killed on the
afternoon of the 14th. History tells us that the Essenes and Samaritans, and
probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the 14th ....”.
Joe Viel:
“Aviv 14 (Daytime) - Begins with the arrest of
Y'shua and His trial. Yochanan / John 19:14 tells us it was not yet Passover,
as it was celebrated by greater
GE:
It’s
incorrect to say “John 19:14
tells us it was not yet Passover”. In fact, the Greek states that “It was PASSOVER’S
Preparation”— that day belonged to the days of the passover. It was its “first
day”, Mk14:12, Mt26:17, Lk22:7— Abib 14.
Only, whereas Jn19:14 refers to the middle
hour of Abib 14, “6 o’clock in the morning the Preparation of the passover”,
Mk14:12, Mt26:17 and Lk22:7 refer to the beginning (‘beginning-“hour”) of Abib
14, Mk14:17, Mt26:20 and Lk22:14.
Joe Viel:
“Now there's not much room to make the sequence
of event shorter than what I have here. Mark puts enough "the next
day" markers in here to tell us we can't put the temple clearing and the
teachings on Taxes, etc., on the same day.
Could Mark
failed to have noted a day? Well, that's entirely possible. Nearly all of the 4
gospels list events that the other 3 don't.”
GE:
Why
would you consider a second ‘possibility’ while your first ‘possibility’ – up
to this point, ‘Thursday’ – has been
correct in every respect? Because, dear
Joe Viel, it seems you have anticipated
you would need another day to reach the sixth of the “six days before
passover”. In fact you vented your
suspicion, having asked,
Joe Viel:
“Could Mark failed to have noted a day? Well,
that's entirely possible. Nearly all of the 4 gospels list events that the
other 3 don't.”
Your
real explanation is all contained in these words of yours,
“History tells us that the Essenes and
Samaritans, and probably the Galileans, ate the paschal meal on the eve of the
14th, while the Pharisees and Saduccess ate it on the eve of the 15th. The Law
does not prescribe when the lamb must be eaten, only when it must be killed.”
Joe Viel’s first explanation:
“The Law does not prescribe when the lamb must be
eaten, only when it must be killed.”
“‘The Law prescribed’ “when the lamb must be eaten” with no ambiguity, just as it
‘prescribed’ with no ambiguity, “when it must
be killed”:
“When it must be killed”:
“The Law, prescribed”, “the passover MUST be
killed .... the first day” (Lk22:7) “in the afternoon” .....
“In
the fourteenth day of the First Month at even .... Ye shall keep it up until
the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation
shall kill it in the evening.”
(Lv23:5 and Ex12:6) “At even” and
“in the evening” are Old English for “afternoon” – confirmed
through Christ the Passover Lamb of God who died ‘afternoon’, “the ninth
hour” Jewish time, 3 p.m. “Sacrifice the passover at even at the going down of the sun”,
Dt16:6.
Mark the
utmost significant words, “Sacrifice the passover at even at the going down
of the sun, at the season
(or ‘time’) that thou camest
forth out of
“When the lamb must be eaten”:
GE:
|
15 |
Jn.18:28 Jn.19:31
Mk.15:42 |
FEAST ‘might eat the Passover' ‘Because it was preparation ‘being the Fore-Sabbath’ |
the Jews asked Pilate After these things Joseph asked Pilate |
|
Mk.15:45 Lk.23:53 Jn.19:38c Jn.19:40a 42 |
Pilate “granted” Joseph Jesus’ body ‘He took the body down’ ‘He therefore took the body of Jesus
away’ ‘Then they prepared the body of Jesus’ ‘There laid they Jesus’ |
||
With no
ambiguity and just as clearly therefore, does ‘the Law prescribe’ “when the lamb must be eaten”:
“And
on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast (‘Eating’) of Unleavened
Bread”, Lv23:6a; “And they shall eat the flesh in that night (following
after the afternoon the sacrifice was killed) while unleavened bread they
shall eat”, Ex12:8; “And thou shalt roast and eat it .... and thou shalt
return in the morning and go unto thy tents”, Dt16:7; “And in the
selfsame day after ....
the fourteenth day .... the children of
“On the eve
of the 15th” is
on the afternoon of the 14th.
Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees “ate
it on the eve of the 15th” which ‘eve’ was in the end of Abib 14 – its
afternoon, in the Old English of the KJV. No, they then, “killed the
passover”. All the Jews after it had
been slaughtered on Abib 14, ate the
sacrifice on Abib 15, after sunset in the night-first
halve of Abib 15 in “the night
to be solemnly observed” (in Exodus still dated Abib 14), (Ex12:42),
before midnight (Ex12:22c,29,34), “and while
they ate” the first of the baked unleavened cakes (Ex12:8b, Dt16:7).
All the
rest of the Bible after Exodus, in so many words mentions the eating of Feast
of passover, in its evening-beginnings
until midnight of Abib 15.
Indisputably.
To say
that “The Law does not prescribe when the
lamb must be eaten”,
is therefore just simply wrong.
Joe Viel’s alternate explanation:
“Could Mark failed to have noted a day? Well,
that's entirely possible. Nearly all of the 4 gospels list events that the
other 3 don't.”
Joe Viel
looked for one day’s (seeming) absence
at the wrong end of his own sequence of the six days. He looked for it, in here .....
|
9 |
Jn.12:1 |
SIXTH = Saturday |
‘where Lazarus stayed’ |
Meal Mary anoints Jesus’ feet |
|
10 |
Lk.19:29-44
Mk.11:1 Jn.12:12 Mk.11:11 |
FIFTH = Palm Sunday ‘the next morning’ ‘late hour’ |
Village Into in temple To |
Colt, palm branches ‘looked around’ |
|
11 |
Mt.21:18
Mk.11:12 Mk.11:15 Lk.19:45-48 Mk.11:19 |
FOURTH = Monday ‘early’ ‘next morning’ ‘when it got late’ |
From ‘came to ‘out of city’ |
Fig tree cursed Cast out money changers |
|
12 |
Mk.11:20
21,27 Mt.22:23 Lk.20:1-8 Mk.13:1, 3 Mt.26:2 |
THIRD = Tuesday ‘early’ ‘on the same day’ after two days crucified |
‘returning’ (from ‘to ‘out of temple’ Lk.21:37 |
Fig tree withered Jesus preaches Kingdom of heaven |
|
13 |
Lk.21:38 Mt.26:3 Mk.14:1-3
|
SECOND = Wednesday ‘After two days Passover/Feast’ |
‘being in ‘Simon’s house’ |
CONSPIRACY Meal Woman anoints Jesus’ head |
.....
while it is not in here, because these first five days of the “six days before
passover” perfectly correspond with the Gospels’ every statements bearing on
the sequence of the “six days before passover”.
Joe Viel
indicated all five of these days correctly to have ended up – correctly –,
here:
“Aviv 13 - Y'shua annointed at
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" Now
there's two timing clues on the date here...”
Joe Viel:
“Possibility 2:
“Aviv 11 - Triumphal Entry on Sunday the 10th
(Mark 11:1-11)
Aviv 12 -
Y'shua clears the temple on "the next day" (Mark 11:12) after His
triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua
travelled between
Aviv 13 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
Topics
discussed that day were...
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
Marriage at
the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:23 plainly tells us this was the
same day as his teaching on paying taxes to Caesar.)
Being
David's son (Mark 12:35-40)
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)
Aviv 13 -
Y'shua annointed at
Aviv 14
(evening) - Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his disciples say to him,
`Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the
passover?" This
is similar to the chain of events as listed in the previous chronology.”
GE:
Joe
Viel’s ultimate aim is to make Sunday Abib 17, which he says, was the day of
the First Sheaf Wave Offering. To quote him, “Y'shua
(Jesus) died on Thursday afternoon, Aviv 14th, and rose just before dawn on
Sunday morning, Aviv 17.”
But
Sunday Abib 17 < Saturday Abib 16 < Friday Abib 15 < Thursday
Crucifixion Abib 14 .... are four days in stead of three that Jesus would be
‘in the heart of the earth’.
But How
did he manage to DO it? Joe Viel’s
second ‘possibility’ is of no use ....
“Aviv 11
- Triumphal Entry on Sunday
the 10th (Mark 11:1-11)
Aviv 12 - .....
[Monday]
Aviv 13 - .....
[Tuesday]
Aviv 13 - .....
[Wednesday] .....
Aviv 14
(evening) - ..... [Thursday] Begins as we reach Mark 14:12 which
says..."in the first day of unleaveness, when they killed the passover, his
disciples say to him, `Where wilt thou, [that,] having gone, we may prepare,
that thou mayest eat the passover?"
This is similar to the chain of events as listed in the previous chronology.”
How did
Joe Viel manage to make “Aviv 13” both Tuesday and Wednesday; or
how did he manage to make both Tuesday and Wednesday, “Aviv 13”? Or how did
Joe Viel manage to make “Aviv 14” to disappear into thin air, to
like Bux Bunny’s wabbit holes suddenly pop up where the Gospels all four of
them have it appear “as we reach
Mark 14:12”?
How did
Joe Viel do it? It is impossible to
say, because it is impossible to do. Joe
Viel did not do it; he failed.
“"two
days before" Passover” according to “Mark 14:1-11
..... as we reach Mark 14:12”, is impossible.
1) Mk14:1 to 11 speak of the Passover Feast day;
2) Mk14:12 speak of Crucifixion Day.
Mark is
absolutely unambiguous. Mark 14:1a says, “Now it was the passover
(season or month, cf. Dt16:1, Ex12:3), and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread
(Abib 15), was after two days.”
The two
of us here agree Unleavened Bread Feast was Thursday evening, the beginning of
the Sixth Day, ‘Friday’, after Jesus had been crucified during day before, Abib
14. Therefore Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread Eaten, was Abib 15,
Friday.
So,
according to Mark 14:1-11, Friday,
was “Feast of Unleavened
Bread” Abib 15, and Judas “two days” before Friday –
that is, one day before Abib 14 “The Preparation of the Passover”—
one day before Thursday and day of Crucifixion, went to conspire with the Jews to
kill Jesus. “Not on the Feast Day” decided the
Jews according to Mark (14:2).
Matthew 26:2-5 relates how the chief
priests and the scribes and elders of the people amongst themselves, “two days” before the “Passover” as such ‘when they
killed (crucified) the
passsover’, “consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill
Him”.
It
therefore was the next day
(Mk14:1-11) that Judas went to see the Jews – the day after they among
themselves (Mt26:14-16) conspired.
The ‘Feast of Unleavened bread”
or Friday the day referred to in Mk14:1, was “two days after” Judas’
meeting with the Jews. ‘Inclusive’ or
‘exclusive’ the day referred to fell outside the reach of Thursday Abib 14
which was only one day to Abib 15, Feast of Unleavened Bread Eaten.
Mark
refers to two days before the “Feast”; Matthew refers to two days before
“the Passover’s” sacrifice-day.
Mark refers to Wednesday two days before Friday the “Feast”— and to “Jesus’, BEING in
Matthew refers to Tuesday two days before Thursday “Passover” “when they must kill the passover”. Matthew speaks “OF WHEN Jesus was come
in the house of Simon the leper in
Mark
does not tell about the Jews’ own conspiracy which Matthew does tell about;
Mark tells of Judas’ visit to the Jews one day after their own, and he uses
Judas’ visit to indicate the Feast Day (twice mentioned)— on Friday “after
two days”.
Matthew
tells about the Jews’ conspiracy amongst themselves and uses it to indicate the
day of Crucifixion— on Thursday “two days after”.
Joe
Viel’s ‘second possibility’ “sequence
of events” is
simply incomplete, incoherent and untenable, containing much unnecessary and
omitting much needed detail.
Joe Viel:
“Aviv 11 - Y'shua clears the temple on "the
next day" (Mark 11:12) after His triumphal entry. Note that Y'shua travelled between
Aviv 12 -
They notice the withered Fig Tree "in the morning" (Mark 11:20) the
day after He cleared the temple. Note
that Y'shua travelled between
Topics
discussed that day were...
Authority of
Y'shua questioned (Mark 11:27-33)
Parable on
the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12)
Paying Taxes
to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17)
[GE: .............. up to: “] (Mark 12:35-40)
The Second
Coming (Mark 13:1-37)”!
GE:
“Could Mark failed to have noted a day?” No, you, failed to notice the
indicators between Mk11:19 and 20, dear Joe Viel.
Joe Viel:
“But if you try to add more time, you run into a
problem where you have Y'shua travelling between
By the first
possibility of chronology, indeed, Palm Sunday was a Sunday, the 10th of Aviv,
which began on Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. Making Monday during
the day the 11th, Tuesday the 12th, Wednesday the 13th, and Wednesday Night
thru Thursday sundown the 14th and day of His crucifixion. By the second, His
entry into
GE:
So why
not – as I have said before – stop and be happy with ‘possibility number
one’? There’s absolutely nothing wrong
with it, and it takes into consideration all the given found in all four
Gospels very harmoniously?
Joe Viel:
Many have
suggested that His entry into
GE:
Ag no!
Many or few, it’s fantastical.
Joe Viel:
“Exodus/Shemot 12:6 required
GE:
Re: “Exodus/Shemot
12:6 required
(KJV)
“Ye shall keep it”; “He shall take it out from the sheep”, from ‘mishmereth’
: ‘charge’ x 50, ‘office’ x 1,
‘ordinance’ x 3, ‘safeguard’ x 1, ‘ward’ x 9, ‘watch’ x 7, ‘keep’ x 1, ‘to be
kept’ x 6. Young’s Analytical Concordance.
Six
times, “to be kept” in, Ex16:23,32,34, Nmb17:10, 19:9. ‘Laid up’ / ‘stock’. Nothing about ‘caring’.
To the
contrary, Ex12:3: “they shall take to them every man a lamb”, “take to them”
from ‘laqach’ : ‘take (away)’ x 793,
‘receive’ x 62, ‘fetch’ x 30, ‘bring’ x 25, etc. Cf. ‘lakad’ : ‘capture /
catch’.
The
animal had to be separated and isolated, and it seems to me, was penned fast
and received no fodder or water those three or four terrible days before it got
slaughtered. Thus was Christ’s food to
through suffering and humiliation do the will of his Father. (Ordinary food for
Him made no difference.) It was Christ’s
food to through suffering and humiliation do the will of his Father and to
approach his Father’s Kingdom, the
No; Joe
Viel’s dilemma of one SUPPOSED unnoticed day, lies not hidden within the past five of the “six days before the
passover”; it lies right with and in this sixth
of the “six days before the passover”, Abib 14, ‘Thursday’.
In other
words, was Thursday “Passover
reckoned from when the sacrifice was slaughtered on the 14th or when the meal
was eaten on the 15th?” .....
in other
words, “Could .... Mark 14:12 .... be
talking of .... "the first day of unleaveness"?” .....
in other
words, could it be: “.... the
14th was the first day on a de facto
basis”?
.....
in other
words, does “Aviv 14
(evening) (begin) as we reach Mark 14:12 which says..."in the first
day of unleaveness” .....
.....
BUT WE ARE ALL THE WHILE TALKING OF ABIB “the
15th?”!
.....
BECAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE PASSOVER EATEN ON THE SAME DAY AS PASSOVER KILLED!
One must
distinguish the two legitimate first days of passover, as I have explained
above with reference to Mk11:1-11 and Mt26:2-16. Both Abib 14 “The Preparation
of the Passover” and “the first day they removed leaven when they always
killed the passover”, and Abib 15, “Feast of Passover” and “first
day of unleavened bread (eaten)”, are, ‘passover’, ‘LEGAL’, but, each, in its own right!
1Cor15:3-4,
“How that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; and that He
was buried; and that He rose again THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.” ‘LEGAL’ means: “according to the
Scriptures” the passover Scriptures.
Thursday
was not – no matter how ‘possibly’ or impossibly – either Abib 14
or Abib 15. Thursday, was Abib 14, and sixth, of the “six days BEFORE,
passover, OF DAYS”—
“before” the first of those “days”, Plural;
which were ‘Passover-FEAST-of-Unleavened-Bread-Days’, ‘pro hex hehmerohn tou pascha’, John 12:1; in Ex12, “Seven
days shall ye eat unleavened bread ..... in the first day there shall be a
holy convocation” (12:15a,16a).
But this
is only the first and of less
importance aspect of the problematics of Abib 14 and 15 for scholars who hold a
Friday or Thursday Crucifixion but a Sunday Resurrection.
The real
‘missing day’ (that Mark, mark you, it is alleged did not notice) ..... the
real ‘missing day’ — “according to the Scriptures” of “the third day rose” — in
fact did not lie hidden within (Thursday) Abib 14, but all the while lay
forgotten and unnoticed BEYOND
(Thursday) Abib 14! Mark though, mind
you, noticed and noted it most attentively in 15:42; and Matthew in 27:57; and
Luke in 23:50; and John, in 19:31! All four Gospels noticed! On which subject we have dealt before.
22 July 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
Prepositions
Joe Viel answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Eighth Delivery
Joe Viel:
Some final Notes on 3 days/3 nights
Now the
Catholic Church has used the fact the scriptures that said he would rise "on the 3rd day"
as 'proof' that the crucifixion took place on a Friday. This is recorded in
Matt 16:21, 20:19, Mark 14:58, Luke 18:33, 24:7 and John 2:19. In Mark 8:31
(and Matt 27:63) it says, "after 3 days".
Is this a conflict? Well, when you read it in English, it certainly sounds like
the verses conflict, doesn't it? But the KJV, NIV, and other popular modern
translations came from the Greek texts. When reading it in the Greek texts, it
doesn't conflict. But before I resolve this, let me try to discourage ANYONE
from trying to build a doctrine around tense, prepositional words, or
grammatical words when you read them in English, because they often don't
translate well or don't translate at all into English. If the correct
interpretation of a verse hinges on whether it says "on" verses
"in" verses "into" or "upon" or
"before" or "after" or "when", you could be
heading down the wrong road of conclusions. "And" and "But"
come from the same Hebrew word but can mean opposite things in English. So if
you're reading in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and changing "but" to
"and" or vice versa changes the meaning of a sentence, don't hang a doctrine
on it or you could be headed for error.
But the
entire "smoking gun" for a Friday crucifixion is based on the idea it
happened "on the 3rd
day". The "3 days and 3 nights" explanation gives us a mental
picture of the proper length of time that does not involve resting our
interpretation on grammatical words, and may have been why it was included in
the Bible, so that translation into various languages didn't rest on
interpretting words that don't translate into another language. The English
word "DO" has no equivalent in any language I know of (Spanish,
Swedish, Hebrew or Greek). I use to be able to read Swedish faster than I read
English (though I haven't used Swedish in about 7 years and have forgotten most
of what I learned once). Swedish has MANY grammatical words that don't
translate at all or have to be translated into a variety of English words
because they just don't map. Hebrew is weak at expressing tense and Greek
grammatical words don't map into English well a lot due to the Greek case structure,
which explains a lot of things that get lost in translation. So don't hang a
doctrine on translated grammar.
Matt 27:63
is not authoritative since it was spoken by a soldier who could have been
saying something wrong, mistaken, or misquoting Y'shua. Mark 8:31 was spoken by
Y'shua, so it is authoritative, since He could never say something wrong. The
word for "after" here in the KJV is translated from the Greek word
"meta" (meta) which is
usually translated "with" when it occurs in the Genetive and
"after" when it occurs in the Accusitive and however someone decides
it fits when it occurs in other cases. In Mark 8:31, it's used in the genetive,
but "with" didn't fit in the English translation, so I guess the KJV
folks decided to go with "after", even though that's inaccurate.
Chalk another verse up to your errors in the KJV notes!
But this
verse does give us another perspective on when the Resurrection would occur
that the phrase "on the 3rd day" does not. "On the 3rd day"
is ambiguous, since one can argue whether the first day is included or excluded
in the way the "day" is being counted. Do you mean "on the 3rd
day since it
happened" or "on the 3rd day after it happened"? What's the reference point?
Until a phrase qualifying this with "since" or "after" is
presented, we have an ambiguous term. {And in English, even "since"
can be used ambiguously, though "after" is not.}
Also,
"on the 3rd day" doesn't preclude the fact that the event in question
can't happen on the 1st or 2nd day in addition to the 3rd day, although in the
case of the Resurrection, obviously the event would preclude this, if not the
grammar. {Unless you're a wacky new ager who's open to the plethoria of strange
ideas they come up with like maybe He died and was Resurrected many times
during this period or something weird like that :-) .} "Within 3
days" is ambiguous because it could mean 1 or 2 days or 3 days.
"after 3 days" is ambigous since it could mean 3, 4 or more days.
"meta 3 days" far less ambiguous than any of these english phrases,
but doesn't translate so great.
"On the
3rd day" is a reference mark. "meta 3 days" is a measurement of
time. "
Now if we
really believe the scriptures to be inspired, them we must believe that the 3 phrases
"on the 3rd day", "meta 3 days" and "3 days and 3
nights" are all mutually true, not that one phrase rules over the other.
The arguments presented for a Friday crucifixion require us to disgard what is
said about "3 days and 3 nights" because that conflicts with the
'preferred' interpretation presented for "on the 3rd day". But if we
truly believe ALL the verses, we need an interpetation that agrees with all 3
of these phrases and not just an explanation that works for one phrase but doesn't
fit another.
The Thursday
crucifixion explanation is the only one I know of that makes all 3 phrases
work. It counts 3 days and 3 nights without ignoring any part of a day or
night, and without counting any part of a day or night as a full day/night in
order for the count to come out. It's "on the third day" by two
points of reference. On the 3rd calendar day after the day of the crucifixion
and on the 3rd "day/night" time period since the crucifixion. It's
the only explanation that fits "meta 3 days" since it also is the
only explanation I know of that gets the women back to the grave before 72
hours finished but counts 3 full days and nights (the turning of night to day
and day to night) at the same time.
Perhaps the
reason the Bible words it this way, instead of being more explicit, is that
maybe doubters would never have counted the 3+ hours from 3pm (when the 12-3pm
darkness stopped and Y'shua finally died) to sunset as a 'day', even if you
pointed out the Genesis 1 definition of a "day" to them. So it's left
for the faithful to figure out. After all, this is the reason the Bible gives
for why Y'shua often spoke in parables.
Also,
"3 days and 3 nights" is reported to the nearest day/night, not to
the nearest hour. It does not say "72 hours". Often, the most common
argument against Yeshua's haven risen on a given day is that it doesn't fit a
72 hour scenario. For example....
|
Argument 1 |
Yeshua
could not have died on a Thursday, because 72 hours before the 1st day of the
week would be less than 72 hours. |
|
Argument 2 |
Yeshua
could not have died on a Wednesday, because 72 hours before the 1st day of
the week would be more than 72 hours |
Either way
you examine this issue, it won't fit a 72 hour period and the information isn't
given to us to the nearest hour. Also, a count that is less than 72 hours is
preferred over a count that exceeds 72 hours for several reasons:
·
Jewish
tradition that prevents us from handling a dead body more than 72 hours dead.
·
Talmud tells
us to ROUND UP our counting of days by saying, "part of a day
is like a whole day"
(Talmud, Pesachim 4a - See also Shabbat 9.3 of the
But trying
to make an argument based on using a more finite level of accuracy than
scripture reports information is only likely to confuse. If He died at 3pm, and
rose ANY TIME on the first day of the week, then it won't be exactly 72 hours
no matter how you examine the issue. And if it exceeded 72 hours, then it is
either 4 days/3nights or 4 nights/3days, since "part of a day
is like a whole day".
2 Kings 9:29
says Ahaziah became king in the 11th year of Joram. 2 Kings 8:25 says it
happened in the 12th year of Joram. Now if it was 11 years, 7 months, we could
call either way of reporting it accurate. But it obviously could not have been
11x12=132 months or 12x12=144 months. We can't do math based on a more detailed
level of accuracy than we are given. All reporting of measurements of time have
some level of margin of error to them based on what was the nearest unit used.
If its measured in days, the information is accurate to the nearest half day
(or nearest day/night), not the nearest hour. Now if He died at 3pm and "part of a day
is like a whole day", then
the day He died counts as the first "day" or half day (day/night).
Shalom,
Joe
Prepositions
Joe Viel answered
by Gerhard Ebersöhn
Eighth Delivery
Joe Viel:
“.....
before I resolve this, let me try to discourage ANYONE from trying to
build a doctrine around tense, prepositional words, or grammatical words when
you read them in English, because they often don't translate well or don't
translate at all into English. If the correct interpretation of a verse hinges
on whether it says "on" verses "in" verses "into"
or "upon" or "before" or "after" or
"when", you could be heading down the wrong road of conclusions.”
GE:
Sound
advice! My experience has been
especially the most learned of men are trapped and stuck in everyman’s and
traditional theology and linguistics when it comes to the issue of the use of
Prepositions to the phrases “three days” and “the third day” in which Jesus
rose from the dead.
Joe Viel:
“Now the Catholic Church has used the fact the
scriptures that said he would rise "on the 3rd day" as 'proof' that the crucifixion took
place on a Friday. This is recorded in Matt 16:21, 20:19, Mark 14:58, Luke
18:33, 24:7 and John 2:19. In Mark 8:31 (and Matt 27:63) it says, "after 3 days". Is this a conflict? Well, when you read
it in English, it certainly sounds like the verses conflict, doesn't it? But
the KJV, NIV, and other popular modern translations came from the Greek texts.
When reading it in the Greek texts, it doesn't conflict.”
GE:
Yes, but
not only the Roman Catholics; virtually all Protestantism as well, including
even, Sabbath keepers! Take the
Seventh-day Adventists; if you want to make them angry, you tell them how they
mimic and follow after the Sunday-worshippers through adhering to a Friday
Crucifixion Sunday Resurrection.
Nevertheless,
when you read the English with the least of a feeling for the idiom of the
English language, it certainly need not sound like the several Prepositions “conflict”. When reading English
it should be as had one been able to read Greek. All languages have what is linguistically or
philologically called ‘idiom’, which
in many respects and areas of language, in most languages is virtually
identical. ‘It
doesn't conflict’,
no matter which Translation one may use, and no matter the fact the Translation
“came from the Greek texts”. The problem starts with the reader’s predisposition;
whether he will throw overboard all true feeling for expression through words
of language just to strut his own weird religious ideas.
Illustration:
I have
only once in all my many encounters had to do with someone who argued for a
literal interpretation in the case of the two Scriptures Mk8:31 or Mt27:63 that
contain the Preposition “after” – ‘meta’ – in the phrase, “after
three days” (‘meta treis hehmeras anastehnai’), in order to say Jesus was
raised on a fourth day. How would that have helped a Friday Crucifixion Sunday
Resurrection viewpoint? It would have
‘proved’ a Sunday Resurrection because it would have been a Thursday
Resurrection. Not if it had been a
Friday Crucifixion and Sunday Resurrection though. Give credit to the honesty of the man, but
to determine which day of the week was the day of Jesus’ resurrection, it begs
the question only to say ‘meta’ means ‘literally after the third day’.
When
reading “after three days” in Mt27:63 (or in Mk8:31), won’t the honest person see, “after three days” is the very
“third day” of only the following verse, verse 64, in the phrase “for / until
the third day” – ‘heohs tehs tritehs hehmeras’?
(3 occurrences now)
He in
the least familiar with the Scriptures, must know “after three days” has to do
with the more than familiar “three days and three nights” written about
in Jonah 1:17 and Mt12:40. How on earth is he going to think a fourth day is
meant? (plus 2 occurrences)
If maybe
this person knew of Hosea 6:2 which says “after two days He will heal us; in
the third day we shall rise”, how would he not know he is reading of the
‘third day’ meant in 1Cor15:4 and Lk13:32?
(+2)
How
would he not know he is reading of the “three days / in three days”,
mentioned in Mk14:58, 15:29, Mt26:61, 27:40, Jn2:19 (+5) .....
also
numbered “the third day rise / be
raised again”) in Mk9:31, 10:34, Lk18:33, 24:7, 46, Mt20:19; Mk16:21, 17:23 and Lk9:22? (+9, total: 21
occurrences!)
Ah! This
is no conjured ‘question’; here’s where the catch is: There are those who exactly from the basis
that they accept the idiomatic
meaning of the Preposition in the ‘expression’
“after three days”, argue that the Jonah quotation by Christ about the “three
days and three nights” must be ‘figurative
speech’ or an ‘idiomatic expression’
(e.g. Samuele Bacchiocchi) and shouldn’t be taken for ‘literal’ or actually “three
days and three nights”.
Question therefore:
I
present an old study of mine:
“Three Days and Three Nights”: 'Idiomatic' Expression?
Only the issue of
idiomatic use is here not a repeated issue, but I had to take into
consideration the context, obviously.
Quote, Seventh Day
Adventist ‘
“Jesus said
that He would spend “three days and three nights” in the heart of the earth;
yet, He was buried late Friday and rose Sunday morning, which isn’t three full
days and nights; that is, a complete 72-hour cycle. Obviously, then, the phrase
“three days and three nights” doesn’t automatically mean exactly 72 hours.
Instead, it’s simply an idiomatic expression meaning just three days, such as
(in this case) Friday, Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21). It
doesn’t have to mean a complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and
a complete 24-hour Sunday. In other places, Jesus said that “in three days” He
would raise His body temple (John 2:19-21) or that He would be “raised again
the third day” (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the
“three days and three nights”; that is, Jesus would be crucified and raised
from the dead over a three-day period, even if only one of those days, the
Sabbath, encompassed a complete 24-hour day. He was crucified late Friday,
spent Sabbath in the tomb, and rose Sunday.”
Is the “expression”,
“three days and three nights”, an “idiomatic expression”?
It is not
an “idiomatic expression”.
The possibility it
could have been an “idiomatic expression”, would have been real, were
it true – I extract from the quote from Bacchiocchi, p. 129 in this
book,
“… the phrase “three days and three nights”” had “abundant Biblical … evidence”. The possibility would have been real, were it true “three days and three nights” is “used in the
Scriptures idiomatically to indicate … complete
24-hour days” as a rule.
Matter of fact is, the claim of “abundant Biblical evidence” simply is not true, and the expression “three days and
three nights” is used in the New Testament but this once, in
Matthew 12:40. Bacchiocchi’s claim is false!
Meanwhile the ‘rule’ is to use the related ‘prophetic’
and strictly New Testament ‘idiomatic’ expression, “the third day”, eleven
times. It is a strictly New Testament ‘idiomatic expression’ or phrase because
every time it is used the reference actually is to the full description, “the
third day according to the Scriptures”.
What IS an “idiomatic” expression?
Collins supplies the following explanation of an ‘idiomatic’
expression:
“… a linguistic usage
that is grammatical and natural to native speakers of a language – the
characteristic vocabulary or usage of a specific group …”.
A word or phrase may be an ‘idiomatic expression’ if used representatively,
that is, ‘for’ something in the greater whole.
E.g., “day” for the whole cycle of night and day; “Passover” for
the whole of the eight day feast of Passover.
An ‘idiomatic’ expression is a shorter reference to an
assumed familiar complexity.
An ‘idiomatic’ expression is a general, constituent of
specifics.
It usually is the colloquial or vernacular.
It not necessarily is symbolic or metaphoric.
Eleven times the expression “the third day” is used in the New
Testament, and once only the specific, “three days and three nights”. That
makes the ‘expression’ used twelve times, every time prophetically /
eschatologically / metaphorically for the definite day of Jesus’ resurrection
“according to the Scriptures the third day” – not once in any one instance
“idiomatically”. Except if, as above pointed out, considered an ‘idiomatic
expression’ or natural, endemic New Testament compendium for “the
third day according to the Scriptures”, implying the ‘Passover
Scriptures’.
Some prepositions though, are used with the ‘expression’
“the third day”, like “in” and “after” – one idiomatically indicating what the
other may indicate literally. See in this book considered.
Therefore: Jesus meant what he said in Mt.12:40; He meant it as written
and read. He does not say ‘hours’, so does not mean ‘hours’; He does not say
‘days’ simply, and therefore does not mean ‘days’ simply, but specifically
“three days, and, three nights”.
Taking the phrase or ‘expression’ “three days and three nights” means
“three days and three nights”, the traditional Friday crucifixion and Sunday
resurrection thesis, “meaning just three days”, does not hold. It “isn’t three full
days and nights” no matter what our cleverness. Where is our Christian honesty when dealing
with this Scripture? It seems it lies with our true loyalty – with popish error
and lying to make a case for Sunday.
Are these accidental
errors, or negligence, or carefully framed errors? No matter which, they are
inexcusable, and must be attended to if we are serious about the Bible and
Christianity:-
“Three full
days and nights” is not what Jesus said or meant. What did Jesus mean
then? What He said!
“Jesus … was
buried late Friday…” Ah yes! But don’t
say “crucified” or “died”, because on Sunday, it had been “the third day
since these things”!
“and rose
Sunday morning…” Not true, no accident, but a fabricated lie – the lie
of lies on which Sunday observance thrives. If you or I persist in parroting
this lie, we in chorus with the devil who from the beginning was the father of
lies, stand father to it.
“three full
days and nights; that is, a complete 72-hour cycle…” I have never heard
of the phenomenon called a “72-hour cycle”. Seventy two hours –
as propagated by Armstrong-disciples – involve five days!
“…Friday,
Sabbath and Sunday (see Luke 23: 46-24:3, 13, 21).”
The passages “Luke
23: 46-24:3, 13, 21” include four days. Lk.23:49 tells how the day of
crucifixion ended; verse 50 how the next day began – the day that ended after
Joseph had closed the grave – Friday. Friday was the second of the three days.
“… the phrase
“three days and three nights” … doesn’t
have to mean a complete 24-hour Friday, a complete 24-hour Sabbath, and a
complete 24-hour Sunday.” It’s not the hours, but the parts, “night”,
and, “day” Jesus mentioned and meant. And Sunday’s night – Saturday night – and
Sunday’s day were not included in the days and the nights of which Jesus spoke
and which He meant. It is simply – that’s the word, “simply” – asserted,
presumed, alleged, falsely so.
“In other
places, Jesus said that “in three days” He would raise His body temple (John
2:19-21) or that He would be “raised again the third day” (Matthew 16:21). These references mean the same thing as the “three days and three
nights”…”
(Emphasis CGE) Why then did Jesus not again in Mt.12:40 say, “in three
days”, or, “the third day”? Was it for no reason He used
the unusual, specific, of one time occurrence, “three days and three nights”? I
don’t believe!
“… that is,
Jesus would be crucified and raised from the dead over a three-day period…”.
Yes, but “three days and three nights” would constitute that “three-day
period” – each day constituted of its night part and its day part.
Jesus says, not only His crucifixion per se and His resurrection per se would
constitute those three days and three nights, but His being “in the heart of
the earth”. Jesus’ being “in the heart of the earth” would make up the entire
content of the “three days and three nights”. Jesus would suffer – dying,
death, interment and grave – and be raised “the third day” from His suffering –
from His being “in the heart of the earth three days and three nights”. Every
word of Jesus is meant and is meaningful “according to the Scriptures” because
the Scriptures are the “sign” of Passover – the sign of redemption. The
Scriptures witness of Christ, every word of it, especially these in Mt.12:40,
because it happened exactly so. Exactly so and never as by every Word of God we
must live, “… even if only one of those days, the Sabbath, encompassed a
complete 24-hour day…”.
Therefore, what error
and falsity it is that “He was crucified late Friday, spent Sabbath in
the tomb, and rose Sunday”! Every Scripture in the New Testament that
has to do with the chronology of events about Jesus’ suffering and triumph are
so wrangled by ‘translation’ as to do service to the instigator of this error
and falsity, the Vatican.
“He was
crucified late …”. If 9 am – morning of day – means “late
Friday” relative to the whole (Jewish reckoned) cycle of the day that
started sunset the previous evening, then “late” may be the
accepted time of day supposed for Jesus’ crucifixion. But if 3 pm – “late”
afternoon of day – the hour of Jesus’ giving over the spirit is meant, it of
course cannot have been the hour He had been crucified.
“He was
crucified … Friday …” Jesus wasn’t crucified on Friday – the Sixth
Day – but on the day before, on Thursday – the Fifth Day.
“He … rose Sunday …”, Wrong;
He rose “In Sabbath’s-time” – Mt.28:1.
“He spent Sabbath in
the tomb …”, Jesus did spend part of the Sabbath
in the tomb, but, “In fulness (“late” opsé) of
Sabbath’s-time (sabbátohn) in the very being
of light (epiphohskóúsehi) the First Day approaching
… (eis mían sábbaton)”, rose from the
dead.
“On the First Day of
the week, early, He appeared to Mary Magdalene (of all), first.”
(Mark 16:9)
What gross nonsense then is it to declare,
“The expression “three
days and three nights” is used in the Scriptures idiomatically to indicate not
three complete 24-hour days, but three calendric days of which the first and
the third could have consisted of only a fraction of a day.” Bacchiocci TCR p.
22/23/24 The first and the third, as the second, consisted of
what Jesus in so many words said they would, namely, of a night and a day,
each. The first began where Jesus said His hour was come, and that of evil men
and of the power of darkness – there, Jesus’ first night of woe had begun. The
second night would find Jesus on the cross, hanging there – dead! Jesus’ second
night of suffering for man the death of sinners had begun “when it was evening
already” – Mt.27:57, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:50, Jn.19:31, 38. “The third day according
to the Scriptures” “in the slow hours of Sabbath’s-time, it being the essence
of light, the First Day of the week afar off”, saw come true Jesus’ word, that
“the third day I finish!”
The phrase “a day and
a night” does not exist in the
Scriptures of concern. The phrase “three days and three nights” however, it is
true, does not refer to an exact number of hours or minutes, but “according to
the Scriptures” to the precise “calendrical” days, completed. A fraction of a day whether of the night or of the
day was reckoned inclusively as representing the whole day. The moments of
giving over the spirit, and of taking it up again, are 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”.
Paragraph
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.
Prepositions
and Case
The phrase “of three days and of three nights” used with a preposition or without, or with prepositions of different meaning, will mean the same irrespective. Three days and three nights constituted the “three days” of which “on the according to the Scriptures third day”, Jesus rose from the dead.
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.1.
Prepositions
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.1.1.
“After” –
When the Jews heard that Pilate gave Joseph permission to bury Jesus, they came to talk to him about the matter. Joseph’s actions were so important for them that they came as soon as possible “on the morning after their preparations” notwithstanding the fact that it was the Sabbath. On Friday afternoon they were so preoccupied with “their preparations”, Mt.27:62. “After the third day” of his death (meta treis hehmeras), the Jews said, Jesus when still alive predicted that He would rise again. The Jews called Jesus a deceiver but still would not be taken by surprise because his disciples might steal the body. Their suggesting the possibility that the disciples would steal Jesus was a false excuse for sealing the tomb. They for sure feared Jesus to be resurrected and wanted to prevent it. The Jews expected Jesus to rise on that very day, the third of the three days – any time on it. So they asked Pilate, “Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day” – heohs tehs tritehs hehmeras. That was as good as asking to have the tomb secured till the third day “was over”, or, “had passed”, or, “had gone through”, or, “had run out”, or, “had ended”. An ellipse of verb occurs in the text. Heohs tehs tritehs hehmeras diagenomenehs, or, heohs teleiohthehsetas hehmeras tritehs. “Until the third day has passed” is in terms of time the same as saying “till after the third day”. Literally “after the third day” would imply “on the fourth day”. But the Jews being so anxious about the third day proves that the meaning of the preposition meta should be understood according to the idiomatic thrust of the phrase, i.e., “any time on the third day” and before the twenty-four hours of that day would have elapsed by sunset. “After the third day” therefore actually means “before the third day is over”.
Says Bacchiocchi, TCR p. 26b “Evidence for the basic identity of the two phrases (“after three days” and “on the third day”) is provided by Matthew 27:63-64. In verse 63 the Jewish leaders tell Pilate that Christ had said, “after three days I will rise again”. In actual fact, up to this point only the expression “on the third day” occurs in Matthew (16:21; 17:23; 20:19), which suggests the identical meaning of the two phrases.” (Emphasis CGE) It may be added that since also the expression “of three days and of three nights” occurs in 12:40, the identical meaning of all three phrases is a matter of course. The part represents the whole.
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.1.2.
“By” – Dia
Dia triohn hehmerohn Mt.26:61 Mk.14:58 means any time “during / after / as a result of / for / by means of three days”. Jesus “used three days to rise”. Twenty-four hours for each day is a foreign idea.
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.1.3.
“In” – En
En trisin hehmerais Mt.27:40 Mk.15:29 Jn.2:19 means “with”, or, “by means of”, or, “in three days”. It functions the same as does the dative only, tehi tritehi hehmerai. Mt.16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Lk.24:7, 46, 18:32, 33, 9:22 Acts 10:40 1Cor.15:4
5.1.1.6.2.2.2.2.1.
The Dative
The Dative means “with / within / in / on / by means of / requiring three days”. Three days and three nights of 12 hours each unit were not needed and were not instrumental in themselves. Christ could rise and did rise “by three days” of, a night and a day each, simply.
Joe Viel:
“..... the entire "smoking gun" for a
Friday crucifixion is based on the idea it happened "on
the 3rd day".
GE:
Sorry,
but I don’t understand or see why I should understand this.
Joe Viel:
“The "3 days and 3 nights" explanation
gives us a mental picture of the proper length of time that does not involve
resting our interpretation on grammatical words, and may have been why it was
included in the Bible, so that translation into various languages didn't rest
on interpretting words that don't translate into another language.”
GE:
I must
say I still don’t understand you; but it doesn’t matter, except perhaps that I
think it essential that “our
interpretation”
should “involve resting our
interpretation on grammatical words”. On what else?
Also, to
say, “The "3 days and 3 nights"
explanation gives us a mental picture of the proper length of time” means just the same thing as
Armstrong’s theory it must be no less than 72 hours. No, The "3 days and 3 nights" “explanation” gives us a mental picture of the proper interpretation of
grammatical words which say what they say, and with that, Period! Nevertheless, the "3 days and 3
nights" ‘explanation’ gives us a mental picture of
what three ‘Biblical’ days – seen retrospectively – look like.
Joe Viel:
“..... Hebrew is weak at expressing tense and
Greek grammatical words don't map into English well a lot due to the Greek case
structure, which explains a lot of things that get lost in translation. So
don't hang a doctrine on translated grammar.”
GE:
That I
can agree with: “don't hang a
doctrine on translated
grammar”; hang
it on the Greek ‘grammar’!
Joe Viel:
“Matt 27:63 is not authoritative since it was
spoken by a soldier who could have been saying something wrong, mistaken, or
misquoting Y'shua. Mark 8:31 was spoken by Y'shua, so it is authoritative,
since He could never say something wrong. The word for "after" here
in the KJV is translated from the Greek word "meta" (meta) which is
usually translated "with" when it occurs in the Genetive and
"after" when it occurs in the Accusitive and however someone decides
it fits when it occurs in other cases. In Mark 8:31, it's used in the genetive,
but "with" didn't fit in the English translation, so I guess the KJV
folks decided to go with "after", even though that's inaccurate. Chalk
another verse up to your errors in the KJV notes!”
GE:
No; I
think Joe Viel should revise a few things he has said. Matthew 27:63 is
authoritative despite it was spoken by a soldier. Somewhere in the Scripture a donkey spoke
with authority. And the soldier was not “saying
something wrong”,
and wasn’t “mistaken, or
misquoting Y'shua”. He quoted Him verbatim correctly, Mk8:31, “He
(Jesus) taught them ..... the Son of Man must ..... after three days rise again”. See note on the Dative above. Both Mark and
Matthew used the Accusative with Idiomatic meaning, ‘meta treis hehmeras
anastehnai / egeiromai’. So what’s the
issue? Even though both saw fit to use different Verbs, both found the
Accusative with Idiomatic force useful and clear enough to say the same thing
they in other places have said using other ways and other Prepositions.
Joe Viel:
“But this verse does give us another perspective
on when the Resurrection would occur that the phrase "on the 3rd day"
does not. "On the 3rd day" is ambiguous, since one can argue whether
the first day is included or excluded in the way the "day" is being
counted. Do you mean "on the 3rd day since
it happened" or "on the 3rd day after
it happened"?”
GE:
“But this verse”: Which one of Mk8:31 or Mt27:63 now? The last one
mentioned, Mk8:31? Or did you mean that,
verse, Mt12:40?
O! You
must have meant Mk8:31 or Mt27:63, but must have used some translation; not the
Greek .....
No—
since “Do you mean "on the 3rd
day since it happened" or "on the 3rd day after
it happened"?” So you’re actually referring to your own
phrases, “on the 3rd day since
it happened” and
“on the 3rd day after
it happened”;
not to “this verse” or ‘these verses’ anywhere in
the Bible.
Joe Viel:
“What's the reference point? Until a phrase
qualifying this with "since" or "after" is presented, we
have an ambiguous term. {And in English, even "since" can be used
ambiguously, though "after" is not.}”
GE:
Sorry,
but just the opposite is the case!
‘After’ can be used ‘ambiguously’ in English like just about any
other word in English only when one
forget he’s talking of “THE third day” of “the THIRD day according to the
Scriptures”— the Passover-Scriptures: Abib 16.
Therefore when ‘after’ is used ‘idiomatically’ as in the ‘expression’ “after
three days” as in Mk8:31 and Mt27:63, the meaning of “after three days”
is least ‘ambiguous’ because idiomatically used, ‘after three days’ can
only refer to “the third” ‘literal’ “day” of the “three” ‘literal’ “days”, “according to the
Scriptures” that Jesus would suffer dying and death and be buried and
raised up again.
Joe Viel:
“Also, "on the 3rd day" doesn't
preclude the fact that the event in question can't happen on the 1st or 2nd day
in addition to the 3rd day, although in the case of the Resurrection, obviously
the event would preclude this, if not the grammar. {Unless you're a wacky new
ager who's open to the plethoria of strange ideas they come up with like maybe
He died and was Resurrected many times during this period or something weird
like that .}”
GE:
Once
again, only, when one forget he’s talking of “THE third day” of “the THIRD day
according to the Scriptures”— the Passover-Scriptures. “(I)n the
case (of) the event .... of the
Resurrection”,
the Resurrection would “obviously
.... preclude ...."on the 3rd day"” could mean “the event in question” – the Resurrection – could “happen on the 1st or 2nd day in addition to the
3rd day” or in
place of “the third day according to the Scriptures”. From the nature of the reality of the
Resurrection, yes! And the same as
well, from the nature of the “grammar” determining the meaning of the
phrase “after three days”— from the nature of the linguistic force of ‘idiom’, in any language.
Joe Viel:
“"Within 3 days" is ambiguous because
it could mean 1 or 2 days or 3 days. "after 3 days" is ambigous since
it could mean 3, 4 or more days. "meta 3 days" far less ambiguous
than any of these english phrases, but doesn't translate so great.”
GE:
Ja, If
you forgot you have to do with “after”, “the third day according to the Scriptures”— if
you forgot you have to do with Resurrection-day,
and if you forgot there’s something like idiomatic but / and very realistic
idiomatic speech in whichever language.
Joe Viel:
“"On the 3rd day" is a reference mark.
"meta 3 days" is a measurement of time. "
GE:
Absolutely,
yes! You’re quite right this time, taken “the
fullment of the measurement in question”, “Of the Sabbath
Day”, ‘according to the Scripture’ of Matthew 28:1, namely, “the fullment
of the measurement in question” “Of the Sabbath’s
mid-afternoon when towards the First Day of the week .....”, “include(d) the measurement indicated” of the day and time of day “.....
when suddenly there was a
great earthquake and the angel of the Lord coming down from heaven rolled away
the stone from the sepulchre” and Christ indeed “from the dead rose”— “IN”,
“the fullment of the measurement in
question”, “IN”, “the third day according to the Scriptures”, 1Cor15:4—
“IN the Sabbath Day”!
Alleluia!
Joe Viel:
“"
GE:
Considered
out of context, therefore, "after" would be an error because it
would imply "the 4th day or more”, SUNDAY! and
WOULD not take into account which “third
day” the Scriptures, is talking
about. Here are no mere ‘ordinary use of
words’; it’s the Scriptures here, speaking through words of human language –
any and all human language – TO BE UNDERSTOOD for the REAL meaning of human
language that sometimes even are superior to that of the words in isolation—
what is called ‘idiomatic expression’ of essential, inner, possibly hidden,
meaning, ‘EXPRESSED’, that is, which is ‘said
with emphasis’.
Joe Viel:
“Now if we really believe the scriptures to be
inspired, them we must believe that the 3 phrases "on the 3rd day",
"meta 3 days" and "3 days and 3 nights" are all mutually
true, not that one phrase rules over the other.”
GE:
Thank
you very much, Joe Viel!
Joe Viel:
“The arguments presented for a Friday crucifixion
require us to disgard what is said about "3 days and 3 nights"
because that conflicts with the 'preferred' interpretation presented for
"on the 3rd day". But if we truly believe ALL the verses, we need an
interpetation that agrees with all 3 of these phrases and not just an
explanation that works for one phrase but doesn't fit another.
The Thursday
crucifixion explanation is the only one I know of that makes all 3 phrases
work. It counts 3 days and 3 nights without ignoring any part of a day or
night, and without counting any part of a day or night as a full day/night in
order for the count to come out.”
GE:
I answer
in all humbleness of my deceitful sinful heart, dear Joe Viel, and ask you to
be faithful to your own explanation and the conditions of it for finding the
true meaning of Jesus’ promise, “So the Son of Man shall be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth”.
Please do not ‘count 3 days
and 3 nights’,
or, ‘any part of a day or night’ that belong to or represent any
‘three days’ that cannot be of passover’s significance, and can be any dissected and separated ‘night’ or
‘day’ that belong to or represent any day or days OTHER, BEFORE OR BEYOND THAN
THOSE “three days” of passover’s
significance, “according to the Scriptures”, the passover-Scriptures of
14, 15 and 16 Abib.
The “three
days and three nights” MUST be these ‘LEGAL’ “three days”— “counting any part of a day or night .....as a
full day” of these particular passover’s “three days” — the same in both Old– and, New
Testament “..... in order for
the count to come out” “on”, or “in”, or “with”, or “by”, or “according to”— yes, grammatically
correct, “according to”—‘meta treis hehmeras’, “while being THE third day”
: “SABBATH’S-TIME”— WHICHEVER PREPOSITIONS are being used!
Joe Viel:
“It's "on the third day" by two points
of reference. On the 3rd calendar day after the day of the crucifixion and on
the 3rd "day/night" time period since the crucifixion. It's the only
explanation that fits "meta 3 days" since it also is the only
explanation I know of that gets the women back to the grave before 72 hours
finished but counts 3 full days and nights (the turning of night to day and day
to night) at the same time.”
GE:
It is
most unfortunate l must differ with you on this one point, that it cannot be “3 full days and nights”, ‘counted’, by way of “the turning of night to day and day to night”, merely; but that “3 full days”, must be so ‘counted’, that “It's "on the third day" by ‘point
of reference” of
“the 3rd calendar day” of Abib 16 or day of the Resurrection or day of the Waving of
the First Sheaf. “By ‘point of
reference” of “the 3rd calendar
day” is exactly saying, “the third day
according to the Scriptures”, 1Cor15:4!
That, and that only, is “on the 3rd
"day/night" time period since the crucifixion ..... by ‘point
of reference” of
“the 3rd calendar day”, “the third day according to the Scriptures”.
Your
sequence: “the 3rd "day/night"
time period since the crucifixion” just as well and truly is ‘the
3rd "night / day"’-time period” since the Resurrection! It just as well and
truly is ‘the 3rd "night / day"’-time period’ of “the third day
according to the Scriptures” by the
principle of method and ‘Law’: “It counts 3
days and 3 nights without ignoring any part of a day or night, ..... and .....
counting any part of a day or night as a full .....” ‘DAY’— not ‘ignoring’ a ‘full day’ is a “full .... calendar
day” (not by
‘our’ calendar days of now-a-days, but), a “full .... calendar
day” by first, its own opening ‘night-part’, then, its own closing ‘day-part’— ‘DAY’, reckoned, ‘sunset to sunset’, “in order for the count to come out .... on the
third day”
“according to the Scriptures”, THE passover-Scripture of passover-Scriptures
Matthew 28:1, “In the Sabbath Day”.
Nor can
any ‘part of’ any of these “three days”,
be just ‘ignored’ and not be ‘counted’— like you do, Joe Viel with Wednesday night the first
halve-part of the Fifth Day and first – or last – ‘night’ of the “three days
and three nights”.
Nor can
any ‘part’ or ‘full
day’ of any of
these “three days” be just ‘ignored’ and to its ‘full’ ‘count’ another ‘part’ (and by principle
of its part another full day) be added—
a ‘part’ and ‘full day’ that don’t belong to, or are ‘part’ or ‘full
day’ of these “three days”. Like you, do, Joe Viel, with adding Saturday
night the first halve-part of the First Day of the week and A FIFTH day that is
no ‘part’ or ‘full
day’ of any of
these “three days” the “three days and three nights” “according
tot the Scriptures”, the passover’s three first days and days of “How
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”
1Cor15:3b-4.
Joe Viel:
“Perhaps the reason the Bible words it this way,
instead of being more explicit, is that maybe doubters would never have counted
the 3+ hours from 3pm (when the 12-3pm darkness stopped and Y'shua finally
died) to sunset as a 'day', even if you pointed out the Genesis 1 definition of
a "day" to them. So it's left for the faithful to figure out. After
all, this is the reason the Bible gives for why Y'shua often spoke in parables.”
GE:
This
must be your last straw to grab at, Joe Viel, it seems! But did you not think, by making that
darkness-interruption on Thursday cause two days, besides destroying your ‘calendar’-condition “in
order for the count to come out .... on the third day”, you have created further ‘calendar’-problems for yourself, because now, the
Resurrection had to have occurred on 18th
of Abib, on the fifth day, or five days after, the Crucifixion!
You also
must have forgotten the ‘Bible-day’ is determined from sunset to sunset by
sunset, that did not occur on that fateful day of Jesus’ crucifixion, so “the 3+ hours from 3pm (when the 12-3pm darkness
stopped and Y'shua finally died)”, can “never have
counted ..... a "day" (to) the Genesis 1 definition of a
"day"”.
And
finally, “the 3+ hours from 3pm (when
the 12-3pm darkness stopped and Y'shua finally died)”, was not, “to sunset”. “When the sixth hour was come (9 AM), there
was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour (noon, 12 AM) ....
and Jesus gave up the ghost.” Mk15:33,37.
After, three hours elapsed before sunset ..... as discussed before.
Joe Viel:
“Also, "3 days and 3 nights" is reported to the
nearest day/night, not to the nearest hour. It does not say "72 hours".
Often, the most common argument against Yeshua's haven risen on a given day is
that it doesn't fit a 72 hour scenario. For example....
Argument 1 Yeshua could
not have died on a Thursday, because 72 hours before the 1st day of the week
would be less than 72 hours.
Argument 2 Yeshua could
not have died on a Wednesday, because 72 hours before the 1st day of the week
would be more than 72 hours
Either way you examine
this issue, it won't fit a 72 hour period and the information isn't given to us
to the nearest hour.”
GE:
What you say, Joe
Viel, is correct, but also not exactly correct.
‘The-according-to-the-passover-Scriptures-view’ (to which I believe ‘my’ view
answers), by the principle of ‘the part of a unit represents the full unit’, does
indeed result in 72 hours total, the time it took from the sunset onset of it
on Wednesday until the sunset end of it on Saturday. Those 72 hours in between cover the “three
days” and the “three days”, only. What
happened exactly when DURING and ON and IN and WITH these three days and 72
hours, of course not in the least depends on the fact the “three days” were
together 72 hours long. But no other
‘interpretation’ of either the “three days” or the “three days and three
nights”, satisfies an enquiry after 72 hours of duration like
‘The-according-to-the-passover-Scriptures-view’ does.
Joe Viel:
“A count that is less than 72 hours is preferred over a count
that exceeds 72 hours for several reasons:
Jewish tradition that
prevents us from handling a dead body more than 72 hours dead. Also, a count
that is less than 72 hours is preferred over a count that exceeds 72 hours
.....”
GE:
Yes. Actually it
should be less, because the moment you go over 72 hours, you go over the limits
of the prophetic “three days” of passover.
Putting the
Resurrection on Sunday must therefore violate this principle and condition set
by yourself, dear Joe Viel.
Joe Viel:
“..... Talmud tells us to ROUND UP our counting of days by
saying, "part of a day is like a whole day" (Talmud, Pesachim 4a -
See also Shabbat 9.3 of the
But trying to make an
argument based on using a more finite level of accuracy than scripture reports
information is only likely to confuse. If He died at 3pm, and rose ANY TIME on
the first day of the week, then it won't be exactly 72 hours no matter how you
examine the issue .....”
GE:
Sure, it would at
least be 12 hours after “the third day according to the Scriptures” ended, and
at least 15 hours after Jesus resurrected “The Sabbath’s proper Day midst of
afternoon” – 3 PM, Mt28:1.
Joe Viel:
“If He died at 3pm, and rose ANY TIME on the first day of the
week, then it won't be exactly 72 hours no matter how you examine the issue.
And if it exceeded 72 hours, then it is either 4 days/3nights or 4
nights/3days, since "part of a day is like a whole day".”
GE:
Dear Joe, thanks for
having explained that to us! Try and get
it clear to yourself, by placing the Resurrection on Sunday morning, you have “exceeded 72 hours”, and have placed the Resurrection ‘on’, “4
nights/3days”, even ‘on’, 4 nights / 4 days and “AFTER” ‘3 nights/3days’!
Incredible!
Joe Viel:
“2 Kings 9:29 says Ahaziah became king in the 11th year of
Joram. 2 Kings 8:25 says it happened in the 12th year of Joram. Now if it was
11 years, 7 months, we could call either way of reporting it accurate. But it
obviously could not have been 11x12=132 months or 12x12=144 months. We can't do
math based on a more detailed level of accuracy than we are given. All
reporting of measurements of time have some level of margin of error to them
based on what was the nearest unit used. If its measured in days, the
information is accurate to the nearest half day (or nearest day/night), not the
nearest hour.”
GE:
Yes, “If it’s measured in days, the information is accurate to the
nearest half day ......” Even to the nearest one
eighth day; even “the nearest hour” in fact, the Passover Lamb of
God having died “the ninth hour”, 3 PM; having been closed in the grave
“mid-afternoon” ‘3 PM’; having resurrected from the dead “mid-afternoon”
‘3 PM’. Most remarkable! But not
surprising, at all, since thus was it all foretold
and since thus was ‘based on a more detailed
level of accuracy we are given’ “according to the Scriptures”
centuries before through the passover-Scriptures— and for centuries expected by
some, and even by some afterwards, believed. .... which certainly contradicts your notion
in or by the Bible “reporting of
measurements of time (must) have some level of
margin of error to them”. No it’s us who always must
have some level of margin of
error to ourselves.
Joe Viel:
“Now if He died at 3pm and "part of a day
is like a whole day", then
the day He died counts as the first "day" or half day (day/night).
Shalom,
Joe”
GE:
Sorry to
say goodbye like this, dear Joe, but “.....
if He died at 3pm and "part of a day is like a whole day", then the day He died counts as the first
"day"”:
"day" IN “FULL”; ‘DAY’, "like a whole day", and NO, “half day”, “or”, “day/night” sequence. The “three days” began here: ‘At the table’,
John 13:1, “before the Feast”, indeed, the ‘Feast referred to in “Six
days before the days of Passover’s Feast ” (John 12:1) of "days"
of night then day cyclic sequence.
I wish
we could have closed with greater agreement.
Trusting the opportunity shall arrive for it,
Conversation
closed.
GE
24 July
2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157