John
19, 42
Ed
Sutton:
The "High Day
'Sabbath'" was a Sabbath for the Jews. The weekly Sabbath was a Sabbath
for the Jews.
Yet unless you (not me) are the one who is not being clear, you have
effectively claimed that some of the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the
burial of Jesus' body had to have taken place after sundown, and after the
onset of 15 Nisan/Abib, simply because there was not enough time for this to
have taken place before sundown. This ignores the simple fact that both
Nicodemus and Joseph were both 'well-heeled' (as well as influential) with
access to more than a few shekels. Thus they didn't have to put up with the
usual clap-trap one might expect from the locals, and could have paid the price
for the spices, etc. no questions asked, had Nicodemus so chosen. I contend
that he did just that. He wasn't into the usual haggling over price at that
moment, for he did not have the time to waste. IMO, it was price asked; price
paid. End of story! And likely greatly to the surprise of the one selling the
spices, for such was effectively unheard of in the Ancient Near East, where it
was even expected that there would normally be a long, drawn-out haggling and
bargaining between the two parties over the cost of anything.
The Book of John specifically tells us that the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This
was used in order to have the Lord's body buried by sundown, IMO (It was the
Preparation, i.e. 14 Nisan, or Passover, although colloquial usage had now
relegated the Biblical usage of "Passover", to what was properly
"the feast of Unleavened bread", "the Sabbath drew near"
and now not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur, with the Sabbath of Nisan 15
(Unleavened Bread) to precede the regular weekly Sabbath that fell on Nisan 16 of
that year. Yet both were Sabbaths. There is not any difference between "a
holy convocation" and "a holy convocation" in Lev. 21 I do not
believe, at least as I am able to read Scripture. The Sabbath was a time of
rest, not activity.
In addition, if I remember, you have also argued that the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus also took place on the Sabbath, i.e. the seventh day, as well.
Among at least 2 ways you have spoken of this is "in Sabbath's
fullness" and "in Sabbath's time" neither of which phrases are
to be found anywhere in Scripture, as translated into English, at
least in the 20 English versions I have access to on Bible Gateway.
And for free, I'll also tack on that both a 'traditional' Friday crucifixion
and a Wednesday crucifixion (as we today reckon time) both also require the
Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, to break the Sabbath, as well, albeit the one
preceding the crucifixion week, in travelling to or from Bethany.
The Thursday crucifixion does happen to be correct for the day of the
crucifixion, again as we reckon time, despite your own convoluted reasoning and
gyrations that serve to skew what is actually being said, IMO.
GE:
Re:
ES:
“The "High Day 'Sabbath'" was a
Sabbath for the Jews. The weekly Sabbath was a Sabbath for the Jews.”
GE:
Fine, agreed
..... Which day of week was “The
"High Day 'Sabbath”?
Friday,
I should say. The day just before – ‘back to back with’ – “The weekly Sabbath” : ‘Sixth Day’ of the week; ‘Friday’.
Re:
ES:
“Yet unless you (not me) are the one who is
not being clear, you have effectively claimed that some of the events with
Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial of Jesus' body had to have taken place
after sundown ....”
GE:
It’s a
pity I did not make myself absolutely clear, that I am claiming all the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and
the burial of Jesus' body, had taken place after sundown; not only “some of the events .... effectively”. Therefore to re-affirm : “All
the events with Joseph and Nicodemus and the burial”, literally :
“And now
when the evening was come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the
Fore-Sabbath, Joseph ....” Mk15:42;
“When
the even was come, there came Joseph ....” Mt27:57;
“All the
people that came together to that sight, having seen the things that happened,
much afraid, went home ..... Now see, Joseph ..... this man, went unto Pilate
....” Lk23:48,50;
“The
Jews, because it was the Preparation— that the bodies should, not remain, on
the cross .... besought Pilate that their legs might, be, broken and that they
might, be, taken away .... And after, this, Joseph secretly asked Pilate that
he might, take away the body ....” Jn19:31,38.
No smart
words, “unless you .... the one who is
not being clear .... have effectively claimed that some of the events .... had
to have taken place”; just ordinary words, Joseph started to undertake to
bury the body of Jesus that day still, after it had had become evening and
after sunset. As John explained: “Because it was a high day sabbath, that day”.
Yes, for our conditioned hearing, not much sense in; but when understood “as
custom / rule / law of the Jews to bury”, the passover-procedures of Ex 12 and
Lv 23 give clear meaning to all these ‘events’.
Re:
ES:
“after sundown, and after the onset of 15
Nisan/Abib, simply because there was not enough time for this to have taken
place before sundown.”
GE:
The
obvious indications of time and day given
about
when, “this” actually took place, are :
a) “this” actually beginning Mk15:42, Mt27:57, Jn19:31,38, Lk23:48,50, “sundown” (Thursday night); and
b) “this” actually ending Lk23:54, Jn19:42, “mid-afternoon” 3 p.m. the Sixth
Day (Friday)
— 21 hours in all.
According
to you, these ‘events’ Thursday
earliest 3 p.m. (Mt27:45) immediately after Jesus had died, started.
According
to you, these ‘events’ Thursday afternoon ended
well “before sundown” 6 p.m.
— in less than 3 hours all in all.
21 hours
over against say 2 hours? There would certainly not have been “enough time for this to have taken place
before sundown.” You have proved it
beyond a doubt yourself. With an assumed
lack of time, you, are trying to prove there was ample time so that the Burial could
have taken place on the same day the Crucifixion took place. Normally, one
would think this would prove the Burial could not have taken place on the same day that the Crucifixion took
place. Normally.
Normally,
“sundown” would mean the day has
begun; normally, “afternoon”, would mean, “That day”, which “was the
Preparation” (‘Friday’), Lk23:54, entered its last quarter and was running out.
Normally.
Only
remember, who is it who is saying, “after
sundown, and after the onset of 15 Nisan/Abib, (there) simply .... was not
enough time for this to have taken place before sundown.” It was Ed Sutton; it was not GE. GE has never appealed to the time-shortage
factor; GE only appeals to Scripture ‘statistics’ of time, days and dates. GE has consistently been appealing to the
ample time reality. GE has consistently
maintained the feeble excuse “simply
because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown”
carries no weight at all.
ES:
“This ignores the simple fact that both
Nicodemus and Joseph were both 'well-heeled' (as well as influential) with
access to more than a few shekels. Thus they didn't have to put up with the
usual clap-trap one might expect from the locals, and could have paid the price
for the spices, etc. no questions asked, had Nicodemus so chosen. I contend
that he did just that. He wasn't into the usual haggling over price at that
moment, for he did not have the time to waste. IMO, it was price asked; price
paid. End of story! And likely greatly to the surprise of the one selling the
spices, for such was effectively unheard of in the Ancient Near East, where it
was even expected that there would normally be a long, drawn-out haggling and
bargaining between the two parties over the cost of anything.”
GE:
Now
read, who, is haggling over prices and any kind of irrelevancies! Is it GE? Ed
Sutton is of the opinion, “This ignores
the simple fact that .....”— “this”
: the ‘shortage of time story’. “..... simply
because there was not enough time for this to have taken place before sundown
..... ignores the simple fact that both Nicodemus and Joseph were both
'well-heeled .....” What can I say
else? I have nothing further to say on Ed Sutton’s ‘drawn-out haggling and bargaining’ over ‘much ado about nothing’. What have you, Ed Sutton, been trying to tell
us with ‘this’? That the Burial had to have been on the day
Jesus was crucified, and could not possibly have been the ‘event’ of the day
that started with the evening after the day on which Jesus was crucified? Well,
dear readers, hear the lofty speech!
What
next?
ES:
“The Book of John specifically tells us that
the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body
buried by sundown ....”
GE:
Re:
“The Book of John specifically tells us that
the tomb of Joseph was nearby. This was used in order to have the Lord's body
buried by sundown.....”
First
things first; therefore: Please give the Scripture in John where it says,
“..... the tomb of Joseph was nearby.
This was used in order to have the
Lord's body buried” : “by sundown.....”
You
should have let John speak for itself, and say, ‘..... the tomb of Joseph that was
nearby, was used to have the Lord's body buried.’
This is
all, and this is the only thing John said.
What you added, is untrue. John
is in full agreement with the other Gospels, and here, as far as
time-indication is concerned, in particular with the Gospel of Luke. Luke states the time of day Joseph had closed the grave and had left: “It was mid-afternoon before the Sabbath.
And the women went home and prepared
spices.” John says, “because
of the time-of-preparations
of the Jews” had begun, “the tomb
of Joseph that was nearby, was used to have the Lord's body buried” : like
in Luke, “mid-afternoon”. Finished: three hours to follow before
sunset. Nothing of, “in order to before sundown have the Lord's body buried.” How
far will you go to have it your way, only to vindicate Sunday for having
been the day of the Lord’s resurrection and not the Lord’s Sabbath? As far
as making both John and Luke tell a gross, insulting lie!
This was
not why they still had to bury Jesus
there; this was why they had finished
to bury Jesus there! I remember having
read of Prophecy that centuries before foretold, Joseph’s tomb would be used
for Jesus’ interment. I have read God-fearing men who recognised God’s
providence in these ‘events’ about Jesus’ interment. Point I want to make :
Joseph’s tomb was not used as an emergency measure to beat time before the
Sabbath would start. “Buried by sundown”
because of time was of the essence, is a myth created by Sunday-resurrectionists.
If scarcity of time before sunset were the driving force behind the use of
Joseph’s sepulchre, the whole event of the burial would make no sense. Why not simply throw the body away as they
did with the other crucified? – exactly as the Jews actually had requested some
21 hours before, Jn19:31. For what would
Joseph have done all the trouble to obtain the body for proper burial if he had not planned to use his own sepulchre for the purpose and because it was
near, at hand, and prepared?
ES:
Jn. 19:31 says nothing about any
'bodies being thrown away'.
GE:
You can
see it? Well, why can’t you see the Jews
made their request to have the legs of the crucified crushed only after and
“because since it had become the
Preparation” and “great that (specific) sabbath-day it had been” / would be?
(‘oun epei paraskeyehn ehn .... ehn gar megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou
sabbatou’)
John did
not say these things before, where the Jews requested Pilate to have Jesus crucified. The Jews would not in the first place “while the Preparation” and “because
that great day had been sabbath”, have requested Pilate to have Jesus
crucified; then suddenly have changed their mind it “(is) the Preparation”, “and great (is) that sabbath-day” : ‘Have the
bodies removed, you hear us Pilate?’
Then you
ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, and same event, day, and
time, some time later on in the night,
of which Mark and Matthew tell in 15:42 and 27:57, where the between two
consecutive days intervening “evening had already occurred” (‘ehdeh
opsias genomenehs’) after, ‘sundown’
and never in your life as you allege, “before sundown”.
You
ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, in the night, “and there came also Nicodemus
who the first time in the night came
to Jesus”.
Joseph
operated in the night, after the Jews,
after sunset, must have had their passover meal, because they no longer
had had scruples to enter Pilate’s house to make their request. (Cf. Jn18:28)
It would
have been completely senseless for the Jews to have asked for the bodies to be
taken away only at the last minutes of their “great day sabbath”; they wanted
the crosses removed for, “that great
day sabbath” of theirs because they would
have been, an offence to their national pride on “that day”.
Joseph
began his undertaking in the night, long after sunset, and therefore did
everything he did, on the day after the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. That is
common sense; anything else that negates that, is senseless, ‘Sunday
resurrectionist bickering’, to try to have something to say for a Sunday
resurrection. Anything else than what John really wrote and meant is a scramble
for proof that Jesus rose on Sunday, so that things are innovated that never
would have entered any sane mind had it not been infested with Sunday
resurrectionist enthusiasm.
Innovative
things that are saintly confessed, “I
believe the totality of Scriptures seem to say, namely that 'Jesus was risen
"early' (while it was yet dark) on the first day of the week'. (Mt. 28:1;
Mk. 16:2,9; 24:1; Jn. 20:1 - all NKJV)” .... without attention being paid
to it that “all” this,
1) has been taken from the “NKJV” which in these Scriptures is an utter misrepresentation of
the real KJV;
2) that of “all”
this “totality of Scriptures”, only
Mt28:1 is relevant and
3) that the rest of this ‘totality of Scriptures’ has no bearing on the day or time of the
Resurrection except that it mentions an opened and empty and desolated tomb
4) visited several times from “while it was
early darkness still” until after sunrise during the night of the First Day of
the week.
Therefore,
because Joseph’s grave was “at hand” – “near”, “they buried Jesus there”. The
near grave was the only commodity “to bury as the custom / law of the Jews
prescribed to bury” that was ready and available because “near” from the first!
No contingency, ‘O my, where are we
going to lay the body down because it is almost sundown!’ forced itself upon
Joseph’s mind like an afterthought, as though time had run out on him. ‘My own grave nearby! It’s our only option!’ False! The whole notion is, made up to confuse
and impose.
No! Joseph used his own tomb to bury Jesus in
because he had his undertaking properly planned, as show every move he made,
from daring to ask for the body and getting Pilate to give orders to have the
body delivered to his place away from the crosses, buying the linen; advising
Nicodemus; arranging with the women to attend; and eventually to bring the body
to its place of interment and lay it down. John relates the whole process, like
this: “Then ....” – that was long after Joseph had asked Pilate’s permission
and long after Nicodemus “came there
also” – “Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen sheets with
the spices – as the manner of the Jews (according to the
passover-prescriptions) is to bury.”
And so
they buried Jesus.
John
does not give every or all the detail, as is obvious from the other Gospels. (The
laying in the tomb was the penultimate action; the closing of the grave with
the stone door, was the final action. John says nothing about it.)
ES:
Which 'proves'
what??
Nor do any of the other Gospels give all the details, and I've never said
otherwise. Yet all do give some details.
GE:
It
proves John often makes use of interjected parentheses; that’s all. But which
says more than what you can be comfortable with, because John does not to the
sequence of his sentences follow chronological sequence. On the contrary, it is
characteristic of John by way of parentheses to ever so often look back, and
give a summary of events up to a certain point in time past. Like in verse 41-42, where John refers back
and reminisces,
“There was in the place where
He was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new tomb (Joseph’s) in
which was never man laid yet. There, where the tomb was nearby therefore, they by
the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning (on Fridays) had finished to bury
Jesus.”
ES:
I disagree with your assessment
here. It takes a preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing' to support
this, and the language would imply nothing other that chronological reading,
here.
GE:
I don’t
know what you actually mean; whether you are confirming what I have said, or
are negating it.
However,
John follows the historical sequence of events in chapter 19 from verse 30 on –
clearly.
Verse 30
: Jesus died;
verse
31, “The Jews therefore ....” that is, “because”, it in the mean time,
“had become the Preparation Day (Friday, i.e., Thursday night : cf.
Mk15:42) .... asked Pilate ....”
32— “Then came the soldiers ....”
33— “But when they came to Jesus ....”
34— “But one of the soldiers ....”
35— Parenthesis: “But he that saw bare record
....” of the things that had happened up to this point and after.
36-37— Another parenthesis within a parenthesis.
Historical
chronology resumed ....
38— Joseph
after this (the Jew’s preventive request in verse 31)
Parenthesis:
“being a disciple ....”
Sequence: “besought Pilate ....”
Parenthesis: “but secretly ....”
Sequence: “Pilate gave leave ....”
Sequence: “He (Joseph) came therefore ....”
Sequence: “and he took the body ....”
Sequence: “And there came also Nicodemus ....”
Parenthesis
(past): “which at the first came to Jesus ....”
Sequence: “and brought a mixture of myrrh ....”
Parenthesis: “about an hundred pound ....”
Sequence: “Then took they the body ....”
Sequence: “and wound it ....”
Parenthesis: “according to the traditional laws ....”
Parenthesis: “now
there was in the place ....
Parenthesis
(past): where
He was crucified, a garden; ....
Parenthesis: and
in the garden a new tomb ....
Parenthesis: in
which was never man laid yet.
Parenthesis: There,
where the tomb was nearby therefore ....
Parenthesis: by
the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning ....
Sequence: they
finished to bury Jesus.”
To
follow the historical sequence of events one may read the predicative clauses
only; the parenthetic phrases and clauses are not ordered by chronological
sequence. It requires no “preconceived
notion to assume John is 'reminiscing'”— actual events, content and context
show John employed chronological and parenthetical, non-chronological language
and style here.
What was near?
“Because
the grave was near they buried Jesus
there”,
not, Because the Sabbath was near they buried Jesus
there’! (Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel) Not because the day was virtually over “buried
they Jesus there”, but because three quarters of a day in time ago Joseph already
had had begun his undertaking; and “Now therefore they (finishing entombment) laid Jesus
there by preparations-time of the Jews (having dawned) and the sepulchre
was (prepared and) near (and ready at hand).”
ES:
“IMO (It was the Preparation, i.e. 14 Nisan,
or Passover, although colloquial usage had now relegated the Biblical usage of
"Passover", to what was properly "the feast of Unleavened
bread", "the Sabbath drew near" and now not one, but two
Sabbaths were to occur, with the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread) to
precede the regular weekly Sabbath that fell on Nisan 16 of that year.”
GE:
How near
perfect are we in agreement here, dear Ed Sutton! Especially for this enquiry we are busy with,
your words: “now not one, but two Sabbaths were to occur .....” “were”,
“to”,
occur! Now, of the “two Sabbaths”, the first one, “the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread)”
– was prospective; it lay ahead, it was “to”, occur!
But where
in time do we find ourselves, “Now”? for this, you give conflicting information!
First
you say “It was the Preparation” – a
reference to Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 and Jn19:31. “Now when evening had come it
being the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath” : Friday, which as yet,
was, “to”, occur, still, yes. But,
which as “now”, had had begun
already, by “now, had been (its) evening already”, it by “now”,
being after “sundown”, “already”. And
Joseph “after these things” – which the Jews after sunset had done before he
could do anything – “now” only, went
to Pilate to ask for the body. “The
Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened Bread)”, “now”, was not only yet future –
was not only yet “to occur”; “drew near” no longer : it “already
had had started”. “Now” we in time find ourselves at the beginning of
Joseph’s undertaking! Not even in it, yet!
And this
now is where you make your mistake, and contradict yourself, where you confuse
the end of this day (and Joseph’s undertaking), with its own beginning, and put its “mid-afternoon” ending-period (and Joseph’s closing of the grave) – its ‘drawing
near-to-the-Sabbath, closing-period’ – right at this day’s “evening” after “sundown” beginning-period.
In one breath you say, “It was the Preparation” quoting Mk15:42,
and, “the Sabbath drew near” quoting Luke 23:54 as were these texts
speaking of the same period of day. Instead of to allocate Lk23:54, “daylight
(of Friday) tended towards the (pending weekly) Sabbath” that as
yet had not started but was yet “to occur”,
you allocate it to when the rest of “the feast of Unleavened bread”-‘sabbath’ that “had had begun
already” the previous “evening”, was yet “to occur”.
Yes, “now”, “when it had become evening and
the Preparation” – Friday night – not
one, but two Sabbaths were to occur” yet,
“with the Sabbath of Nisan 15 (Unleavened
Bread)” that preceded the regular
weekly Sabbath, “already” (‘ehdeh’), its “evening” proper after ‘sundown’,
“come”, current, and, prospective.
ES:
“Yet both were Sabbaths ....”
GE:
Yes!
ES:
“There is not any difference between "a
holy convocation" and "a holy convocation" in Lev. 21; I do not believe, at least as I am able to
read Scripture. The Sabbath was a time of rest, not activity.”
GE:
On both
aspects I beg to differ with you greatly, but which things at this point in
time and argument are of less importance.
See other discussions between us and sundry studies of mine on these
issues.
ES:
38 After this, Joseph of
Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked
Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission.
Note that the NASB and ESV here
correctly translate the force of " ἵνα " which means 'in order
that' or 'so that' with the subjunctive.
GE:
Thank
you very much; it is only confirming what I have been trying to say all the
time, that the day that already had begun with the evening and Joseph's
actions, the great day sabbath, had only begun and was in progress
and prospective still, so that all these things recorded from Mk15:42/
Jn19:31 on, might or could still be done on it until such time
"that day", Friday would END: "mid-afternoon the
Sabbath pending".
The
"force" of the Subjunctive
is clearly emphatic: These things all would be done according to the
Predestination and Providence of God. I think I said it in that way somehow,
from the beginning until now.
“God hath
begotten us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ unto a lively hope to an
inheritance incorruptible.” 1Pt1:3-4
8 June 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Pvt Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157