Onlangse Opstelle

 

CGE Verdana 12

Skrif Onderstreep

Nadruk CGE

Ander Kursief

 

 

Barnabas

 

Tony Zbaraschuk, 22 Sep 2005,

Re: Barnabas and eighth day,

Wrote:

TZ:

The Word of Gerhard Ebersoehn came to the Net, claiming:

From what word of Barnabas does one get the idea

he with 'eighth day', meant Sunday?

Or, even more far–fetched, the 'Lord's Day'?
….
Barnabas associates the Seventh Day Sabbath

with 'the eighth day' – there is not the least

allusion to any other day (of the week) per se in

Baranbas. He identifies the 'eighth day'

with “the seventh period” – which 'period' he

(in his own way) derives from the Seventh Day Sabbath Day!


TZ:
I really do not see where you are getting this from the text, which is very specifically _contrasting_

the two days rather than identifying them.
The eighth day, to Barnabas,

is the day the Lord rose from the dead,

and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now are”. 

 

We know from the Gospels that Jesus rose from the dead the day after the Sabbath, and Barnabas is pretty obviously drawing a connection between the first day of the week when God begun to create everything, and  the first day of the new week when everything was re–created.

Note that I don't accept Barnabas as canon, so I don't have to worry about this being used as authority for us to keep the Sabbath at present.  But I think it _does_ tell us what at least some Christians were doing in the generation or two after the apostles.
….
I think you are allowing your (very justifiable) desire to keep the Sabbath to override the plain evidence that some second–century Christians were no longer keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first–century ones. ….

 


Consider:

“… plain evidence that some second–century
Christians were no longer keeping Sabbath, maybe even some first–century ones.”

GE:

It may surprise you, but I maintain some second–century Christians were no longer keeping the Sabbath, but Sunday. Justin Martyr supplies the first ‘plain evidence’ of it though – not Barnabas.

 

And it may surprise you even more, if I told you I believe Sunday–worship tried to make its inroads into Christianity at a VERY early date (but failed), for Paul reprimands the Galatian Congregations they were “superstitiously observing days” etc. so as for them to have “made u–turn” to their “weak and beggarly (former) principles” – to their “by nature not gods” – which they “desired / lusted” to “serve / worship again”, just as when they “knew not God”, and were pagans still.

 

As to Barnabas:

I first wrote, “From what word of Barnabas does one get the idea he with 'eighth day', meant Sunday? Or, even more far–fetched, the 'Lord's Day'?”

I used the words “what word” not without purpose! You supplied the word,

        “The eighth day, to Barnabas, is the day the Lord

rose from the dead,

and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now are”. 

We know from the Gospels

that Jesus rose from the dead

the day after the Sabbath,

and Barnabas is pretty obviously

drawing a connection between the

first day of the week

when God begun to create everything,

and the first day of the new week

when everything was re–created.”

 

But then I said, “associated”; you quote me as having said Barnabas “identified” “the two days” – “the eighth day” and “the Seventh Day Sabbath Day” with one another! I did not say that; I wrote: “He identifies the 'eighth day' with “the seventh period” – which 'period' he (in his own way) derives from the Seventh Day Sabbath Day!” Quite different things!

Now Barnabas is NOT “very specifically _contrasting_ the two days”

–       he concludes hither and thither from any which one of
them. If he makes any sure impression it is of confusing his concepts of the ‘days’, “periods” and even “years”.

–        

TZ:

The eighth day, to Barnabas,

is the day the Lord rose from the dead,

and _not_ one of “the sabbaths that now are”.

 

GE:

This is what Barnabas actually wrote,

“The Lord says to them (the Jews), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths! Do you not see what he means? He means the present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that which I have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make the beginning of an eighth day that is the beginning of another world. Wherefore we also celebrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven.”

 

Barnabas undeniably associates “Sabbaths” with “the eighth day”, namely, “Sabbaths … that which I have made, in which I will give rest to all things and make the beginning of an eighth day that is the beginning of another world”.

He does NOT associate anything with the First Day of the week!

 

Barnabas associates these ‘Sabbaths’ – of whatever nature they may be – with some allegorical period which he describes metaphorically with the phrase “the eighth day” – “the eighth day IN WHICH, Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven”.

 

Regardless of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! ‘Very specifically’ this is NO specific ‘day’ of the week! The ONLY thing ‘pretty obvious’, is that Barnabas does NOT ‘identify’ the ‘eighth day’ with the First Day of the week, but rather associates it with the ‘old’ Sabbaths, even in their ‘present unacceptability’.

 

Barnabas blames Christians (“children”, 4) for keeping their “present Sabbaths” without Christian meaning. He does not vent ‘anti–Jewish sentiments’ at all, but explains that Christians, no longer should keep the Sabbath because the Law forces them to. According to Barnabas, in believing in Christ these Christians ought to have found the true Sabbath that God from the beginning had intended for them – which according to Barnabas was no literal day whatsoever.

Barnabas does so through a process of reasoning the literal Seventh Day Sabbath of creation (15:1–3) as “meaning” a period of “thousand years” (4); as well as “meaning” some metaphysical day of judgement  (5). The Sabbath (according to Barnabas) no longer can be a specific day, because it is impossible to keep properly, but rather is ‘meant’ as a “promise” of Christ – 6–7.

 

8: “Further He says to them (at Sinai, 15:1, “my sons”, 2), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths!

See what He means,

Unacceptable are (your) present Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which I had made, in which thing I shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth day that is (the) beginning of another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the eighth day with joy, in which day Jesus rose from the dead, and having been made manifest, indeed ascended into heavens.” (Rendering CGE)

 

In this there is no suggestion of the First Day of the week! Barnabas presents the new meaning, the Sabbath had received in the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was this,

“… Something I had made / perfected – ho pepoiehka”, and “in which everything rested”, which now, was made “a beginning of another world” (8b). This is a direct reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where “He (God) speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the creation”, when “God on the Seventh Day in the day (of it) made and end / perfected (sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it (the Seventh Day)”.

 

According to Barnabas this day, and “in it”, first of all, the ‘new’ world of the Christ–era “became”, or “was made a beginning of”. And in the end, it meant, that “When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the wicked one, and then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day”. (5)

 

“No one, at the present time, has the power to keep holy the day which God had made holy” (6) – which can ‘mean’ any or both of the Seventh Day or the experiencing of the reality of the ‘day’ of the ‘new beginning’.

“But when all things have been made new by the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy”. (7) Barnabas here of course refers to the new earth after Christ’s return, and again he is ambiguous as to the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the ‘day’ of the ‘new beginning’.  In any case, Barnabas makes association between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new Sabbaths of after Christ had come and had made everything new through resurrection from the

dead.

The First Day never comes into the picture.

And there is only one perfection envisioned by Barnabas – the “ending made / perfected” which is simultaneously the “beginning made / perfected” of, and in, and by, the single and comprehensive moment of Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and 2, of Him appearing (before the throne of God), and 3, of Him being taken up or exalted into heavens. (9)

 

This is what Barnabas meant is the Sabbath–Seventh Day’s “meaning”: “He (God) means this!”, 4, “Notice children, what is the meaning of He made and end …”. It is “an eighth day” that is BOTH and AT ONCE God’s “making and END”, and His ‘making a NEW BEGINNING”.

 

Common sense despite Barnabas himself, can only ‘identify’ this “eighth day” with the Seventh Day he has been speaking of all along – the Sabbath Day that “presently” was kept in an “unacceptable”, Judaistic way for the Law’s sake, and not because and for the sake  of Jesus Christ. With that, my conviction is in perfect sympathy.

 

If the First Day of the week ever came into play or at all was relevant, Barnabas would have mentioned it in so many words; he would have made the direct association between the Christ–event and the First Day of the week which he is making between the Christ–event and the Seventh Day Sabbath. Because Barnabas specifically and in detail makes mention of the Divine acts of the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out the actual deeds of God on and of the First Day, had he ‘meant’ the First Day of the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later would do – he would have made mention of the First Day, and he would have made mention of God’s creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to anything of the kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First Day of the week in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into association with the ‘Eighth Day’ because of false ‘translation’ of Mt.28:1, amounts to adulterating the Scriptures (the way Justin did).

 

If this is below the standards of SDANet for publishing, I would call it cowardice for hearing the truth. And kindly don’t repeat the objection it is “incoherent”, for better coherency in this case of Barnabas’ allegorical reasoning, is just not possible, and is used as an easy but poor excuse to present a better explanation than ever before of the issue.

 

 

 

Wrote Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator, to me,

“Gerhard,
After discussion with the other moderators, I am rejecting this post.
Your argument does not seem even coherent, much less a worthwhile contribution to the SDAnet discussion environment.
Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator”

This is what I had written
To: SDANet Re: Barnabas and First Day
...how Barnabas got to ‘the eighth day’ – from the Sabbath – “Seventh DAY”, to the “seventh PERIOD”, to “the EIGHTH day”; and IT being IDENTIFIED with the Christ–EVENT in whole.

Now, Tony Zbaraschuk (SDANET 23 Sept), wrote:

“We know from the Gospels that Jesus rose from the dead the day after the Sabbath, and Barnabas is pretty obviously drawing a connection between
the first day of the week when God begun to create everything, and the first day of the new week when everything was re–created.”

Replied I, GE:
First: We know nothing from the Gospels what Barnabas was doing.
Two: From Barnabas himself it is not at all obvious he drew a connection between, quoting TZ:
“the first day of the week when God begun to create everything, and the first day of the new week when everything was re–created.”
That is what TZ thinks – not what Barnabas wrote. (I have shown above what Barnabas wrote – and thought.)
Three: SUPPOSE Barnabas had the Gospels' ONLY account of the day and time of Jesus' resurrection in mind – Mt.28:1.
Then keep in mind he wrote about a quarter of a century before Justin and could therefore not have been misled by Justin's rendering of Mt.28:1.
So Barnabas – who wrote in Greek had Mt.28:1 the way we read it today in its ORIGINAL text in mind – we suppose.
Then: he pretty obviously drew a connection between the Seventh Day of the week “Sabbath”, when God FINISHED ALL HIS WORKS when everything was re–created by “the exceeding greatness of His power to us–ward ... which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead” ... “IN THE SABBATH'S FULLNESS” – opse de sabbatohn – every thought and every word written “according to (as could and should be expected) the Scriptures”!
The LAST 'day / period' is what Barnabas was writing about – not the First Day.
Four: Then for TZ's information: You did not give in English what Matthew or Mark (16:9) wrote; you gave Justin's perversion of Mt.28:1.
Five: And with that you have the EARLIEST (after Gal.4:10) indication of how Sunday–observance started in the Christian Church – it began with the adulteration of the Scriptures— adulteration like that of TZ’s.

 

Barnabas associates the 'Sabbaths' – the Old Covenant Sabbath by reason of the Law – with some allegorical period which he describes metaphorically with the phrase “the eighth day” – “the eighth day IN WHICH, Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into heaven”.
Regardless of what the Gospels say, it is what is stated in Barnabas! 'Very specifically' this is NO specific 'day' of the week! The ONLY thing 'pretty obvious', is that Barnabas does NOT 'identify' the 'eighth day' with the First Day of the week, but rather associates it with the 'old' Sabbaths, even in their 'present unacceptability'.

Barnabas blames Christians (“children”, 4) for keeping their “present Sabbaths” without Christian meaning. He does not vent 'anti–Jewish sentiments' at all, but explains that Christians, no longer should keep the Sabbath because the Law forces them to. According to Barnabas, in believing in Christ, these Christians ought to have found the true Sabbath that God from the beginning had intended for them – which according to Barnabas was no literal day whatsoever.

Barnabas does so through a process of reasoning the literal Seventh Day Sabbath of creation (15:1–3) as ‘meaning’ a period of “thousand years” (4); as well as ‘meaning’ some metaphysical day of judgement (5). The Sabbath – according to Barnabas – no longer can be a specific day, the First Day of the week included, because impossible to keep properly, but rather is 'meant' as a “promise” of Christ – 6–7.

8: “Further He says to them (at Sinai, 15:1, “my sons”, 2), I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths!  See what He means,
Unacceptable are (your) present Sabbaths to me, but that acceptable thing which I had made, in which thing I shall rest everything, a beginning of an eighth day that is (the) beginning of another world – wherefore also, we celebrate the eighth day with joy, in which day Jesus rose from the dead, and (after) having been made manifest, indeed ascended into heavens.” (Rendering CGE)

In this there is no suggestion of the First Day of the week! Barnabas presents ‘the–new–meaning–the–Sabbath–received’ in the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was this,
“... Something I had made / perfected – ho pepoiehka”, and “in which everything rested”, which now, was made “a beginning of another world” (8b). This is a direct reference by Barnabas to 15:3, where “He (God) speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the creation”, when “God on the Seventh Day in the day (of it) made and end / perfected (sunetelesen), and in it rested, and sanctified it (the Seventh Day)”.

According to Barnabas this day, and “in it”, first of all, the 'new' world of the Christ–era “became”, or “was made a beginning of”. And in the end, it meant, that “When the Son comes, He will destroy the time of the wicked one, and then He will truly rest on the Seventh Day”. (5)

“No one, at the present time, has the power to keep holy the day which God had made holy” (6) – which can 'mean' any or both of the Seventh Day or the experiencing of the reality of the 'day' of the 'new beginning'.   “But when all things have been made new by the Lord; then we shall be able to keep it holy”. (7) Barnabas here of course refers to the new earth after Christ's return, and again he is ambiguous as to the keeping holy of the Seventh Day or the 'day' of the 'new beginning'.   In any case, Barnabas makes association between the Seventh Day Sabbath of the creation and the new Sabbaths of after Christ had come and had made everything new through resurrection from the dead.    The First Day never comes into the picture.


Only one perfection is envisioned by Barnabas – the “ending made / perfected” which is simultaneously the “beginning made / perfected” of, and in, and by, the single and comprehensive moment of Jesus Christ being 1, raised, and 2, of Him appearing (before the throne of God), and 3, of Him being taken up or exalted into heavens. (9)

This is what Barnabas meant is the Sabbath–Seventh Day's “meaning”: “He (God) means this!”, 4, “Notice children, what is the meaning of He made and end ...”. It is “an eighth day” that is BOTH and AT ONCE God's “making and END”, and His 'making a NEW BEGINNING”.
Common sense despite Barnabas himself, can only 'identify' this “eighth day” with the Seventh Day he has been speaking of all along – the Sabbath Day that “presently” was kept in an “unacceptable”, Judaistic way for the Law's sake, and not because and for the sake of Jesus Christ. With that, my conviction is in perfect sympathy.

If the First Day of the week ever came into play or at all was relevant, Barnabas would have mentioned it in so many words; he would have made the direct association between the Christ–event and the First Day of the week which he is making between the Christ–event and the Seventh Day Sabbath. Because Barnabas specifically and in detail makes mention of God’s Divine acts of the Seventh Day, he would have pointed out the actual deeds of God on and of the First Day, 'meant' he, the First Day of the week. Barnabas would have done as Justin two or three decades later would do – he would have mentioned the First Day, and he would have mentioned God's creation of light on the First Day. Not the least allusion to anything of the kind can be traced though. Barnabas at no stage had the First Day of the week in mind, I repeat. And I repeat, to force the First Day into association with the 'Eighth Day' because of false 'translation' of Mt.28:1, amounts to adulterating the Scriptures— the exact same way Justin did.

If this gets regarded as below the standards of SDANet for publishing, I would call it cowardice for hearing the truth. And kindly don't repeat the objection it is “incoherent”, for better coherency in this case of Barnabas' allegorical reasoning, is just not possible, and is used as an easy but poor excuse to present a better explanation of Barnabas in this matter than ever before.

1 October 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buried Before Sunset On Same Day Crucified?

 

Women Prepared Spices at the End, while Men at Days’ Beginning.

Why would nobody have had preparations ready before Jesus would be buried? Because nobody, not even Joseph, knew He would be buried.  Yet Joseph, just after he had taken the body down and away to prepare, bought linen, and Nicodemus later on brought spices to prepare the body, all before the actual interment. Then after the body had been laid and the tomb had been closed, the two Marys without interruption, went to prepare spices and ointments on the very same day still and before it would be over. If for burial the women ‘prepared’ or ‘bought’ spices, Joseph and Nicodemus had to have done their part, after the women, and the women their business, before the men. But we find it the other way round. It will not help to prolong the duration of the concept, ‘evening’ – the only explanation is, Jesus was buried on the day after the day He was crucified and died on.

 

Cronin:

Note: The buying and preparing of the spices and oils by the women occurred between two Sabbaths. Therefore, these two Sabbaths could not have been concurrent, as is popularly believed. And, as John 19:31 explains, the first Sabbath, the one immediately after Jesus' death, was a High Day, that is, an annual Holy Day, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.

 

“The buying and preparing...” – Wrong!  “The buying and preparing occurred between two Sabbaths...” – Wrong! ‘The preparing occurred’ immediately after the interment on the first of the two consecutive ‘sabbaths’, on the Passover’s ‘Great Day’–sabbath, in its closing hours before sunset before the weekly Sabbath.  And ‘the buying occurred’, after the second ‘sabbath’, after “the Sabbath according to the commandment”, after it “had gone through” – so that the women “bought” spices, on the First Day of the week in fact— not to be confused with their ‘preparations’ on Friday afternoon. “Therefore, these two Sabbaths could not have been concurrent, as is popularly believed”, nor could they have been separated by another ‘ordinary’ day between them, as you would have liked it popularly believed. Yet it was on precisely this ‘intermediate’ day of your imagining which in actual fact was the Passover’s sabbath–day, that Joseph and Nicodemus did their undertaking— according to your reasoning then, after the women— while in fact the women did their preparations after the men!

 

Only the ‘preparing’ of the spices and oils by the two Marys ‘occurred’, well on “(Friday) afternoon / while  the (weekly) sabbath drew on” well on Passover–sabbath of that Friday.  And only the ‘buying’ (for Salome’s sake) – “occurred”,  “after the Sabbath”.  The “buying” of the spices by three women, was “after the Sabbath” or “when the Sabbath was past”— nothing of the sort “occurred” on any day in “between two Sabbaths”!  ... The “two Sabbaths” were: Friday ‘Passover–sabbath’; and Saturday ‘weekly Sabbath’, Nisan 15 and Nisan 16. Crucifixion was on “The Preparation of the Passover”, Nisan 14, Thursday.

 

Cronin:

Then “they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).

 

No women or men after the crucifixion and before sunset prepared or bought spices or ointments.   No women before or for the burial, prepared or bought spices or ointments. Nobody ever expected a burial!  The two Marys on Friday afternoon after the burial “prepared”; and they and Salome on Saturday evening after the burial, “went to buy” spices and ointments, so that they “on the Sabbath day according to the commandment”, the Fourth Commandment, first “rested”.  The way you emphasised, the women both ‘returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested, on the Sabbath day according to the commandment’, as if ‘the commandment’, were a ‘ceremonial commandment’. But they rather ‘returned and prepared spices and ointments’ after they had seen the tomb closed; then, “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment”. 

All and any preparations or buying of spices or ointments before or for the burial, were made by men, before “the Sabbath according to the Commandment” but after “it had become evening” — therefore, were made during Thursday night on “the Day of Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath”–Friday. Any and all preparations or buying of spices or ointments for the burial were made during about six hours or longer after the crucifixion and only after Joseph had begun with the customary preparations for burial, about fifteen to twenty hours before he closed the grave “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”!

The women on Friday afternoon after the burial “went home” – to Jerusalem like in every time Luke uses the word “to return” – hupostréphoh, Lk23:54–56.  The women’s was a returning to prepare. Theirs then was no returning after a purchase of ointments and spices, because this was “(Friday) afternoon”, not Saturday evening “when the Sabbath was past”, Mk16:2, and the women “went and bought spices”.  This was their second ‘returning’ – their first was after the crucifixion the day before. (Lk23:56 cf. 48c)  “They prepared spices and ointments” directly after the two Marys had “looked on how the body was laid”. Then, “the Sabbath approached”, and they after they had done to prepare, “began to rest the Sabbath”, the ‘Sabbath’ in both 54 and 56.  The “preparation” of spices by the two Marys therefore was on Friday afternoon after the burial and “before the Sabbath” ‘epéfohsken sábbaton’.  The “buying” of the spices by three women, was “after the Sabbath” (Mk16:1a) – more than 24 hours later.  Both the after the burial “preparation” and after the burial “buying”, were meant for application at the first possible opportunity after the Sabbath, which the women must have realised because of the Roman guard, would present itself after midnight of Saturday night when the Roman day and watch would have ended. Therefore, “deepest morning (‘orthrou batheohs’) came the women bringing their spices …”, Lk24:1.

 

Cronin:

“When evening 2  had come...” Joseph of Arimathea walked ... to Pilate ... to ask of him the body of Jesus” ... “Note the use and application of the term “evening.”  Clearly, evening was before sunset and must have been considerably longer than just an hour and twenty minutes before sunset. Joseph had time enough to do all these things and still finish before sunset. Since the Passover could not be sacrificed until “between the two evenings,” and according to some, that must be between 3:00 in the afternoon and sunset, but others consider it to be between sunset and dark, this scripture is evidence that it is the former definition that is the Biblically accepted meaning of the term.

 

Since the Passover had to be sacrificed “between the PAIR OF NIGHTS” – that of the 14th Nisan ending and that of the 15th Nisan beginning – Jesus was crucified 9 am and died 3:00 in the afternoon. Then after sunset, between sunset and dark, this Scripture (Mk.15:42 / Mt.27:57) is evidence that after sunset is the definition that is the Biblically accepted meaning of the term.  Mk.15:42 / Mt.27:57 has no relevancy to the time of the sacrifice of the Passover – it simply gives the time when Joseph began undertaking.

Evening was after sunset and Joseph must have had time considerably longer than just an hour and twenty minutes. He had enough time to do all these things; in fact, he had until the following day about 3 p.m., well ‘before sunset’.  Mk15:42 and Mt27:57 have no ‘between’, nor “two evenings”, but ‘opsia’, singular.  So does any day have one undividable evening, always from sunset until dark, which when Joseph appeared on the scene,  had already begun. ‘Evening’, even ‘considered to be between sunset and dark”, is still ‘evening’ after sunset, not “before sunset”. To make Joseph and the women start after 3 pm, “do all these things”, “go home and prepare spices”, “and still finish before sunset” or forty minutes later, is not even comical.  The Greek word here used, opsía, without exception means the early part of night after sunset before deep night (6 to 7.30 maybe 8 pm)— fifteen times without exception in the NT! Mark and Matthew say “evening already had begun” and that “it was the Preparation”. Mark says “the Preparation which is the Fore–sabbath”, that is to say, Friday. John says Joseph did so “after these things”, 19:38, referring to “The Jews (who) therefore because it was the Preparation (now), that the bodies should not on the sabbath day remain upon the cross because that sabbath would be a great day— asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified broken.” Jn19:31.  The Sixth Day was beginning; it was after sunset at night now, and the “great day” of Passover–”sabbath”, prospective.

Cronin’s theory of a day in between the burial and resurrection of Jesus ignoring about every mentioned fact of the Gospels, presumes Jesus was crucified as well as buried before this ‘sabbath’, and was resurrected on the day after it. We maintain in contrast, Jesus was crucified before the ‘Great Day’–sabbath of Passover, was interred, on it, and rose from the dead, after it, “On the (weekly) Sabbath Day”.

‘It was a Great Day the day of that sabbath’,  ‘ehn megáleh heh hehméra ekéínou tou sabbátou’. ‘The Great Day–sabbath’ was so called because it was the Passover–sabbath of Nisan 15, not because it concurred with the weekly Sabbath. It without a day in between, preceded the weekly Sabbath. In other words, Friday was Nisan 15 in the year of the crucifixion, not Nisan 14, because on Nisan 14 the Passover–sacrifice was slaughtered, and the next day of Nisan 15, was eaten and its remains returned to the earth. Now Jesus on this ‘Great Day–sabbath’ was buried— on the very “Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath”; “There laid they Jesus because of the Jews’ Preparation”— ‘The Preparation Day’ of and for the weekly Sabbath.

 

 

 

Cronin:

“When evening had come...” Joseph of Arimathea walked from Golgotha to Pilate         (presumably at the Praetorium) to ask of him the body of Jesus (Matt 27:57–58, Mark 15:42–43, Luke 23:50–52, John 19:38).

 

Incorrect! “walked from Golgotha”— Nobody remained at Golgotha; “everybody returned”, says Luke. We don’t know from where “Joseph came”.

 

Cronin:

Pilate investigated the death of Jesus, to find “if he had been dead for some time” (Mark 15:44), and granted Joseph his request (Matt 27:58, Mark 15:45, John 19:38. Joseph went to buy “fine linen” — presumably in Jerusalem (Mark 15:46).

 

For the exact order of Joseph’s actions – he first took the body down, and then removed it from the place of the crucifixion to the place he could “treat the body”, and then only, must have gone out to buy the linen. The implication is, Joseph did not immediately and at the cross, prepare or bury the body of Jesus.

 

Cronin:

He then walked back to Golgotha to retrieve the body.

 

Joseph then walked back to the place he had taken the body to for safekeeping and preparation – probably where he stayed for the Passover; it isn’t recorded; we correctly may assume it.  

 

Cronin:

He and Nicodemus (John 19:39) “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices...” (John 19:40, Matt 27:59), “and laid it in his [Joseph's] own new tomb” (Matt 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:39–42).

 

Here you put together two events that in fact had been separated by quite a few hours and the going under of the sun! Although the text in Mark and Matthew mentions different things in one breath, it does not mean they happened simultaneously. John e.g., mentions Nicodemus’ arrival at the scene of Joseph’s preparation of the body some good part of the night after Joseph’s initial request for and removal of the body. The preparation was properly done “according to the Jewish usage”, and must have taken Joseph – and later on also Nicodemus – the whole night! This brings us to the two things I say you should have separated instead of have put together: They are: “... (they) wound it in linen cloths with the spices...”, and “... laid it in his [Joseph's] tomb”. Most part of night, and good deal of day, separated Joseph’s first initiatives and the finishing of his undertaking.

 

Cronin:

“And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on” (Luke 23:54, John 19:42).

 

Here we have the last word on Jesus’ burial, “as the sun (“light” – fohs) was sinking towards (the west), the Sabbath approaching” – epéfohsken sábbaton— not of his death. The weekly Sabbath approached.  You in the wrong place make it the ‘Great Day’–sabbath of Passover that was prospective; you confuse Mk15:42 and Mt27:57 for this place, Lk23:53–56. But see Lk23:48–49 which you have overlooked! In Lk23:53–56 it is the immediate day before “the Sabbath according to the Commandment” – the weekly Sabbath, that was running out. You seem to have forgotten that you yourself have shown how on the day before, after the crucifixion and after “the evening had come”, Joseph only had begun his undertaking, so that, by the time he – the next day – had finished, “it was the preparation, and / while the sabbath drew on”— “that day”, had been, the burial; which implies, crucifixion had had happened the day before, and was, the Thursday. 

 

Cronin:

“And the women also, which came with Him from     Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre and how his body was laid” (Luke 23:55, Matt 27:61, Mark 15:47).

 

This happened just before your point “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on” (Luke 23:54, John 19:42).”

The women followed in the procession to the grave. They must have joined with Joseph and Nicodemus during the course of Friday morning. Four people only – the Scriptures mention them only – “beheld how his body was laid”. Only these knew of the interment – nobody else – no disciple besides these, and no Jew or Roman.

 

Cronin:

“And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on”.

 

... referring to the burial, not the crucifixion. The women after the burial and after sundown, “began to rest the Sabbath” the whole Sabbath’s rest (Ingressive Aorist). On Sabbath morning, the Jews came to know of Jesus’ burial— all their plans thwarted, and asked Pilate to have the grave sealed and guarded “for the third day”, Mt27:62–66.

 

 

Cronin:

“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Solome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him” (Mark 16:1).

 

“(H)ad bought” is old English for the ordinary past tense. The Greek simply states the fact: “When the Sabbath was past, the three women “bought sweet spices”. This time there are three women – Salome who was absent from the burial has now joined the two Marys. The buying of spices most probably was for the sake of her who did not know about the burial.

“(T)hat they might come and anoint him” has a future, tentative connotation. They “bought when the Sabbath had passed” – that is, they bought during the evening of after–sunset, ‘Saturday’–night. But they could not immediately go and anoint Him. Why not? Because according to the Roman reckoning of time the guard’s watch would last till midnight. Only after midnight would any disciples of Jesus again be allowed to approach the grave. Mk16:2 gives a time of a later actualised visit of the women to the grave when it was “very early sunrise” – lían prohí anatéílantos tou hehlíou – by far not the time of their buying the spices just after sunset.

 

Cronin:

As John 19:31 explains, the first Sabbath, the one immediately after Jesus' death, was a High Day, that is, an annual Holy Day, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath.

Rather, as John 19:31 explains, the first of the two Sabbaths was the one on which Joseph would bury Jesus, and was a High Day, that is, an annual Holy Day, the First Day of Unleavened Bread, not the weekly Sabbath. It was pending because it had just begun.  The Passover Institution had the “remains” of the Passover lambs returned to dust and earth on the Feast Sabbath that followed “the day when they always slaughtered the Passover”. Ex12:10. When Jesus was crucified our Passover and Lamb of God, His body was sealed in the earth on the Passover Feast’s Sabbath Day – “a Great Day that day was”, John says. “That day” was what we call, Friday, and “the Sabbath approaching” was “the Sabbath according to the (Ten) Command–ment(s)”— the second and consecutive Sabbath during that Passover Feast. “They could not have been concurrent”, but also were not separated by a day in

between them.

 

Cronin:

“Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”  (Matt 28:1 3 , Luke 24:1, Mark 16:2, John 20:1)

 

There are two crucial mistakes in this ‘translation’ of the text. “Dawn” from ‘epifohskóúsehi’ should be “afternoon” – like in Lk.23:56 where “the Sabbath approached”–‘epéfohsken sábbaton’ on Friday afternoon; and ‘came’ should be “went to look”, “éhlthen theohréhsai”. Because of the guard the women’s intention “to go have a look at the grave” was frustrated; and the occurrence of the earthquake made impossible the occurrence of their intended visit. Also from the reports of the women’s realised visits to the grave on Sunday morning is it clear they had not actually visited the grave before then.

 

Cronin:

The women could not have bought the spices after the sun set on “Saturday” because:

If there had been any businesses open on the Sabbath (unlikely, because the Jews were strict in not allowing such at that time) they would have closed for the day before dark; and,

It is highly unlikely that any businesses would have opened after sunset.

 

‘Businesses ... unlikely’, but for any who “have need against Passover”—  see Jn13:29. Here it was Joseph and Nicodemus “after it had become evening ...”, even “night”, “in need against Passover” for the interment of the Lamb of God’s Passover.  And the women before sunset on this very ‘Great Day’ “the Sabbath approaching”, “in need against Passover” indeed ‘preparing’ for the embalmment of the Lamb of God’s Passover “after the Sabbath had gone through”! These were no ‘foolish virgins’ who before midnight bought their oil, but faithful followers “in need against Passover” “nothing let remaining … with loins girded, shoes on, and staff in hand … this night … the LORD’s Passover” observing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

1.”The ninth hour...” (3 p.m.) Jesus died.  Matt 27:46–50, Mark 15:34–37, Luke 23:44–46, John 19:28–30).

2.”When evening had come...” (6 p.m.) Joseph of Arimathea walked to Pilate to ask of him the body of Jesus (Matt 27:57–58, Mark 15:42–43, Luke 23:50–52, John 19:38).

3. Pilate investigated the death of Jesus, to find “if he had been dead for some time” (Mark 15:44), and granted Joseph his request (Matt 27:58, Mark 15:45, John 19:38.

4. Joseph then walked back to Golgotha and took the body down and away.

5. He then went to buy “fine linen” (Mark 15:46).

6. He and Nicodemus (John 19:39) “Then treated the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices...” (John 19:40, Matt 27:59),

7. “And the women also, who came with Him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre and how his body was laid” (Luke 23:55, Matt 27:61, Mark 15:47). “and (they) laid it in his [Joseph's] own new tomb” (Matt 27:60, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, John 19:39–42).

8. Then “they returned, and prepared spices and ointments...(Luke 23:56).

8. “And (retrospectively) that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath (now) drew on” (Luke 23:54, John 19:42).

9. “They (the women) started to rest the Sabbath Day according to the commandment.”

10. “Late on the Sabbath Day, after the noon, before the First Day of the week, (when) went Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to look at the grave, and suddenly there was an earthquake …” Mt.28:1

11. “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Solome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him (Mark 16:1).”

 

Christ entered hell and tasted death, from “the table”, through Gethsémané and onward, and died and was dead while on the cross for the last three hours of the Preparation day “of the Passover”, and for the entirety of the first High Day Sabbath ‘the intervening day’ Friday, the second day of the Passover Season, was dead and buried all but the last three hours of the last weekly Sabbath, Saturday, “the third day according to the Scriptures” — exactly three days and three nights, just as scripture declares (Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, Mr 9:31, 10:34, Lu 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 21, 46, Ac 10:40, I Cor 15:4).  There is no finagling needed (redefining what a day and night is) to get Scripture to agree with some preconceived and errant doctrine.

 

Cronin:

It is also noteworthy that A. T. Robertson, in A Harmony of the Gospels, declares that the women visited the tomb at dusk* at the end of the Sabbath (sunset on Saturday)*, not at dawn on the first day of the week (Sunday) as is popularly believed. ... (meaningless omitted.)

 

*** ‘at’ – before or after sunset? Robertson does not say these things! Cronin obviously means to say ‘ascended’ – not, ‘risen’.  Jesus was the First Sheaf through resurrection from the dead waved before the Lord and “exalted to the right hand of the power of God in heavenly places” right there on the soil of Calvary’s hill “in (earthly) Sabbath’s time” (Mt.28:1)! (Ro.1:4, 14:9, Eph.1:19f, Col.2:12, 15, Phil.2:8–9, 3:10a

 

Cronin:

After having risen from the dead (GE: on the “afternoon of the Sabbath” – opse sabbátohn epifohskóúsehi), what was he doing all night long while waiting for the disciples to discover him alive at the tomb? However, if it had only been a few minutes since his resurrection to when the women discovered the empty tomb (as is suggested by Matt 28:1–15 and Mark 16:1–4), there is no interval to question.

 

GE:

“.... what was he doing all night long while waiting...”? Cronin’s ‘answer’ does not solve his ‘problem’ as were it a ‘problem’ for Jesus ‘all night long to have to waited for the disciples to discover him alive at the tomb’. That “the women discovered the empty tomb (as is suggested by Matt 28:1–15 and Mark 16:1–4)”, makes no difference, and there still is the “interval to question”, “what was he doing all night long while waiting for the disciples to discover him alive”?

 

There is NO “interval to question” in Matt 28:1–15 or Mark 16:1–4, and it had NOT been “only a few minutes since his resurrection to when the women discovered the empty tomb”. Since his resurrection to when the women discovered the empty tomb was as many hours as between 3 pm to after 12 pm on Saturday night when “on the First Day of the week” in “deep darkness” (Lk.24:1) the women “came, bringing the spices” to anoint the body. Only Mary had an earlier glimpse of the rolled away stone “when it was still early darkness” (Jn.20:1) of that same night.

Jesus Christ, our Passover lamb, was sacrificed and died at the time of the Passover sacrifice of the lambs in the afternoon at the end of the 14th of Abib (Nisan) — which occurred on a Thursday (in 30 AD), the year of his crucifixion.  He was finally “laid” in the sepulchre in the afternoon before sunset the next day, and he experienced death and was in  “the heart of the earth” for … three days and three nights, as he had said He would, until he rose from the dead and his grave in the afternoon long before sunset on that week's Sabbath — NOT on Sunday morning, as is popularly believed.

 

 

 

 

 

Cronin:

Footnotes:

Translation from A.T. Robertson's A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper San Francisco, p. 239 — He footnotes this verse (Matt 28:1) with: “This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koine Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the Sabbath was over … (before 6 p.m. on Saturday). But the same Greek idiom was occasionally (GE: two centuries later!) used in the sense of after.' Robertson goes on to say that the women likely bought the spices after sunset. But this is contradictory. (GE: It is no contradiction) Robertson orders Matt 28:1 the time the women visited the sepulchre (GE: They did not ‘visit’ – they “set off to go have a look”, but obviously they did not execute what they intended to do.) at the end of the Sabbath, before Mark 16:1 (the buying of the spices and oils, after the Sabbath), in effect, saying that the women went to the sepulchre with the spices and oils ––– GE: Cronin saying, not Robertson.  This also is not what Matthew or Mark says; Luke says it – one of those “certain details included in one account that are not in another”!  GE: So they “the earliest morning” – Luke, went to the sepulchre WITH the spices which the Marys the Friday afternoon already had prepared, as well as WITH those they had “bought ... when the Sabbath was over / through”.

 

Cronin:

“This … shows that there is (GE: all the) evidence that Jesus did not die on a Friday night and rise on a Sunday morning … and that translators are subject to bending scripture toward their preconceived beliefs over the truth.”

GE:

Cronin not only perverts the Scriptures; he also perverts Robertson’s words and thoughts.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

 

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? End quote

 

The providence of God in the development of

‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’!

 

Many a time as I wrote on ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’, I discovered that there all the while were others who experienced the same problems and came to the same conclusions as I have about things I thought I have found and tried to unravel all by myself. I often suspected things to be not as traditionally accepted, only to be surprised by the reality there are others who agreed with me— or with whom I, agreed . Sometimes the similarities appeared self–evident and virtually identical; sometimes they were less conclusive.

But God and my book are my witnesses I never borrowed or copied the doctrines of others, whether individual or denominational. My ideas are my own, nevertheless not mine, but, I pray God, of His Word. My book, I believe, proves the genuineness of my hopes and claims.

It must be remembered the book didn’t take shape in time as it did in form. Many sections are later inserted. I tried to follow in structure the sequence of the events of the days of God’s Passover. Thereafter the historical development of the Church to an extent determined the place in the series each Part would receive. Larger parts shifted into their positions after others had been completed. And so was it with many smaller parts perhaps comprised of but a single idea.

Till today some sections of the book are far from finished or not even started properly. (The “monstrous scope”, as Barth said, of the Sabbath Commandment! Its “vast scope”, said Calvin I think, or was it Thomas Watson?)

Here then, is one – and not the least – of those occasions of unawares coincidence.  I did know – or came to know many years after the formulation of my ‘first’ ideas had taken final shape – about A. T. Robertson on this subject in his ‘Grammar’, where he reaches conclusion but cautiously. I would not have thought he in another work of his, would agree with the results I have found, so almost exactly and unconditionally!  I don’t hesitate to admit the solace and inspiration it was to me to find myself in this regard ‘on the same side’ that this great scholar had stood. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Begin en Einde van Laaste Lyding

 

Ons vraagstuk doen homself op tweërlei wyse aan ons voor as die vraag na die betekenis van Mt12:40 en die “drie dae en drie nagte” waarin “die Seun van die Mens in die hart van die aarde”, was.

 

Ons Geloofsbelydenis verduidelik “in die hart van die aarde”, as dat Jesus “ter helle neergedaal” het:

“Ek glo in God, die Almagtige, Vader, Skepper van hemel en aarde, en in Jesus Christus sy eniggebore Seun, ons Here, van die Heilige Gees ontvang en uit die maagd Maria gebore, wat onder Pontius Pilatus gely het en gekruisig was, gesterf het en begrawe is, wat neergedaal het na die hel,  en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan het uit die dode, wat opgevaar het na die hemel en sit aan die regterhand van die krag van God.”

Die volgorde van Jesus se ‘neerdaling’ déúr die lyding héén van sterwens–pyn en doods–smarte, van sterwe, en van die dood sélf, is nie kronologies in die Belydenis nie, maar volgens intensiwiteit. ‘Ter helle neergedaal’ som op wat Christus se lyding in totaliteit beteken het –– “... gely ... gekruisig... gesterf ... ... neergedaal, en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan, uit die dode ...”.   Wanneer Jesus sy laaste lyding vir die versoening van sondes íngaan – ‘ter helle neerdáál’, sterwe, begrawe word, en weer opstaan –, sal alles afhang van wat dit is wat sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan betéken, en waarmee dit ingelui sal wees. 

Eerstens wat dit gaan beteken.

“Wat neergedaal het na die hel”, en dan, “en ... opgestaan het uit die dode”, staan alles–verduidelikend náás én teenóór mekaar as uiterste teenoorgesteldes. Daarmee, plaas die Belydenis “ter helle neergedaal” nie soseer ná “gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf” nie, maar juis vóór, “en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan uit die dode”.

“Ter helle neergedaal” word ná “gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf” geplaas, om dit te skei van dié dinge wat Christus direk onder Pontius Pilatus, “gely het”. Pilatus kon Jesus “oorlewer om gekruisig en gedood te word”; maar dit was nie hý, wat Gód, daartoe gebring het om só lief te hê “dat Hy sy Eniggebore Seun gegee het”, om vir die sonde te sterwe en aldus die smarte van die helse dood te deurgaan nie. Nee, dít, was God se eie, en genade–daad én wilsbesluit. Daarom sê die Belydenis nié, “... gely ... gekruisig ... neergedaal ... gesterf ...” nie, maar, “... gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf ... neergedaal ...”, om “neergedaal”, van ‘Pilatus’, wég te kry. Want God in Christus, het alreeds van ewigheid af, sy eie verheerliking–deur–neerdaling–ter–helle, gewil, sowel as begin en onderneem. Ten laaste is dit Gód wat hier en laastens handel, en seëvier, en nie die begeertes en swakhede van die mens (in Pontius Pilatus verteenwoordig) nie. Dit dan oor die volgorde in die bewoording van ons Belydenis.

Ons het inleidend gesê: Ons vraagstuk doen homself op tweërlei wyse aan ons voor as die vraag na die betekenis van ons Geloofsbelydenis dat Jesus “ter helle neergedaal” het,  en die betekenis van Mt12:40 en die “drie dae en drie nagte” waarin “die Seun van die Mens in die hart van die aarde” was.  Wanneer Jesus sy laaste lyding dan sou íngaan, om ‘ter helle neer te daal’, te sterwe, begrawe te word, en weer op te staan, sal alles afhang van wát dit is, wat sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan inlui.

Mense het met twee ‘oplossings’ vir die oënskynlike ‘probleem’ van wat die ‘drie dae’ van ‘ter helle neerdaling’ sou beteken, vorendag gekom. Volgens my kennis is die ene, ’n splinternuwe fenomeen, en weereens sover ek weet, heeltemal onbekend in die Christelike dogma tot omtrent die begin van die twintigste eeu. Hierdie nuutjie wil dan hê dat die periode wat Jesus in die graf gelê het die periode van sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ was, en dat die periode wat Hy in die graf was, die periode uitgemaak het waarna die Skrifte as die “drie dae en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde” verwys. Met ander woorde, “Die drie dae en drie nagte” van Mt12:40 begin die oomblik wat Josef die graf toegemaak het, en eindig die oomblik toe die engel die graf weer oopgemaak het. Of so sê hierdie mense wat vir hulle drogrede op lasterlike wyse van 1Pt3:18–22 misbruik maak. Ons gaan nie nou daarop antwoord nie, behalwe om daarop te wys dat dit sou beteken het dat Jesus nie regtig gesterwe het nie. Tyd vir of nodigheid aan arbitrêre wanvoorstellings wat die aandag nie werd is nie, het ons nie.

Die ander opvatting is die oue – die een wat “die Een Algemene Christelike Kerk” (volgens die Belydenis) nog altyd geglo en bely het, maar wat vir baie van ons vreemd op die ore geword het. Hierdie Evangelies regte en ware verstaan van Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ en opstanding “volgens die Skrifte op die derde dag” van die “drie dae en drie nagte”, is dan eenvoudig wat ons as Christene gewoonweg en sonder bevraagtekening, nog altyd gegló, het: “... neergedaal het na die hel, gesterf het en begrawe is en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan het uit die dode ...”.

So ver dit verskille tussen die twee verklarings van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ en ‘ter helle neergedaal’ aanbetref, is die eerste en opvallendste verskil dat die nuutjie die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ in beginsel laaste plaas, naamlik, ná Christus se kruisiging, sterwe en begrafnis; terwyl die aanvaarde ou opvatting volgens ons Belydenis, die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ in beginsel éérste plaas, naamlik, vóór Christus se begrafnis. Jesus se ‘neerdaling na die hel’ en die ewige dood – sy ondervinding van ‘in die hart van die aarde’ te gewees het –, word deur sy ganse laaste, en léwende, ten volle bewúste, lydingserváring, uitgemaak: van vóór sy kruis, áán sy kruis; en van ín sy sterwe, déúr sy sterwe, van vóór sy dood, tot áán sy dood en ín sy dood.

Dit laat onmiddellik die vraag opkom: Hoe is dit moontlik dat Jesus neergedaal het na die hel terwyl Hy nog nie gesterf het nie? En ek wil antwoord: Omdat ons al te gou gewoond geraak het aan die verskuilde onheil bevat in die nuwe opvatting; en lankal te lui geword het om vir onsself die waaragtige aan die hand van die Skrifte te gaan herbevestig. Plaas dat ons die moeite doen om behoorlike brood by die bakker te gaan koop, koop ons sommer so deur die kar se venster die halfgebakte en onsuiwer brousels van straatverkopers. En ons spysverteringstelsel moet dit ontgeld. Hoe anders met geestelike dinge?

Hierdie basiese verskil ten opsigte van die ‘neerdaling ter helle’ – wáár ons dit plaas, vóór, of ná, Jesus se dood – laat die tweede vraag ontstaan: Wat is die verwantskap dan tussen Jesus se dood en sy neerdaling ter helle? En my antwoord vir u oorweging sal die volgende wees:– 

Wat is die verskil tussen Jesus se doodslydende sterwe, en sy dood as sodanig? Want dit maak die verskil:– Waarmee ons Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ gaan identifiseer; sy ‘in die hart van die aarde’ gewees het, gaan verklaar! Sê ons Jesus se dood as sodanig is sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ of het Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ ook sy uiteindelike dood as sodanig, voorsien en ingehou? Sê ons Jesus se ondergáán of erváring, of smáák, van die dood déúr lyding en déúr lydende sterwe en doodgemaak wórd – een en dieselfde –, wás sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’? “Die beker wat Ek drink”, en “die Pasga vir My berei om te eet” – híérdie dinge, sal aanstonds Jesus se ‘neerdaal na die hel’ wees; wás na alles, sy ‘neerdaal na die hel’. Sodat, waar Jesus uiteindelik die fisiese en serebrale dood “drie uur namiddag” (Mk15:34) íngaan, Hy úít sy Godsalmagtige ‘lýding’ van die helse tweede dood úít, ín die onbewuste, onbegryplik Godsonmoontlike dood in óórgaan – wat steeds ‘die tweede dood’ en doodstraf vir die sonde blý, totdat Hy die “smarte van die dood ontbind” en verdienstelik deur opstanding uit die dood, die Groot Oorwinnaar uit die Stryd, tree!

Daarom was die een groot versoeking vir Jesus in hierdie sy lydingsdeurgang van helse ewige dood en Godverlatenheid én van Godsbesoeking, die sataniese begeestering na beneweldheid: om nie déúr sy lyding, in gehoorsaamheid die verheerliking van die Vader by volle bewussyn vóórop te blý stel nie; om soos die heidense afgodshelde in ’n trans te raak juis daar waar Hy God se heerlikheid en werke ononderskeibaar in vervolmaking in Homself moes verenig en volbring.

 

 

 

 

Waar het die Here Jesus se ‘benouing tot die dood’ begin?   Sodra ons vir die doelbewuste en gewillige onderganing van helse smarte van Christus besluit het (en téén die mening dat Jesus se neerdaling ter helle onwillekeurig met die oomblik van sy sterwe aanvang geneem het), kan ons vra: Wat lui Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ dan nou in; waarmee begin Sy ondervinding van die smarte, pyniging en lyding van helse afmetings? Of hoe sterf Christus ‘die tweede dood’ en waarso begin Hy om ‘die tweede dood’ te sterwe? Wat lui Jesus se ‘ter helle–neerdaling’ ín?

So gaan ons menslike begrip aan met tekortskiet, en word ons dringend gedwing en dwingend gedring om te vra na die Woord: Wat sê die Skrifte?! Ons honger en dors na die Woord van God vir ’n antwoord: Waarmee die Skrifte Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ laat begin? Begin die Skrifte Jesus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ met sy begrafnis? of eindig die Skrifte Jesus se neerdaling ter helle met sy begrafnis? As dit dan nie met Jesus se begrafnis is dat sy ‘neerdaling ter helle’ aanvang neem nie, waarmee en wanneer dan, neem die ‘drie dae en drie nagte volgens die Skrifte’, hul aanvang? En waarmee en wanneer hou die ‘drie dae en drie nagte volgens die Skrifte’, dan ook op, as dit nie met Jesus se begrafnis opgehou het nie? Want is die volle ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ nie van een en dieselfde duur, as Christus se ‘neerdaling ter helle’ nie?

Hosea 6:1–2, “Die Here het verskeur; en sal ons genees. Hy het geslaan en sal ons verbind. Hy sal ons ná twee dae lewend maak, op die derde dag ons laat opstaan, sodat ons voor sy aangesig kan lewe.”  Christene van fundamentele geloofsoortuiging aanvaar dat hierdie belofte en teken op Christus slaan. ‘Ons’, is in Hóm, en Hy is die Een in Wie ons, ‘opstaan’. Hy is die Een vir ons, ‘geslaan’, en ‘verskeur’. Hy het vir ons, gesterwe. Hý was opgewek, en ons in Hom, het ‘in sy heerlikheid ingegaan’, sodat ons – in Hom – ‘voor sy aangesig kan lewe’. Hierdie Skriftuur praat van Jesus, en mens kan vas aanneem dat Jesus Hosea 6:1–2 ingesluit het toe Hy, “beginnende by Moses”, aan die dissipels op pad na Emmaus “uit al die Skrifte die dinge aangaande Homself, uitgelê het”.

“Moes die Christus nie hierdie dinge ly en in sy heerlikheid ingaan nie?” Lk24:26. “Ly”, en “ingaan in sy heerlikheid”, dui die beginpunt en die eindpunt van beide die ‘ter helle neerdaling’ en die “drie dae en drie nagte” aan. “Die Here het verskeur ... Hy het geslaan” dui die beginpunt aan; “Die Here sal genees ... sal verbind”, dui die eindpunt aan. Die Skrifte is in volle ooreenstemming. Christus se ingaan in sy lyding van die dood is die begin van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’; en sy ingaan in sy heerlikheid deur opstanding uit die dood, is die einde van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’.  Nie sy begrafnis nie, maar Jesus se dood, is die bepalende middelpunt van sy ‘neerdaling na die hel’ of ‘hart van die aarde’, sowel as van die duur van die ‘drie

dae en drie nagte’.

“Hom het God opgewek nadat Hy die smarte, van die dood, ontbind het. … Hierdie Jesus het God opgewek. … Weet dat God Hom Here en Christus gemaak het, hierdie Jesus wat julle, gekruisig het.” Hd2:24. Duidelik van vóór “die dood”, want nog vóór “die dood”, lý, die Christus “die smarte van die dood”! So duidelik van vóór “die dood”, as tot ná “die dood”, want juis ná “die dood”, en ná “die smarte van die dood”, “het God hierdie Jesus, opgewek”!

“Gekruisig”, en, “opgewek”, wys die hoof– en begin– en eind–momente van Christus se neerdaling na die hel uit, asook die hoof– en begin– en eind–momente van sy ‘drie dae en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde’.  Hierdie twee dinge wys die eerste van die ‘drie dae’ ‘volgens die Skrifte’, en “die derde dag volgens die Skrifte”. “Op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte”, het Jesus uit die dood uit opgestaan; op die eerste dag volgens die Skrifte het Jesus in die dood begin neerdaal en het Hy kláár deur doods–sterwe in die dood in, néér, gedaal. (Kláár, met ‘helleváárt’.) Daar is geen ander dag of dae as die tweede dag tussen die eerste en die derde dae, nie; daar is geen ander dag of dae vóór, óf, ná, die eerste en die derde dae nie. Ter laagste het Christus al op die eerste dag van die drie dae ter helle neergedaal. Ter laagste het Hy ter helle op elk van die drie dae waarvan die Skrifte praat, in die dood geblý: “Die derde dag maak Ek klaar”; “in drie dae sal Ek die tempel weer oprig”. “Hom het God opgewek nadat, Hy die smarte van die dood ontbind het.” 

Ter helle het Hy neergedaal vandat die bande van die dood Hom begin omgewe het: “Jona was drie dae en drie nagte in die ingewande van die vis. En Jona het tot die Here sy God gebid uit die ingewande van die vis, en gesê: Uit my benoudheid het ek U aangeroep … uit die binneste van die doderyk (KJV, “hell”) het ek geroep om hulp – U het my stem gehoor. U tog het my in die diepte gewerp, in die hart van die see, sodat ’n stroom my omring het; al u bare en u golwe het oor my heengegaan. Toe, het ek gesê: Ek is weggestoot, weg van u oë; tog sal ek weer u heilige tempel aanskou. Waters het my omring tot aan my siel toe. Die vloed was rondom my; seegras was om my hoof gedraai. Ek het afgedaal tot by die grondslae van die berge, die grendels van die aarde het my vir ewig ingesluit. Maar U het my lewe uit die kuil uit opgetrek, HERE my God! Toe my siel in my versmag het, het ek aan die Here gedink, en my gebed het tot by U gekom in u heilige tempel.”

Waar word eenmaal na Jesus se vertoef in die graf verwys as sy ingaan in of as die ingang tot sy helle–lyding en helle–benouing? Of dan as die aanvang en duur van die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’? Nie eenmaal waarookal nie! Nee, heeltyd in sy ‘hellevaart’ is Jona by sy volle bewussyn, nugter en skerpsinniger as voor of nadat hy in die vis was! Net so ondervind Jesus sy ‘hellevaart’, sy ‘in die hart van die aarde vertoef’, bewustelik, lewendig, en terwyl Hy nog nie ‘dood’ was nie. Christus het die dood, ‘gesterwe’ –oomblik vir oomblik alle ewigheid, “in drie dae”, in “drie dae en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde”!

Eintlik was Christus se menswording alreeds die begin van sy smaak van die ewige dood van sondestraf; en sy hele lewe van lyding en smarte. Hy was ‘’n Man van Smarte bekend met krankheid’ – óns krankheid van siel. Sy hele lewe.  Die begin en eindpunte van Jesus se doodsondervindende neerdaling ter helle begin hier: “Vernietig hierdie tempel.” Jh2:19. Die ‘tempel’, is nie die graf nie, en nie die graf word in ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ vernietig en weer herbou nie, maar die Lewe van Christus. Nie sy toesluiting in die graf maak Jesus “Here en Christus” nie, maar sy doodservarende neerdaling ter helle en wederopstanding uit die dode! “Julle het gekruisig … God het opgewek” merk die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ aan hulle begin en aan hulle einde af.

 

“Die Seun van die Mens word in die hande van mense oorgelewer, en hulle sal Hom doodmaak; en nadat Hy doodgemaak was, sal Hy die derde dag weer opstaan.” Mk9:31.

 

“... gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf ... neergedaal ... en op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte opgestaan uit die dode ...”.   Ons belydenis verskaf ons met die duidelikste definisie van wat ‘neergedaal ter helle’, beteken: Dit beteken: “gely ... gekruisig ...”, vóórdat Hy “... gesterf” het, én, dát Hy, “gesterf hét”, vóórdat Hy dóód was in sy dood!  “Het gely” en “was gekruisig”, is, “het neergedaal”! Daarín dat Christus gesterwe het, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”, en daarín dat Hy weer opgestaan het, het Hy sy neerdaling na die hel van ewige dood, oorkom en beëindig.

Terselfdertyd verskaf ons Belydenis ons met die duidelikste definisie van wat die ‘drie dae en drie nagte in die hart van die aarde’, beteken: Dit beteken: Dat die Christus “in drie dae”, “al hierdie dinge moes ly”, en dat Hy “op die derde dag volgens die Skrifte, opgestaan het uit die dode”.   Ons belydenis meld: “Gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf”. “Gely ... gekruisig ... gesterf ... op die derde dag opgestaan”, sodat Christus ‘drie dae / gedurende drie dae / vir drie dae’, ‘ter helle neergedaald’, was.  “Het gely” en “was gekruisig” en “het gesterwe” maak uit: “Drie dae” van “drie dae en drie nagte”, van “in die hart van die aarde” gewees het!   Daarín dat Christus deur aktiewe wilsdaad gesterwe hét – nie ‘maar net’ dat Hy dood was nie –, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”; daarín dat Christus gestérwe het – nie ‘maar net’ dat Hy begrawe was nie –, het Hy “ter helle neergedaal”;  en daarin dat Hy weer opgestaan het, het Hy sy neerdaling na die hel van ewige dood, déúr, én, úítgegaan; het Hy die ‘drie dae’ van ‘ter helle neerdaling’, oorkom, beëindig en oorwin. ‘Drie dae en drie nagte’ van, ‘neergedaal na die hel’, en God het vir die sondes van baie, versoening bewerk en volmaak, eens vir altyd, in Christus en deur Christus, ons Here.

(Laat ons nogtans nie Jesus se begrafnis vergeet nie, want God het dit ingesluit in sy reëling van die volheid van die tyd, net soos elke ander aspek van die dinge waarmee ons tans te make het. Maar die begrafnis bevind hom in ’n eie ‘katagorie’ wat sowel vernedering as verhoging inhou, want dit lê tussen aan die linker kant die lyding, sterwe en dood van Jesus, en aan die regterkant die opstanding, verhoging en verheerliking van die Christus en Here van God en van ons Belydenis.)

Noudat ons verstaan wat ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ sowel as ‘neerdaling na die hel’ omvattend beteken, kan ons gaan vra na die nadere aanduidings van die begin van Jesus se versoenende en regverdigende lyding, sterwe, en dood. Want hier, gaan Christus die ewige dood van sondestraf vir ewig en geheel die lááste keer, ín! (“Die derde dag maak Ek klaar!” Lk13:32. Die KJV het, “I, shall be perfected.”)   Waar is ‘hier’?  Waar Josef die graf toemaak?  Nee!  Waar die verhoging van God in die neerdaling van sy Christus, begin! Waar? Waar die eerste van die “drie dae volgens die Skrifte”, begin! Waar was dit?   “Op die eerste dag wanneer die Pasga geslag moet word ... toe dit aand geword het” Mk14:12,17, Mt26:17,20, Lk22:7,14, “Aan tafel / gedurende die maaltyd ... omdat Hy wis dat sy uur gekom het ... omdat Hy wis dat die Vader alles in sy hande gegee het en dat Hy van God uitgegaan het en na God heengaan. ... Toe Hy buite was, sê Jesus: Nou, is die Seun van die Mens verheerlik, en is God, in Hom, verheerlik!” Jh13:2,1,3,31–32. “Hy het met sy dissipels óór die spruit Kedron** gegaan.” Jh18:1. “En toe Hy in sware stryd gekom het, het Hy met groot inspanning gebid.” Lk22:44. “My siel is diep bedroef tot die dood toe.” Mt26:37. “Nogtans nie wat Ek wil nie, maar wat U wil!” Mk14:36. “Die Seun van die Mens word in die hande van mense oorgelewer, en hulle sal Hom doodmaak; en nadat Hy doodgemaak was, sal Hy die derde dag weer opstaan.” Mk9:31.

Nie die tydperk óf toestand waarin Jesus se liggaam in die graf gelê het nie, maar die tydperk en toestand en ervaring waarbinne en waardeur Hy bewustelik én onbewustelik sy lewe afgelê het én dood was én begrawe was, totdat Hy weer sy lewe, ópgeneem het, vervul beide die ‘drie dae en drie nagte’ en ‘neergedaal–na–die–hel’ – sowel na tyd as na betekenis.

 

** “die spruit Kedron”. ‘Kedron’ beteken ‘Donkerspruit’. Hierdie spruit was die afvoer–water vir die tempel se onreinhede, sien 2Kron29:16. Hierdie dag neem Jesus alle sondebesoedeling op Homself, om dit eens vir altyd in die tempel van sy eie liggaam, “uit en weg te dra” (KJV ‘carry abroad’).

 

 

 

Christus–Fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

NM 1 A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 PS

11

12

13

14 PtP

15 S–GD

16 EGBO

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Zif

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Sivan

2

3

4

5 Shav

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Tamm

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Ab

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Elul

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

1 Tisri

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Tisri

11

12

13

14

15 Tisri

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Agt ‘sabbatte’!

25

 

 

Nou glo ek mos, soos ek van lankal af geglo het – gaan lees maar boek 3 / 1 – die Pisidia–krisis het hom op die Groot Versoendag afgespeel. Ek het wat die datums en dinge aangaan toentertyd nie die kloutjie mooi by die oor kon kry nie. Na al die jare loop kyk ek toe weer na hierdie aspekte, en watter interessante dinge kom my teë! 

Kyk maar na die kalender hierso. Ons weet mos nou klaar en onteenseglik die Eerste Gerf Beweegoffer was op die Sabbatdag voor die Aangesig van die Here beweeg deur die opstanding van Jesus Christus uit die dode, “Sabbatstyd”, Abib 16 “midde lig–dag–oor–neigend”, of te wel, “namiddag”. Neem nou aan die maande was elk dertig dae lank, dan val die Groot Versoendag – 9 en 10 Tisri of Sewende Maand –, op Donderdag en Vrydag.

Maar dis mos nie op die Sabbat – die weeklikse Sabbat – nie? Reg! Maar wat het die Ou–Testament die Groot Versoendag genoem? Nie ook ’n ‘sabbat’, nie? Natuurlik ja!  Nou hoekom kon dit nie op hierdie vlottende sabbatdag – vlottende deur die weeksdae – wees wat Paulus sy preek in die Kerk gegee het en die Jode te lig geoordeel was, en hulle die Goeie Weg vir laas byster geraak het nie?

Dis presies wat die teks sê! Vir ’n feit in elke opsig in besonderheid uitwys! U dink ek’s mal? Ook goed!

Omdat hierdie ‘oordeelsdag–sabbat’ nie ’n In–bring–Sabbat was nie, maar meer ’n sombere dag van die skeiding van weë en van afkering en wedersydse verlating tussen God en die volk Israel, het God dit juis so beskik dat dit nie die Sabbat van die rus van die HERE jou God moes gewees het nie. Want God reserveer sy Heilige Dag, Die Dag van die Here Jesus, vir die ontmoeting tussen die Nuwe Gelowiges van die ware Volk van God!

Paulus staan op die ‘sabbat’ (14c) van die laaste ‘amptelike’ prediking aan Israel van die Evangelie van die Messias, in die Kerk op en verklaar: “U, manne van Israel – én, julle wat God vrees, Luister!” (16b) Met die intrapslag donder die oordele van God. Nou, die verdere verloop van die dag se gebeure, ken u. Paulus se sweepslae eindig met hierdie woorde: “Nou, laat dit vir julle duidelik wees, julle veragters (van Christus en sy Groot Versoenwerk), staan verwonderd, en vergaan (in julle verbasing), want Ek (Ék, ‘eghóó’, ‘Jawe’ die HERE God) werk ’n werk in julle (rus en heilige sabbatte)–dae— ’n werk wat julle weier om te glo al verklaar en verduidelik wie ookal julle dit hoe goed!”

En toe?  Toe stap die hele lot Jode uit die Kerk uit! Want die God van hierdie mal mens Paulus breek die sabbatte van die Jode! (‘érghon erghádzomai eghóó en tais heemérais humóón— érghon ho ou mee pisteúseete eán tis ekdieeghéétai umíén.’ Dubbele Eerste Persoon; dubbele Ontkenning; dubbele ‘verduideliking’! ) Dit gaan vir die Jode nog steeds oor niks anders as hulle heilige dae nie. Vir hulle is die Vervulling daarvan met die Grootse Inhoud van die Werke van God deur die Beloofde Messias, die gans en by voorbaat onmoontlike! Sodra God in hierdie Jesus Christus juis op die Sabbat–dae al werkende rus en al rustende werk, dan is dit bokant hulle vuurmaakplek en dwars teen hulle piëteit; die toppunt van heiligskennis!  Met sulke Sabbatsontheiligers wil ons nie assosieer nie; ons gee eerder die Kerkgebou en die hele keboedel oor – gooi dit vir die heidene, die honde!

Nee, ons het nie hier met maar net nog ’n Sabbatdag te doen nie: Hierdie is die Groot Versoendag wat die dag van groot onversoenbaarheid word! Heden vandag nog sal die Jode Christus verwerp eerder as om hulle sabbatte te staak. Want hulle leef nog onder die Wet en verag die Genade: die Genade juis as die Opstanding van Christus Jesus uit die dode. Eerder as om Christus die vervulling en rede vir die Sabbatdag te aanvaar, sal hulle saam met Hom, van die hele Godsdiens, afstand doen.

Sou die oordeels–karakter van hierdie sabbatdag nou al wees op grond waarvan ek wil beweer dit was nie die weeklikse Sabbatdag toe hierdie keerpunt in die geskiedenis bereik was nie? Sou die oordeels–karakter van hierdie dag nie genoeg wees om te bevestig wat ek beweer dit aandui nie? Ek glo dit vertel meer as genoeg om die gewillige gelowige te oortuig.

Maar ek het vir u nog ’n bonus–bewysstuk.

Vers 42 vervolg op die uitstap–aksie van die Jode: “En toe die Jode uit die Kerk uitgestap het, het die ‘Heidene’ (wat gebly het), gevra dat dieselfde woorde aan hulle gepreek mog word die volgende Sabbatdag.”  Nou het ons almal nog altyd verstaan die hele drama het afgespeel op ’n ‘weeklikse’ Sabbat, en dat die Heidene gevra het die preek moet weer gepreek word sewe dae later weer op die weeklikse Sabbatdag. Nouja, daarmee is natuurlik niks verkeerd solank ons net die gewone vertalings se verduideliking beskikbaar het nie. Dis in elk geval van geen reddingsbelang nie ... of is dit?  Dit kan lewensbelangrik word wanneer mens soos die Jode terwille van jou troetelsondes teen die waarheid daarvan wil stry.  Dat ’n beter begrip ’n beter aanvaarding en genieting van die krag van Gods Woord meebring, lei dan ook geen twyfel nie. Ek reken dus dit is nodig en die moeite dubbel werd om noukeuriger besonderhede in ag te neem juis omdat Paulus – in vers 41 én in die groter geheel – dit waarvan hy gepraat het, so stiptelik en nadruklik vir die Jode uitgespel het. 

Lukas maak dan ook nes Paulus: hy ‘spel uit’ presies watter ‘sabbatdag’ hy na verwys. Hy skrywe: “Hulle (die Heidene) het almal/eendragtig versoek, (dat) hierdie, selfde, woorde met die oog op en ter verduideliking van (hier)die–sabbat–midde–in tot hulle (spesifiek) gespreek word.” (‘parekáloen eis to metaksúú sábbaton laleethéénai autóís ta réémata táúta.’) Die Jode het hulle nie oor die Groot Versoendag en die betekenis daarvan, vertroud kón maak nie. Net die Christelike Geloof kan dit doen.

 

 

 

 

 

13) Paulus en sy metgeselle het by Perge in Pamfilië gekom

Johannes het hulle verlaat en na Jerusalem teruggekeer.

1 of 4 Tisri

Lv23:23 ... Op die eerste dag van die Sewende Maand moet dit vir julle ’n sabbat wees, ’n gedenkdag deur basuingeklank, ’n heilige vierdag.

Hulle het in Antiogië in Pisidië aangekom en ...

... op die sabbatdag in die sinagoge gegaan en gaan sit.

En na die lesing van die Wet en die Profete het die hoofde van die Kerk na hulle gestuur en gesê: Broeders, as julle ’n woord van opwekking vir die volk het, spreek dan!

Paulus staan op en sê, Israeliete én julle wat God vrees!

Jerusalem het Hom nie geken nie, en deur Hom te veroordeel, het hulle die woorde van die Profete vervul wat elke Sabbat gelees word

42) Nadat die Jode uit die Kerk uitgegaan het, het die heidene versoek dat daardie woorde op die tussenin–sabbat tot hulle gespreek word.

 

 

10 Tisri

 ... op die tussenin–sabbat ...

... (was) daardie woorde tot hulle gespreek ...

En toe die Kerk uit was ...

... het baie van die Jode en die gelowige bekeerlinge na Paulus en Barnabas oorgeloop

Hulle het hulle toegespreek en bemoedig om in die genade van God te volhard

 

 

11 Tisri

Op die (gewone) Sabbatdag (daarop)volgende ...

... het omtrent die hele dorp se mense saamgekom om die Woord van God te hoor.

 

Nege en tien Tisri / Sewende Maand was Groot Versoendag! Hierdie twee feesdae lê volgens ons kalender vóór die ‘weeklikse’ Sabbat, op die Donderdag en Vrydag— die Vyfde en Sesde Fees–Sabbat–Dag “–midde–in”! Die eerste ‘sabbatdag’ toe Paulus die eerste keer gepreek het, was ’n ‘sabbatdag’ wat ‘in–die–week’ geval het: “metaksúú–sábbaton”! 

Verse 43 én 44 klaar verloop van gebeure verder op: “Toe die (Groot Versoendag–sabbat) Vergadering (waartydens Paulus–hulle met die Heidene alleen gepraat het), opgebreek het, toe het (ook weer) baie van die Jode saam met hierdie aanbiddende proseliete, Paulus en Barnabas (verder) gevolg.”  Dit was, let wel, “Toe (hierdie) Vergadering verby was”, dat “bykans die hele stad se mense op die gewoon–volgende / komende (weeklikse) Sabbatdag, vergader het om die Woord van God te verneem”— net soos in die geval van die Laaste Pasga toe daar twee opeenvolgende ‘sabbatte’ was, op Vrydag die Pasga–sabbat en die “Sabbat volgens die (Vierdie) Gebod” – sien Jh19:31 en Lk23:54, 56, so was daar by hierdie geleentheid, twee opeenvolgende ‘sabbatte’, op Vrydag die “mid–week”–Groot–Versoendag–sabbat van Tisri 10, en op die ‘gewone’ aanbiddingsdag–Sabbatdag, die Dag vir die Verkondiging van die Evangelie van Christus Jesus.  Tweekeer dus, presies volgens die Daniël–profesie van die sewentig weke, word – volgens die dispensasies van God – die ‘Groot’ maar verbygegane ‘tussenin–sabbatte’ deur die Nuwe–Testamentiese Gemeentes met vieringe van Christus–fees opgevolg, en word Nuwe Begin met Christus–Sabbattefees gemaak! 

Lukas benoem hierdie Nuwe Christelike Sabbatdag op opvallende en betekenisvolle manier: “op die–om–die–Woord–van–God–te–Hoor–Saamgekom–Sabbat”: ‘Infinitief met Selfstandigenaamwoord–krag’ – ‘Infinitive of Noun–Force’: ‘Sabbátooi suunéégthee akóésai ton Lógon tou Theóé’— ‘n absolute Griekse eienaardigheid met onvergisbare trefkrag aangewend. (Vergelyk Hd20:7 waar die dissipels – by implikasie op die Sabbat – “vir Nagmaal bymekaar gekom het (suuneegménoon heemóón klásai árton) (en) op die aand van die Eerste Dag steeds bymekaar was en Paulus (sake) met hulle bespreek het”.)   Laat niemand ooit weer sy mond wil oopmaak dat die Eerste Christelike Kerk nie die Sabbat geonderhou het of aan sy Christelike naam geken het nie. So een weet nie waarvan hy praat nie. Loof God deur Sabbatte–feesvieringe! Stel jouself die hoera’s voor as wat hier in Hd13:43 van die Sabbat gesê word, in 20:7 van die Eerste Dag gesê sou gewees het! Maar nou swyg die ganse Kerk soos die dood oor die bestaan van hierdie feite in 13:43, terwyl hulle sonder enige vrese vir God self, die Skrif vermink om dieselfde uit 20:7 te probeer haal.

U sal merk dat dit sonder uitsondering ’n valse gees is wat in die Naam van die Heilige gees van God ewig teen die Sabbatdag van die HERE jou God die Dag van die Here Jesus Christus deur Opstanding uit die dode, agiteer. Dit is die gees van die duiwel wat homself verraai aan drie ‘toetse’ soos die Skrif sê die geeste getoets móét word: dit is u Christelike plig om hierdie geeste uit te ken aan: 1. Of hulle van hulself getuig, want ’n gees wat van homself getuig is nie die Gees van Christus Jesus nie, maar van hoogmoed, eiewaan en die eie–ek; 2. Of hulle teen die Wet van God getuig, want ’n gees wat nie van sonde en oordeel oortuig nie, is nie die Gees van God nie, maar die gees van eiegeregtigheid, skynheiligheid en van die duiwel self; 3. Of hulle geeste van wonder– en welvaart–leuens is, want die gees wat nie die gelowige aan die lyding van Christus Jesus mededeelagtig maak nie, is nie die Gees van die wedergeboorte en doding van die ou mens en sondige natuur nie, maar van selfgenoegsaamheid, begeerte en die dood.

Daarom, omdat God ten laaste deur die Pisidia Oordeelsdag vir ons die oorgang na die Christelike aanbiddingsdag opgeklaar het, sal ons met gejuig Sabbatte–fees vier, etende en drinkende van die Water en Brood van die Lewe, ons Here Jesus Christus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Wás opgestaan” (‘Verrese’), óf, “Hét opgestaan”

 

Roy Davison:

“Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was ...”   In alle vier Evangeliën, zonder uitzondering, wordt er vermeld dat Jezus op de eerste dag van de week uit het graf is opgestaan!”

 

GE:

Wys dit! U kan nie – nie in een Evangelie nie, ook nie in Mk16:9 waaruit u aanhaal nie! (Ons sal nog nader gaan kyk na daardie vers.)  Nie in een Evangelie “wordt er vermeld dat Jezus op de eerste dag van de week uit het graf is opgestaan!”  Watter verwaande valse aanspraak!

Inteendeel, verklaar Die Statevertaling, Mt.28:1: OP die Sabbatdag; net “Sabbats”!  Die woord 'na' staan in hakies – wat aandui dat dit 'n bygevoegde woord is – waarmee die Grieks se ware betekenis verdraai sou word. Vergelyk daarteenoor die KJV, “IN the end OF the Sabbath = TOWARDS the First Day” – nie ‘OP die Eerste Dag’ nie; nie ‘NA die Sabbat’ nie!

Die Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling het op die Statevertaling se in hakies “(Na) Sabbats” staatgemaak vir sy eie “Lank na die sabbat”. Hierdie verregaande flater sou eers ’n halwe eeu later met ’n nog uitdagender blaps ‘reggestel’ word, toe die NAB (Ek wil nie eers die afkorting uitskryf nie; dit voel te lasterlik.) vorendag gekom het met: “Na die Sabbat, toe dit die Sondagmôre begin lig word ...”.

Net Matteus van “alle vier Evangeliën”, vermeld (by implikasie) die opstanding van Jesus – die ander vertel alleen van die vroue se besoeke aan die graf, en Jesus se verskynings bepaald op die dag NA die Sabbat— die Sabbat tevore naamlik waarop Jesus alreeds opgestaan hét— die Sabbat waarná, vanselfsprekend op die Eerste Dag van die week, daar eers verskeie besoeke aan die graf plaasgevind het, en uiteindelik na die besoeke, die Verskynings, Sondagoggend ná sonop, “Vroeg, op die Eerste dag van die week, eerste, aan Maria Magdalena”, en na haar, aan ander vroue tesame, volgens Mt28:5–10, terwyl hulle op pad was om die dissipels te gaan vertel wat die engel aan hulle “verduidelik het” wat “Sabbatstyd” die dag tevore, gebeur het toe daar “Skielik ’n groot aardbewing was, net toe (die Maria’s) vertrek het om na die graf te gaan kyk het”, maar hulle duidelik in hul voorneme gedwarsboom was, en toe nooit by die graf kón uitgekom het nie. (Let op dat die engel nie die Maria’s in die Tweede Persoon aanspreek nie, want Maria Magdalena was nie hierdie keer by nie – Jesus het klaar aan haar verskyn, en sy is nou seker by die dissipels, besig om hulle te vertel “dat sy die Here gesien het”, Jh20:18.) 

 

Sondag–heiligheid is afgodediens! Dit leer mens lieg soos niks; jy kom nie eers agter jy lieg agter ander aan nie.  Maar Calvyn het die waarheid geleer: Dat Jesus op die Sabbatdag opgestaan het. Ek staan by die Gereformeerde Leer! Ú, het die Gereformeerde Leer sowel as Gereformeerde Vertaling, vaarwel toegeroep!

 

Roy Davison:

1. “En op de sabbat rustten zij naar het gebod” (Lucas 23:56). Dus gingen de vrouwen pas NA de sabbat naar het graf.
2. “En op de eerste dag der week ging Maria van Magdala vroeg, terwijl het nog donker was, naar het graf en zij zag de steen van het graf weg–genomen” (Johannes 20:8). “Toen het dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter plaatse, waar de discipelen zich bevonden, de deuren gesloten waren uit vrees voor de Joden, kwam Jezus en stond in hun mid–den en zeide tot hen: Vrede zij u!” (Johannes 20:19). De sabbat eindigde te 18 uur. Aangezien het 'nog donker was' moest het op de eerste dag van de week zijn.
3. “Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9).
Duidelijker kan het niet zijn. De eerste dag van de week is de opstandingsdag van Christus (Matteüs 28:1–7; Marcus 16:1–9; Lucas 23:56 –– 24:5; Johannes 20:1,2, 19–29).

GE:

Duideliker kan dit nie wees nie dat die opstandingsdag van Christus vóór die Eerste Dag van die week was— wat die Sewende Dag Sabbat was.

U bewering, “Duidelijker kan het niet zijn. De eerste dag van de week is de opstandingsdag van Christus (Matteüs 28:1–7; Marcus 16:1–9; Lucas 23:56 –– 24:5; Johannes 20:1,2, 19–29)”, is pure oëverblindery met ’n rits tekse wat nie een sê wat u graag sou glo elkeen wat u hoor, sal glo nie.

 

 

Oor “1. “En op de sabbat rustten zij naar het gebod” (Lucas 23:56). Dus gingen de vrouwen pas NA de sabbat naar het graf.”

Lukas – na wie u verwys – vertel hierso, niks omtrent die Opstanding nie. Hy vertel niks, van vroue wat na die graf gaan nie, maar wat van die graf af weggaan. Hy vertel niks, van “pas NA de sabbat” nie, maar van heelwat vóór die Sabbat, Vrydag na die middag, Engels, ‘after noon’. U verwar Lk23:56 met Mk16:1, so lyk dit vir my. Wat u sê, is nogtans gans verwarrende versinsel en van gener waarde.

Volgens Lk24:1 eers, gaan die vroue –NA die Opstanding– na die graf, en vind dit: Léég, EN, verlate! Duideliker kan dit nie wees nie: Die Eerste Dag van die week was die dag ná die opstanding van Christus! Hoe kan u dit duideliker wil hê? “Dus gingen de vrouwen pas NA de sabbat naar het graf ...” en? En vind dit leeg en mens–verlate. U eie waarneming wat u self, weerspreek!

 

Oor u opmerking: “2. “En op de eerste dag der week ging Maria van Magdala vroeg, terwijl het nog donker was, naar het graf en zij zag de steen van het graf weg–genomen” (Johannes 20:8). “Toen het dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter plaatse, waar de discipelen zich bevonden, de deuren gesloten waren uit vrees voor de Joden, kwam Jezus en stond in hun midden en zeide tot hen: Vrede zij u!” (Johannes 20:19). De sabbat eindigde te 18 uur. Aangezien het 'nog donker was' moest het op de eerste dag van de week zijn.” 

Hier gooi u twee onverwante tekse saam, Lk24:1 en Jh20:1. U raak dan geheel en al verward en verwys sommer verkeerdelik na “(Johannes 20:8)”. Wat u daarmee sou bereik, sal niemand weet nie (maar gehoop niemand sal nagaan nie?). Want nóg Lk24:1 nóg Jh20:1 vertel iets omtrent die tyd of dag waarop Jesus opgestaan het. Nie een selfs, vertel van 'n verskyning van Jesus nie. Allengs, uit beide tekse is dit slegs moontlik om af te lei dat Jesus al die vórige dag, op die Sabbatdag naamlik, opgestaan hét. U verklaring van die implikasies in Jh20:19a ten opsigte van die dagsbereking, klink streng letterlik, reg; maar omdat u geensins die idiomatiese of dan alledaagse taalgebruik in ag neem nie, skep u net probleme waar daar eintlik geen probleme hoef te gewees het nie. Want Sondag na sononder volgens Romeinse siening van tyd, is wel nog Sondag. Streng volgens Joodse en Bybelse siening van tyd egter, is die aand na sononder die Eerste Dag, reeds die Tweede Dag van die week.  So is dit dan ook dwarsdeur die Evangelie van Johannes duidelik dat Johannes, onder kulturele invloed, tyd ‘Romeins’, ‘tel’, terwyl die ander en – vroeëre – Evangelies se tydsberekening nog ‘Joods’ en ‘Bybels’ of te wel ‘Ou–Testamenties’, is. Maar verstaan mens Johannes doodgewoon “volgens Joodse en Bybelse siening van tyd, dat die aand na sononder die Eerste Dag, reeds die Tweede Dag van die week is”, is daar geen probleem om “Toen het dan avond was op die eerste dag der week en ter plaatse, waar de discipelen zich bevonden” as synde reeds die Tweede Dag van die week op te vat nie. Dis ’n tegniese, volksmondige, taalkundige puntjie sonder enige invloed hoegenaamd op die feit van die “helder–oordag” opstanding van Jesus “op die Sabbatdag”— soos die Grieks (‘opse de sabbat–oon epi–foos–k–oes–ei’) letterlik én idiomaties bevestigend verklaar.

 

Oor u opmerking “3: Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9).”

Enigste Werkwoord van die sin, is “Hy het verskyn” (verscheen Hij) – NIE, “opgestaan was” nie, want “opgestaan was” is 'n Deelwoord. 'n Deelwoord vertel HOEDAT Jesus “verskyn het” : “VERRESE, het Hy verskyn, vroeg, op die Eerste Dag van die week”. Dit was relatief 'lank' NADAT Hy “Laat Sabbatstyd synde voldag, VOOR die Eerste Dag van die week”, Mt.28:1, opgestaan het.  Dat Jesus “op die Sabbat”, opgestaan het, is wat Mt.28:1 met soveel woorde verklaar, al noem dit nie die Opstanding as sodanig nie. So, bowendien, sou dit wees, en was dit volgens die Profetiese AARD van die Sewende Dag Sabbat, dwarsdeur die Skrifte; want dit was wat die Sewende Dag Sabbat “volgens die Skrifte” eskatologies ingehou het!

 

Roy Davison:

Deze (“Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9)) is een juiste vertaling van de grondtekst en in deze tekst verklaart de H.G. duidelijk dat Jezus op de eerste dag van de week opstond.”

 

GE:

Hierdie, (“Toen Hij des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan was, verscheen Hij eerst aan Maria van Magdala, van wie Hij zeven boze geesten uitgedreven had” (Marcus 16:9)) is inderdaad “een juiste vertaling van de grondtekst”, maar u vergis u deeglik dat “in deze tekst de H.G. duidelijk verklaart dat Jezus op de eerste dag van de week opstond”! U verstaan eenvoudig gladnie ‘deze juiste vertaling van de grondtekst’ nie.

Die enigste Werkwoord van die sin is “Hy het verskyn” (verscheen Hij) – NIE, “opgestaan was” nie, want “opgestaan was” is 'n Deelwoord. 'n Deelwoord vertel HOEDAT Jesus ‘verskyn het’ : “VERRESE, het Hy verskyn, vroeg, op die Eerste Dag van die week”.

U plaas die Bywoord van Tyd by die Deelwoord, en verwyder dit so van die Werkwoord waarop dit van betrekking behoort te wees. “Nadat HY opgestaan was, het Hij, des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week, eerst aan Maria van Magdala verscheen”, is wat die Woord van God, ‘duidelik verklaar’. Wat u doen, is téén wat “de H.G. duidelijk verklaart”. U besef duidelik nie die erns van wat u doen nie. Jesus het nié, “Toen des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week”, opgestaan nie, maar Jesus “was”, “toen opgestaan”. U, om u eie agenda ontwil, wurg uit die Vertaling nog meer as wat dit so gebrekkig as wat dit is, aan die afperser sou kon afgestaan het.

“Opgestaan was”, is nie ’n Indikatiewe Werkwoord nie, maar ’n Deelwoord –‘Partisium’– die ekwivalent van die Grieks, ‘anastas’. Die Bywoord van Tyd het dus nie in die eerste plek op “opgestaan was” toepassing nie, maar op “verscheen Hij”. In Afrikaans moet mens sê, “Verrese, het Hy vroeg op die Eerste Dag verskyn”. Natuurlik ‘was’ Jesus “morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week”, ‘opgestaan’, want só, ‘opgestaan (was)’ –in hoedanigheid van ‘verrese’ te gewees het– het Jesus “morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week eerst aan Maria van Magdala verscheen”. Dit sê nie dat Jesus “des morgens vroeg op de eerste dag der week opgestaan” ‘het’ nie, maar impliseer dat Hy reeds van die vorige dag af al, “opgestaan was”.

 

Roy Davison:

Een letterlijke vertaling is: “En verrijzende vroeg op de eerste dag van de week verscheen hij aan...” Zowel de verijzennis als de verschijning waren op de eerste dag van de week.

GE:

“Verrijzende ... verscheen hij” is GEEN vertaling van die Grieks nie, wat nog “een letterlijke vertaling”!  Die teenswoordig–durende “verrijzende”, sou uit ’n Presens of moontlik nog uit ’n Imperfektum vertaal kon word.  Maar die Aoristos gee géén DURENDE aspek van ’n Werkwoord aan nie. Die Voltooide Verlede Tyd vertaal die Aoristos heel beste. Die Aoristos bevestig die PUNKTUELE ‘Aspek’ van VOLDONGE OORGANG in toestand, dus altyd Voltooide Verlede Tyd vir die Aoristos!

Die Aoristos Partisium ageer eweveel Adjektief as Adverbiaal.  Adjektief – dit beskrywe die Onderwerp, Jesus – hoe “Hý, verskyn het”, nl., “As die Opgestane Een het Hy verskyn”.  Adverbiaal – dit beskrywe die Werkwoord, “het verskyn” – hoe Jesus verskýn het: “Verrese het Hy verskyn”.

Dit is as sodanig in die Werkwoord van hierdie sin agerende dat “Hy (Jesus) verskyn het” – nie dat Hy (‘toen’) opgestaan het nie. Jesus was nie besig om op te staan toe Hy verskyn het nie. Alle feite en faktore in die vier Evangelies vermeld, getuig daartéén. Jesus het nié soos wat Hy opgestaan het, ook verskyn nie; dit is onwaar. Lees maar net Jh20 van vers 11 af. Daar is nog baie ander onderskrywende faktore en feite vir my ontkenning.

Vir die DURENDE, Teenswoordige, Tydsaspek, “verijzende verscheen hij”, sou die Teenswoordige Tyd van 'n Indikatiewe Werkwoord vereis gewees het, of dalk ’n Imperfektum— wat nóg sintakties, nóg feitelik, die geval is.

“Verrijzende ... verscheen hij”, sê baie meer as “Zowel de verijzennis als de verschijning waren op de eerste dag van de week”! Dit sê sowel de verrysenis as die verskyning was op dieselfde oomblik – iets wat geheel en al onmoontlik is in die lig daarvan dat niemand geweet het dat Jesus opgestaan het nie. Niemand het Hom gesien opstaan nie. Verrysenis en veskyning was heeltemal afsonderlike gebeurtenisse, van en op afsonderlike dae! Die Evangelies gee nie om dowe neute veskillende tye vir elk, Opstanding, en, Verskyning, aan nie. Verskillende persone; verskillende terminologie; verskillende besonderhede soos met betrekking tot engele, die graf, natuurlike omstandighede – en dan logies, kronologies én, ‘teologies’, verskillende gebeurtenisse en verskillende dae.

 

Vir die Teenswoordige, DURENDE Tydsaspek van die oomblik, “verijzende”, sou die Teenswoordige Tyd van 'n Indikatiewe Werkwoord (of die Teenswoordige Tyd van ’n Deelwoord), vereiste wees!  Die Indikatiewe Werkwoord van die sin as sodanig, is egter agerende in, “Hy het verskyn”. Die Verrysenis van Jesus daarenteen, word gladnie eers na verwys nie; dit is slegs geïmpliseer in die ‘hóé’, van Jesus se verskyning, naamlik “as die Verresene”.  “In Sabbatstyd” egter – Genetief van Soort en Behorenheid na tyd, vertel Matteus ons (nie Markus nie) – “was daar ’n groot aardbewing”; nie tegelykertyd met Jesus se Verskyning wat eers die volgende oggend – Sondagoggend (volgens Markus) – plaasgevind het nie. Maar “Laat Sabbatstyd synde ligdag in volheid, VOOR die Eerste Dag van die week” (Mt.28:1) het Jesus opgestaan. Dit is die tyd én dag wat die teks met soveel woorde verklaar; en dit is wat die Profetiese AARD van die Sewende Dag Sabbat dwarsdeur die Skrifte eskatologies ingehou het!

 

Roy Davison:
De vrouwen rustten volgens het gebod op de sabbat. Dus kon het alleen NA de sabbat zijn dat zij naar het graf gingen. EPIFOOSKOUSEE betekent “bij het krieken” van de eerste dag van de week of “toen het licht aan het worden was”. Dit was bijna 12 uur na de sabbat!!!

GE:

Dit was byna drie ure méér as 12 ure ná die Sabbat en die Opstanding! “Dus kon het alleen NA de sabbat zijn dat zij naar het graf gingen” ... is dit nie eienaardig nie!?

“EPIFOOSKOUSEE betekent”, daarom ‘NIET’, “bij het krieken” van de eerste dag van de week of “toen het licht aan het worden was”, maar net wat dit in konteks en volledig, sê, naamlik: “In volheid ligdag synde van–die–Sabbat”.

Dieselfde woord “EPIFOOSKOUSEE” vind u aangewend waar Josef die graf toemaak en die vroue toe vertrek het om Sabbatsvoorbereidings te gaan doen 15 ure vóór die volgende môre sonop en “in–vol–dag–lig–synde”: letterlik ‘epi–foos–k–ous–ei’. “Dit was” toe, nie naastenby ‘bijna 12 uur na’ die Vrydag nie, maar eenvoudig “namiddag” OP Vrydag, “vóór die Sabbat / die–Sabbat–aan–skynend” – “sabbaton” Akkusatief.  Dit is dan ook maar niks anders as wat 'epifooskoesei' LETTERLIK én idiomaties in Mt28:1 beteken nie: “epi”=“in/na/neigend”–”foos”=“lig/dag”–”oes”= “synde/wees”–”ei”=“in/met”— dit is, gewoon, “namiddag”; of dan, “opse”=“laat, middag / vol / ryp / lig / dag / namiddag / met–lig–synde–na” of “op die Eerste Dag toe / aan”, Akkusatief, “eis mian (hehmeran) toon Sabbatoon”: NIE, “OP die Eerste Dag” nie; nooit nie! Dit sou in elke moontlike en onmoontlike opsig, verkeerd, onwaar, en onmoontlik, gewees het. En byna elke nuwe ‘Vertaling’ en ‘Edisie’ (‘Version’) van die Nuwe Testament gaan uit sy pad uit om hierdie leuen gediend en gedwee te wees!

Selfs die Engels, “dawn”, van die KJV, het die betekenis van ‘vooraand’ – soos in u eie taal, asook in myne – eenvoudig die VOORAF–TYDVAK “tot” (‘eis’) enige nog toekomstige tydperk – in die geval van Mt.28:1, die toekomstige tydperk van die Eerste Dag van die week, KJV: “… dawn towards the First Day”.

“Het woord 'voor'“, STAAN, wel “in het Grieks”:

(1) “EIS mian sabbaton”.

Die gedagte van “vóór die Eerste Dag”, STAAN boonop, in die Grieks, bevat in

(2) die Akkusatief; STAAN boonop, bevat in

(3) die Voorsetsel ‘epi’ – ‘na ... toe / op ... aan’. Drie maal. 

 

Net so STAAN die woord “OP die Sabbat” dáár in die Grieks in Mt.28:1 deur middel van die gebruik van

(1) die Genetief, ‘sabbatoon’: “Op die Sabbat / Sabbats”;

Net so STAAN die gedagte van “OP die Sabbat” dáár, d.m.v.

(2) die Bywoord ‘opse’, “laat” – “Laat (op) die Sabbat”, STAAN dit daar, deur

(3) die Voorsetsel ‘epi–’, ‘op / in / met / na ... toe / op ... aan’; STAAN dit daar, deur

(4) die Datief ‘–ei’, ‘epifooskoesei’. Vier maal.

 

Niemand in die wêreld staan ’n kans om hiervan “Na die Sabbat, op die Eerste Dag van die week”, te maak nie; en tog het Justinus die Martelaar presies dit gedoen – in die tweede eeu al! Sedertdien doen elke Sondagaanbiddings–bevooroordeelde Justinus dit onbeskaamd na. Tog so maklik; dit hang net af van hoeveel respek mens nog vir die Skrifte oor het. Die ‘Skrifte’? In ons dag? Soos ‘God’? In ons dag? En die spotter krul van die lag! Vir die eenvoudige gelowige bly dit egter sy erns; al is dit vir sy opponente hoe humorlose beheptheid.

In u artikel “Aanbidt God” haal u Kolossensiërs 3:16 aan as sou dit aandui dat die Gemeente “op de eerste dag van de week” ‘saamgekom’ het. Die gedeelte dui egter niks van die aard aan nie!  Net so, Hd. 2:42 en 1Kor.14:15! Nie een dui naastenby op Christelike aanbidding op die Eerste Dag nie.

Terwyl daar nie ’n enkele is nie, skep u eenvoudig VALSLIK die indruk van VELE Skrifture vir Sondag–heiliging— Sondaghouers se oudste truuk! Hulle tweede oudste truuk: Ignoreer die VELE Skrifture wat aanbidding op die Sabbat direk en indirek maar altyd onteenseglik, aandui, dood.

Calvyn verklaar dat Hd.20:7 asook 1Kor.16:1,2 van dinge wat op die Sabbat plaasgevind het, praat. Ek stem nie met hom saam nie; nogtans beteken nie een van hierdie TWEE Skrifture iets vir die Eerste Dag as Christelike aanbiddingsdag nie. Inteendeel, in werklikheid impliseer ook hierdie TWEE Skrifture Christelike Gemeentelike aanbidding op die dag vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, naamlik, op die Sabbatdag (Sewende Dag van die week).

Met hoogagting, ‘duidelijker kan het niet zijn’, Jesus Christus hét: “Op die Sabbat” uit die dood uit opgestaan en triomfantlik op die Sabbat die Rus van God ingegaan, en deur sy opstanding uit die dode, aan die Volk van God, “rus verskaf: Juis daarom bly onderhouding van die Sabbatdag vir die Volk van God geld.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Worship, Acts 2:46

 

SO, Sunday observer

RSB, Resurrection Sabbath believer

 

SOA

The Church worshipped every day and is supposed to worship every day still.

RSB

The Church worshipped every day and is supposed to worship every day still, is what SO claims because of the single word 'daily', in Acts 2:46.

That is taking the word and the text out of context, and immediately implies the corruption of the meaning of both.

Read the section from verse 41 to 3:1, e.g., and the illegitimacy of SO's claim, becomes clear.

Those first Christian on Pentecost were together “_in one place_”, which we do not know was which, but it was not the temple or the synagogue, as it seems.

Then 2:41 says “_the same day_” – Pentecost – about 3000 were added. 42: “_and they continued ...._” to gather in that same place? verse 44 “_all who believed were together ...._” still in that same place? 45: “_Sold their possessions ...._” nowhere else left for them to worship than this 'place'? AND SO: 46, “_They continued daily ...._”, BUT OH MY! it says, “_In the temple_”!

So the Church always every day worshipped, then every day it had to be in the temple!

Now: What about their assembling in that 'old' place of theirs? What about their congregations in the homes of some believers? It was every day in the temple, remember! So today still the Christian Church should be found in the Jewish temple. But strangest of all, not keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath! That is what it means, according to SO's single–word–argument of 'daily'.

 

SOB

Maybe you are confusing the sabbath with the Lord's death. The Sabbath is resting in the Lord. It is a weekly break from the hustle and bustle of life to be with the Lord. It is like a date with your love. Something to look forward to.

As far as the Lord resting on the Sabbath, it is true, but He pre–ordained it in His organised feasts, what I call His day runner, his appointment book. They are appointments in dealing with very important aspects of salvation procedure for God in His relationship with man.

You can read all of them in Lev 23. They are known as “rehearsals” and the Israelites rehearsed these throughout the years and still do today. Just as we have seen, the Lord fulfilled the spring feasts.. AKA Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost... with His first coming ... I believe that He will come again and fulfill the fall feasts... Feasts of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles.

There are various understandings of the falls feasts and their time of fulfilment, 1844 and 1848 are commonly presented here. It too has its time and place in spiritual awakening and advancement in spiritual truth. I know it was a disappointment, but that does not change the fact that I believe William Miller was on the right track as far as it being a very important subject of study.

While we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives and are extremely thankful for His sacrifice, He set a time aside in which is the memorial. I am sure you do too.

RSB

What can be happy about a Sabbath the 'rest' whereof was Jesus' death in the 'second death' or hell?

What makes the Sabbath a happy Sabbath, is the Delight Jesus took in “_the Holy of the Lord_”, so that the LORD made Him to “_soar the heights of the earth_”, “_when He raised Christ from the dead_” and “_exalted Him_” to the right hand of the Majesty on high.

I hope to in this life keep the Sabbath with you guys for Jesus' sake, for God's having raised Christ from the dead, for God's having raised Christ from the dead “_In the Sabbath Day’s fullness being mid–afternoon towards the First Day of the week_”.

 

SOB

Others here are better able to explain the reason why the sabbath is happy. Only once a year do we remember His feast in which He died for us.. Passover...

RSB

None is better able to explain how and why the Sabbath is happy than Paul, Eph1:19f and Col2:12–19. It is happy, not because Christ was dead in the tomb on the Sabbath, but because on the Sabbath Day He rose from the dead.

Notice how the women, as soon as “_the angel explained to them_”, Mt28:5, hastened to obey their commission with great joy and holy fear and fervour. Notice how before, a few hour earlier, they fled from the grave terrified and told no one anything because they were so afraid (Mark)! The knowledge of the Resurrection is what brought about the change.  The Sabbath Day is happy, only because Christ, “_on the Sabbath_”, rose, from, the dead.

 

SOB

While we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives and are extremely thankful for His sacrifice, He set a time aside in which is the memorial.

RSB

If the sacrifice set apart the time in which is the memorial, then it cannot be the Sabbath so set apart because Jesus was not sacrificed on the Sabbath.

No, while we cling to the Lord every moment of our lives in thankfulness for His sacrifice, we rejoice even more in that moment in which He set the Sabbath aside the memorial of his resurrection in life and the glory of the Father, as Paul says He was raised by.

SOB

There are various understandings of the falls feasts and their time of fulfilment, 1844 and 1848 are commonly presented here. It too has its time and place in spiritual awakening and advancement in spiritual truth. I know it was a disappointment, but that does not change the fact that I believe William Miller was on the right track as far as it being a very important subject of study.

RSB

You are still sitting on sacks with ash on your heads; you have never recovered from your time–setting ailment, my heart bleeds for you saying.

SOB

Maybe you are confusing the sabbath with the Lord's death.

RSB

No, I am not. I say, The Sabbath of the LORD is the Lord's Day— His Day of Resurrection and Life and Triumph over death.

 

SOB

The sabbath is ‘resting in the Lord’.

RSB

No, it's not. Salvation is resting in the Lord; the Sabbath does not save. God's 'rest'–'katapausis' is God's 'rest'— it is Jesus Christ. Then, “_Because Jesus had given them rest (because Jesus is the 'Rest'), therefore, there remains valid for the People of God a keeping of The Sabbath Day_” – ‘sabbatismos apoleipetai’. Justification through grace, then follows the gift of grace, sanctification. So follows the Sabbath on the rest, and is not the Rest— the Rest of God, is Christ Himself and exclusively who by grace also is made our ‘rest’ in God’s salvation.

Can anyone re–write this, “_Because Jesus had given them rest (because Jesus is the 'Rest'), therefore, there remains valid for the People of God a keeping of The Sabbath Day_”, to say 'Therefore the Sunday became valid for God's People to keep'? You know, 'they' really achieve this impossibility! 'They' simple write another 'Version' of the Bible; that's how easy!

It's only going to cost you a lot of money to get it written, edited, published, distributed – to get it read – which money you won't have unless the Roman Catholic Church is going to finance you.

SOB

As far as the Lord resting on the sabbath, it is true, but He pre–ordained it in His organised feasts, what I call His day runner, his appointment book. They are appointments in dealing with very important aspects of salvation procedure for God in His relationship with man.

RSB

That is the Sabbath of the LORD your God, the Seventh Day of His appointment through Christ and unto Christ. That is what Christians generally are unable to see about the Seventh–Day–only–Bible–Sabbath, but take for granted without reservations about Sunday the completely un–Biblical day of worship of man’s free–will!

 

 

SOB

Daily Worship,

Phil 3:17, 2 Thess 3:9, 1 Tim 4:12,  These are just a couple of scriptures which we are to follow the example the disciples left for us. Their example through Acts was explicit especially in 5:42 (just one of many scriptures) “And DAILY in the temple and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” and scriptures are clear in that we are to follow this example.

 

RSB

2Thess3:9,

In 2 Thessalonians, believers are told to work for their living. “_We hear that there are some who walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Them we command that in quietness they work, and eat their own bread. ... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him._”

I suppose they were ‘busybodies’ in the temple and Synagogues, pretending they taught and preached Christ ‘DAILY’. They could have fooled men; but not God! Their ‘daily’ worship, the Apostle deemed ‘disoderliness’, and no following of the “_ensample unto you to follow us_”. (9)

Paul says, these fellows should not think they could go to the Christian assemblies to find food and clothing there, like you make it look, SOB. No, Paul says they must “_eat their own bread_” in their own houses. And in another place, Paul says if a confessor doesn’t provide for his own household, he is worse than a gentile.

So, either you have the cat by the tail with regard to Christian ‘daily worship’, or you very well are aware you stand judged guilty concerning the Sabbath Commandment to you, if you are of the true “_People of God_” for whom “_a keeping of the Sabbath Day remains valid_”.

1Tim4:12,

“_Be thou an example of the believers , in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity, till I come._”

This, you say, SOB, was as the example of the apostles “through Acts .... explicit especially in 5:42 (just one of many scriptures) “And DAILY in the temple and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” and scriptures are clear in that we are to follow this example”. You chose 5:42 (which you misinterpreted) but especially, chose to choose not, the ‘many scriptures’ in Acts, like, 13:42, 16:13, 18:4, where many Seventh Day Sabbaths and many times of their observance by the apostles and others, especially heathen believers, are mentioned as exemplary apostolic precedents for generations of believers to follow after.

The Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword.

But, observe you, how that the apostle Paul in the words of this verse, employs practical, liturgical, Congregational, activities of Communal worship in an age long after the beginning of the Church on Pentecost, as “an example of (1, the believers , (2, in word, (3, in conversation, (4, in charity, (5, in spirit, (6, in faith, (7, in purity”— things the very fibre of Christian Congregational worship while it no longer in the least was possible or desirable “daily” or “in the temple” or “in every house” or without “cease”, “to teach and preach Jesus Christ”, but in which time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ the exact same practices and faith were maintained in Congregational worship, so that it is impossible to imagine any of it or just part of it being maintained in the Church without the Church practicing its fundamental and essential beliefs and life, on one certain explicit chosen as well as mentioned and appointed day in its life, which only could have been the Seventh Day Sabbath.

Now whether you might say, no, these things were those the Church practiced on Sundays, it still would be your admitting the Church no longer at all – if it ever did – congregationally, “daily” worshiped, but weekly only worshiped.

This illustrates what I times without counting have stressed, that the Sabbath is constantly the axiomatic presupposed of Christian Church life, throughout the New Testament, so that it in fact is surprising we do find direct mention of the Sabbath’s observance in its pages. And so that, even if nowhere mention had been made of the Sabbath, it’s keeping by the Church would still have been the most obvious and natural thing to imagine and without any doubt to accept, had been a priori reality of its existence in the world.

And this presupposition underlies Paul’s every reference in this epistle of his to Timothy, in 1:3 to 11 for example, where what Paul is saying, may be summarised in his own words: “_We know that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully .... according to the Gospel of our blessed God which was committed to my trust._”

Never ever accuse Paul of having broken that trust in any respect! “_Knowing this, that the Law is .... for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers, .... for whoremongers ...._”, and, – we may add because it is contained in the Law – for Sabbath breakers and Sabbath despisers. The Law is for any such, as a judgment, for no one is saved by the Law, but everyone is condemned by the Law so that no one can boast, but in Christ in Whom he has been shown saving grace through faith and purity and abstention from – as an example – breaking of the Sabbath–law.

SOC

We do know they did gather on the 'sabbath' but the point needs to be made they also gathered on the other days also, even Sunday. So worshipping on Sunday and everyday is following the example left for us.

SOB

This is true, except that there was no day named 'Sunday'. Jews would have been horrified at the thought of naming a day after the sun, or planets, which were associated with pagan gods. They had no names for days, they simply gave days numbers, like 'the first day of the week', 'the second day of the week'. One never hears of a call for a return to this pure, and desirable Jewish practice.

There was no command to meet on Mosaic sabbaths, anyway, and sabbath–supporters are stretching the truth somewhat in this matter. The sabbath (rest) was primarily for staying at home and resting, though later, specific meetings were arranged on sabbaths.

A week was not necessarily of seven days for members of the early church. The Roman Empire (other than Judaea) had an eight day week at that time, and non–Jewish Christians in, say, Rome or Ephesus would have had difficulty in keeping a seventh day rest, without travelling or lighting a fire. There must be few advocates of seventh day sabbaths today who keep them themselves. There is no reason at all for any nation today to organise its schedules into seven day cycles.

RSB

You people are masters at avoiding the real issue and steering off the road after every rabbit trail. It is a dishonest tactic, the mark of the scared, ignorant and incompetent.

Had not Luke recorded that the Church gathered for worship on specific occasions, one might have been more inclined to deduce from the disciples’ use to “continue every day”, that they deemed “all days alike”. (Paul) But now the distinction had been made: certain days were selected and separated from other days of the year and from other days of the week, as days of Christian dedication and worship of the time. Although the Church of the apostles for a short time ‘daily’ gathered on other days than Sabbath, it never became the rule or ‘law’, nor created a precedent for later times and generations. Once the Christian Faith was properly founded, the daily worship ended and everything went back to normal and weekly Congregational and Sabbaths’ worship. 

“....  the point ... they also gathered on the other days also, even Sunday ...”, “so”, “worshipping on Sunday”  (“and everyday”)  “is following the example left for us”, is utter arbitrary and baseless presumption.

‘Every Day’ ––– from the literal, “according to the day”, ‘kath’ hehmeran’....

Nevertheless, the earliest Christian believers, according to their history in the Acts of the Apostles, assembled “every day” for worship. Luke’s “Acts” does not only mention the fact that the Apostolic Congregation worshiped “every day”. It further stipulates that the Church observed Passover. That implies that Christian worship “every day”, is meant generally. In Acts 2:46, the phrase stipulating the believers’ “continuing daily” with one accord in the temple, is placed as a parenthesis within the very history of their worship on the Day of Pentecost. The expression “continuing daily” is clearly used not in the sense of special, congregational and liturgical worship “continuing daily”, but refers to the believers’ “waiting” in Jerusalem as Christ had commanded them for the promise of power to be fulfilled.

The fact that 2:1 states that the believers assembled “in one place” implies that they were not always assembled in one place, and if not always in one place, then not always on every day.

In Acts 5:42 it is said that the apostles ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in “every house”. The meaning is clear that the apostles taught each day, but not each day in congregation in the temple neither each day in congregation in the believers’ homes. It also means the ‘ordinary’ believers (‘laymen’), did not, teach and preach Jesus Christ daily in the temple and in “every house”.

Had congregational teaching and preaching every day been meant, the apostles would have taught and preached in “houses” and not in “every house”. By mentioning “temple” as well as “every house” two distinct ways of preaching and teaching are implied. When they worshipped in the temple the people came to the apostles in the temple to be taught and to hear their public proclamation. When in the houses, the apostles went to the people to teach and proclaim the Gospel privately.

“The apostles in those days had to leave the Word of God and serve tables”. 6:2. Seven deacons were appointed to see after charity in order to allow the apostles to engage full time in proclaiming the Gospel. That also implies that “the multitude” of disciples (6:1) did not worship full time, or, every day.

“Continuing daily” does not mean that the Church had no special day of worship, the Seventh day Sabbath, as their “Lord’s Day” for Congregational Worship.

SOC

Didn't the Jews adopt Babylonian names for the months of the year after they went into captivity?

SOB

I believe this is true, the Jews adopted many things from other cultures. As for as what biblical can be proven, the bible speaks of Hellenistic Jews. Were these not Jews who adopted Greek culture into their own lives? Even in the OT the Jews were shown to have adopted rituals from others cultures.

SOC

I agree with what you're saying. It seems to run counter to the idea that the Jews would have been “horrified” at adopting (at least some) pagan nomenclature. (Why would they be “horrified” at the thought of calling a day by a pagan name when they called the months by pagan names?) This is what I was hoping SOB would address.

SOD

'Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.' Ac 2:43–47 NIV

The Holy Spirit, filling the first disciples, stimulated desire for constant association and the fellowship that is enjoyed by those so filled. While they obviously had employment to occupy much of their time, they still succeeded in meeting every day, to pray, to read Scripture, to break bread. This contrasts with the practices of many who lay claim to Christian faith now. Many meet just once in seven days, and then briefly, and in a highly formalised way in which there is little if any fellowship, where every word spoken by the majority is recited from a written source. One can reasonably suppose that the practitioners of this format, particularly its organizers, do not have the Holy Spirit, and probably have no intention of permitting Him into their meetings.

'They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.' Ac 2:42 NIV

 

RSB

Have you say over the Holy Spirit? How impressive, you boasters, too scared to boast openly in Christ. How do you exalt the human spirit, deceitful above all things. What empty verbosity, “One can reasonably suppose that the practitioners of this format, particularly its organizers, do not have the Holy Spirit, and probably have no intention of permitting Him into their meetings.”  Pentecostal fakes!

 

 

2008 November 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sabbath is for the Israelites;

it is not important for Christians

 

SRB:    Sabbath–Resurrection believer

SO / SDA:      Sunday observer / Seventh Day Adventist

“       “  Scripture

 

SO:

All who devoted themselves to the research of it the Sabbath was not more important.

SRB:   

We suppose an importance of the Day, for the Church as for the believer’s individual life of faith.

Through study of the Scriptures, contemplation and debate, the Christian Day of Worship–Rest has emerged and proved itself to those who devoted themselves to the research of it, an essential, integral and vital prerequisite for, and part and distinctive of, the Christian Church and Faith.

Immediately the question arises as to how it came about it is the Sunday and not the Sabbath that emerged the Day of Worship–Rest of the Christian Community?

Most naturally the dual answer to this question, the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ the Head of the Church (supposedly ‘on the First Day’), and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Body of the Church (supposedly on the First Day), invariably follows.

And this answer, it is always assumed first, is derived from the Scriptures and its record of the history of Jesus Christ on earth, which unequivocally tells us – it is alleged – He rose from the dead on the First Day of the week, Sunday.

Now these assumptions are accepted ample and authoritative to explain the importance of Sunday.

But, just try to claim by this very same argumentation the Sabbath the Seventh Day of the week, is indicated the Day of Worship–Rest of the Christian Faith, and it – immediately without any consideration first – is rejected and judged a weak and beggarly principle!

So, back to the Scriptures is the only option. For here, at this single, clear, and matter of fact point of argument, lies the key to the truth of either the First Day’s, or the Sabbath Day’s correctness and validity “according to the Scriptures”.

One needs no great imagination to form an idea of the immense difficulty facing the address of such biased tradition as Sunday–veneration. But just as great and far outweighing tradition’s bias, rises before the eye of the enquirer, the immense and unbiased, yea single and unchallenged, exclusive witness of the

whole of the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, as one, to

“The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God”. 

 

SO:

Day of Firstfruits was Sunday ( Lev 23:11)
This day symbolized the Day of Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If anyone doesn’t know this, he or she doesn’t know the Bible very much yet.
Jesus was resurrected on this very day of Firstfruits! which was Sunday.

SRB:

Wrong. False; stolen from God’s Day of Rest for the false god of Sunday. It’s for sun–worshippers who “observe / venerate / idolize days, months, seasons, years”, the four ‘deities’ or ‘stoicheia’ of heathen paganism; not for true worshippers. The Resurrection–motive for the Day of Christian Worship–Rest throughout the Bible belonged to the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God.

The statement “Day of Firstfruits was Sunday (Lev 23:11)”, is a lie. This Day and its event was determined by God to be, and was realised by God, “In Sabbath’s–time”, “WHEN, He raised Christ from the dead”.

SO:

I esteem everyday ‘alike’, then am I wrong?

SRB:

Are you a Jew perhaps, who “esteem(ed) every day alike” (Ro14:5)? If even the Jew who has become a Christian no longer regards one or any days of the Old Testament Feasts, they all must actually have been fulfilled, historically by Christ on the Seventh Day Sabbath. So, a Christian keeps and regards all those days and feasts, in Christ, worshipping Christ in faith, on the Lord’s Day the Sabbath Day of which Jesus proclaimed Himself Lord.

SO:

Christians worshipped on the first day of the week (actually the day following and succeeding or replacing the Sabbath) this now is the eighth day typifying the New Genesis (Paleogenesia; i.e. regeneration) after the conclusion of the Kingdom Age.

Have you read From Sabbath To Lord’s Day edited by D.A. Carson (Zondervon Publisher)?

See also Scofield’s notes on Matt. 12:1 and the marginal note on Matt. 28:1.  “Margin: end of Lit. end of the sabbaths. The sabbaths end, the first day comes.”

SRB:

Sure (of Scofield’s)! It’s what you read! This is a literal representation of the Greek –– not an ideological interpretation of it! Just correct the spelling above a bit, and see for yourself: “The Sabbath’S, end”: Exactly, “Sabbath’s–time”— Genitive of belonging, quality, or time. (The Greek Plural means the Singular.) The ‘end’ of that Day of Sabbath, began when noon, the sun started to go down and would end the day finally with the sun having set – with its disappearance behind the horizon. (When the sun is gone, the day is gone – the ‘Jewish’ ending of day.) It in fact was “‘epi’, the very, ‘fohs’ (sun)light, ‘ousehi’, being”, “in its fullness/ripeness, ‘opse’”. Get the very same word in Lk23:54b where it tells you the time of day Joseph had closed the grave; it was Friday, “mid–afternoon”. The same time of day and same word, in Mt28:1 for “mid–afternoon”. 

Carson, and his hordes, availed nothing against the Word!

 

SDA:

I think that Christians are correct in saying that we need to trust in Jesus alone for our salvation. However, that being said, the 7th Day Sabbath is a SIGN that we worship the true God who created the heavens and the earth, the CREATOR...

Ex:31:13: Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

...and as the CREATOR, He is able to CREATE a clean heart in us and renew a right spirit in us, instead of we trying to do it ourselves.

This applies to God too as being our SAVIOUR! The texts you refer to – read them again to see God’s REST in them firstly and predominantly; then ask yourself the question of what the rest of God ultimately is. If not the Person of our Saviour Jesus Christ, then the concept of Divine rest becomes ridiculous!

 

GE:

I have often before argued with you that the SDA understanding of the Sabbath differs in no respect with that of the unbelievers the Jews. You must discover the New Testament Sabbath: It is the Seventh Day of God’s eternal design and order and determination; but it no longer is nor ever has been the Jewish Seventh Day of an order and design of a temporary salvation by works. The New Testament Sabbath was as valid and obligatory during the previous dispensation as it is during the present – it spoke of as today it does, and pointed to as today it does, the Saviour God of our rest. It witnesses of Jesus Christ, or belongs not in our, Christian worship which, being Christian, cannot do without it.

 

SO:

Jesus reinforces all of the commandments in the NT as well as other writers in the rest of the epistles except for the Sabbath. I don’t think that is reinforced, especially when dealing with Gentiles, because it was a sign for Israel.

Now Jesus and the disciples kept the Sabbath, but that was because they were Jews and that sign was for them.

I just don’t think you can get away from the clear teaching that the Sabbath was a sign to Israel.

Now with that said I think we can draw some very significant teachings and understandings from the Sabbath, because there is coming a Sabbath for us as well if we will walk in the Spirit and do all of those things necessary to realize that, but the Gentiles do not require a sign therefore we are not obligated to keep the Sabbath.

SRB:

Yes, the Sabbath was and is for Israel – for “all Israel”, which is ‘Spiritual Israel’. It was and is given them and them only by the LORD God to whom the Sabbath originally and lastly belonged and still belongs: The Sabbath never ‘belonged’ to Israel – it does not even ‘belong’, to Spiritual Israel. It is the Lord’s – it belongs to the LORD, the Lord’s Day of rest and worship, “for the People of God still remaining”, Hb4:9.

SO:

Jesus and the disciples kept the Sabbath, but that was because they were Jews and that sign was for them.

SRB:

No! But because He was the Son of God He came to ‘make great’ – “magnify”, “thy law, o God” ––– not man’s Law! The Sabbath is all, God’s. He gave it for His Church for ever – which is the People that belongs to this God whose is the Seventh Day Sabbath.

Perspective!

The Sabbath in this day of ours has become a ‘testing truth’ as never it had been before. It challenges no less than any other Christian denomination, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which as yet, it occurred to me, has been too self–satisfied or perhaps too cowardly, to review their fossilised ideas concerning it.  The rest of Christendom may not glee over their embarrassment, but should return to the Scriptures and to the Christ of the Scriptures, and stop slavishly to follow after and glorify the antichrist Roman Catholic Church as far as their superstitious “observation”–‘paratehreoh’ – the word used for ‘reading the entrails of a slaughtered victim’) of

“the day of the lord SUN” is concerned.

SO:

We are not obligated to keep the Sabbath.

SRB:

We are privileged to keep the Sabbath – because we are Christians, believing in Jesus Christ who “finished all the works of God”. Read this in your New Testament in Hb4:5. How did He do it? Read this in Eph1:19 further – through resurrection from the dead! But then He must have risen on the Sabbath, while He actually rose on the First Day of the week? No; wrong! Because He according to all the Scriptures should have risen on the Sabbath Day, He actually did just that, and that is what you can go read in Mt28:1 ... as it should have happened, it happened. So the antichrist saw to it that the translation was changed to “After the Sabbath on the First Day of the week”. Pity! But woe unto the mother of harlots!

 

SO:

If you want to keep yourself under the law then that is up to you. The Bible clearly says the Sabbath was a sign for the nation of Israel. As a Christian I am not a part of the nation of Israel. I am a part of the one new man in Christ that is neither Jew nor Gentile and therefore that sign does not apply, but you continue to follow it if you want to.

 

SRB:

The Law is it that keeps on keeping everyone under it for as long as he might live –for as long as he will be a sinner– it’s not for me to decide I’m no longer under the Law. That would be rather presumptuous. To be under the Law simply means I must still die before I can be translated above the Law – which all the credit for must go to Jesus Christ.

But I gladly submit –through Grace– to the Law that is the Word of God. Jesus is ‘my’ Law – not the Ten Commandments or specifically the Fourth. In Him and through Him the Sabbath – mark the Word: “of the LORD your God” –not Israel’s as a nation’s but as the nation of God – takes on every bit of meaning it has for ‘believers’, ‘spiritual Israel’, ‘the new man’ –– call it what you want, it’s for Christians: “for the People of God” : New Testament terminology!

Paul assumes this Christian freedom most beautifully:

“Let not therefore (because of Jesus Christ and He in resurrection from the dead, verses 12–15) you be judged / condemned by anyone (of the world) in feasting Sabbaths’ Feast”, Col2:16. Don’t! don’t let yourselves be judged hypocrites, heretics, legalists, Judaists, disturbers of the peace, antisocialists – whatever – condemned!  Because feasting the Lord’s (Sabbath) Day isn’t legalism, but is Christian freedom – even this side of death and resurrection. “For it –”feasting of Sabbaths’ Feast”– is a spectre of things a coming, even the Body of Christ’s own growing with the growth of God.” I appreciate Christian freedom, because I have been set free for Christ through Grace amazing and incomprehensible. That certainly means I will not submit to the devil’s designs, of which Sunday–sacredness is chief.

This I find strangest of my brethren in the faith, that while they resist God’s designed Day of Rest, His, holy Sabbath Day, they presumptuously regard themselves the lord–protectors of the antichrist error of Sunday sacredness.

SO:

You take everything that was promised to Israel and apply it to yourself as a Christian. That is something that one can not do, because Israel and the one new man in Christ are two separate things and must be kept separate. One will get into a LOT of trouble if trying to make certain promises fit within Christendom. Israel is still God’s people/God’s wife. Christians that overcome will become the bride of Christ.

SRB:

Precisely : I make Christ my own! I claim Him for myself, He being “everything promised to Israel”, and I through grace being made one of Israel the real and true ‘spiritual’ “Israel of God”. No man may say this Israel is not God’s Israel. God has had no other People. One will get into trouble if one try to make certain promises only, fit within Christendom. Israel –‘Spiritual Israel’, “all Israel”– is God’s People, His Bride. Christ is her faithful Husband; He never forsook His First Love, nor vowed a strange one allegiance.

It is the Israel that is called the “heritage” of the Lord that is “The People of God” of the New Testament. Joel 3:2. And it is in the New Testament only this Israel is written of, “So that you may know what is the riches of the glory of His Inheritance in the saints”. New Testament saints are none but God’s Inheritance in spiritual Israel, since of old.  “Yet will I bring an Heir (Christ) to thee (Israel) .... He shall come a Resting Place (Adullam), the Glory of Israel.” Micah 1:15. “Israel was holiness to the LORD and the firstfruits of His increase (inheritance).” Jer2:3.

All through the Old Testament, the true “Israel of God” had been but ‘Spiritual Israel’. “All that devour him (‘Israel’) shall offend (against the LORD); evil shall come upon them (that devour Israel and offend the LORD).

“The inheritance of the children of Simeon was within the inheritance of the children of Judah; and they had in their inheritance Be–er–sheba.” Jos19:1–2. “Be–er the well whereof the LORD spake unto Moses, Gather the People together, and I will give them water. Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O Well!” “Be–er–sheba”, ‘the well of rest by sevenfold oath’— Gn21:29–31. “And Abraham there called on the Name of the LORD the everlasting God.” verse 33b.

There is no ‘Sabbath–rest’ in the Sabbath–Day since Jesus’ resurrection but the rest He, introduced into it; for God never “rested”, but in and through Jesus Christ; God never “finished”, but in and through and by Jesus Christ; God never “blessed” the Sabbath Day, but in and through and for Jesus Christ; God never “sanctified”, but unto Jesus Christ, the Well of Water unto eternal life, “The water that I (the Well of Rest by sevenfold Oath of God) shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life”.

This ‘Inheritance’ all the tribes of the earth shall inherit who have their “inheritance within the Inheritance of Judah”.

Then come the SDAs and say there is no ‘symbolism’ of the Sabbath Day; that it is not ‘prophetic’ or ‘figurative’; ‘figurative’ namely of Jesus Christ; ‘eschatological’, in the sense of symbolic of Jesus Christ, so that in the resurrection of Jesus Christ God by “the exceeding greatness of His power” “In the Sabbath’s fullness, mid–afternoon”, for the Christian, created and left behind “remaining for the People of God” the “Israel of God”, an ‘inheritance’, even His holy Sabbath Day for to ‘commemorate’ the “great deeds of the LORD” in and through and by Jesus Christ – the Well of eternal life. That, is the ‘Sabbath rest’ of God today for Christians of which Christ is the Rest, and the day, is “the–Seventh–Day–Sabbath–of–the–LORD–your–God”.

The SDAs say, no such thing! They deny the true day, in that they deny its true meaning: its meaning of service; the service of it, to the Lord of the Sabbath; which is no one’s service that he may render the day, and no one’s keeping of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath’s witness and service unto Christ!

But then come the Sundayists, and they too, deny; but more viciously and more shrewdly. They don’t deny the Day its Truth; they deny the Truth His Day! They steal the Sabbath’s truth of honour and service to its Lord, and attach it to this false day of the world and its “beggarly first principles”, “The lord sun’s Day”. It is a shame!

 

SO:

I believe that every commandment was reinforced in the NT, except the Sabbath as a binding law (although the principals behind the Sabbath can teach us an awful lot if we will allow them to).

I don’t know of a single congregation of Sabbath believers/followers that are monitoring their folks and then stoning the ones that break the rules of the Sabbath.

And once again the first four show us how to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and the last six show us how to love our neighbour as ourselves.

Then we are to obey everything that was given in the NT as well.

 

SDA:

The fact that God the Son is a member of the Trinity acting in Genesis 1–2:3 in no way gives us license to ignore the fact that God DID rest and God DID bless and God DID Sanctify “just as HE said” in the text.

The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days.

SRB:

You supply all these arguments (mostly borrowed from Sunday–keepers) without attending to anything I have proposed. As you have told me before, you have had your proposals prepared for years. Obviously that’s why they’re so stale and dry and cold they’re unpalatable and indigestible.

You vault your heaviest machinery at the loftiest, holiest, most beautiful, most worthy of reasons and grounds for the Day of God’s worship by a Christian People : that says it all. You make enemies of what should be co–labourers to the glory of Christ; you oppose Salvation with Law. How do you wish to attract any to your ways and methods? What does the Law have, a searching soul won’t find in Jesus Christ? In Him, first, and, without the Law? Wherein does Christ fail that He cannot provide everything the sinner needs unto salvation? Then why must the Sabbath stand on those obsolete principles and not solidly on Jesus Christ? You say you treasure God’s Sabbath Day, yet cut it from its life–giving Fountainhead –– the Maker and Creator of the Sabbath Day, Jesus, in resurrection from the dead, become, “Lord, even of the Sabbath”?

Go on your diet of sand pebbles like those ostriches with brains smaller than a pea!

 

SO:

The sabbath is simply a Red Herring – I am surprised that people use it.

SRB:

The SDAs’ –the Law–method of argument for the Sabbath– isn’t the Red Herring. You –the Sunday agitator– is the one that is trying to say that the law is still in effect, but you are trying to pick and choose which parts are ‘in’ and ‘with it’, and which parts you don’t care for and view out of fashion. You don’t have to do that; it’s either all in, or all out, with the Law. Which is it with you?

SO:

“There be no gatherings when I come” – There should be no collection of money when I come ( doesn’t mean the church gathering) They collected the money on the first days of the week.” ( 1 Cor 16:2)

SRB:

Correct – – so as not to do it on the Sabbath!

 

SO:

They broke the Bread on the First day of the Week ( Acts 20:7)

SRB:

False, false, false – – so is it ‘translated’ to support Sunday observance.

You go much further than the ‘translations’ that make a Verb of the Participle. You make of the Infinitive of Noun–force, a word of unheard of ‘Verb–force’!

The Greek says, “After having had assembled together for Holy Communion they being gathered together still on the First Day of the week, Paul discussed matters …” with the disciples (mentioned earlier in the same chapter). Conclusion: They actually, had gathered the previous day, the Sabbath, for Holy Communion.

SO:

You missed the Pentecostal meetings were on Sunday, First fruits day was Sunday. That’s why I believe the Resurrection was on Sunday because the Firstfruits day was Sunday which symbolize the resurrection.

SRB:

Every assertion you make is false, one way or the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dae van Genesis Een

 

Skeiding: uit niks, die heelal! Worstelinge tussen God die Skepper en magte van niet–en–verganklikheid, onbegryplik skrikwekkend aangrypend:  “In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape; en die aarde was woes en leeg, en duisternis was op die wêreldvloed, en die Gees van God het op die waters gesweef.” 

 

“Maar Gód, het Gespreek:

 

Dag 1 (v3) “Laat daar lig wees!” – skeiding! (v4b–5);

Worstelstryd tussen God van lig en magte van alomteenwoordige duisternis, onbegryplik skrikwekkend aangrypend!

 

Dag 2 (v6) – skeiding! (v6b–8);

Worstelstryd tussen God van openbaring en bowêreldse newelskimme, onbegryplik skrikwekkend aangrypend!

 

Dag 3 (v9) – skeiding! (v9b–10),

Worstelstryd tussen God van orde en woeste magte van kokende wêreldvloed, onbegryplik skrikwekkend aangrypend!

 

“Maar God” . . . vier maal seëvierend in stryd, “spreek … en daar was” ... vir die eerste keer, léwe – léwe teen aanvegtinge van dóód, van niet, van duistenis, skimme en chaos!  “Toe sien God, en dit was ... goed.” (v11–13) God deur te ‘spreek’ én, deur te ‘sien’, ‘skep’; en skep – Lewe!

 

Dag 4 (v14) – God óór lig én duisternis, óór ‘heersers van die lug’, in krag: God óór ruimte én tyd in mag: is God en Heerser, Enig–aanbiddingswaardige, Ewige Verbonds–God, God oor alles wat in sigself geen lewe bevat en oor geen lewe beskik nie! “Gód sien, wat Hý vermag het, en dit was goed.”  (14b–19) “Jy mag geen ander gode voor my aangesig hê nie; Jy mag geen gelykenis van wat in die hemele is, maak, of voor dit neerbuig nie!” Hoe gaan die mens nie nog hierdie Gebod van God oortree nie! Hoe gaan hy nie nog die skepping van God met sy aanbídding daarvan, onteer nie! En Sonaanbidding is van dag een af die gruwel der gruwels in die oë van God.

Maar lofwaardig is  “Die Evangelie na die Krag, van God, wat ons gered het met ’n heilige roeping, nie volgens ons werke nie, maar volgens sy eie Voorneme en Genade wat aan ons van ewigheid af in Christus Jesus geskenk is, maar wat nou geopenbaar is deur die Verskyning, van ons Verlosser, Jesus Christus, wat die dood tot niet gemaak het, en die Lewe en Onverderflikheid aan die Lig gebring het . . . Enigste Heerser, Koning van konings en Here van here, wat alleen Onsterflikheid besit, en ontoeganklike Lig bewoon, wat geen méns gesien het of kán sien nie, aan Wie toekom, eer, en ewige krag!”

 

Dag 5 (v20) – “God het gespreek …” Dit is sy Wet, Koningswet! Oorwinnaarswet! God vermag, met ’n Doel! Vandag vervul God die moontlikheid wat Hy klaar geskep gehad het, en vul Hy die ruimte wat Hy alreeds die Tweede Dag bewerkstellig het, met sin en inhoud, en “Spreek en sê, Laat die waters wemel …” (“Gee vir My iets om te eet?” vra die Koning!)

Ons het gou tot by die Vyfde Dag gekom. Nou weet ek dit is heeltemal teen die gewone verstaan van Genesis 1 maar moet ek nogtans ’n ander benadering tot die dae van Genesis aan u voorstel. Toemaar, dis nie ewolusie nie! En ek besef u sal dink ek verbeel my gans te veel om dit enigsins te noem. Maar my ander benadering kan geen skade aan u geloof doen nie; dit kan dit miskien net, versterk. En dit mag help vir ’n ewewigtiger begrip van God se skeppingswerk, en kom hierop neer:  In plaas daarvan om elke keer die ‘afgelope’ dag van skepping – soos in verse 5b, 8b, 13, 19, en 23, af te sluit met:

“En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag …”, begin elke nuwe keppings–dag (‘en alles daarin’) presies deur “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag …”, as inleiding tot elke dag, te lees! Want die dae in Genesis 1 begin met hierdie woorde; hierdie woorde sluit nie die gedeeltes oor elke dag af nie.

Genesis begin met gebeure wat volgens die Vierde Gebod binne die eerste dag veronderstel word. Genesis 1 self, voorveronderstel ook die skeppingswerk van God wat binne die bestek van verse 1 tot 5a en voor vers 5b vermeld staan, as synde behorende tot, aan, en van, die Eerste Dag van God se skeppingsprestasie. Wat juis die Eerste Dag aanbetref, is dit daarom so dat, terwýl “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag” die betrokke dag se gebeure agterna saamvat, dit dit ook aan die begin inlei en inlui! Mens kan dus begin om Genesis – ‘Oorspronge’ – te lees: “Dit was aand en dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin: En God het die hemel en die aarde geskape; en die aarde was woes en leeg (op die Eerste Dag), en duisternis was op die wêreldvloed, en (op die Eerste Dag) het die Gees van God op die waters gesweef.”  Want God het die hemel en die aarde en álles daarin, op die Eerste Dag, begin skep. Vergelyk 2:4b, “Die dag toe die Here God die aarde én die hemel gemaak het”! Vir my is dit onbetwisbaar in die lig van ook die Vierde Gebod wat ál die werke en die héle skepping van die heelal, binne die tydsbestek van die eerste ses dae plaas.  Ek probeer nie ‘wetenskaplik’ wees nie; ek praat as gelowige in God Almagtige Skepper, en probeer om die Skrif “volgens die Skrifte” uit te lê – die Skrifte is my enigste maatstaf en gesag— is al waarvan ek miskien iets mag weet of verstaan.  Daarom dink ek dit staan ons vry (“Die waarheid sal julle vry maak.”) om Genesis 1 ook so te interpreteer dat “Dit was aand en môre die eerste dag in die begin …” heel vooraan verstáán, móét word, soos ’n opskrif vir ál daardie dag se gebeure – wat dié vóór vers 5b, insluit. (“Dit was aand en dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin” klop buitendien met die dagberekening, éérs aand, dán môre, van heel die Bybel! En “Dit was aand (of nag–donkerte) en dit was môre die eerste dag in die begin”, klop ook met die skeppings–gebeurtenis self, toe God ná, en úít, en náás duisternis, niet en chaos, lig gemaak het, en só, die Eerste Dag geskape het.

Dit gaan beteken dat die gebeurtenisse wat in verse 6 tot 8b ná vers 5b – “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Eerste Dag” – vermeld word, skeppingwerk van en op die Tweede Dag was, en nie, soos ons dit nog altyd verstaan het, skeppingwerk van die Eerste Dag nie!  Daarmee wil ek dan juis nié, dat dit wat vóór die woorde, “En dit was aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag: …” nie óók geskép was, nie óók deur Gód geskep was, en nie óók tot Eerste–Dag–skeppingswerk van God, behoort nie. Eerste–Dag–skeppingswerk sluit alles geskape vóór, “En dit was aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag”, ín! Onteenseglik is “En dit was aand en dit was môre, Die–Eerste–Dag”, ‘Die–Eerste–Dag’–aanhef van en tot die hele Genesis Een verhaal van skepping! Hierdie ‘benadering’ sluit enige moontlikheid vir ‘spontane generasie’, ‘selfstandige bestaan’, of ewolusie of watter ongeloofsgoggas ookal, uit!

Ek wil ’n tweede voorstel waag, dat die numering van die dae méér as suiwere telling is, en dat dit elke skeppingsdag se naam, aangee: “En dit was aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag: En God het gesê, Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees”.  

Die frases, “En dit was aand en môre, Die–Eerste–Dag:”, word retories, midde die konteks van uitsluitlik die skepping van die Eerste Dag geplaas, soos tipies in dialektiese, apologetiese beredenering. U wat vertroud is met debatvoering sal weet, voordat die orator sy ‘opskrif’ vir sy standpunt ‘stel’, val hy as’t ware met die deur in die huis met kernidee in hooftrekke saamgevat.  Digter, se manier is anders; hy, sal sê: “ ‘Op die Hoëveld’, deur Toon van den Heever “; en dan eers sal hy aangaan met die gedig self, “Op die hoëveld waar dit oop is ...” (As ek my gediggies en digters reg onthou!) ’n Digter sal nie een versie voordra en dán eers die titel van die gedig gee nie. Maar nie die meer serebrale debatvoerder nie. Hy is orator, verteller; wil dadelik indruk maak, en onmiddellik standpunt duidelik stel. Dan nog al die ondergeskikte detail omtrent homself ens., vóórdat hy met sy eintlike ‘redenasie’ sal áángaan asof hy nét begin het. So, in Genesis Een. Verse 1 tot 5a staan metodies voor vers 5b, nie chronologies nie.

Aanvaar mens nou hierdie ‘indeling’ van die teks, dan skuif jy elke dag by wyse van spreke, een dag terug:

(1) Dit was die Eerste Dag waarop God hemel en aarde gemaak het; dit was die Éérste Dag steeds waarop God gesê het: Laat daar lig wees; dit was die Eerste Dag stééds waarop God dag en nag van mekaar geskei het; én, dit was die Eerste Dag steeds toe God gesê het: Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees! 

 

(2) Dan was dit die Twééde Dag maar, waarop God die see en aarde geskei het, en plantlewe geskep het;

 

(3) Dan was dit die Dérde Dag al, waarop God die ‘hemelligte’ aangestel het om te heers – anders as wat ons dit altyd verstaan het, op die vierde dag.

 

(4) En so moes dit die Vierde Dag gewees het waarop God die see met lewe gevul en sy doel met die skepping daarvan, vervul het.

 

(5) “Verder was dit aand en môre die Vyfde Dag toe God gesê het: Laat die aarde, lewende wesens voortbring”, en toe Hy sy doel met al die Tweede Dag se skepping van aardse lewensruimte, vervul het.

 

Skielik staar moeilikheid ons in die oog! Wat nou gemaak? Was die mens op die Vyfde Dag geskape? En ’n leë, stil, dooie, Vrydag–Sesde Dag?  Is dit nou op die Vyfde Dag dat “God alles wat Hy gemaak het, sien, en verklaar, Dit was baie goed”? Is dan ‘so’ “voltooi, die hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag”? “So is voltooi …” Hoe, “So …”?! Op die Vyfde Dag voltooi? A nee a!  “Want in ses dae (nie net in vyf dae nie), het die HERE die hemel en die aarde gemaak, en die see, en alles wat in (aldrie) is – die mens inkluis!” (Ex20:11 en 31:17) Nadat God die mens geskape het, toe eers het Hy sy skeppingswerk voltooi “En was dit aand en môre die Sesde Dag”.

Daar is net een manier – so ver as ek kan sien – waarmee ons hierdie moeilikheid gaan oorkom – as mens nie op die aanvaarde siening dat “Dit was aand en dit was môre …” agterná, as afsluiting vir elke dag se skepping genoem word, wil terugval nie. 

Hier is dan die oplossing. Net soos ons aan die begin gesien het dat die inleiding van die Eerste Dag eers ná sy werklike aanvang vermeld staan, word die inleiding van die Sesde Dag, óók, eers ná die gebeure daarvan, aangehef. Nogmaals, op beklemtonende, aan betekenis sware, retoriese wyse.  Al wat vir ons oorbly om te doen, is om te gaan kyk wáár die Sesde Dag se aanvang in die konteks, nou eintlik lê.  En dit is tog gladnie moeilik nie, want, Word die skeppingsdae nie keer op keer afgesluit met God se eie oorsig en bevinding – met Goddelike konklusie – nie?  Inderdaad! 

 

 

Ná die Eerste Dag: “God hét toe die uitspansel gemaak en die waters wat onder die uitspansel is geskei van die waters wat bo die uitspansel is … En dit wás so; en God het die uitspansel, ‘hemel’, genoem.” God gee naam aan die hele wydste hemele van sy grote skepping – alles, “die werke van sy hande”, wat Hy “nooit sal laat vaar nie”. Dit sluit alles voor vers 5b in!  God was van die begin af: God oweral Teenwoordig, God oweral Almagtig. Sonder Hom het niks onstaan wat ontstaan het nie; deur Hom en uit Hom en tot Hom, is alle dinge.

 

Aan die einde van die Tweede Dag: v10 en 12, Seewaters versamel en aarde en wolke word sigbaar “... en dit was so. Toe sien God dat dit goed was”. Die aarde het (plante) voortgebring. … Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”

Alvorens God lewe geskep het, sal Hy nie verklaar “dat dit goed was” nie! God begin sy tuin vir die mens met goeie grond en lewe, Gn1:8b–12, 2:7 en 3:1c. Daarom lees ons tweemaal op die Tweede Dag, “Toe sien God dat dit goed was” – met die oog op wat Hy op die Sesde Dag, “baie goed”, sou gáán doen het.

 

Aan die einde van die Derde Dag: v17–18, “God het die ligte aan die uitspansel van die heelal gestel om op die aarde lig te gee en om oor dag en nag te heers en skeiding te maak. v18c, Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”

 

Aan die einde van die Vierde Dag: v21c, “Toe sien God dat dit goed was. En God het hulle (die visse en die voëls) geseën en gesê: Wees vrugbaar en vermeerder en vul die waters in die see, en laat die voëls (van die lug) op die aarde vermeerder.”

Let eers op hoedat “Toe sien God dat dit goed was” in verse 21–22 na aanleiding van die skepping van die betrokke dag, eerste staan, en nie agterna soos in al die ander gevalle nie. Dit bevestig ons stelling soos van toepassing op die dae se name, dat hulle eerste kan staan, en nie agterna, móét staan nie.

 

Aan die einde van die Vyfde Dag: “En God het die wilde diere van die aarde gemaak volgens hulle soorte en die vee volgens hulle soorte, en al die diere wat op die grond kruip, volgens hulle soorte. Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”

Op hierdie Vyfde Dag verklaar God, Hy is Wetgewer oor lewendige én ‘dooie’ dinge, want Hy is dit wat na orde en skikking volgens sy wil, ‘dooie’, én lewendige dinge, na soort en aard voortgebring het, en daaroor blý beskik. (“Vir alles het Hy grense gestel.”) “En dit was so” . . . en so sal dit wees tot in ewigheid. Vrees nie oor ’n ‘skepping’ wat aan menslike of kosmiese vernietiging onderworpe sou kon wees nie. Net Een is Smelter van die elemente: Hy wat die elemente gemaak het. Net een is Gieter: Hy wat die mens uit die stof van die aarde ‘gevorm’ het. God die Beskikker is God die Bewaker en Verlosser van gans en al die werke van sy hande. God heers! Vers 25c dan, “Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”  Dit was God se besluit van en op die Vyfde Dag.  Maar hierdie is nie God se finale besluit – sy finale konklusie of beaming of blyke van tevredenheid nie!   Daar wag ’n beter verklaring van die Skepper self – sy verklaring van die Sesde Dag naamlik.

 

Aan die einde van die Sesde Dag:

“Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was … báie, goed!” 

 

Nou wat het hierdie beter gevolgtrekking by God self teweeggebring? Wat het aanleiding gegee vir God se groter genoegdoening? Niks anders nie as God se skepping van die mens nie! Niks anders nie as God se voltooiing van sy skepping met sy skepping van die méns nie! Niks anders nie as God se voltooiing van sy skepping met sy skepping op die Sesde Dag nie! Dáárom is die aanvang van die Sesde Dag sonder enige huiwering in die teks aantoonbaar dáár, waar “God gespreek het: Laat ons mense maak!”  Die Sesde Dag, begin, met vers 26! Die Sesde Dag begin nie met vers 24 nie; en die Vyfde Dag eindig nie met vers 23 nie, maar begin, met vers 23!   En so terugwerkend tot die Eerste Dag. Die naam van die dag, ‘Eerste Dag’, ‘Tweede Dag’, en so aan, lei die dag in, en sluit dit nie af nie . . . behalwe, in die geval van die Sesde Dag, juis omdat God sy eie, laaste, afsluitende voltooiingswerk – God se skepping van die mens op die Sesde Dag – self soveel wonderliker as sy skepping van al die vorige dae tesame, geag het. Want die Sesde Dag is enig daarin dat dit skeppingsdag van die mens en net van die mens was; enig, omdat God méér as sy gewone ‘goeie’ werk daarop gedoen het; omdat God op die Sesde Dag die mens, ‘baie goed’, gemaak het – inderdaad “na die beeld van God gemaak het”. Geen ander skepping van God pas, by God se werk van die Sesde Dag nie omdat, geen van God se vorige werke daarteen kan opweeg na waardigheid en heerlikheid nie – omrede die mens!

Kan u nou sien hoedat hierdie afsluiting van die Sesde Dag van die skeppingswerk van God, terugreik, tot aan sy begin, tot aan sy fondamente – tot aan, “En God het gespreek: Laat ons mense maak!”?  Want hier begin God se ‘baie’, goeie werk!  Kan u sien waarom die ses dae skeppingsverhaal se eindiging in vers 26, vanuit  vers 31 summa cum lauda aangekondig word? Die twee dae wat sover die belangrikste dae van God se skepping was, se ‘aanhef by name’ staan soos dik, beklemtónende, ónder–streping uit.

 

En nog is hierdie slot op die Sesde Dag, “Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was … báie, goed!”, nie waar die teks met die skeppingsverhaal van die eerste ses dae ophou nie.

Die chiastiese struktuur waaruit Genesis een opgebou is, word hier baie duidelik. Net soos die teks begin het met die groter geheel van die begin van God se skepping vóór, die eintlike aanhef by wyse van “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Eerste Dag”, eindig dit die groter geheel van die begin van God se skepping ná, die eintlike slot by wyse van “Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was … báie, goed!” Want opvolgend staan weereens verder vermeld, “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Sesde Dag, So (met die skepping van die méns), is dan voltooi die hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag.” Eers hier, eindig Genesis 1 werklik. (Ongelukkig, soos u weet, sny die teksindeling die laaste sin van die Eerste Dag af.) 

 

Dae van Genesis 1, 2 en 3

 

Genesis 1, Dae:–
|.………1…|2……….…|3……………|4……………|5…………|…….…6…|
1…….8a…|8b……12|13…..…18|19…….22|23…..25|26……2:1

en teksplase… “Dit was aand en dit was môre die ...”
Sewende Dag: 2:2–3 / 4a

 

Genesis 2, Teks en Dae:–
|4b………6|………………………………………………………..|7……….7|
|…………….|8………14|………………………………………..|15……18|
|.……………………………….…………|19b………|19a……|19c….25|
|…….1……|…….2…….|……3……|…….4……|……5…..|……6…….|

Genesis 3:– Sesde Dag: ………………………………….|….1–7….|

                  Sewende Dag.……………………………|..8–24..|

Genesis 2, 3 – Piramiede:–

………………………….Sewende Dag………………………….|3: 8–24|

………………….…………………………………………………………| 3: 1–7  |

.……………………………………………....|19b………..|19a…...…|19c….25|

……………..|8………14|……………………………………........……|15……18|

|4b………6|…………………………………………………….......……..|7……….7|

|…….1……|…….2…….|………3..…..|……..4…….|…….5…….|……6……|

 

 

                Genesis 3

 

 

7

 

 

 

2

Genesis 2

6

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

 

6

 

                 Genesis 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Last Week

“ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES”[1] ... “THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH”[2]


The First Month for You
“Observe the Month of Abib!”[3] Christ our Passover sacrificed[4]; Lamb of God[5]; A Lamb stood on the mount; they sang a new song before the Throne[6]


Friday
“The eighth day of Abib, they came”[7], He came to Bethany.[8]


Saturday (Abib 9)
Six days before the Passover Feast; where Lazarus stayed; lunch.[9]


‘Palm Sunday’ (5 days before Feast)
The next day[10], “tenth day of Abib”[11], Jerusalem; branches of palm trees.[12] Late; to Bethany.[13]


Monday (Abib 11; 4 days before Feast)
The next day[14] From Bethany; fig tree; in temple; when late out of city; to Bethany.[15]

[1] 1Cor15:3–4
[2] Mt12:40
[3] Dt16:1–3, 2Chr29:15a
[4] 1Cor5:7
[5] Jh1:29,36
[6] Rv14:1,3, 15:3; Ps40:2–3, 138; Ex15:1–3, 6–7, 16–18; Eph1:17–23; Ro6:4; Col2:12b, 15
[7] 2Chr29:15b
[8] Jn11:56, 12:1a
[9] Jn12:1b
[10] Jn12:12a
[11] Ex12:3,6
[12] Jh12:12b–13
[13] Mk11:11
[14] Mk11:12–13, Mt21:18–19
[15] Mk11:19, Mt21:17

 

Tuesday (Abib 12; 3 days before Feast)
The next day[1]; returned to city; saw fig tree; in temple; out of temple; mount of Olives.[2] = “When Jesus had
finished these sayings, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days is the Passover when the Son of Man is to be crucified (Abib 14).”[3]



Wednesday (Abib 13; 2 days before Feast)
In the night (Tuesday–night) He abode in the mount.[4] Early in the morning; all the people came to the temple[5]; The Feast Day when they began to eat Unleavened Bread drew nigh[6]; After two days was the Feast Day[7] of the Passover of Unleavened Bread; The priests sought how they might take Him; not on the Feast![8]

And He being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper ... Judas went to the priests to betray Him unto them without tumult.”[9]

[1] Mk11:20, Mt21:18,23, Lk20:1
[2] Mk13:1,3
[3] Mt26:2, Jesus’ own words to his disciples; “two days” to Nisan 14, but 3 days to Nisan 15.
[4] Lk21:37
[5] Lk21:38
[6] Lk22:1
[7] Mk14:1, Abib 15; Mark’s words to the readers.
[8] Mk14:2, Mt26:5, Nisan 13 – “Not on the Feast Day”, Nisan 15, yet!
[9] Mk14:3,10, Mt26:6,15, Lk22:3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday (Abib 14; 1 day before Feast)

“The fourteenth day”[1] Before the Feast[2]; the first[3] day Leaven had[4] to be Removed; began[5]; the night in which He was betrayed[6]; the Preparation of the Passover[7]; when always[8] the Passover must[9] be killed; My time is at hand.[10] In the evening[11] when the hour was come[12] He sat down with the disciples. His hour was come.[13] It was night.[14] This day in this night[15]; this hour[16]; Enough, the hour had come[17]; Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed!

[1] Lv23:5
[2] Jn13:1
[3] Mt26:17a
[4] Ex12:19
[5] Lk22:7a
[6] 1Cor11:23
[7] Jn19:14
[8]Mk14:12a/17, Mt26:17a/20, Lk22:7a/14, Jn13:1
[9] Lk22:7b
[10] Mt26:18b
[11] Mk14:17, Mt26:20
[12] Lk22:14
[13] Jn13:1
[14] Jn13:30b
[15] Mk14:30
[16] Mk14:35, Mt26:39a
[17] Mk14:41b Mt26:45b
[18] Jn18:28
[19] Jn19:14
[20] Mk15:25
[21] Mk15:33
[22] Mt27:50
[23] Lk23:48

It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.[1]
It was the Preparation of Passover six o’clock am ... Behold, your King![2] It was the third hour when they crucified Him.[3] When the sixth hour was come, there was darkness until the ninth hour.[4] Jesus then after, yielded up the ghost.[5]

And all the people that came to that sight, when having seen the things which were done, went away and returned.[6]

[1] Jn18:28
[2] Jn19:14
[3] Mk15:25
[4] Mk15:33
[5] Mt27:50
[6] Lk23:48

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday The Feast

After this because it was the Preparation, Joseph of Arimathea, secretly for fear of the Jews, went[1] in[2] boldly unto Pilate[3], (and) besought (him) that he might take away the body of Jesus.[4] And Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took down[5] the body of Jesus (and) away[6]. Having bought linen[7], Joseph wrapped[8] the body. There came also Nicodemus who the first time came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh about an hundred pound. Then prepared[9] they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen with the spices as the manner of the Jews is to bury.[10]
[1] Mt27:58
[2] Mk15:43 – cf. Jn18:28
[3] Lk23:52
[4] Jn19:38 ‘arehi’
[5] Mk15:46a, Lk23:53a ‘kathelohn’
[6] Jn19:38c ‘ehren’
[7] Mk15:46
[8] Lk23:53 ‘kathelohn – enetulicsen’
[9] Jn19:40a, ‘elabon – edehsan’; Mt27:59a ‘labohn – enetulicsen’
[10] Jn19:39–40

 

 

 

Daylight Procession

The women also, who came with Him from Galilee (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary), followed the procession.[1]

There was a garden in the place where He was crucified, and in the garden a new sepulchre, hewn out of rock[2], wherein was never man yet laid.[3] There laid they[4] Jesus because of the Jews’ preparations.[5]

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre[6] beheld where[7] (and) how his body was laid.[8]

(Joseph) rolled a great[9] stone unto the door of the sepulchre[10], and departed.[11]

(The women) returned home also, and prepared spices and ointments.[12]

The day was The Preparation, afternoon while the Sabbath drew on.[13]

[1] Lk23:55
[2] Mk15:46c, Mt 27:60b
[3] Jn19:41
[4] Jn19:38a, 39a, Joseph and Nicodemus
[5] Jn19:42
[6] Mt27:61
[7] Mk15:47
[8] Lk23:55b
[9] Mt27:60c
[10] Mk15:46d
[11] Mt27:60d
[12] Lk23:56a
[13] Lk23:54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday (Abib 16)

“First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD; on the day after the sabbath (of the Passover, Abib 15).”[1]

The women began[2] to rest the Sabbath Day according to the (Fourth) Commandment.[3]

The morning sunrise, all their precautions despite, the chief priests and Pharisees had a meeting with Pilate, and protested, But Sir, we remember this deceiver said while he was yet alive, After[4] three days I will rise again! Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day has passed; lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say, he is risen.[5] So they secured the tomb by sealing the stone and setting a watch.[6]

[1] Lv23:10,15–16
[2] Ingressive Aorist. Cf. Lv23:32, Dt24:15
[3] Lk23:56b
[4] “After” is used idiomatically for Matthew’s usual “the third day”, 12:40, 16:21,23, 20:19. “After tree days” – not ‘after the third day’! It does not mean on a fourth day after three days. Cf. 26:2, “after two days the Feast”, inclusive of first and last days.
[5] Mt27:62–64
[6] Mt27:66

 

In the slow hours[1] of the Sabbath’s[2] after noon[3], towards the First Day of the week – explained the angel[4]:– When suddenly there was a great earthquake, (and) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out[5] to go[6] have a look at the grave[7], Behold! For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and hurled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead.[8]

[1] Dionysius
[2] ‘Sabbath’s–time’
[3] ‘Being (day)light tending’
[4] Mt28:5a
[5] Wenham
[6] Infinitive of intention
[7] Mt28:1
[8] Mt28:2–4

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday (Abib 17)

And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices that when[1] they come, they might anoint Him.[2]

Early darkness still the First Day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes[3] to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away from it! Then she runs and comes to Peter.[4]

On the First Day of the week, deep dark morning[5], they[6] and certain other with them, went[7] to the grave bringing their spices which they had prepared. And they found[8] the stone rolled away from the grave.[9]

[1] They did not then, immediately, go to the tomb, but first waited.
[2] Mk16:1a Salome did not know of events.
[3] Notice the Present!
[4] Jn20:1 futher
[5] Lk24:1 ‘órthrou bathéohs’
[6] The two Marys and Salome. A variant has “three women”.
[7] Notice the Past!
[8] Just as Mary must have told them!
[9] Lk24:1 further

Very early before sunrise on the First Day of the week, they[1], came[2] to the tomb. Talking among themselves, they wondered: Who could have rolled the stone away for us (for it was exceedingly big!)?[3] So on re–investigation[4] they found that the stone was thrown back uphill![5] ... They fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed. They told nobody anything, because they were afraid.[6] ... But Mary had had stood after[7] in front of the tomb. Weeping, she bent over and looked inside the sepulchre. ... She turned herself around, and saw Jesus ... supposing Him to be the gardener ...[8] Risen (Jesus), very early daylight on the First Day of the week, first appeared to Mary Magdalene.[9]

[1] Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome, but probably ‘others with them’ again.
[2]  ‘erchontai’, Present of past meaning; they first ‘come’ = ‘came’, KJV, then ‘talked’.

[3] Mk16:4c, They were familiar with the situation already; it was not their first visit to the tomb!
[4] Mk16:4a, ‘anablepsasai’
[5] Mk16:4b, ‘anakekúlistai’
[6] Mk16:8
[7] Jn20:11a, “heistehkehi”, Pluperfect

[8] Jn20:15b
[9] Mk16:9 The other women must have returned to the grave after Jesus had appeared to Mary, when “The angel explained to them”, and they believed, and Jesus appeared to them while they went to tell the others. Refer to Mt28:5 further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shewbread,

The ‘Continual’ Sabbathly Offering Before the Lord

 

One

‘Shewbread’, from ‘lechem panim’

 

Ex25:30, “And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me continually.”  “Kai epithéhseis epí tehn trápedzan artóús enohpíous enantíon mou diapantós.”

 

“enohpíous” (<‘enohpéh’), facing, of presence.

Ex35:5,13, “Let him bring an offering unto the LORD, … the table, and his staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread.”

Ex39:33,35, “And they brought unto Moses … the table, all the vessels thereof, and the shewbread.”

1K7:48, “Solomon took … the table on which shewbread (was).”  “Élabon Salohmóhn … tehn trápedzan eph’ hehs hoi ártoi tehs prosphoráhs.” (LXX)

 

“prosphoráhs” (<prosphoréoh), present, offer.

 2Chr4:19, “Solomon made … the tables and upon them (were to be) the loaves of shewbread.”  “Epóíehse Salohmóhn … tas trapédzas, kai ep’ autóhn ártoi prothéseohs.”

 

Two

The “shewbread of arrangement”, from ‘maareketh’

 

“prothéseohs” (<protíthehmi), put forward.

1Chr28:16, David gave Solomon his son the plan of the temple ... he gave him both of gold and silver the weight ... of the tables of shewbread (trapedzóhn tehs prothéseohs) ... David gave all to Solomon in the Lord’s handwriting according to the knowledge given him of the work of the pattern. 

2Chr2:4, Solomon, saying, I, his (David’s) son, also am building a house to the Name of the Lord my God, to consecrate it to Him, to continually

(1) burn incense before Him (tou (1) thymiáhin apénanti autóú thymíama), and

(2) offer shew–bread always (kai (2) próthesin diapantós); and to offer up

(3) whole–burnt–offerings continually morning and afternoon (diapantós (3) toprohí kai todéílehs) :–

on the Sabbaths, at the new moons, and at the feasts of the Lord our God : This is a perpetual statute for Israel.

 

2Chr29:18, The Levites went to king Ezekias, and said, we purified all the things in the house of the Lord,

(1) the altar of whole–burnt–offering and its vessels, and

(2) the table of shew–bread (tehn trápredzan tehs prothéseohs ) and its vessels; and

(3) all the vessels which king Achaz polluted in his reign, in his apostasy, we have prepared and purified: Look, They are in place before the altar of the Lord!

 

We see that ‘maareketh’, is used when institutional or when a re–instatement of the ‘arrangement’ or institution.  We see the “statute”, “to continually” and “perpetually”, “offer shew–bread always”, meant to every Sabbath Day, offer it. It does not mean the shewbread to be offered fresh every day. It means ‘every day’ as little as it means every day ‘mornings and afternoons’; it means once every day as little as it means twice every day. It means every day as little as it means only monthly, or only with every yearly feast! The “statute” to “offer shew–bread always”, “continually” and “perpetually”, meant the shewbread to be offered, “on the Sabbaths” every Sabbath Day, and also “on the Sabbaths” every Sabbath Day “at the new moons, and at the feasts of the Lord our God”. For thus it has, divinely, been “arranged”. The Shewbread was an offering of Sabbath days only, and specifically, for its peculiar Sabbath’s–meaning:  “… in the Lord’s handwriting according to the knowledge given …”!

 

Three

‘Shewbread’, from ‘panim’

 

The shewbread “when the camp moves on”:

 

Numbers 4:7, “Upon the table of shewbread (LXX, “On the table set forth for shewbread”, “epí tehn trápedzan tehn prokeiménehn”) they shall spread a cloth of blue and put thereon the dishes … and covers to cover withal. The continual bread shall be (laid) thereon (LXX, “the continual loaves shall be upon it”, “hoi ártoi hoi diápantos ep’ autéhs ésontai”), and they shall spread upon them a cloth of scarlet, and shall cover the same with a covering of badgers’ skins.”

‘prokeiménehn’ (<prókeimai), set before, proposed.

‘diápantos’ (<diá + pántos), throughout.

 

Four

‘Shewbread’, from ‘lechem’

 

1Chr23:25–31, “The LORD hath given rest … they shall no more carry the tabernacle … by the last words of David … the Levites were to wait on the sons of Aaron … for the service of the house of the LORD…

(1) both for the shewbread (ta érga leitourgéías eis tous ártous tehs prothéseohs),

(2) and for the fine flour for meat offering, and for the unleavened cakes, and for that which is baked in the pan, and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measure and size;

(3) And to stand every morning to thank and praise the LORD, and likewise in the afternoon;

(4) And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD :–

In the Sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts; By number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD.”

 

We see:

In a sense all sacrifices and offerings were ‘perpetual’ or ‘continual’:

(1) The yearly or seasonal, every year every season and always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;

(2) The monthly, every month and always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;

(3) The sabbathly, both of:

(3a) the weekly Sabbath and

(3b) the sabbaths of the Feasts

every sabbath and always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;

(4) The ‘morning–and–afternoon’ or ‘daily’, every day both morning and afternoon, always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually;

(5) The ‘morning’, every day only in the mornings, always, without interruption continually, and for ever perpetually.

 

2Chr13:10–11, “As for us, the LORD is our Mighty, God, and we have not forsaken Him: The priests who minister unto the LORD are the sons of Aaron (and not the priests of Baal), and the Levites wait upon their business:

(1) They burn unto the LORD every morning and every evening, burnt sacrifices and sweet incense;

(2) They set in order also the Shewbread upon the pure table (not polluted by the sacrifices of apostasy); and

(3) They set in order the candlestick of gold with the lamps thereof, (in the afternoons) in order to burn every night :–

For we keep the charge of the LORD our Mighty, God;

But ye, have forsaken Him!”

 

Neh10:33, “For the service of the house of our Mighty, God, we have charged ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel,

(1) For the Shewbread, and

(2) For the continual meat offering; and

(3) For the continual burnt offering :–

Of the Sabbaths; of the new moons; for the set Feasts …” all offerings generally.

 

1Chr9:32, “The sons of the Kohathites were over the Shewbread, to prepare it every Sabbath.”

 

 

Conclusion:

Only some sacrifices, offerings and services of the seasonal Feasts, uniquely belonged to them only. Sacrifices and other offerings and services generally, were common, whether yearly, monthly, sabbathly, mornings and afternoons, or mornings only. But only the Shewbread uniquely was a Sabbathly ‘offering’ and ‘service’. Only the Shewbread was ‘prepared’ and ‘offered’ / ‘ministered’ on ‘sabbaths’ only, whether on the weekly ‘Sabbaths’, or on the ‘Feast–sabbaths’; and then lasted for the whole week or seven days, after.

Thus the Shewbread ‘showed’ the Conqueror over corruptibility, Jesus Christ; and it ‘showed’ the perpetuity of the Sabbath – “a sign between Me and you, for ever!”

(1) The Shewbread was the only offering that was not consumed in it’s preparation, but was perfected therein.

(2) The Shewbread was the only offering that applied and lasted after the duration of its preparation.

(3) The Shewbread was the only offering without ‘remains’. After its continuity ended, the Shewbread was not disposed of by burning or other means, but was eaten wholly by the priests, being assimilated by them as their very life.

 

Shewbread – Sabbath’s Offering Before the LORD

 

The Shewbread, as ‘continual offering before the LORD’, being the token of the eternal presence of the mercy of God, of Eternal Life, and of God’s gracious and without failing Sabbath’s Rest – the Shewbread, most desired by the Lord offering before his Face – is token of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead, “in Sabbath’s–time”, by which the life of the Body of Christ’s Own is raised from the dead and is being created and brought together in Him – Lord for ever inseparably of both the Sabbath and the People of God. The Shewbread signified that bond in Eternal Covenant of Grace.

 

Three–fold Perfection

 

(1) The Passover was the Sabbath, “the Day the LORD has made”, in the making! The Passover was not finished on either the day of the sacrifice, Abib 14, or, the ‘sabbath’ of Abib 15! On the ‘sabbath’ day of Abib 15, the ‘going out’ of the Passover just started.

(2) On both ‘sabbaths’ that would occur on every Passover, Shewbread was placed ‘before the face’ of the Lord. The Shewbread of the ‘sabbath’ of Abib 15 Passover–sabbath, “showed forth” to the fulfilment of the ‘bringing out from Egypt’, completed on Abib 16 First Sheaf–Day. 

(3) In

(1) the Shewbread, of both (2) the sabbaths of the beginning and fulfilment of the ‘bringing–out from Egypt’ on (3) the day and date of First Sheaf Abib 16, is seen: three–fold, the Divine Antitype and Fulfilment by the Once–for–All ‘Bringing In’, the type and figure, in:

(1) Shewbread, on

(2) the day and date of Abib 16 First Sheaf, on

(3) the Sabbath Day, “when God raised Christ from the dead and set Him at his right hand in heavenly realms” of “the glory of the Father”.

Thus was ‘arranged’ (maareketh), The Shewbread of God, even Jesus Christ, on the pure and golden altar of The–Temple–of–His–Offering. The Shewbread of the Old Testament, derives from its New Testament Institutor.

Which day, in the ‘calendar’ of God’s predetermination, providence and dispensation, has this Sabbath’s–event of Shewbread–placement been? “For God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake”; “He would not concerning another day thereafter have spoken!” (Hb4:4,8)  “Mark the coming in and the going out” of This

One the Lord of the Sabbath!

Continually and simultaneous has been keeping up with God’s Passover, the Sabbath’s continual Shewbread, punctually replaced so that it perpetually could be present, and be ‘presented’, and be ‘shown’, and ‘offered’, on the altar, before the LORD, in His Glory, through Christ, in Victory – in Resurrection from the dead! The Shewbread placed “on the Sabbath” of Abib 16, two sabbaths after each other, and on two of the head–days of the Passover after each other – ‘showing forth’ witness of the Coming Messiah in Truth and Light – is Shewbread of our Lord Jesus Christ in glorious perfection of Life.

“In the fulness of time”, “once for all”, “shon forth” Shewbread, Sabbath Day and Abib 16, ‘arranged’ and ‘placed’ on heavenly altar–seat of pure glory and omnipotency, ‘hot’, and ‘holy’, in triumphant Glory of Victory and Lordship: “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD”, “Lord of the Sabbath Day”, “when by the exceeding greatness of His Power, God raised Christ from the dead”.

Hot

 

Shewbread that (according to 1Sam.21:6) still was ‘hot’ when “replaced on the Sabbath”, must have been baked, just before the Sabbath would have started with sunset. The switch of the old and new Shewbread must have taken place as soon as the Sabbath had, begun. That means the furnace had been prepared, also the dough and the utensils, and the baking had been done, on the late afternoon of the Sixth Day or “Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath”, before sunset. The question cannot even be asked,  The day begun with sunset, or the day begun with sunrise? It is a ridiculous question.

Josephus writes: “The breads) were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the Sabbath, and set upon the holy table.” (Antiquities of the Jews 3, 10, 7 in S.Bacchiocchi, TCR p. 82) The loaves, if they were baked before sunset on Friday and placed on Sabbath morning only, when placed, would no longer have been hot. Josephus obviously must be wrong! Bacchiocchi remarks, “The replacement of the shewbread with “hot bread” could hardly have been done on Sabbath morning but presumably on Friday afternoon in conjunction with the beginning of the Sabbath. This conclusion is required by two facts. First, it is hard to believe that the priests would bake bread on Sabbath morning, since, as Josephus points out, all the baking was done “the day before the Sabbath”. Second, David and his men could hardly have travelled on a Sabbath day all the way to Nob where Ahimelech lived.” (Ibid p.

82/83) (Emphasis CGE)

The inevitable inference of the Bread being changed hot, on the Sabbath during evening after sunset, is that the mixing of the dough as well as the baking of the bread, were done on the Sixth Day, just before its sunset–end.

Bacchiocchi, still insisting, assumes: “The shift in time from Friday afternoon to Sabbath morning may reflect the adoption of a sunrise reckoning in Temple services …”. (Emphasis CGE)   Bacchiocchi will not accept Josephus could be wrong! That is to say, if, the quoted translation with “on the morning of the Sabbath” is correct. Does Josephus say that, or perhaps something like ‘éhlthen hehméra’, meaning ‘began day’ – with evening? Even were the translation of Josephus correct, it would leave us nowhere as far as the reckoning of the day in the Bible is concerned. The day in Bible times was reckoned, from a Jewish and Scriptural standpoint, from sunset to sunset. If a deviation from this use could have incurred, an even easier corruption could also have crept in ahead of any competing error, and the bread instead of hot could on the Sabbaths’ mornings have been placed cold –and old– on the altar – which practice greatly would have deprived the Sabbath’s Shewbread of its significance of vigorous, eternal, unquenchable, New, Life ... “Hot”!

Further, a sunrise reckoning of the day would imply the improbable, unnatural and inhospitable situation for the preparing for and making of the fire and the dough, and of the baking of the bread in night’s darkness. (“Night when nobody works” – especially not priests.) A situation without precedent would have doomed, considering the time all other offerings and sacrifices were prepared and made. The priests were Commanded to do their work “between the nights”, that is, in daylight.

Observes Bacchiocchi, very aptly, that Josephus himself in any case “offers (‘with remarkable clarity’) an explicit evidence of the prevailing sunset reckoning in New Testament times. He describes how one of the priests “gave a signal beforehand with a trumpet, at the beginning of every seventh day, in the evening twilight, as also at the evening when the day was finished, as giving notice to the people when they were to leave off work, and when they were to go to work again.” Ibid p. 71b

 

 “And All its Vessels”

 

2Chr4:19, “Solomon made … the tables and upon them (were to be placed) the loaves of shewbread.”  More than one table; ‘tables’ – not ‘altars’!  1Sam.21:3, “What is under your hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or, as many as you can give me of what you have!” told David the priest of Nob, Ahimelech.

Ahimelech was busy to change the Shewbread – those of the last Sabbath with those of the Sabbath just begun. He needed to bring the loaves from the furnace outside to the altar inside the temple. For that, the priest needed two tables. The new Shewbread loaves were taken from the furnace and placed on one table and upon it, were carried into the Holy to the altar. Another table served to remove the old loaves with. The new loaves were all brought in together on the first table. Then, one loaf of the old loaves was taken from the altar in order to create space for one new loaf, and was put down onto a second table, the ‘out’–table, so as not to contaminate the new loaves on the ‘in’–table. A hot loaf was then taken from this ‘in’–table, and put – ‘arranged’ – in the place of an old one on the altar. As long as the loaves remained on the altar, they were ‘holy’, because the altar ‘sanctified’ them.  The old loaves could not all be at once removed from the altar, nor all the new loaves ‘placed’ on a ‘clear’ altar together. The continual ‘presence’ and ‘showing’ of the Shewbread should not be broken.

Just as Ahimelech was putting down onto the ‘out’–table a next loaf of the remaining Shewbread, David entered, straight into the lions’ den where Saul detained the Edomite with hidden sword. But David noticed the old loaves under Ahimelech’s hand on the ‘out’–table. David asks for five loaves or as many as Ahimelech could give him. David couldn’t immediately see how many had already been removed from the altar for a new. There were seven loaves, one for every day of the week. Offerings were often doubled for the Sabbaths; so there could have been an eighth loaf of Shewbread. I think eight the likely number, because with eight loaves on the altar, when changed, they would never be less than seven loaves left on the altar.

 

“Mark well the entering in of the house.” (Ez44:5)

 

With most loaves already changed, David entered and asked for about five. He didn’t ask any loaves that might still have been on the altar! David did not demand all of the priests’ food, but was considerate and meek in his request. He respected the sanctity of the Shewbread that had not yet been removed from the altar, because it is the altar that sanctifies the bread – as Christ is our Altar of Mercy in the Sanctuary of Heaven that sanctifies us as well as our burdens, which we have placed on Him. “Come to Me, all you heavy laden … and I will give you rest!”

The priest protested, “There is no common bread under my hand, only holy bread – you could have had them if your men were holy (separated from their wives) for at least three days.” Defends David, “They have; the young men are holy. In any case that bread in a way no longer is holy as if sanctified today!”

Ahimelech has everything the wrong way round. He thinks the breads are holy in themselves, on or off the Altar. He thinks a person must sanctify himself; holiness is the work of one’s own, not a gift of grace; it doesn’t derive from the altar; the altar’s holiness derives from the bread’s holiness, the holiness of which in the end is derived from the holiness of the priest who prepares it. But David the shepherd–boy knows better, because the Lord Himself was David’s Rabbi. Remember what we read at the beginning of this lecture? “David gave all to Solomon in the Lord’s handwriting according to the knowledge given him of the work of the pattern.” David designed the Tabernacle – he drew its plans and specifications, and patented it;  also the duties of the priests, David commanded! But this priest wants to teach David, about the holy things!  

Now pay attention to this priest’s moralising! How good he was at it! But he considers not the soldier’s deadly dangerous and self–sacrificing work, in his cosy little sanctuary.   O Pharisees, you hypocrites! Generation of vipers! Woe unto you!

But how was the Shewbread no longer ‘all that holy’ and ‘not as if sanctified today’? Its ‘show–time’ has run out! It was evening–start of day and Sabbath now, and time for the old Shewbread to be replaced with new Shewbread.

The Sword of Saul

 

“There was that day a certain man of the servants of Saul, He was Doeg, an Edomite, the top herdman of Saul, stationed in the LORD’s sight (in the LORD’s Sanctuary)!  David said to Ahimelech, You have a spear or sword? Right at hand I mean! I didn’t bring sword or weapons with me. Quick! Haste, it’s royal duty!   Ahimelech answered, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, behind the draped apron – wrapped in a cloth. Take it if you want; there’s no other. None like this indeed!, said David. Then David left.”

“There is no sword like that!” It was the sword of Goliath whom David slew with a pebble, then decapitated him with – the sword with which he, David, defied the armies of the Philistines who defied the armies of the LORD. But Saul unlawfully took this sword from David for himself, and unlawfully brought his stolen trophy of vainglory into the Holy of the Tabernacle of God where the Shewbread showed forth the glory of God! It also was unlawful for an unclean sword – or ‘cleansed’ for that matter – to be brought into the Lord’s House. Saul with collaboration of the priests, unlawfully, hid, the sword while in the Tabernacle in this place, were supposed to be openly exhibited “before the LORD” every object of furniture and use.  Saul topped his arrogance with the unlawful appointment of a heathen in the Sanctuary of God, to guard his abomination there! (Ez43:7b–8)

 

The Sword of David

 

David coming into the Holy, although strange and against the stipulations of all ‘Law’ to the priests, hindered David, not the least. To David the sword’s presence in the Holy of the Tabernacle, was obnoxious, but nothing wrong with for the priests.

On this Sabbath Day, the true conqueror would act appointed priest of God, and cleanse the Sanctuary of both the Edomite and the idol. He will receive ‘this day’, his own and valiantly won spoil, back, and lawfully, will carry the pollution out of the House of God!  “And David arose and went out.”  “For the King’s business requires haste and valour!” – God’s warrior and lion of Judah!  Look at Jesus, how He, cleansed the temple! 

Like Christ our Lord, David “sprang out of Juda – of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood”. But Judah’s was the line of kings. King David, stood in the temple in the service of the Lord and of his House, undaunted, priest of the Most High God, figure of Christ! David’s presence in fact sanctified the Holy of the temple, yea, honoured it. Thus Christ was “raised by the Glory of the Father”.

Ezekiel 44 records of the east–gate of the sanctuary: “Because the LORD, the Mighty, God of Israel, hath entered in by it … this gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter into it … It is for the prince; the prince, he, shall sit in it to eat bread: Bread–Before–the–LORD.”  David the prince, type and figure of Jesus Christ, King, Lord, and, Priest! “The place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever.  My Holy Name shall the house of Israel no more defile… Behold, the Glory of the LORD filled the House.” Ez43:7,5 Priest, in rising from the dead, “in the Sabbath”, Jesus “entered in” through the east gate, ‘Shewbread’, into heavenly Sanctuary of Own Holiness and Resurrection–Glory. Entered He in, the Prince, even the King, Son of David and Son of Man, and on the Day of God’s Rest, on appointment, ate of the Shewbread of God’s immediate Presence.

 

Lord of the Sabbath

 

By what is the Son of Man, ‘Lord’? By what is the Son of Man, Victor and Triumphator? By resurrection from the dead; by victory and triumph over death and grave! By which victory and triumph over death and grave then, the Son of Man, is Lord.

By what “is the Son of Man Lord of, the Sabbath Day”? by the Triumph of Victory of His, of, the Sabbath Day!  By what then is the Sabbath Day the day, the Son of Man, is Lord of? by what Triumph of Victory of the Son of Man its was, even resurrection from the dead! By resurrection from the dead therefore, “the Son of Man, is Lord, Lord, even of the Sabbath” and the Sabbath, “the Lord’s Day”.

The lord if not in the day of battle is lord, cannot be, ‘lord’.  Jesus the Son of Man, Conqueror of death in battle, “Therefore, is Lord, Lord indeed, of the Sabbath!” The Hero of the Day, is Christ; and his Triumph is that He took up again His Life; He had the Power in battle to! Therefore became He, ‘Lord’. The greatness of the day, is that “this day” and “on” it – the Sabbath Day –, Christ rose from the dead: ‘Lord’! Otherwise Jesus could not have claimed that He is ‘Lord’, or, that He of the Sabbath, is ‘Lord’!  The Name, ‘Lord’, is Victor; The LORD is His Name: Christ Jesus, Hero, Deliverer, Victor of the Day – Triumphator.

 

Fourty and Two Days

 

A giant: “I defy the armies of Israel this day! Give me a man! That we may fight! …

A herdsman: “Then David said to the Philistine … This day will the LORD deliver you into my hand … I come to you in the Name of the LORD …”

1Sm17:2, “Israel pitched by the valley of Elah” – day one and first day of the battle: “They set the battle in array”, also means they planned the days of battle – carefully! “The Philistine drew near, morning and evening and presented himself, forty days … all men (of Israel), fighting in the valley with the Philistines. The next day (now 41 days), early, David rose up … and went.” All the hustle and bustle of that day follows up to verse 31 and further to 37, “… they rehearsed the words of David before Saul … And Saul said to David, Go! and the LORD be with thee!”   The ‘morning’, and Goliath ‘presented himself’ once again, 42 days, “And the Philistine came and drew near …”!

From the First Day when they ‘pitched’, it is six times the week, on the Seventh Day of the week, and Sabbath, exactly 42 days. So was it the Sabbath Day, when David slew Goliath.  “This day … in the Name of the LORD” – Lord of the hosts of Israel – through victory ‘kindled’ the light of Israel, and sang, “The LORD will lighten my darkness!” (2Sm22:29)  

 

 

 

Day of Shewbread

 

In a service of the Sabbath Day, came David into the Holy, and stood, king–priest. 

Now mark well, David forced not his way in! “Thus saith the LORD God, The gate of the inner court that looketh to the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened … and the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate … as he did on the Sabbath Day”, Ez46:1–2,12.  “For the prince, the prince, he shall sit in it to eat: Bread–Before–the–LORD.” That was bread ‘shown’ – ‘Shewbread’! The king, like the priests, ate of the Shewbread!  Jesus said the priests ‘profaned’ the Sabbath with their work on it; He did not say David profaned, Sabbath or tabernacle, by eating of the Shewbread.  The priests with their works polluted the temple, but David ‘cleansed the House of the LORD’, for David was a type of Christ. “Is there not a cause?” 

 

Revived

 

When David “waxed faint” and “got tired” at his near defeat as an older man against Ishbebénob of “the sons of the giant” Goliath (See 2Sm21:17), “The men of David sware unto him, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel”.  Yea, Sabbath was it indeed on this earlier occasion, and day of renewal of Shewbread and of ‘lighting the light of Israel’.  This day, for warm, life–giving energy received and regained, is day of ‘reviving’!  

Look at Ex23:12 and 31:17, both ‘Sabbath’–Scriptures, with ‘naphash’ < ‘nephesh’, life, spirit, vigour, strength, for servant, master, and, LORD. LXX translates with ‘anapsyxoh’, ‘refresh / revive / charge’ – from ‘psyxeh’, soul, life, heart. Compare 2Sm16:14 (king, people came, refreshed); Ex23:12 (stranger refreshed); 8:15, 1Sm16:23 (relieved), Ps66:12 (place of refreshment), 39:13 (spare, recover), Jr30:9 (I will raise up their king; cf.v.22), Jdg15:19 (water from jaw, spirit came back, revived), Hos12:8 (refreshment)

Look at Ruth the third chapter, 4,7,8,14, and Is28:12, “revive” from ‘margea’ / ‘margeloth’ – ‘foot’:– To recuperate (in one’s sleep) one’s vigour; like also in the Old Testament custom of feet–washing.

 

 

 

Day of Song

 

These are the things God’s ‘katapausis’–rest and ‘anapausis’–rest of the Sabbath Day, and the Shewbread, had in common: “Reviving” – Sabbath’s revival, Ex31:17. “The Sabbath is sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; Why? Because THE LORD, in six days!!, made heaven and earth; Because, God on the Seventh Day (victoriously triumphant, by the exceeding greatness of his power), rested, and revived refreshed!”  That’s why the Sabbath Day, “this day” in the history of Israel in the lordly triumph of David over the Philistines, in truth was “a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever”, “a sign that”, says the prophet, “I am your Mighty, God; and you (little worm Jacob), are my People!” (See Ez20:12,20, Zch8:8, et al.) Isn’t this Grace? How comely thou art! Isn’t this the God of the Covenant in his faithfulness? How great Thou art!  Is not this a Promise that has to do with God’s Law, and, with His Sabbaths, and, with God’s Covenant of Grace?

“And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies and out of the hand of Saul: The LORD is my Rock and my Fortress, my Deliverer, the God of my Rock; in Him will I trust: He is my Shield, and the Horn of my Salvation, my High Tower and my Refuge – my Saviour!   Thou savest me from violence. (Thou givest me rest.)  I will call on the LORD who (through victory) is worthy, to be praised, LORD!” 2Sm22

Further on, one can read of David’s Jonah’s–anxieties as of Christ’s in his sufferings of death; and from verse 7 to 21, one can read as of the Resurrection of the Anointed of the LORD (51); as of the recompense of the Righteous One of God. The rest of the Song is just the Song of the Lamb, the Song also of Moses, sung by this king–priest David, of his Saviour Jesus Christ.  “Lord”, is Jesus’ Name of praise, Title won by Victory over sin and death.

 

Precedent

 

Although fugitive and outlaw, this Sabbath Day with enemy’s wrested sword and temple’s holy bread, David and band shall sing, and celebrate and feast! They “feast” Shewbread of Sabbaths’–Service, Christians, “eating and drinking” of The Shewbread of God, Jesus Christ. “And let not you condemn you anyone!” Col2:12–19!

The Shewbread, “showing forth”, ‘shon forth’ the triumph of the Lord–Victor, Christ. The Shewbread is Sabbath’s offering of ‘shining forth’ – figuratively and spiritually –, Jesus’ Triumph in resurrection, even “resurrection from the dead”; “from”, shame and corruption, into, Glory and Incorruption. “So also is the resurrection of the Dead – sown in corruption, Raised in Incorruption; sown in dishonour, Raised in Glory; sown in weakness, Raised in Power.” “Death is swallowed up in Victory.” The Victory is Christ’s; the Victory is Christ’s of the Sabbath Day.

 

 

Mark

2:23

to

28

At that time

On the Sabbath

Pluck ears of corn

David, shewbread

 

Not lawful to eat

Made for man

Son of man

Lord of Sabbath

 

Math

12:1

to

8

At that time

On the Sabbath

Plucked ears of corn

David, shewbread

On the Sabbath days

Not lawful for (them)

Greater than temple

Son of man

Lord of Sabbath

Luke

6:1

24–30

to

12:

1–8

On the Sabbath

second after first

Through corn fields

David, shewbread

 

Not lawful for (them)

 

Son of man

Lord of Sabbath

 

John

– – – – – – –

 

Jesus Christ is Lord, in fact “Lord of the Sabbath”, and the illustration of David and the Shewbread–incident, of how “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath Day”, confirms the very ‘Lawful’ nexus the Word of God creates and makes fast between Sabbath and Mercy; between Shewbread and Bread of Life – as on this Sabbath, like David, first hand experienced by Jesus and his disciples.

David on the Sabbath did nothing ‘unlawful’ – things not stipulated in the Law. But he ‘kept’ the Sabbath the unconventional way; he made the Sabbath a special day – a Feast! David without even knowing, was doing the Great Work of the Law, to love so as to give one’s own life for the life of one’s friends. Jesus said, no greater love has any! Where is there greater sinner than David? Where is there a man God loved dearer?  Only the Son, whom the Father delights in above any. God’s Sabbath Day – God’s Day of Rest – for David ‘came’ so naturally, so without questioning, so without doubt, so without anxiety, he planned it, lived it, breathed it, sang it, ate it, so without fear as to walk with his God, as to storm an enemy or scale a wall. David knew no fear, for God first loved him. David was a Sabbath–keeper after God’s heart.

Fifty and two times a year and more the LORD God of His People with the Shewbread every Sabbath Day showed them that when His Christ had come He would raise Him from the dead on the Sabbath Day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visits to the tomb “on the First Day”

 

1) “Mary sees the stone removed”, “while being early darkness still”, dusk. Then Peter and John go to the tomb to see what Mary has told them. (Jn20:1–10)

 

2) “Earliest morning– darkness”, just after midnight, “the two women” (variant – the two Marys), “and certain others with them”, for the first time, “came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared”. (Lk24:1) “They returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” (“Then Peter stood up and ran to the tomb; and bending low over, he saw the linen clothes. He went back, wandering by himself about that what had happened.” (Lk24:9–12)  

 

3) These women to make sure, a second time came to the tomb “very early before sunrise”. (Mk16:2)

 

4) Mary from after the others had fled in fear (Mk16:8) “had had stood without at the grave” (Jn20:11). At the time a gardener should begin work, about sunrise, Jesus “early … first appeared to Mary”. (Mk16:9)

 

5) Soon after – after they a third time have visited the tomb and “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection – Jesus appears to the other women “as they went to tell his disciples”. (Mt28:5, 9)

 

Mary went to the tomb, three times, Jn20:1, Lk24:1, Mk16:2, and Mk16:9 when she “had remained standing behind” until, Jn20:11, Jesus appeared to her, “first”, Mk16:9, and alone, “at the grave”, Jn20:16.

The other women also went to the tomb, three times, Lk24:1, Mk16:2, and Mt28:5 when “the angel explained” to them what had happened during the Resurrection, and Jesus, as “they went to tell his disciples”, appeared to them. (Mt28:5, 9)

The answer to the ‘Easter enigma’ (John Wenham) is simple: Each Gospel contributed to the whole with one of several sources; each added a personal part that, put together, will bring the whole story of the Resurrection into proper perspective.

 Tradition – that is, the Sunday–resurrection approach – makes of these several stories of several visits, the one and simultaneous occasion of Jesus’ resurrection. Contradictions, discrepancies and total confusion are the inevitable result! It was bad enough that this ‘solution’ to a self–created ‘riddle’ was ever offered just to protect Sunday’s presumed status of being the day of the Resurrection. It became a comedy of tragic proportions when Sunday–protagonists began to defend their presumptuousness through unlawful improvements on the Scriptures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Zbaraschuk in Conversation
with Gerhard Ebersöhn on the Subject of the Days of  the Resurrection
and Appearances of our Lord Jesus Christ

 

 

GE:

I refer you to 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', especially the first three books, obtainable free from http://www.biblestudents.co.za

TZ:

I'm asking you for the short version.  Convince me, in ten pages or less, that the four Gospels, when they refer very specifically to the dates of the Resurrection, are actually and specifically saying that it was on Saturday.
If you can't, find an editor who can.

GE:

I don't need ten pages; Matthew in Mt.28:1–4 has ‘edited’ it in one sentence.

‘Dates of the resurrection’:

 

Day one:

(Where had this day begun? In Mk14:12–17, Mt26:17–20, Lk22:7–14 and Jn13:1f – with the Last Supper!)

John 19:14 says, “It was Preparation of the Passover” on which Pilate “delivered Him unto them”. After that He was crucified and died, says Luke, “everybody left and went home”, leaving the scene of the crucifixion deserted . . . . until . . . .

 

Day two had begun:

With Mk15:47 and Mt27:57, which say that after He had died, and “after that evening had come” – the body still being on the cross – “Joseph came” (Jn19:31).

Joseph came and “removed” the body and “prepared” it, “after these things”.

After these things, referring to Jesus who had “given up the ghost”, and, to “the Jews (who) therefore besought Pilate”.

The Jews asked Pilate “because it (now) was the Preparation” . . . “the Preparation which is the Before–Sabbath” (or Friday), as Mark says. It was the seconf day of Passover, beginning.

The Jews besought Pilate that the bodies should not remain on the cross on that, still prospective, “sabbath day”. Their reason for asking? “For that sabbath day was an 'high day' “. What ‘high / great day’? It was the Passover’s, “Sabbath Day”. That

Friday, was that Passover’s, ‘sabbath day’ . . . . ‘sabbath day’ just as the day before it had been the Passover’s, “Preparation Day” (John).

So Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus, and finished Joseph closing the opening “when day tended/turned towards the Sabbath” (Lk23:54) on Friday afternoon.

 

Day three:

“Then the women started to rest the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment”, from its beginning, after sunset. Until, “In the fullness of the Sabbath's Day when light tended/turned towards the First Day of the week”, when “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went, intending to go have a look at the grave”, “there suddenly was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descended and rolled away the stone from the opening and
sat down upon it”. It was the moment of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead! And of the opening of the grave, and of victory over death and grave once for all.
_____

 

In a few sentences instead of ten pages, telling you what all the Scriptures in essence has to tell as to “the Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak” (Hb4:4–5) “through the Son”, “in these last days”. “For I deliver unto you first of all (above all else) that which I also received (from the Scriptures), how that Christ died for our sins according to the (Passover–)Scriptures, and that He was
buried (the second 'first day' of Passover), and that he rose again the third ('first') day according to (the same Passover–)Scriptures.” (Paul is the king of the ellipses!)

 

TZ:

Might I point out that the vast majority of Christians, of whatever translation, were Sunday–keepers. It's not like the KJV was a specifically Sabbath–promoting Bible and we all came along and started keeping Sunday only after the NIV was invented.

GE:

Well answered! It explains a lot, does it not? You remember what Tyndale had to say to the Sundaydarians?

TZ:

Not at all.  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what he said, and where?

GE:

He said something to the effect that Sunday sabbatharians had no case for Sunday in the Scriptures whereas the Sabbath enjoys a much better Scriptural basis. I read it in a SDA–book. I haven't got the time now to get the precise reference.

TZ:

This is another problem with your approach –– you keep throwing at me things I've never heard, instead of answering my statements at the Bible.  You simply assume that I have read everything you have, and seen it in the same light, and therefore that you don't have to explain anything.

GE:

Sorry! I'll try to pay more attention to detail.

Wonder if he (Tyndale) perhaps had some Scripture–facts in mind he did not disguise in his translation of Mt28:1–4, but rendered to his honest best. Said he also, may God take his part in Christ away, were he to translate anything against his conscience. The KJV is Tyndale's eventually. Also, changes started to be brought in, only recently and since the translators have become aware of the implications for Sunday–observance. Sunday observance depends on the Resurrection on that day.

TZ:

This does not mean that everyone who thinks that the Resurrection was on Sunday is therefore necessarily a Sunday–keeper.

GE:

Maybe; but do you know of  Sunday–keepers who don't? Only the Catholics claim they sort of 'possess' Sunday because of the Church. The previous Pope though connected Sunday with the resurrection like nobody before.

The official and collective decision of the Bible Societies about the middle of the previous century was to translate away from the literal and according to worldview and the general understanding of contemporary opinion and culture.

TZ:

I think you are vastly oversimplifying a long and complicated debate.

GE:

No, they had the audacity to say without blinking just what they had in mind. Here are some examples:

'Die Blye Boodskap' (The Glad Tidings), 'Preface', “The understandability of the translation has been considered of greater importance than the literal rendering of the basic text.”
'The New Afrikaans Bible', 'Preface', “The purpose has been a translation that keeps tract with the developments of recent years in Afrikaans and the results of scientific investigation, that would as far as possible be faithful to the ground text . . . . a translation that would appeal to Afrikaans speaking people outside as within the Church . . . . within our present situation.”

These were the direct results of the activities in South Africa of the Nida Commission. I further quote JC Potgieter, 'Bewaar My Woord', p. 55,

“At the session of the National Sinod of the Reformed Churches, 1973, declares the Rev. J.T.M. de Jong van Arkel, Secretary of the South African Bible Society, on behalf of the Society, that “. . . . they don't desire a form–translation, but instead a dynamic and contemporary Afrikaans, in agreement with the decision taken on 5 July 1968 during that translation seminar. An understandable translation is aspired, which avoids theological–technicalities, traditional–institutional ('Kerklike') concepts,
grandiloquence and literalness.”

So it fared right across the globe. Thick books have been written on the issue.

Most important development to me though, has been the latest critical re–evaluation of the priority given to the NA text (later editions) to the detriment of the merit of the TR. Life hasn't allowed me the time yet to make a study of this revolutionary return to the Reformation values.

TZ:

Furthermore, you keep using the word “remember”.  Please remember that I am not God and my knowledge is not infinite, and therefore I may not have read everything you have, so do me the grace to either quote an adequate section of what was actually said on the occasion, or else at least give me a direct reference so I can find it myself and judge whether it says what you think it says.

GE:

‘Direct reference’:

First: One finds it in texts with bearing on the Sabbath and the 'passion–week' specifically (besides other aspects not of my immediate interest) – and is there for everyone to see . . . . if they wanted. I won't unnecessarily repeat them all here.

Next: Why so many and radical changes exactly pertaining to the time and day of the resurrection?

 

TZ:

You have yet to establish that they _were_ changes.  You have yet to establish that, if there were changes, they were changes for the worst. In particular, as far as I can see, you have not even _begun_ to address the question of how to accurately translate the passages (by which I mean, in enough engagement with the original language that you can show me where the NIV –– and the several other translations I have been known to use from time to time is wrong in its understanding of the critical passages in question).

GE:

These are specifics. They are all dealt with extensively in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'. They are dealt with almost exhaustively from the sources that were available to me – which included of the greatest and most authoritative. (Mostly obtained from the 'Hans Merensky Library' of the University of Pretoria. Funny enough I have never been challenged on 'technicalities' or specifics in this regard. E.g., for saying 'sabbatohn' in Mt28:1 is a Genitive of kind, of quality as well as of belonging. You obviously haven't had a look at any of my 'engagement with the original language'.

I still maintain that 'you don't want to accept it in each case was a conscious effort of the 'translators', “to change time and law”’. But I still do. The Church turns most wicked when it acts to what it thinks its best interest; they (we) are not angels.

TZ:

I agree with your last sentence, mostly; but show me that this _is_ such a situation.

GE:

Please, it is exactly what I have been busy with all along. It is the negative purpose of my studies. The positive purpose was and is to Scripturally show the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ also as pertains to the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

TZ:

In any case, proof by assertion means nothing.  If you want to convince me that my translation of those verses is incorrect, go ahead and show me how it works out from the Greek and how it's best translated into English.

GE:

I have already answered you on this, but do go read the old Versions and compare them with the newer ones.

TZ:

Which?  KJV?  Something else?

GE:

Simple and ready! I have on my shelves 'The Layman's Parallel Bible' – you probably too. Just read Mark 15:42 and Mt27:57 and compare KJV, ML and RSV with 'Living Bible'. Well, they cannot all be correct; one, or more, must blatantly be lying there! To me it is obvious which one.  So I could go on. And I could have mentioned a number of the greatest scholars.

 

TZ:

Who, specifically?  Where?

GE:

AT Robertson, 'Gr. Grammar', 'Word Pictures'; John Calvin: Gospels Commentary. They all (like in addition Knoch and Young) in effect say this, to be literal: 'Opse Sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn  ...' : “In Sabbath's ripeness epi–daylight–it–being (like in 'epicentre'– the very centre) towards/before the First Day – Accusative, NEVER relinquishing or compromising the concept of “in” or “on” in verses 1 to 4.

To illustrate:

Justin switched the concepts 'in/on' and 'towards/before' of Mt28:1 about, in order to be able to say “after Friday which is Saturday”, and “on the Day of the Sun”. He compromised truth with the lie for political and social expediency.

TZ:

Even the KJV translates Mt28:1 as “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...”, which doesn't agree with your translation at all.

GE:

Now I don't understand you at all! I say the KJV says exactly what it should! And it does not say what the perverted Versions say – it says its opposite. It does not, like in the New KJV, say: “After the Sabbath . . . . on the First Day”, but it says just what it should and does say, which translates correctly and in truth, “ON/IN Sabbath's fullness of Day in the very light being (now) turned towards the First Day” which simply and literally means 'afternoon' – “afternoon of the Sabbath”, that is; “mid–afternoon” in fact.

There's a myriad of other factors involved, all unanimously supporting the idea of “ON the Sabbath BEFORE the First Day”.

TZ:

What, so they were violating the Sabbath by carrying a fairly heavy load of spices?

GE:

No. They did that on Sunday during night after midnight.

TZ:

The whole point of the original hasty burial was because the Sabbath is nearly upon them.

GE:

You mean Friday afternoon. How do you get haste in there? The burial itself wasn't hasty; haste is the false impression created by tradition: He must be buried before sundown, to get to Sunday for the resurrection.

The burial started with Joseph's initiative the evening before already – Mk15:42 / Mt27:57, and lasted until Friday exactly the same time of day as described by the use of the word 'epifohskoh' in Mt.28:1. Here is one of the great faults in the traditional view; it makes no provision for the second first day of the Passover Season, the first day of Unleavened Bread or Feast or Sabbath or High Day of Passover.

TZ:

. . . . so they wait over the Sabbath and they're going to the tomb _after_ the Sabbath,

GE:

Yes, but not in Mt28:1 though – only in Mk16:1. So, in Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath's fullness of day BEFORE the First Day – eis mian sabbatohn”, the women “set out to (go) look”. These verses both, Mt28:1 and Mk16:1, mean the weekly Sabbath; Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 has the Passover–sabbath in mind.

The three mentioned women did not, ‘get to the tomb’; they intended, quote: “to go have a look at the tomb – theohrehsai”, Infinitive of purpose or intent.

They obviously were prevented to actually ‘get’ to the tomb, by the “great earthquake” that “suddenly”, occurred. They obviously were prevented to actually ‘get’ to the tomb through having learned of the guard that –in any case– would have prevented them to ‘get to the tomb’.

TZ:

. . . . and they're going near dawn on Sunday (instead of after sunset Saturday evening) because they (a) need light to work . . . .

GE:

It was full moon.

TZ:

. . . . and (b) don't want to go outside the city after dark.

GE:

The women anyway ‘after sunset Saturday evening’ “while deep(est) darkness” went to and came from the grave – see Luke and Mark. They experienced no hindrance then; why would they anywhere else?

But why would the women not ‘want to go outside the city after dark’? It was the festival of night–activities after all, the Passover. Nothing safer; nothing more according to custom – which from Mark 16:1 is as clear as daylight.

However, here in Mt28:1–4, it was, to quote literally and exactly, “fullness of daylight being”. Who talked about when it was dark or after sunset?

TZ:

Can we at least agree that the _women's visit to the tomb_ is on Sunday morning?

GE:

No, because you presume one visit only; I recognise several visits from the Gospel accounts. I cannot assent to any realised visit to the tomb on the Sabbath Day before. For then the women had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection – which no mortal eye beheld. For then an Indicative, finite, verb of accomplishment would be used instead of the Infinitive in fact used. For then all the Gospels would have been in chaotic disagreement. No, we cannot agree the women's alleged visit to the tomb allegedly mentioned in Mt28:1–4, was on Sunday morning for no such thing is mentioned there.

We, however, at least, can agree, that the women's visit to the tomb on Sunday morning after sunrise, as nowhere being mebtioned in Mt28:1–11, is being implied there undeniably, thereby admitting two events that on two consecutive days, occurred, the first event being that of Jesus’ resurrection, the second that of His second appearance.

To clinch it all, read how Justin Martyr, had to, change, the Greek in 28:1 in order to say what is nowadays 'translated' as Matthew 28:1, “meta” plus Acc. instead of the Gen.; and “tehi hemerai hehliou”: Dative instead of Matthew's 'eis' plus Accusative

– a direct switch about!

In your words, It's me, ‘looking at the Bible and seeing what it says and not what Gnostics and compromisers say’. ‘Discovery is seeing what everyone else has seen, then to think what no one else has thought.’ Everyone has seen the ‘translations’; no one has thought about the text or divine fulfilment.

TZ:

I'm going to suggest, as gently as possible, that just maybe they had a better understanding of the Greek original than you do, since they were native speakers.

GE:

You couldn't have said it gentler nor clearer! That, exactly, was why Justin and almost everyone after him, had to change the text in order to accommodate a Sunday–resurrection ideology (or nightmare).

Very few of the 'native speakers' had the Gospels at their disposal – if at all they were able to read them. The 'scholars' of the day, like Justin, could do with them just like they liked, and no one else would be able to notice. (Chances were much better for manipulation than with the 'old' Scriptures of the establishment.) So Justin knew letter for letter and idea for idea how to word and phrase his apologies to the emperor and please both sides Christian and secular. The methodology of 'translation' then, resembled that of today ('dynamic equivalent'), closely. “The dynamic–equivalence translation theory owes its influence and effect to the blending of modern theological prejudices regarding the Bible with data borrowed from communication theory, culture anthropology and modern sociology – rather than to insights from linguistics.” Dr. J. van Bruggen (Rushdoony). Only, Justin had such clear 'insights from linguistics', that he exactly knew how to persuade all interested but equally ignorant parties.

TZ:

. . . . verse 2, Angel comes down and goes to tomb, verse 3, he looks dazzling, verse 4, guards are afraid, verse 5, angel speaks to women.

GE:

Not so smoothly and uninterruptedly though did the angel speak to the women.

How does one explain the many and drastically different source–materials both visible and invisible?

How does one explain the angel's 'answer' to the women? Where is their question or questions? They are all clearly implied in the fore–going verses! Had the women just seen the resurrection, they wouldn’t ask about it and the angel wouldn’t need to answer them.

How does one clarify the contradictions–a–plenty if of the one and only 'visit' it speaks in the various Gospels?

Besides, the guards were struck down like dead before they could see anything happening – “like lightning” – when it hits it's not noticeable. They knew NOTHING of the resurrection or of its circumstance.

TZ:

I think that's going too far –– the angel's appearance is that way, sure, but I think you're forcing it to say that they were necessarily rendered unconscious immediately.  KJV: “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow” –– this is a description of his appearance, not of the way in which the men are rendered unconscious.

GE:

You (intentionally?) leave unmentioned what the text in clearest possible terms states for fact: that the guards fell down “like dead”, when “like lightning” they were struck by the angel’s “appearance”. They weren’t just ‘dazzled’! It says, “Then suddenly”, and that 'suddenly' means everything that followed – the guard's falling down like dead included. One doesn't go down and is 'rendered unconscious' slowly when struck by lightning. There are survivors to tell; they without exception suffered loss of memory, even of being struck, or of being struck down . . . or to pieces for that matter, “like dead”!

Why will you argue and keep on disagreeing on such detail even?

TZ:

In any case, the temporal implication of the sequence still applies.

GE:

Exactly! The big issue here is, what are these ‘temporal implication of the sequence’?

TZ:

I admit that it is POSSIBLE that the resurrection happened earlier than the visit and the angel shows up just to roll away the stone and meet the women, but I don't think that's the most plausible interpretation of the text as I read it.

GE:

The grave is opened, the moment of Jesus rising from the dead, the very moment of His defeating the grave as well; not before or after. “There! Look!” (kai idou).

And nowhere is it mentioned or was it possible “the angel shows up just to .... meet the women”! What next?!

To me there's no possibility things could happen all at once or immediately following one another. It was all the event of the single moment, 'in the twinkling of an eye', as Paul describes the general resurrection. It also applies to Jesus' resurrection. Again, it is explicitly stated: “Then suddenly”. Matthew describes the event of Jesus' resurrection and gives the single time–span during which it occurred: “It being afternoon of Sabbath's fullness of day there suddenly was . . . .”. This is the literal and exact rendering of the text of Mt28:1.

But where one is supposed to see things happen in sequence, the one after the other during the relatively longer time–span of the Saturday–night, everybody all of a sudden refuses point blank, and say, no, it was one visit of all the women collectively on Sunday morning. That baffles me uttermost.

TZ:

The natural implication of those verses is that the women arrive at the tomb and see the angel there.

GE:

“Those verses” may, include verses from three of the Gospels; it may, even include verses 5 to 11 from Matthew 28 – but not from Matthew 28 verses 1 to 4.

Your observations are assumption – mine are not.

First, the women did not “arrive”; they “set out to go have a look” – Infinitive of intent, and so on, as before pointed out.

 

TZ:

You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.  I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have.  Luke 24 has the same sequence of events.  Does that not enter into your thinking at all?

GE:

It obviously hasn’t entered your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events “in Mark 16” at all! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, 'parallel accounts', but sequential in terms of time and development.

“For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.” Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15.)

1)  Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!

2)  Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.

3)  In Luke, not only “the”, but more than “three women” “arrive”, and “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.

4)  Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.

5)  “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),

6)  Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have had returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody's presence or knowledge, happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciples, Jesus appeared to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Deur engele Aanskou”; deur die engel van Getuig

 

Mt28:1–7 is die retoriese en dramatiese, direkte vertelling, verduideliking en getuienis, van die ooggetuie van Jesus se opstanding— die “engel van die Here”.

A)

Matteus 28:5a, en 1–4 en 5b–7:–

5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan die vroue:– .... 1 Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 5b Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar He gelê het! 7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!

Of:–

B)

Matteus 28:5, en 1–4 en 6–7:–

5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was:– .... 1 Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het! 7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!

Of:–

C)

Matteus 28:5–6a, en 1–4 en 6b–7:–

5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was; Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– .... 1 Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 6b Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het!

7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!

Of:–

D)

Matteus 28:5–6, en 1–4 en 7:–

5 Die engel verduidelik en vertel aan die vroue: Moenie bang wees nie, want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het; kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het!:– .... 1 Op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan. .... 7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!

Of:–

E)

Matteus 28:1–7:–

1 Toe op die Sabbatdag laat, in die namiddag, vóór die Eerste Dag van die week, het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria gegaan om na die graf te gaan kyk. 2 Maar skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing, want ’n engel van die Here het uit die hemel neergedaal en gekom en die klip voor die deur weggerol en daarop gaan sit. 3 Sy voorkoms was soos weerlig, en sy gewaad wit soos sneeu. 4 Uit vrees vir hom was die wagte geskud en het soos dooies neergeslaan, 5 het die engel aan die vroue verduidelik. Moenie bang wees nie, het hy gesê, Want ek weet julle soek Jesus – die Een wat gekruisig was; 6 Hy is nie hier nie, want Hy het opgestaan soos Hy gesê het:– Kom kyk na die plek waar Hy gelê het! 7 Gaan nou gou en vertel sy dissipels dat Hy uit die dode opgewek is! Onthou, Hy gaan voor julle uit na Galilea. Daar sal julle Hom sien— nes ek het julle vertel het!  

Hierdie streng volgens die teks vertelling, is maar nog die beste, en maklikste om te verstaan. Mens sien voor jou geestesoog die vroue in die grafkamer, en die engel besig om aan hulle te verduidelik wat gebeur het die oomblik toe Jesus uit die dode opgewek was. Nou eers begryp hulle wat werklik plaasgevind het! Nou is dit skielik ’n ander storie, van vroue wat versekerd en haastig gáán om die Goeie Nuus van Jesus se opstanding aan sy dissipels te gaan vertel. Nou is dit nie meer vroue wat uit ongeloof van die graf af weghardloop en niemand iets vertel nie omdat hulle te bang was nie. (Markus) Die engel het hulle alles verduidelik wat mens moontlik sou kon wou weet!

Soos wat hulle dit kon vat, só het die Here die misterie van Jesus se opstanding aan die vroue opgeklaar; stap vir stap. Die Here het sy manier. ’n Grootser geheimenis kan daar nie gewees het om aan sterflinge te openbaar nie. Die vroue sou net verder verwar en dalk in ongeloof verhard geraak het, sou die Here sy wonderdaad eensklaps aan hulle verstand gebring het. Daarom neem die Here sy tyd.

Eerste, verhoed Hy hulle met ’n groot aardbewing en die aanstelling van die wag, om na die graf van die Here te gaan kyk. Hulle sou nie sy opstanding kon aanskou het en bly leef het nie! Genadig is die Here, juis daar waar dit lyk of Hy ons inperk en weerhou van ons eie voornemens en begeertes! 

 

Toe stuur God vir Maria om nogtans te gaan kyk. “Op die Eerste Dag van die week, synde nog vroeë donkerte, kom Maria by die graf aan en sien die klip van die graf af weggeneem. Sy hardloop daarom en kom by Simon Petrus en die ander dissipel vir wie Jesus lief was, aan, en vertel hulle:  Hulle het die Here uit die graf uit weggevat, en ons weet nie waar hulle Hom gaan sit het nie!”

Die dissipels het na alle waarskynlikheid nie eers geweet dat Jesus begrawe was nie – selfs nie eers dat Hy gesterwe het nie! Hier is die eerste aanduiding in the Evangelies van hoedat die dissiples daarvan te hore kon gekom het dat die Here – soos dit met gekruisigdes gegaan het – nie nog steeds aan die kruis gehang het nie, maar inderdaad gesterwe het en begrawe was. Maria wat by was toe Jesus gesterwe het en ook toe Josef sy liggaam in die graf neergelê het, moes hulle daarvan vertel het. “Daarom het Petrus en die ander dissipel dadelik uitgegaan en by die graf aangekom ....” natuurlik om vir hulleself te gaan kyk wat gebeur het.

  So, tweedens, deur ’n groot misverstand, vertraag God nogeens die duidelike voorstelling en verstaan van die opstanding van Jesus. Maria vergis haar; sy raai, “Hulle het die Here uit die graf uit weggevat”.

Maria het by die graf aangekom nadat Jesus opgestaan het, want die klip was uit sy plek uit. Ons weet Jesus het toe al opgestaan, maar Maria het dit nie geweet nie. Natuurlik kon sy nié geweet het nie. Sy dink nog steeds Jesus is dood, want sy liggaam – so het sy gedink – was gesteel en elders heen geneem. Altwee haar aannames was verkeerd; dis die beste wat Maria haar kon voorstel. Hoe sou sy kón weet, al het sy in die graf ingegaan, dat Jesus uit die dood uit opgestaan het? Nee! Net met die sien van die weggeneemde deurklip, beluit Maria, die liggaam is na ’n ander plek weggevat.

Dit wil nie sê dat Maria in die graf ingegaan het nie. Johannes skrywe niks daarvan dat Maria in die graf in ingegaan het nie; hy skrywe net wat sy wél gedoen het. Ons mag ons nie dinge aanmatig wat Johannes nie geskrywe het nie. Maria het nie in die graf ingegaan nie omdat Johannes nie skrywe dat sy ingegaan het nie. Maria het nie in die graf ingegaan nie, ook omrede al die onmoontlike aannames wat ’n mens saam met haar sou moes maak, soos dat “hulle” (Meer as een mens; het Maria die wag verdink? Hulle was ook nie meer by die graf nie, anders sou sy hulle gesien het.) .... dat “hulle” die liggaam sou weggevat het; dat ‘hulle’ die liggaam elders gaan “neersit” het? Hoe sou Maria dit kon geweet het? Ensovoorts; alles bespiegeling, en ongegronde en onjuiste, bespiegelinge. So, ons moet ons hou by wat geskrywe is, dat Maria die klip – nie die graf nie – gesien het; dat sy die klip wég van die graf af gesien het; en dat sy daar en toe, volgens wat Johannes geskrywe het omgedraai het en teruggehardloop het – nie eers in die graf ingegaan het nie.

Dit was die beste wat Maria na aanleiding van wat sy werklik deurgegaan het of te wete kón gekom het nadat sy die klip eenkant toe weggegooi, gesien het, haar kon voorstel. 

 

Derdens vertraag die Here presiese kennis omtrent die opstanding van Jesus die Sabbatdag al, deurdat Hy dit voorbeskik het dat Salome nie met Jesus se begrafnis by sou wees nie, en ook dat die vroue nie op die dag van die teraardebestelling, hulle bydrae kon maak om die liggaam te salf nie. Net die twee Maria’s is teenwoordig waar Josef die graf na alles sluit en vertrek. Net hulle twee gaan daarna en nog die Vrydagnamiddag, speserye berei met die oog op die salwing van die liggaam binne in die graf, met die eerste geleentheid wat hom sou voordoen, ná die Sabbatdag. Die vroue het nie kon glo dat Jesus weer sou opstaan of dat Hy na die derde dag nie meer in die graf sou wees nie. Daarom wou hulle Hom later, ná die Sabbat om sou wees, gaan salf het. Maar Salome wat nie by die begrafnis by was nie, het nie speserye of salf nie! “Daarom, nadat die Sabbatdag verby was” – dit was direk na sononder – “het Maria Magdalena en Maria die moeder van Jakobus, én Salome, speserye gekoop, sodat, wanneer hulle sou gaan, hulle Hom kon salf.” Mk16:1.

Ons moet nog iets tussen die lyne gaan lees, tussen Mk16:1 en Mk16:2 verderaan in, van hoedat God die ontdekking van Jesus se opstanding aan die vroue terúggehou het, omdat alles volgens sy wil moes gebeur het, en sodat wat die vroue “wedervaar het, tot bevordering van die Evangelie uitgeloop het.” (Fil1:12)

 

Daardie ‘iets’, was dat die vroue, terwyl hulle hulle speserye bekom het en gereed gehad het, weens die wag nie dadelik na die graf toe sou kon gaan nie. Want vir die Romeine het die wagbeurt tot die einde van die dag, middernag, geduur. Solank die wag hulle sou keer, sou die vroue nie eers náby die graf gegaan het nie.

 

Uiteindelik onderneem die vroue wat hulle hulleself al van Vrydagmiddag af voorgeneem het om te doen:

“Baie vroeg / na–middernag–donker op die Eerste Dag van die week, het hulle (die ‘twee vroue’) en (die) ander saam met hulle, by die graf aangekom en die speserye saamgebring wat hulle berei het.” Lk24:1. (Almal vermoed steeds – Maria se vrese ten spyte – die liggaam is nog daar.)

“2 En hulle het gevind / bevind: Die steen van die graf afgerol.”

Dis immers wat Maria hulle vroegnag van vertel het.

Sou die liggaam regtig na iewers anders weggevat wees soos sy gedog het?

“2 En toe hulle ingaan, het hulle die liggaam van die Here Jesus nié gekry nie.”

Nouja, dan’s dit seker so.

“4 En terwyl hulle” – soos wat hulle die graf uitgaan – “hieroor in verleentheid was, staan daar twee manne in blink klere feitlik oor hulle. 5 En toe hulle vooroorgeboë en met oë neergeslaan aarde toe, baie bang word, sê die manne vir hulle: Waarom soek julle die Lewende by die dooies? 6 Hy is nie hier nie.”

Ja, Hy is nie hier nie – julle het reg vermoed. Maar Hy is nie na ’n ander plek weggevat soos julle dink nie! “Want Hy het opgestaan!

Gaan onthou hoe Hy vir julle gesê het toe Hy nog in Galiléa was, 7 hoe die Seun van die Mens oorgelewer moet word in die hande van sondige mense, en gekruisig moet word en op die derde dag moet opstaan.

8 En hulle het oor sy woorde (Jesus s’n en / of die engel s’n) gaan nadink; 9 met hulle terugkeer van die graf af het hulle al hierdie dinge aan die elf en ook aan al die ander, vertel.

10 So was dit dan Maria Magdalena en Johanna en Maria van Jakobus en die ander saam met hulle wat hierdie dinge aan die apostels vertel het; 11 maar in hulle (almal se) oë was dit dwaasheid, en hulle het die vroue nie geglo nie.” 

Ook nie die vroue het geglo wat die engel hulle vertel het nie. Hulle moes lank onder mekaar geredeneer het, en God se taktiek het gewerk. Wag maar, julle sal nog tot beter insigte oor al hierdie dinge kom.

 

Nog, blyk dit, het die Here nie gedink dis al tyd dat die vroue alles moet weet of sal glo nie; nogeens weerhou Hy inligting en vertraag Hy verligting van hulle verstand. Gladnie snaaks nie dan, as die vroue ’n tweede keer na die graf toe gaan. “Want baie vroeg, kom hulle (weereens) na die graf toe aan met dat die son begin opgaan het. En hulle vra mekaar, Wie wil (kan / sou) vir mens (ons) die klip uit die deur van die graf uit wegrol? Want toe hulle nogmaals (mooi) kyk, merk hulle op dat die klip opdraend teruggerol was; trouens, dit was geweldig groot!

Soos wat hulle die graf ingegaan het, het hulle ’n jonkman op die regterkant sien sit, gekleed in wit klere. En hulle was verstom! Dié sê toe vir hulle: Moenie so uitermate verbaas lyk nie! (Dis hoogtyd dat julle begin verstaan!) Weer sê hy vir hulle, Kom nou, hou op om verbysterd te wees! Julle soek tog Jesus van Nasaret wat gekruisig was; wel, Hy hét opgestaan (soos rééds vir julle verduidelik is)! Hy is nié hier nie! (Hoeveel maal moet julle dit nog vertel word?) Kyk, die plek waar hulle hom neergelê het! Maar gaan julle en vertel vir sy dissipels – én, vir Petrus – dat hy voor julle uit na Galilea op pad is; dáár sal julle Hom kry soos Hy vir julle gesê het.”

Dit was te veel vir die vroue se geloof ––– of ongeloof?

“Hulle het uit die graf uit weggevlug bewend en verwilderd! En hulle het niemand, niks vertel nie, want hulle was bang.”

Het dit hulle gehelp om nog ’n maal na die graf toe terug te gekom het? Mens sou nie sê dit het veel gehelp nie. Maar God het sy plan daarmee gehad. Want God gee aan wie Hy wil, en weerhou aan ander, soos Hy wil.

“Hulle het uit die graf uit weggevlug bewend en verwilderd! En hulle het niemand, niks vertel nie, want hulle was bang ....  “Maar”, gaan Johannes aan met die verhaal van die Sondagoggendgebeure; “Maar, Maria het buitekant by die graf gebly staan.” “Maria het buitekant by die graf gebly staan en ween. So, terwyl sy dan huil, het sy oorgebuk en in die graf ingekyk, en twee engele in wit gesien sit, die een aan die hoof–ent, en die ander aan die voetenent van waar die liggaam van Jesus gelê het. Daar sê daardie engele vir haar, Vrou, hoekom huil jy? Antwoord Maria hulle: Want hulle het my Meester gevat! En ek weet nie wáár hulle Hom gesit het nie!

Terwyl sy dit sê, het Maria regop gekom en na agter omgedraai (na Jesus toe): Daar sien sy Jesus staan, maar sonder dat sy geweet het dit is Hy.

Jesus sê vir haar, Vrou, hoekom huil jy? Vir wie soek jy?

Maria wat gedink het hy is die tuinier, antwoord hom, Meneer, as u hom weggevat het, vertel my waar u hom neergesit het, sodat ek hom kan gaan haal? 

Jesus sê vir haar: Maria! Terwyl Maria (van Jesus weg)draai, roep sy Hom in Hebreeus aan: Rabbi! (dit is, ‘Meester’).

Spreek Jesus haar aan: Moenie vasgenael by My bly nie, want Ek het nóg nie na my Váder opgevaar nie; maar gaan jy reguit vorentoe na my bróérs, en vertel hulle: Ek vaar op na die Vader— (nou) Mý Vader, én, júlle Vader; en Mý God én, júlle God.

Maria Magdalena het reguit vorentoe gegaan en die dissipels vertel dat sy die Here gesien het en dat Hy hierdie dinge vir haar gesê het.”

“Verrese, het Hy (Jesus die Christus) vroeg op die Eerste Dag van die week, eerste (van almal) aan Maria Magdalena verskyn.”

 

Wat van die ander vroue? Wanneer en hoe, verskyn Jesus aan húlle?

Terwyl Maria “gegaan en die dissipels vertel het dat sy die Here gesien het en dat Hy hierdie dinge vir haar gesê het” – dit was vir Maria terug stad toe om die dissipels op te soek om hulle te vertel – neem ek aan, kom die ander vroue nog so angstig van onsekerheid soos toe hulle vroeër vreesbevange weggehardloop het, asof deur die Here self nadergetrek, vir die derde en laaste keer terug na die graf toe. Want die Here se plan gaan verder oor húlle. Maar eers moet hulle georiënteer word; stadig, geleidelik, dat hulle nie weer kop verloor nie, maar mooi sal verstaan en sal glo!

“So dan .... verduidelik die engel aan die vroue, en sê: Laat Sabbat’s in die middel van die namiddag voor die Eerste Dag van die week het Maria Magdalena en die ander Maria vertrek het om na die graf te gaan kyk. Skielik was daar ’n groot aardbewing ....”

 

 

Nou wat leer ons aangaande Jesus se opstanding en sy verskyning uit die geheel van al hierdie verhale in die Evangelies van die vroue se besoeke aan die graf?

Dít naamlik, dat geen mens of mense–oog of menslike begrip, Christus uit die dood of graf gesien verrys het of in sy verrysenes kón aanskou het (en bly lewe het) nie. Dat die mens by die Goddelike Teenwoordigheid van Christus se opstanding uit die dode, aanwesig was, nie in eie hoedanigheid nie, maar verteenwoordig deur, en teenwoordig in, die verteenwoordiging en teenwoordigheid van die Gekruisigde en Gestorwe Verresene— deur, in, met, en by, Sy Opstanding: uit die dode, deur die graf, terug van die dood. 

Dít leer ons, dat enige interpretasie van die opstandings— en verskyningsgebeure wat van die méns – óf as die vroue, óf as die apostels, óf as die wagte, óf as wie ookal – wat van die méns waarnemer of eerste of oog–getuie maak, op leuens en leuenagtigheid berus. Want die geloof is nie deur aanskouing nie, maar “die geloof is deur die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die prediking”: in die geval van die Opstanding, die gehoor deur die verkondiging van die engel aan die vroue.

Dít leer ons, dat aangesien enige Sondagsopstandings–vertolking van die Evangelieverhale noodwendig op aanname van die teenwoordigheid, gewaarwording en getuienis van die mens berus, enige Sondagsopstandingsvertolking van die Evangelieverhale by voorbaat onbetroubaar en inderdaad van alle waarheid ontbloot is.

Dít weet ons verder, dat die Sewendedag–Adventiste wat hierdie dwaling aanbetref, in geen opsig vir die Sondagaanbidders terugstaan nie. Hulle glo presies dieselfde, en dwaal presies dieselfde.

Nogtans oorskry die dwaling van die Adventiste die dwaling van die Sondagaanbidders, daarin dat die Sondagaanbidders aanvaar dat Christus in die heerlikheid van die Vader, deur die Vader en die Heilige Gees, in die volle Gemeenskap van God Drie–Enig uit die dode, uit die dood, en uit die graf, in die vlees van sy verheerlikte liggaam, opgewek, én, tot aan die regterhand van God in hemelse heerlikheid verhóóg was, terwyl die Sewendedag–Advantiste dit ontken, dit verloën, en vir hulle eie leuen volgens hulle ‘gees van profesie’, verruil het – die gees van antichris weens die ontkenning dat Gód in die vlees, die Mens Christus Jesus, sy Lewe afgelê, en sy Lewe ter sondevergifnis en regverdiging van sondaars, wéér opgeneem het.

 

 

 

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

Johannesburg

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

 

 

18 November 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark 16:9–20

 

NR:   New Reformationist   

SW1: Sunday–worshipper    

SW2:           do.                 

SW3:          do.                 

SW4:          do.                 

SW6:          do.                 

SW7:          do.                 

SW8:          do.                 

SW9:          do.                 

 

NR:

Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used – at least in part – to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

GE:

I have a library full!! I don't know of a 'pro–Sunday–worship' book ––– 'theology', 'dogmatics', call them what you want ––– that does not make use of Mk16:9 to support Christian Sunday–worship.

NR:

When you get some time I wonder if you might be so kind as to identify one of the authors in your collection and the title of the publication along with a quote from the pub regarding Mark 16:9 and first day observance.

 

 

GE:

Do you believe Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath (Seventh) Day?

NR:

I have no set belief with regard to the day of the resurrection. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day depending on when the crucifixion took place.

SW1:

Mark 16

9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.

This is the correct word for word translation from the Original Greek in the New Testament, into English. Any help?

 

NR:

“Any help?” I’m afraid not. Thanks anyway.

SW1:

Amazing.... God is the author of all things including the New Testament.

How could it be that he is no help for you?  You sought the answer from a Published Author, yet did you have eyes to see...... ?

NR:

Apparently not. I wonder if you might explain how the quoting of Mark 16:9 is responsive to my OP?

SW1:

Scripture tells us the day is a sabbath..... God is the published Author, now I guess the only question we are left to ask, is scripture referring to the first day of the week?  That could possibly be.... does not God have the power to do anything, who ever said Sunday was the Sabbath ? tradition? Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.

NR:

I’m sorry, but I guess I will just have to continue to not understand how your comments are responsive to my OP.

SW3:

I would hesitate to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument, as Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel were added sometime later and do not reflect the writings of the original author. Originally, Mark ended with the women running away when they were afraid. The passages shown in 16:9 onwards are not present in the earliest manuscripts of Mark and the passage about followers of Jesus picking up snakes and drinking poison and not being harmed somewhat stand out as being alien to the rest of the Markian gospel.

 

GE:

I would NOT hesitate in any manner to use any part of Mark from 16:9 onwards in any kind of scholarly argument because although Mark 16:9 to the end of this gospel was added sometime later it in no manner is in conflict with the writings of the original 'author' ––– who obviously was no less of a collector of 'sources' than was Luke. For what reason on earth can the later addition of a portion of the Scriptures render it invalid? How much of the Scriptures are we going to have left over if we take that route? All four Gospels are compilations of 'texts', each to the preferences of the 'author' or 'authors' of each Gospel. What's difficult about that? Does that interfere with the 'Inspiration' of the Gospels or whichever other book of the Bible? Are we of so little faith?

SW4:

SW3 does make a point, but we are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the word “sabbath” in some Bibles. The word 'sabbath' or sabbaton can mean one of two things:

Strong's Ref. # 4521, Romanized sabbaton .... of Hebrew origin [HSN7676]; the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: KJV––sabbath (day), week.

In order to harmonize with the rest of the Gospel books (since none of the them support a sabbath resurrection) it would be proper for the translators to insert the word “day” for clarity. So, we are looking at [the first day of the interval between two sabbaths].

We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day. 

NR:

What scriptures are you using to support your statement that, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day”?

 

 

SW4:

Now for your question, “Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection?”:

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

NR:

With all due respect, I do not see where Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 say anything with regard to the actual day of the resurrection.

SW4:

Ok, let me bounce back on you.  What day do you believe He was raised and why are you looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath?  Also, who said the day was changed in the first place?

NR:

I don’t know. It could have been either the seventh day or the first day.  And I’m not looking for proof that the first day was changed to the Sabbath.  I don’t see how you can get that from what I say. Someone who was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, said that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9–20

that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

Actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done that.” – I have not yet been able to come up with one, hence my query.

SW1:

9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.

This is the correct word for word translation from the Original Greek in the New Testament, into English

GE:

This, “9 Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...” in fact is the wrong 'word for word’ translation from the Original Greek, “anastas de ... efaneh”; it should be, “Risen, He appeared”. A Participle that shows how Jesus, “appeared”: “As the Risen (One)”. “Anastas” is no Verb; it does not tell that Jesus (then) 'rose'. If it were a finite, Indicative Verb, it would have meant Jesus then–was–rising from the dead.

In truth, “Now, rising in the morning in the first sabbath, He appeared”, simply is telling a lie, because it means that Jesus as–He–was–rising, was–appearing–to–Mary, and she would have been seeing Him— which of course, she did not!

NR:

I’m afraid that I can not find where SW4 uses Mark 16:9 to place the resurrection on Sunday. Strangely, though, he does reference Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1, none of which mentions a resurrection, much less the timing of it.

 

 

GE:

Some people rely on a sunrise reckoning of the day in Mt28:1 in order to get the Resurrection on Sunday. But they are in every respect confused.

It is a fact no Gospel in its 'passion–narratives' mentions Jesus' resurrection directly. Only Mt28:1, directly describes the circumstances and time of occurrence –– in other words, implies the reality of the resurrection of Jesus, happening.  It is the only Gospel that – by implication – “mentions the timing” of when, Jesus rose from the dead. Mk16:9, does not say directly or imply when the Resurrection took place, nor does any other Gospel or NT book wherever, despite the fact they all imply the Resurrection any time before the first discovery of an opened grave.

SW5:

Where in the Greek is 'protos' meant to mean 'first Sabbath'? Where in the original Greek is the term 'sabbata’ used to denote the first day? Where in Mark is it used except to denote the seventh day Sabbath?”

GE:

I cannot imagine anyone would say 'protos' meant 'first Sabbath', really! 'Prohton' in Mk16:9c, means 'first' in Adverbial, chronological order: Jesus appeared–first to Mary –– alone –– before he appeared to any other. “He appeared to Mary first, early on the First Day of the week” –– Sunday. “First day of the week” from “prohtehi sabbatou”: “On the first ('day' by Ellipsis). ‘First (day)’ means ‘first’ in Adjectival, sequential, numerical sense, “The First–Day” in the sequence of the days “of the week”, “sabbatou”.

Note that the singular, 'sabbaton' – Genitive, 'sabbatou' is used in Mk16:9 – not the Plural, 'sabbatohn', as in Mt 28:1.  Then nowhere in Mk16:9–20, is 'sabbaton', Plural or Singular, used to denote the Seventh Day Sabbath.

NR asked if anyone knew of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn they used – at least in part – to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship.  Virtually every author that believes in Sunday–sacredness and who has 'published', has “used (Mark 16:9) to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship” –– because of the wrong assumption 'anastas' means 'rose' –– simply.

It is the grand reason for Sunday–sanctity.

I think the principle as such of Jesus' resurrection why the day of its occurrence should have special meaning for the Church, is sound, and Biblical. The only problem is, Did Jesus rise from the dead on Sunday? Calvin taught differently; and so must have thought differently the translators of the KJV who translated Mt28:1 “In the Sabbath”; and other translations ––– all 'old' ones ––– “On the Sabbath”. Note how the 'new' 'translations' speak of “After the Sabbath”! They must have realised the 'old' versions' destructive implications for their Sunday–tradition!

SW1:

Here scripture tells us the first Sabbath day he was raised, correctly translated scripture to word for word Greek into English.

GE:

This is a hackneyed 'non–issue' if ever there has been one. Be careful how you advertise your knowledge and mastery of the Greek language.  Yours is incorrect and very far from “word for word Greek into English”!!

If it said “the first Sabbath day”, it would not have said, “prohtehi sabbatou”, but “prohtehi sabbatohi”. But now by Greek 'style' or 'linguistics', it actually says, “prohtehi _hehmerai tou_ sabbatou” ––– by Ellipsis as I said before. The concept 'day' is implied –– unavoidably!

SW4:

We are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR. Some things need to taken into consideration, mainly the use of the word “sabbath” in some Bibles.

GE:

I guess you are at a loss to explain how “we are dealing with translations mainly interpreted from the TR” with regard to the word 'sabbatou' in Mk16:9. I may be wrong, and therefore would appreciate if you could please show me these supposed discrepancies or just differences between and in the different 'texts', because I am not aware of any!

Now I am surprised how many make of Strongs virtually their first Bible, like here, where we must interpret the Bible according to information given in Strongs while the Bible and the NT in particular causes no problems in the understanding of its use of the word 'Sabbath' et al.

I could raise objections to the particulars here given by Strongs, but it would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. Let me only say Strongs' idea of the word 'sabbath' indicating “the interval between two Sabbaths” in all of the Bible and particularly in the NT is unfounded and totally imaginary. If an interval between two Sabbaths were meant, the Koine Greek had the best of linguistic tools to convey and express the idea 'word for word', literally, and exactly, just, like it had the proper 'tools' to convey and express 'word for word' literally and exactly the idea or concept of that reality called a 'Sabbath': by the hellenised Hebrew word, 'Sabbaton'. (I cannot see why one should view this word in the Greek of the Greek NT Scriptures, as a latinisation or “Romanised” word!  Strongs occasionally as shown here can be very weak in fact! It goes to show, simply, no one is immune to that strong power called 'tradition'. Strongs came to the fore with these strange statements only because it (he / they) had no answers to the enigmas of the Sunday–resurrection tradition. Were it not for these unanswerable difficulties for Sunday–resurrectionists, Strongs would not have published its nonsense.

 

Some claim, “We do know from other Gospel passages that He rose sometime right after sunset of the first day and sunrise of the same first day.”  But, Quote please? They do not know what they claim for fact so innocently. Nowhere else than in Mt28:1 will you read of anything implying the resurrection ––– which is the only place, where time and day are given ––– given for having been “In the Sabbath / On the sabbath”.

 

SW5:

Although St. Ignatius may not be using Mark 16:9 maybe if not probably because the idea to celebrate the Liturgy on the day Jesus rose predates the establishment of the cannon of Scripture.

St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John wrote in his letter to the Magnesians – CHAPTER IX.––LET US LIVE WITH CHRIST.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death––whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master––how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus

Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

You may be putting the cart before the horse they were already celebrating the Liturgy on Sunday before they were even writting the New Testament. For the reasons testified too above.

GE:

I guarantee you this is the falsest 'Ignatius' possible!! It is so shameless I cannot think a Christian wrote it.

Ignatius says the OT prophets were disciples of Christ who did not legalistically “sabbatized, but according to Lord's life lived” their Sabbath–keeping, in other words, kept the Sabbath –– of the OT –– with NT–meaning, by celebrating it because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

There are many false Ignatius'; do not be deceived by them! The Lord's Day is the Day of His Lordship – the day of his conquering death and grave ––– which the Bible foretold would be “the Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak”, and Christ in actual resurrection confirmed was, “In the Sabbath”, Mt28:1.

 

 

 

 

 

NR:

I see nothing in Matthew 28:1 that says when the resurrection took place. What do you have in mind?

GE:

Can't you read? Everybody can see the word 'resurrection' is not there, but just so must everybody can ‘see’ the resurrection happening, then!

NR:

You ask if I can read. Indeed I can, and I do not read where Matthew 28:1 says anything about a resurrection, much less the timing of one. “Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”

GE:

Jesus’ resurrection is in there. To mention just one reason why: How and why did the women suddenly believe that He rose from the dead? Because “the angel answered / explained”, it, the Resurrection, “to the women” ! The angel did not tell them about time and day for nothing!  That is why the Gospel is believed by faith (and “seen of angels” only) ––– believed by the faith of hearing and not by a believing because of seeing. 'See', with the eye of faith, and all you can see, is Christ in the Glory of the Father being raised from the dead “On the Sabbath Day” in Mt28:1.

 

NR:

I’m afraid that I am a bit dense here with regard to the point made, Isn't it interesting that the word for ‘week’ in Mark 16:9 is sabbaton? Somehow lots of people miss that. Could you please elaborate?

SW6:

Sure. In Mark 16:9 the word “week” is actually the Greek word sabbaton – the sabbath. That taken into consideration it should be obvious that Jesus didn't necessarily rise on the “first day of the week” but on the “first day after the sabbath.”

GE:

It is not ‘actually the Geek word sabbaton’; it actually is the Greek word ‘sabbatou’, “of the week”. If ‘sabbaton’ had been the case, then the Greek would have used an Accusative and no Genitive, and most likely with the help of Prepositions, like, “meta (mian) sabbaton”. So forget it; you’re lost!

SW6:

Now, are both the same? Yes. Do both (the “first day of the week” and “on the first day after the sabbath”) carry the same meaning? That depends on whether one recognizes the sabbath I suppose. More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.

GE:

Quite incomprehensible to me, and certainly nothing explained!   'Sabbatou' in Mk16:9 means 'week', and it says “On the First Day of the week, early”, with saying, “prohi prohtehi sabbatou”. There is absolutely nothing difficult about understanding this. You create difficulties in your own mind only! Worse trouble starts with people making of the Participle, 'anastas' – 'risen' / 'as the Risen One', a Verb, and saying it means, “He rose”;

Or people making 'anastas' a Present Participle, instead of the Aorist Participle it is, saying it means, 'rising' –– 'Rising He appeared' ––– which is making it a lie because – besides the Grammatical factors – Jesus simply did not appear as He was ‘rising’ : Nobody ever saw Him rising from the dead!

Therefore, “On Sunday morning early, Jesus, having been raised from the dead, and risen, first of all appeared to Mary.”  All, ‘problems’, solved once for all: Jesus did not rise on Sunday morning; he was or had been raised from the dead already, “Late Sabbath's mid–afternoon before / tending / towards the First

Day of the week”— Mt28:1.

NR:

“Now after the Sabbath, as the day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”

 

GE:

It’s a false 'translation' (in other words, it is a corruption) of the correct, “Late Sabbath Day’s mid–afternoon against the First Day of the week ...” ––– correct and literal of “opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbaton”.

Next, the women “set off to see / went to go have a look”; they did not ‘arrive’. It can be categorically stated the women did not 'arrive', because they if they ‘arrived’ would have seen what then, was happening. (That, judging by the way you see, you obviously too will be unable to see.)  But it is evident from all the rest of all the Gospels, the two women had seen nothing, and it is evident from Mt28:5 the women were “told” these things that indeed had happened about 15 hours before –––– but what you say you do not read of in this Scripture.

 

SW7:

The Greek phrase “??? ??? ????????” refers to the first (day) of the week in every context in the New Testament, and ALL translators of whom I am aware (except the Concordant Translation), so translate it.

It becomes obvious that this is the meaning when one considers Matthew 28:1

GE:

Beg to differ on some important detail:

In Mk16:9 we find 'prohtehi sabbatou' Dative, “On the First Day of the week”. (The Singular is of no consequence) ––– it tells of the day “of the week”, upon which Jesus “appeared to Mary”.

In Mt28:1 though, we do not find the Dative, but the Accusative, “eis mian sabbatohn”, “towards / against / before the First Day of the week”. (Again, the Plural, sabbatohn, is incidental and of no consequence; it simply means 'week – of the week''.)

What we do find besides this Accusative of: “towards the First Day”, is the Genitive of: “In the Sabbath’s Day”! And that is what in the phrase gives the time of the event and events that “On / In the Sabbath” occurred; or, that were “OF the Sabbath's” occurrence –– which of course entailed Jesus' resurrection, which nobody seems able to read or ‘exegete’ here, but without which, the whole passage would be absolutely senseless and worthless.

 

SW8:

THE LORD'S DAY,

“This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.”  The day of the Resurrection: the new creation.

Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” because it is the “first day,” the day of Christ's Resurrection. It recalls the first creation because it is the “eighth day” following the sabbath. It symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:

“We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.”

 

Sunday– fulfilment of the sabbath,

Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.

“Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.”

The celebration of Sunday, observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship, fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

 

GE:

Everything above here claimed for Sunday, belongs to the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God, and has been stolen from it, and has been given to the usurper–lord, Sunday – in fact all, on the assumption of this one, false, claim: Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week.”

 

SW6:

More importantly I think is, it gives clearer meaning as to when Jesus actually rose. After the sabbath. After His rest in the tomb.

GE:

Jesus did not rise “after the Sabbath” You will find this only in translations made since the translators became aware of the truth of the older translations that used to have “In”, or “On the Sabbath”. They feared the consequences for their Sunday–dogma, but had no fear for the Word of God, so nonchalantly just changed the Word of God, and 'translated' to, “After the Sabbath ... on the First Day” – an impossibility for the Greek, 'opse sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian s.' It is horrific!

But what is far more horrific, is that you say that Jesus rested in the tomb!! Death is the wages of sin; how dare you make it Jesus' 'rest'? No! Jesus' 'rest' was to have been raised— from death and to have “Entered Into His Own Rest As God In His Own” Victor, through resurrection from the dead. “Then”, was it, that God found and founded His Sabbath Day's Rest, “As He raised Christ from the dead .... by the exceeding Greatness of His Power Which He Worked In Christ.”

Re: “....depending on when the crucifixion took place”....

No text in Scriptures mentions the resurrection as it happened, whenever it happened. Only Mt28:1–4 describes the visible but not seen circumstances that surrounded and accompanied the resurrection. The resurrection is undeniably implied in these text, taking into account the angel “explained to the women” in verse 5, what indeed had taken place when there was an earthquake and while the Marys set out to go and have a look at the grave, and the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and rolled the stone away and sat on it. nowhere else in the NT is there such a direct explanation of the events which any believer will accept by faith accompanied Jesus' resurrection from the dead. There is absolutely nothing too complicated to understand and accept for the greatest Truth ever recorded. Just so unambiguous is the time— given: “In the Sabbath’s fullness of mid–afternoon before the First Day of the week”.

NR:

I am sorry, but Matthew 28 does not say WHEN the resurrection took place.

GE:

No sir, Matthew 28:1–4 does say ‘when’, the Resurrection took place. You are questioning the Resurrection, because the time clearly is stated there— for even the unbeliever to see. It is only what happened “then”, as Paul says in Eph1:17f, “When God— raised, Christ from the dead and exalted, Him to (His) Right Hand”, that you question because it does not stand there written in so many words. Do you believe the Scriptures?

This is what you insinuate those who use Mk16:9 to show Jesus' resurrection, cannot do, because His resurrection is not mentioned in that verse. Now who does not know that? One should rather ask: Who does not believe it? in order to answer your fishy questions and doubts. No sir, even the Sunday–sacredness adherents at least believe Jesus in fact, rose from the dead; they at least, are real Christians despite they misinterpret the text! Your cunningness is tangible!

I think, you are a New Reformationist

But, to answer your vague question as to the time–relation between the day of the resurrection and the day of the crucifixion, there are a hundred reasons why there can be no doubt Jesus rose, and had to rise from the dead, on the Sabbath Day.

Here is one of them:

Luke tells the disciples who went to Emmaus late on Sunday afternoon, told Jesus, “Today is the third day, since these things happened”. Now to which things did they refer? To the things they knew about – of no other things! And what was it they knew about? They tell us themselves: They mention Jesus' suffering and crucifixion. Simply count: Sunday, day 3 after or since the crucifixion; Saturday, day 2 since the crucifixion; Friday, day one since the crucifixion; Thursday, day of, the crucifixion!

Therefore, Jesus must have been crucified on a Thursday ––– against popular belief, as it is against popular belief He rose on a 'Saturday', “the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God”. It is against popular belief although this name of it already foretold God in Christ Jesus would on the Seventh Day His Sabbath Day, and in it, rest. “God from all His works, on the Seventh Day rested” ––– a NT Word! What can God's 'Rest' be – and have been – but His Triumph of Lordship by having raised Christ from the dead?

Now who can deny the faith that believes if God is “speaking”, “through the Son”, “in these last days” of ours ––– in New Testament times, “Thus, concerning the Seventh Day: And God the Seventh Day rested from all His Works”, that God is speaking from God's Work of Redemption first and foremost: In and Through the Son, ultimately, finally, axiomatically, Victoriously, Triumphantly, in and through God the Son, Jesus Christ: in and through resurrection from the dead!

 

SW9:

Mark 16:9–20 appears in certain Bible manuscripts and versions of the fifth and sixth centuries C.E. But they do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vatican MS. 1209 of the fourth century. Dr. B. F. Westcott, an authority on Bible manuscripts, said that “the verses . . . are no part of the original narrative but an appendage.” (An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, London, 1881, p. 338) Bible translator Jerome, writing in the year 406 or 407 C.E, said that “almost all the Greek codices [are] without this passage.” (The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, London, 1871, J. W. Burgon, p. 53) The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says: “Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it [that is, verses 9–20].” (Vol. IX, p. 240)

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.

Thus, Mark 16 ends with verse 8, with verses 9–20 and the short conclusion as being added at a later date. Supporting this testimony of the Greek manuscripts and versions are the church historian Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea in the third and fourth centuries). Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.”

Bible scholars agree that the last twelve verses shown with the book of Mark, which speak about tongues and not being injured by snakes, were not written by Mark but were added by another. Samuel Tregelles, a noted nineteenth–century English Bible scholar, states: “Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome, as well as other writers, especially Greeks, testify that these verses were not written by St. Mark, or not found in the best copies.”  (Source of information – Watchtower Library)

GE:

Alright; Eusebius might not have known of the longer endings' existence; it doesn't prove:

1) it not somewhere else existed and was known and accepted by other Christians. It doesn't prove

2) the longer ending is not genuine, or not 'Scripture'. That it is not, is a subjective opinion at best.

 

The 'reasons' from the content for why not, always are based on opinion and dogmatic prejudice, as if no other interpretation could be given than the usual fantastic ones – snake bites and that stuff. Once these things are understood for what they are:

1) Signs of apostleship, and,

2) Of figurative application to all other believers,

no problems are left with believing them for the Word of God.

I have before made notice, that none of the NT texts originated simultaneously; they are all from oldest to youngest –– we are only here and there able to tell which is which.

The fact Mk16–20 got preserved proves God's protecting hand over his genuine written Word.

Like in the Gospel of Luke – according to Luke himself –, very little was written by himself – the Gospel is mainly a compilation made by Luke of many unidentified sources –, so the Gospel of Mark contains as it seems everything Mark was not himself the eye–witness of. So why make an exception of the longer ending? Because it could not have been Mark himself who added it to his Gospel because it was added too late? So you see we are back to personal feelings, so that anyone could say, yes, indeed! But there's no proof for any such conclusions under the sun!

SW9:

Eusebius was aware of the longer ending to the book of Mark, saying that it was not in any of the “accurate copies” of early Bible manuscripts. One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. It is a late second or early third century copy of the four Gospels into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which was a language commonly spoken in Jesus' day.

In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with verse 8, and that verses 9–20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1–8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection–prophecy to be fulfilled.”

The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God. There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18. (Compare 1Cor.4:6, to follow the “rule” to “not go beyond the things written”)

GE:

No fine, I do not contend any facts you make mention of, only some deductions or inferences made.

“Eusebius was aware of the longer ending to the book of Mark,” ––– accepted

“... saying that it was not in any of the “accurate copies” of early Bible manuscripts.” ––– not accepted.

“One such manuscript may have been a palimpsest (erased manuscript and then written over) found in 1892 at the St. Catherine Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai. It is a late second or early third century copy of the four Gospels into Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, which was a language commonly spoken in Jesus' day.” ––– accepted for argument’s sake; even the possibilities or no possibilities.

“In this manuscript, Mark 16:8 is the end of this book, with then a little row of circles followed by a little space and the beginning of Luke. Thus, this ancient manuscript provides evidence that Mark 16 ended with verse 8,” ––– accepted. Black on white facts cannot be argued about.

Not accepted :

“... and that verses 9–20 are not part of the Bible, but both the short and long conclusions are later spurious additions.”

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1966), Volume 9, page 240, said about these verses: “The manuscript tradition indicates that the Gospel originally ended at 16.8, but that the longer ending that is incorporated in the Vulgate was later added, becoming widely accepted in the course of the 5th century. . . . Its vocabulary and style differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it. . . . Mark 16.1–8 is a satisfactory ending to the Gospel insofar as it declares Jesus’ Resurrection–prophecy to be fulfilled.” ––– accepted 100%.

“... The proper conclusion is that Mark could not have written these verses and that their content is no part of the inspired Word of God.” ––– Not accepted; the word 'proper' is subjective and predisposed.

“... There is no evidence that Christ’s followers were commanded or able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, as stated in verse 18.” ––– Not accepted; the word or idea that “Christ’s followers were commanded” anything in the 'ending', is illegitimate for purely the absence of command. I believe these 'command/–ments' must rather be understood for promises of God's faithfulness.

 

 

And also, that they were to serve as marks or proofs of apostleship. No one after the apostles have any right more to claim these assurances. That's where the trouble with the interpretations of this Scriptures starts – when false claims of apostleship, like by the charismatics or pentecostals are started being made.

“(Compare 1 Cor 4:6, to follow the “rule” to “not go beyond the things written”)” –––– not accepted, because not relevant in any way, not even in the sense of “the things written” ––– which the 'ending' certainly had been from its origin.

 

19 November 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark 16:9–20 Authentic  I quote from an unknown source.


The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

vv. 9–20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: “But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.” The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18–20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

A Commentary on the Holy Bible, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: MacMillan, 1927), pages 732–33.

9–20. Conclusion of the Gospel. One uncial manuscript gives a second termination to the Gospel as follows: 'And they reported all the things that had been commanded them briefly (or immediately) to the companions of Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent forth by them from the East even unto the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salvation.'

Internal evidence points definitely to the conclusion that the last twelve verses are not by St. Mark. For, (1) the true conclusion certainly contained a Galilean appearance (Mark 16:7, cp. 14:28), and this does not. (2) The style is that of a bare catalogue of facts, and quite unlike St. Mark's usual wealth of graphic detail. (3) The section contains numerous words and expressions never used by St. Mark. (4) Mark 16:9 makes an abrupt fresh start, and is not continuous with the preceding narrative. (5) Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been alluded to twice (15:47, 16:1). (6) The section seems to represent not a primary tradition, such as Peter's, but quite a secondary one, and in particular to be dependent upon the conclusion of St. Matthew, and upon Luke 24:23f.

On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub–apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265–340 A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark.


Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122–126.

16:9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9–20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' “

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non–Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non–Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill–suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non–Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.


Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269–270.

... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text. Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9–20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so–called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.


F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume 2, pp. 337–344.

Mark xvi. 9–20. In Vol. I. Chap. 1, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgivings (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verse of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book miscome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter–plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28–51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading (αλλως). Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (א B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9–20 altogether. 1 Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch as after εφοβουντο γαρ ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume 2), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. א. The testimony of L, that close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after ver. 8 the copyist breaks off; then in the same hand (for all corrections in this manuscript seem prima manu: see p. 138), at the top of the next column we read ... φερετε που και ταυτα ... παντα δε τα παρηγγελμενα τοις περι του πετρον συντομωσ εξηγγιλαν μετα δε ταυτα και αυτος ο ισ απο ανατολησ και αχρι δυσεωσ εξαπεστιλεν δι αυτων το ιερον και αφθαρτον κηρυγμα τησ αιωνιου σωτηριασ ... εστην δε και ταυτα φερομενα μετα το εφοβουντο γαρ ... Αναστασ δε, πρωι πρωτη σαββατ κ.τ.λ.,, ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon's facsimile, facing his page 113: our facsimile No. 21): as if verses 9–20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal supplement 3 which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices 4 and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription in L ending with σωτηριας (k adding αμην): the same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with αμην) in the margin of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bishop Lightfoot above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk, each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36 and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to the note, where (of course) it is repeated. 5 Other manuscripts contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is the substance. Cod. 199 has τελος 6 after εφοβουντο γαρ and before Αναστας δε, and in the same hand as τελος we read, εν τισι των αντιγραφων ου κειται ταυτα, αλλ ενταυθα καταπαυει. The kindred Codd. 20, 215, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark the omission in some (τισι) copies, adding εν δε τοις αρχαιοις παντα απαραλειπτα κειται, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem copies (see pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a subscription εγραφη και αντεβληθη ομοιως εκ των εσπουδασμενων κεφαλαιοις σλζ: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew's Gospel (see p. 161, note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at εφοβουντο γαρ, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends here, εν πολλοις δε και ταυτα φερεται, affixing verses 9–20. In Codd. 1, 250 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209, is the same notice, αλλοις standing for πολλοις in 206, with the additional assertion that Eusebius “canonized” no further than ver. 8, a statement which is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian numerals beyond that verse in אALSU and at least eleven cursives, with am. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. It would be no marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently, and such action on his part would have added nothing to the strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9 and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVΠ, and (with some changes) in GHMΓΔΛ and many others: in Cod. 566 the concluding sections are there (σλδ ver. 11, σλε ver. 12, σλς ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299, 329, 374 (twenty–four in all), present in substance 7 the same weighty testimony in favour of the passage: παρα πλειστοις αντιγραφοις ου κειται (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only ταυτα, αλλ ενταυθα καταπαυει) εν τω παροντι ευαγγελιω, ως νοθα νομισαντες αυτα ειναι αλλα ημεις εξ ακριβων αντιγραφων εν πλειστοις ευροντες αυτα και κατα το Παλαιστιναιον ευαγγελιον Μαρκου, ως εχει η αληθεια, συντεθεικαμεν και την εν αυτω επιφερομενην δεσποτικην αναστασιν. Now this is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch's [v] commentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 12, 37, 41. Yet these very twenty–four manuscripts have been cited by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but had simply copied Victor's decided judgement in its favour His appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged to Origen and Pamphilus (see p. 55 and note), is found in twenty–one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. Λ, 20, 164, 262, 300, &c.

All other codices, e.g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15, prima manu) EFWGH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXΓΔΠ, 33, 69, the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by a singular happiness, contains verses 17–20, though no other part of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all extant Old Latins except k (though a prima manu and b are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr 8 as early as the second century; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage, by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently by Celsus in the third; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily dated A.D. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syraic Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Ps.–Ephraem. Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, 9 Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in the fifth; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth. 10 Add to this, what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon (ubi supra, p. 205), that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins service for Ascension Day (see p. 81), and as the Gospel for St. Mary Magdalene's Day, July 22 (p. 89); as well as by forming the third of the eleven ευαγγελια αναστασιμα εωθινα, the preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85): so little were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity. 11

The earliest objector to vers. 9–20 we know of was Eusebius (Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells us that they were not εν απασι τοις αντιγραφοις, but after εφοβουντο γαρ that τα εξης are found σπανιως εν τισιν, yet not τα ακριβη: language which Jerome twice echoes and almost exaggerates by saying, 'in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habentibus.' A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is μαλιστα ειπερ εχοιεν αντιλογιαν τη των λοιπων ευαγγελιστων μαρτυρια. 12 The language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us at second–hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen. Jerome's recklessness in statement as been already noticed (Vol. II. p. 269); besides that, he is a witness on the other side, both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate, for could he have inserted the verses there, if he had judged them to be spurious?

With regard to the argument against these twelve verses arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied — and has been applied — to prove that St. Paul was not the writer of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews), St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of those prophecies that bear their names. Every one used to literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute variations as have been made so much of in this case, 13 either in his own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9–20 to the narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this inconsistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as 'a valuable testimony to the antiquity of the fragment' (N.T. ad loc.): we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the benefit of any critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I. Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and avowed by Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the αντιλογια, the εναντιωσις they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing that the Gospel ended with εφοβουντο γαρ. Yet in the balance of probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such abruptness? 14 This fact has driven those who reject the concluding verses to the strangest fancies: — namely, that, like Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away.

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises 15 are called for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius and the testimony of אB. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due: but against their verdict we can appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century; 16 to nearly all the versions; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church. 17


Scrivener's Footnotes (renumbered)

1. I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf's notion, that six leaves of Cod. א, that containing Mark xvi.2–Luke i.56 being one of them, were written by the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape of certain letters who shall insist? Yet there are parts of the case which I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least in these leaves, Codd. א B make but one witness, not two.

2. The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.

3. Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, 'In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel' (Introduction, p. 298).

4. We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph have the subscription 'Gospel after Mark' at the end of verse 8 as well as of verse 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the Gospel.

5. Burgon (Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538, 539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated, at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 550 the first letter α is small, but covers an abnormally large space.

6. Of course no notice is to be taken of τελος after εφοβουντο γαρ, as the end of the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp. 114–123).

7. The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon (Appendix E, pp. 288–90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius, from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgon (Last Twelve Verses, &c., Postscript, pp. 319–23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances of the case.

8. Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr — hinting that some also remains behind — proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre–existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.
9. It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about A.D. 349, that his 'negative evidence is peculiarly cogent' (Notes, p. 37). To our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article of the Creed τον καθισαντα εκ δεξιων του πατρος. He must inevitably have used Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.

10. Several of these references are derived from 'The Revision Revised,' p. 423.

11. Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9–20 comprised the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Armenians. Vers. 12–20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy (Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63): vers. 16–20 in the old Latin Comes

12. To get rid of one apparent αντιφωνια, that arising from the expression πρωι τη μια του σαββατου (sic), ver. 9, compared with οψε σαββατων Matt. xxvii. 1, Eusebius proposes the plan of setting a stop between Αναστας δε and πρωι, so little was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts a red cross after δε: Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 345, 405, 411, 456, have a colon: Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20, 1873).

13. The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses: εκεινος used absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13; πορευομαι vers. 10, 12, 15; τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις ver. 10; θεαομαι vers. 11, 14; απιστεω vers. 11, 16; μετα ταυτα ver. 12; ετερος ver. 12; παρακολουθεω ver. 17; εν τω ονοματι ver. 17; κυριος for the Saviour, vers. 19, 20; πανταχου, συνεργουντος, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω ver. 20, all of them as not found elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuineness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in the Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case, it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136–190) enters into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse argument from phraseology 'breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.'

14. 'Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of his ministry, conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women' (Kelley, Lectures Introductory to the Gospels, p. 258). Even Dr. Hort can say, 'It is incredible that the Evangelist deliberately concluded either a paragraph with εφοβουντο γαρ, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air' (Notes, p. 46).

15. When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot (ubi supra, p. 197) remarks upon it that 'With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstration.' We will not be deterred by dread of any such reproach from mentioning his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them, existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191–211), and noting that an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons); he supposes that τελος, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled some scribe who had before him an exemplar of the Gospels whose last leaf (containing Mark xvi. 9–20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16–20) was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark stood last.

16. The codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But what is that against a host of other codices? And when the other MS. of the Curetonian includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than negative.

17. Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing vers. 9–20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather inconsistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question 'manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age' (ibid. p. 51).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses to agree or disagree?

 

SDA

You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have. Luke 24 has the same sequence of events. Does that not enter into your thinking at all?

GE

It obviously hasn’t entered your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events “in Mark 16” at all! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, 'parallel accounts', but sequential in terms of time and development.
“For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.” Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15.)
1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!
2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.
3) In Luke, not only “the”, but more than “three women” “arrive”, and “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.
4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.
5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),
6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have had returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody's presence or knowledge, happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciple, Jesus appeared to them.

 

SWA

And?

 

HB

.... and it is clear that the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other.

SWA

And???

GE

Here is one guy bound for glorification and everlasting life, and not for hell, believing the Gospels for the Word of God, and that they contain no contradictions whatsoever, in the least, and especially not in the greatest of all events this earth has ever witnessed. Who approaches the facts of the Resurrection of Christ from the viewpoint of faith, that He in human body of glorified flesh, rose from the dead again, and was witnessed by many the Risen Jesus Christ, Mighty Lord, and Saviour of their souls.

And it has been my purpose with saying this,

1) to stop in this matter the big mouths of people like hellbound's.

2) Now no single Gospel even attempts to give the full chronological picture of times and events that surrounded the Resurrection;

3) Each gives a part of it which in every smallest particular is correct and true, and fits in perfectly with the other Gospels’ accounts;

4) And that it is people who make of these separate and different events, one and the same of one and the same moment in time and place, who are the creators of the innumerable number of contradictions.

I have already made this clear for anyone with brains and eyes that can read, and, with a heart willing and believing, reading and understanding.

SWA

.... and it is clear that the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other.

If you take 4 witnesses to a car accident, chances are very good that their accounts will not match exactly. In fact, they can't because each person witnessing is in a different position with different perspectives, so how can they match exactly?

SWB

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. John's gospel ends by reminding us that none of these things concerning Jesus of Nazareth was done in a corner.  If the gospels were not historically accurate then there would exist proof from that era.  Your inability to understand the chronology means only that you yourself don't understand it. It isn't proof of anything other than your own personal lack.

SWA

It's a weakness of mine. I tend to run from those who claim to know the mind of God. I will listen more closely to them once we get the basics down – like how human thought works, or the power behind the heartbeat. First things first, ya know....

SWB

I know that your thought experiment above doesn't apply because Jesus told us that the Comforter would bring to remembrance of Jesus' followers all that he had said. So, the remembrances of the gospels is the work of the Holy Ghost and not the willy nilly work of men.

SWA

Let me guess.........your favorite cologne is......Calvin???

SWB

By the ability of the Holy Ghost the witnesses can agree perfectly.  Admit it...you aren't looking at this from a position of faith. Such a position means you haven't the ability to resolve any doubts that confront you.

HB

Do yourself a favor. Go to Noah's Lounge and take a quick glance thru the CNN thread.

SWB

Your mind has been deceived by your master. As such you are blind and simply stumbling around in darkness. Until you come to Jesus you'll find no remedy. Because you say you can see your blindness remains.

SWA

Try one more little experiment for me, will ya. Place a plant in the middle of a room. Invite 8 people over to your home. Now have the 8 people who are in the SAME room talk about the plant. It will be IMPOSSIBLE to get 8 identical descriptions.

Why? Because for one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 8 people to be standing in the exact same spot, angle, lighting, etc. They will all have an entirely UNIQUE perspective because 8 people cannot occupy the same space. Not to mention personal, emotional, and spiritual comprehension about the plant they are looking at.
They are all looking at it from their own individual perspectives. Does that make ANY of their descriptions wrong? No, of course not. They are all correct, yet all different. That is how it is with the gospels. They are all correct, but coming from 4 different sources, and backgrounds. God planned it that way, Each addresses a different audience, yet all are truth.   Very cool.

SWC

I'm with SWA on this one, any court room will show that witnesses are not the ultimate reliable standard since everyone will have their own perspective shaded with their own expectations, and filtered through their own experiences.

In the book “Who Moved the Stone” the author takes the whole resurrection incident into a hypothetical courtroom and examines the witness testimony and comes up with his conclusion that there must have been a resurrection. While this book is a rather old book (1930) the issue is even older so it is still relevant.

Most remarkably Morrison, the author, started the whole process as an atheist and was converted to Christianity through the examination that the process of writing the book took.

GE

I have had to do with the objection different witnesses will and must witness differently. I say it is irrelevant; it applies not in the case of the Gospel records of Jesus' resurrection. The four Gospels give the one witness of the Resurrection. The Word of God it is, not the word of men.

It must be approached by faith. But that does not mean one by faith excuse mistakes, discrepancies and contradictions. In the court of Law of God, witnesses agree perfectly or are judged liars. No Gospel contains lies or accidents, contradictions, or just 'mistakes'.

 

Now the solution to the alleged cases of such things in the Gospels, the first we have had a look at above, that God is the Giver of the record of the Gospels. He errs not. God is One in his Word; He is not double tongued like the serpent devil.

Remember this is the greatest and most trustworthy work of God He ever did: That He raised Christ from the dead. Can we not absolutely trust God's Word on this, how can we trust Him in anything else?

Next point:

There are not four witnesses one from or in each Gospel. There is but the One Message of the Resurrection. By this I am not repeating what I have just said, that the Gospels give us the One Word of God on the event of Christ's resurrection. I am not repeating ––– this time I am referring to the only one event of the breaking news ––– of the making known ––– of the Resurrection. That Event–of–Word, did not come from any of the writers of the Gospels; not by any apostle; not by any woman–disciple; by no human being. The only witness of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is the witness–by–word of “the angel”, who “told / explained / witnessed to the women”: the angel of Matthew 28:5.

Why an angel, and no living eye–witness from among men? First, because that is what the Scriptures say:

“Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1Tm3:16.

When Christ rose from the dead, this was what happened, and these were the witnesses – the eye–witnesses: “(When) in the Sabbath Day's fullness, being mid–afternoon before the First Day of the week, (when) set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go look (at) the grave, (when) suddenly there was a great earthquake: (then) the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it, his countenance like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:– answered / explained / witnesses and told the angel the women .....”

The sole source of human knowledge of the Resurrection was the angel ––– no mortal eye beheld the events and phenomena that accompanied the Resurrection –– not even the guard who were struck unconscious and could see nothing. So that faith shall come by hearing, and not by seeing; and so that faith shall come by hearing from one source not capable of lying against itself. So that no Gospel in any wise contradict another. And so that, if we do still encounter contradiction, we shall surely know the trouble lies with us and our understanding, and not with the Gospel accounts.

My purpose with this discussion was to find out how the rest of the Gospel accounts harmonises perfectly.

I take as a–priori therefore, three things, not debatable:

1) Faith;

2) God's Word;

3) Believing by hearing what is incontrovertible: The Good News of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead.

I wish this discussion to deal with things that happened after, these presuppositions already accepted.

SWA

The Gopels are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because they differ (which they must) doesn't negate that the event happened.

SWB

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents.

GE

The Gopels are 4 separate accounts from the outset, is a false proposition as well as false supposition!

No, they are _not_ 4 separate accounts of _one_ significant event; they are 4 separate accounts of 4 or even 5 different events per se. Just because of that, they – the 4 accounts – differ not (which they must not) in the smallest detail, and therefore, do not negate in the smallest detail, the event per se, nor, that the event happened, which one event in the end is presupposed, Jesus' resurrection. But which 4 accounts were in each case of a different and other event.

Straight forward:
Mark does not record the event of the Resurrection;
Luke does not record the event of the Resurrection;
John does not record the event of the Resurrection:
Matthew (28:6f) does not record the event of the Resurrection;
Only Mt28:1–5, does record the event of the Resurrection;
Mark implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Luke implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Jn20:1–10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Mt28:1–5 implies the Resurrection way earlier;
Jn20:11f records the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;
Mk16:9 implies that recording of the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;
Mt28:6f mentions the second Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier ––– according to Mt28:1–5, “On the Sabbath” the day before Jesus “On the First Day appeared”.

That's the whole and full story without a single minutest hitch!

Don't bring your weak and sinful human witnesses stuff for witness against the trustworthiness of the events and accounts from God Himself.

 

Now your “very cool” beating about the bush irrelevancies are no more than meaningless, without substance, beating about the bush irrelevancies.

Take your solution, and test it with this, the exponential truth test:

Take the differences to prove your case – which you alleged are there and said must be there – between the records in Mark 16:1 and Luke 24; multiply the number of differences with the number of differences between the records in Luke 24 and John 20:1–10, and the resultant number of differences with the number of differences between the records in John 20:1–10 and Mark 16:1–8, and the resultant number of differences with the number of differences between the records in Mark 16:1–8, and Mark 16:9; and the resultant number of differences with the number of differences between the records in Mark 16:9 and John 20:11f, and get millions of contradictions, discrepancies and irreconcilabilities that ‘must be there’— and call it ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’? Then multiply the number of differences with the number of differences between all these records together and the record in Mt28:1–4, and the result once again with the number of differences between Mt28:1–4 and Mt28:5–8, and get the _true_ story from SWA! Then do yourself a favor. Go to Noah's Lounge and take a good look thru the CNN thread and a thousand others, how this ‘true story’ is broadcast ‘daily’ and Sundays especially into the whole world for a witness to be believed and obeyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus’ Last Passover

 

GE:

The Lord’s Supper....

Open invitation:

Why would you say it was the passover–meal? 

I say it was not the passover–meal.

 

DC:

“The major historical and interpretive question is whether this meal was a Passover meal. Major scholars have weighed in on both sides of the debate.

The Gospels themselves appear divided on the question. Mark 14:12 (“prepare, so that you may eat the Passover”), followed by Matthew (26:17) and Luke (22:8), apparently understands the Last Supper (14:17–25) as a Passover meal, while John 18:28 (cf. John 19:14, 31, 42) seems to imply that the Last Supper took place the day before Passover and that Jesus in fact died on Passover, 15 Nisan.”  Craig A. Evans, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27–16:20, (2002), 370.

 

 

ES:

1 After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”

16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.

17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.” (Mk. 14:1, 14–18 – NKJV)

'Nuff said 

 

 

WD:

It matters not what you say, GE. As ES pointed out, Scripture says it was the Passover Meal. Case closed.

 

GE:

“The Scriptures say ....” Because ES has spoken, it is Scripture .... For you, WD, not for me!

The elements of the Last Supper are specifically described and they are not the elements of the Passover or Seder; not even of the Bedikat Chamets meal.  The Last Supper which was the institution of the Lord’s Supper was unique and new. And that is my conclusive evidence for believing the Last Supper was not the Passover Meal regardless the proof all the many other proofs it was not. It is what it was, and not what it was not, that weighs heaviest.

You people want a Passover meal eaten before the Passover sacrifice was slaughtered;

You want the Passover Meal of the Passover–sabbath, Nisan 15, on Passover–Preparation, Nisan 14;

You want “two days before Passover Feast–(sabbath)”, one day before Passover Feast–sabbath;

You want Jesus say He ate while He said, Prepare so that I may eat.

You want a Passover Meal of a blood sacrifice that is the Seder, but that consisted of bread and nothing more.

You want a Passover Meal with wine – which no Passover Seder for the life of you would have had on the table or 'prepared'.

You want a Passover Meal of 'arton'— ordinary bread, and not of bread without yeast, 'adzymos–bread' (or ‘matsach’).

You want a Passover Meal which the Jews had not partaken of, because they the next morning, would not enter into Pilate's house, “that they (still) might eat the Passover” the coming evening.

You want a Passover Meal the Jews obviously must have eaten the following night after the Last Supper’s, after sunset and before they went into Pilate's house without scruples about the Passover Meal.

You want a Passover Meal Jesus had eaten while it is not written once that He ate it, but that He ate the Passover in that He was 'our Passover Lamb' – Himself – slain before He could be 'partaken of' by faith.

That is your 'Scripture', WD; you may have it for yourself; just don't spoon–feed innocent enquirers with what is just _your_ 'Scripture' and not that of the Written Word.

 

TS:

Also the description of the meal resembles that of a Sader. “he who dips his bread with me” dips it in the bitter herbs. Sader. Passover – meal. I've celebrated Seder and there is wine. And Jesus had this seder on Shabbat. Which makes sense to me and no the scriptures don't say what Jesus and Judas dipped into but I do know that the Seder bread is dipped into bitter herbs in water. Since the writer assumes that we know what he's talking about I can assume it was a normal Jewish custom at the time.

 

GE:

“Jesus had this seder on Shabbat”? You mean on passover’s ‘sabbath’; on Nisan 15? On Nisan 14, “the passover must be killed”!

Having celebrated Seder you naturally also would have celebrated Bedikat Chamets, and should know the differences between the two feast–meals. You should know that Seder has grape juice; no wine. Bedikat Chamets has wine; no grape juice. Seder has meat – the passover's sacrifice's meat; Bedikat Chamets does not have meat of sacrifice.

In any case, grape juice or any drink is no constituent of the original, Scriptural, OT 'Passover'. 'The Jews' much later only, introduced drinking of whatever fluid into the Passover Meal.

Originally too, the Passover–Meal was simply called “The Passover” Gr., 'to pascha' – a Hebraism.  'Seder' cannot even be said is properly the 'Passover'!

The Reformed Churches use real wine for the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately the Reformed Churches have made two 'ceremonies' of the Lord's Supper of the Gospels. They made of the one ‘Holy Communion’ a ‘Preparation Service’ on the evening of the night before, and the Celebration of the Lord's Supper itself next day.

The Jews are a wonderful people; but even they, cannot be trusted in matters of Christian religion.

 

ES:

Does that include when they recorded Scripture?

Most of the writers of Scripture surely were Jewish, including every writer of the NT, likely apart from Luke, it would seem.

Sorry, GE. You simply are searching for a distinction that is not there, and that Scripture does not support, as the Scriptures I quoted previously would seem to suggest.

 

TS:

We actually had manischewitz wine which was drunk at different intervals during the seder following of the passover Haggadah.  No grape juice. Wine. Sweet new wine. They didn't have any skins so I couldn't tell you if it was new wine in old skins.

Bedikat Chametz is the night before looking for leaven or yeast in the house by candle light. I don't think this is what Jesus was doing.

 

GE:

So they ate unleavened bread, but drank fermented wine?

I didn't say or suggest Jesus was looking for yeast. I said and again say, Jesus did not 'do' any of the Bedikat Chamets, or Seder, or, Passover–Meal. Have you not seen I said Jesus did a New Thing? A thing He prepared his disciples through for this once for all coming Passover? A thing that He himself would be prepared by for this once for all coming Passover? This once for all coming Passover that He would 'eat' and would 'drink' Himself being its Sacrifice, Himself being its Cup? “This”, says Jesus, “is MY blood”; “This” again, “is MY body” : Not that of a passover lamb not slaughtered yet and not eaten yet, but to be slaughtered still and to be eaten still.

 

Quoting TS,

“The Seder bread is dipped into bitter herbs in water. Since the writer assumes that we know what he's talking about I can assume it was a normal Jewish custom at the time.”

 

GE:

The expression, “he who dips his hand into the bowl with me” should not be assumed “a normal Jewish custom at the time” for the Seder; but at the time was a normal Jewish idiom of the vernacular for familiarity: ''He who knows me well”, who even may dwell with me; who intimately, knows me.

Bring all the factors into play; not only one doubtful one, Passover=Seder!

Over more, Seder is not Lord's Supper!  Lord's Supper is so called (by Paul and all Christians after him) for being The Lord's Supper by Title and right of His Lordship earned and obtained and received by Triumph of Victory – both in Suffering and Resurrection!

It's purely Christian.

It's NEW, and covenanted, New!

The Lord's Supper was nor is the Passover!

 

AS:

GE – Can I ask about why you have such an obsession with Jesus' last hours on earth? What about the rest of His life and after His death and resurrection? His life wasn't just about those last hours.

 

GE:

Ah, AS, this is the most wonderful question ever put to me, and in all Christian sincerity, thank you for it!

For His whole life in truth, the whole rest of His Life, since eternity before and for eternity after, and since He was born a human baby and until He died God in the body of mortal flesh, was all about those last hours and last three days and three nights according to the Scriptures! His eternal existence is unthinkable without these moments and events. Jesus' own words at the table confirm! His 'Intercessory prayer' of John 17, shows!

 

Because here and now the eternal Covenant of Grace really 'kicked in', to be established once for ever in the Resurrection of the Crucified Christ of God. Here, like, or, nowhere else, is God in His Glory revealed: as, He, is! If not for these hours God would be as if even He, were transitory and of but of a moment's existence and power. Which exactly these hours were: The Eternal Life of God in one event of God who so loved the world that He gave His Only

Begotten Son, both into death and in resurrection from the dead.

I fail to express the reality or truth of it in words. But I am sure you get the drift of what I'm trying to say.

 

DA:

For GE what the bible actually says is never good enough, it's got to say what he wants it to say.

 

GE:

No, it's you.

You show me once, where as you say, it says, Jesus “ate”. I show where every time, it says, I mean the Scriptures says, “may / might / can ... eat”. Any way you could possibly say it, “They prepared for passover”. “They prepared for passover”, is Scripture; that's what I, GE, say because it is Scripture, and not vice versa, that because I say it, it is Scripture ––– like in fact, you, do!

But it's because GE once as always took the given data to full consequences as far as possible, and because GE does not take for granted popular opinion, that you say what you've said, falsely and insultingly; which I shall boast in for Christ's sake.

 

AS:

Yes, what Jesus did in His last days were of utmost importance but being so focused on the small issues, I feel you're missing the bigger picture.

 

GE:

Small issues?

 

EE:

Because it makes a difference if Jesus was raised up on the Sabboth (last day of the week) or on Sonday (first day of the week).

Personally I worship God every day of my life.

 

GE:

Ja, 'personally' we all do –– or are supposed to. But the Sabbath is not about 'me'; it never has been; it's about God through Jesus Christ being worshipped by his People. This is the Christian People of God: There: Where they worship their Lord together. This is the Christian People of God: There: When they worship their Lord together.

Christian worship is all about this 'difference'. Without this difference, there will be no witness, no proclamation, no praises, no prayers, no singing, no healing: basically because two things will be and must be wanting : No “Sabbaths'“, “eating and drinking” of Christ “in Spirit and Truth”, “not holding the Head from Whom all the Body (of Christ's Own) by joints and bands having (spiritual) nourishment ministered”, no “increase (growth) with the increase of God” but a getting “puffed up” to bursting point with self–esteem and vanity of an own religion. (The like is described further in verses 20–23.)

 

ES:

How is the Sabbath involved? ‘Nuf said.

 

GE:

We are still on track. We are still dealing with the Passover Jesus that Nisan 14 ate and drank Himself being the Lamb slaughtered and eaten and His Own blood being the Life of Him drunk.

It only extended into the Life of the Body of Christ's Own, and no longer is being celebrated a sacrifice or therefore the day of a death merely, but that Passover is now being celebrated the day of his life taken up, lifted up and exalted, “On the Sabbath Day”.
He having “triumphed in it”–– having been raised from the dead ––, his day of death and resurrection and Triumph is being observed and celebrated in one with “Sabbaths’ feasting”!

 

 

Still, after the two disciples who were sent before, found the room, and everything 'prepared', they made no further preparations, but, “prepared for Passover”. Which means, they enjoyed the passover preparation–meal. But this time, the first time, the Providence of God, “prepared”, and “prepared”, not for the old passover, but for the New, that He, “might be eaten”. And so the disciple and Jesus “Prepared the Passover” –– for “our Passover”, the Passover of the Lamb of God.

But what do I have this diatribe with myself for? This is not my dogma; this is well known Protestant teaching! What do you oppose me so for? Or why do you so disregard me, rather? This is essential, Protestant doctrine! It contains the death of trans–substantiation. It glorifies the Christ. It simplifies the Message. Only good can be said of it. But no, this is me making me the Scriptures! I ask you, why? Is this blasphemy? Is this insulting? Is this obvious, literal, confused, error?

 

I know what I believe! I believe (here) the Lord's Supper; not the Jews' Passover Meal. It's good enough for me.

We are still on track. We are still dealing with the Passover Jesus that Nisan 14 ate and drank Himself being the Lamb slaughtered and eaten and His Own blood being the Life of Him drunk.

And now and here it struck me first time, “Great, marvellous, wonderful, beautiful, is the Mystery of Godliness”!

About half a century ago already, I noticed the difference between Exodus and the rest of the Law and the OT. I made thorough research of it, the fact that Exodus places both the sacrifice and the eating, on Nisan 14, for which reason, Exodus employed for the feast days, a sunrise to sunrise reckoning.

All the subsequent references to the dating of the sacrifice and the passover–meal, place sacrifice, on Nisan 14 (no exceptions), and meal, on Nisan 15 (no exceptions). For this reason the sunset to sunset day–cycle was instrumental – no exceptions.

I always thought this was a difficulty.

I tried to find explanations, and could only think of the old era of bondage being broken and left behind, so that the 'old' first and day–halve of Nisan 14 fell away and back into Nisan 13 and became its last and day–halve; and Nisan 14's 'old' and last or night–halve, (now at the beginning of the new age of freedom), became the beginning and first or night–halve of Nisan 14.

Thus in Exodus both sacrifice and meal fell on Nisan 14. It was the first passover.

Now in the end–time once again and for last and ever, both Sacrifice and Meal of Passover became one in the One Who is both Sacrifice and Meal of Yahweh's Passover. Once for all, the Lamb of God our Passover in his own body and the sacrifice of Himself,

became both Sacrifice and Meal of Yahweh's Passover on, and, within, Nisan 14. It would be the Last Passover.

After sunset after this Nisan 14, the Jews on Nisan 15, would still eat their passover – which was their own in every respect, and none of Christ's.

I saw it today through this discussion; I have found what for me is a treasure of spiritual wealth, and I sincerely want to thank everyone for his or her critique, without which I still would have walked with blinkers on.

 

TS:

I would like to differ sir. Yours obviously is not well known protestant teaching and I've visited many churches. You have a right to your view. I have a right to oppose it. My view is this Jesus was Jewish and was celebrating a Jewish holiday. However, you are right that he also was doing a new thing and established a new covenant. But beyond that I may disagree.

GE:

Not well known protestant teaching? What do the Church every ‘Nagmaal’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’ do? Do we eat the Seder?

Nevertheless, At this hour in His life, Jesus was less 'Jewish' than at any time in his earthly life. In fact, reading John 17 Jesus is seen the Intercessor for his Elect, first, last and only. Reading the passion–narratives, Jesus tells his disciples Now is the hour of evil men and of the powers of darkness. He sided with no human affiliation when He Institutionalised His Supper the Holy Communion

of Christian allegiance. Here is the point in the life's history of Jesus Christ blood relation and nationalistic interests were zero.

Here prophecy was being brought to an end; here Jewish Covenantal commitment raged itself out in the fury of the Jews and the judgments of a just God. Christ Triumphed and introduced the Lord's Supper to commemorate Triumph through Victory. No 'Jewish holy day' would do; no holy meal of it; He had to invent and create his own.

And I never denied Jesus here 'observed' a day of God's institution: He observed, the Passover of Exodus, Nisan 14, in both aspects of Sacrifice and Meal! No 'Jewish' ceremony or even OT ceremony or ‘holy day’ existed that could fulfil the requirements of God's Prophetic, Eschatological Provision through Christ Himself— therefore, not on the sabbath of the passover! Jesus was the Passover Lamb, both in being Sacrifice Himself and Feast of Eating, Himself. He created out of nothing.

Jesus did not observe the Jewish Passover still observed by the Jews for nothing but a judgment over themselves on Nisan 15, after, the True Passover Lamb of God had been sacrificed and Himself by the sacrifice of Himself had eaten the bowl prepared for Him and had drunk the cup destined for Him by God, that Nisan 14.

 

ES:

As to how Jesus could partake of the Passover meal (thus fulfilling Scripture) and yet be crucified (as Our Passover) on the same Jewish day (again fulfilling the Scripture), I have already made multiple comments, regarding the fulfilling of the phrase, found in the OT of “between the evenings,” and how that was when the Passover Lamb was to be slain, and the fact that that phrase did not even seem to have any import attached to it, until our Lord was in fact, 'killed' on 14 Nisan (or Abib), just as the Scripture demands. For over 1500 years, this merely seemed to be an oddity of wording, to all except the LORD, who gave this prophetic command.

 

GE:

Ag, ES, you have said nothing of the smallest worth. You have become the Scriptures unto yourself. I cannot but answer you with disdain. If not ES were the inventor, all lightbulbs give darkness.

ES:

I really do not know what I have ever done or said to invite such vindictiveness from you. However, keep getting on my case, and thus give some of the rest, such as DA a break, considering she is a lady.

Nor do I see why, when GE renders some phrase, it should be given more import, than any other, for that matter, but when another renders one, it is supposedly poor theology.

And especially from one who allegedly champions a particular English version, and that is the version cited from, by some other??

The phrase, which I had previously commented on of “between the evenings” is a literal rendering of the Hebrew in some of the passages in Leviticus and other Pentateuch books, according to what I have seen.

Is that incorrect?

If not, apart from an oddity of the phrasing, what import was ever given to this prior to the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus?

Incidentally, it would make zero sense, for the Lord to have not eaten the Passover, considering that is what He said He was going to do –

12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?”
13 And He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. 14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”
16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.

17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.” 19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?” 20 He answered and said to them, “It is one of the twelve, who dips with Me in the dish. 21 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.” (Mk. 14:12–20 – NKJV cp. Mt. 26:17–26 & Lk. 26:7–16)

The bold words, are for the point of emphasis and distinction, incidentally.

And as I have previously said, IMO, the Lord was not just dipping his hand into the dish, to play with food. [BTW, Judas could not have been dipping his hand, along with Jesus, at the same Jesus gave him the choice morsel (“the sop”) of which to partake. Kinda' hard to be fishing something out of the dish, while simultaneously, receiving the mouthful of the morsel from another's hand, I would say.]

 

Quoting ES,

“....it would make zero sense, for the Lord to have not eaten the Passover, considering that is what He said He was going to do....”

GE:

It would make zero sense for the Lord to have eaten the Passover, considering He said that, was not going to be what He was going to do – “And He took the cup .... and gave thanks .... and gave to them .... But I say unto you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine”

 

Quoting ES,

1 After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

14 Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’

15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us.”

16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.

17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.” (Mk. 14:1, 14–18 – NKJV)

 

GE:

Let's change your underlining (and then enquire after a few other things), 

 

Quoting ES,

 “Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”

GE:

Let's change it to the more realistic,

“Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”

“Where is the guestroom where, I with my disciples, may eat, (it being) the Passover. 16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared for Passover. 17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.” Mk14:1, 14–18.

“Where .... I with my disciples may eat the Passover....”—

Where?: in the room;

When?: “the Passover”, that Passover, on it; “Where, while / while being / on Passover we may eat”— the Passover season. (One may plainly call it the last passover meal, not meaning it was the Passover’s Meal of sacrifice, but because it was the meal of the last passover Feast season that Jesus would attend.)

“Where I with My disciples may eat this Passover....”— it says not 'we shall eat the Passover’, or, 'we shall eat the Passover Meal’.  It says not, 'shall eat'; it says, “may eat”—  Jesus well knowing He won't then at all physically eat, but the disciples would, to prepare them all for that one coming Passover of all time— Passover of the Yom Yahweh.

On the evening and beginning of Nisan 14, “They prepared the Passover notwithstanding”–('hehtoimadzoh')— The Jews prepared for Passover with Bedikat Chamets.

What did Jesus and his disciples do after that they have found the place 'prepared already'? “They prepared for the Passover”. ('for', correct Eng. for Gr. Acc.)  They 'kept' or 'observed', Passover's ‘Preparation’ – its preparation–meal; not the 'passover's meal' that consisted of the sacrifice! That is plain, Scriptures, ‘as it is written’. No fancy stuff; no stuff mine!

Then:  17 “In the evening (Luke says after an hour) He came with the (rest of the) twelve.”

 

With your emphasis:

“18 Now as they sat and ate ....”

 

Make that,

“18 Now as they sat and ate....” not Jesus, but they.

Even better, make that,

“18 Now they sitting, eating....”

 

Quoting ES,

“.... Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me.”

GE:

Get that, more precise:

“.... Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray me – the one by me (met’ emou) and eating.”

Where does it say, Jesus, ate or drank? Nowhere!

 

Quoting ES,

 “14:1”,

GE:

“After two days was the Feast Day (Sabbath) of the Passover that of Unleavened Bread Feast ...”. Passover would be two days away. 

Mark 14:12 also exists, you know as well as I do, which refers to the day directly after this one of verse 1, upon which the Last Supper was eaten, Nisan 14, and one day before the Passover Feast Sabbath of Unleavened Bread eaten.

Therefore you have two indicators to the sequence of the days involved before the Feast Sabbath on which day, Nisan 15, in its fore–part and evening of night, the Passover’s, Meal, would have been eaten as the climax of the Feast of the Passover's eight days of duration.

You agree Nisan 15 was Passover's Sabbath of Unleavened Bread Feast – you have told us before – that it was the Friday.

Now how on earth do you get the Last Supper on the day _of_ the Feast Sabbath – on Friday –, during its beginning, the evening of 'our' Thursday night?

 

ES:

[Sigh!] Yes, I did quote Mk. 14:1.

And no, I do not believe or teach that the Passover meal took place on “the evening of 'our' Thursday night,” nor have I said this for some 40 years. (I did ignorantly say, about that time, that the Crucifixion was on Wednesday for a year or so, until I studied the Scripture a bit more closely, and realized that this took place on Thursday, by our reckoning of time.) Nor have I even remotely agreed that the Lord was crucified on Friday, by our reckoning, for more than 40 years, either. 14 Nisan (or 14 Abib) is “Passover”, and which is also referred to in the NT as “the Preparation” which, although referred to as a 'feast day' in Leviticus, is not said specifically to be a Sabbath nor an holy Convocation, unlike the Feast day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which is a Sabbath, and an holy convocation, according to Leviticus 23.

Incidentally, the only thing I actually “said” (at this time) was, “ 'Nuff said!” The rest was a quoting of Scripture.

Did you not read the verses?

It also says, and I will use your preferred font, “In the evening He came with the twelve. (18) Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say unto you, one of you who eats with me shall betray me.”

Did you notice what I have underlined, here? In another place, it mentions Jesus speaking of one who would dip his hand in the dish, along with the Lord Jesus.

I underlined “eat” and “ate” to show that it was indeed the Passover meal, and that they did, in fact, eat of it.

Frankly, I simply do not think the Lord was 'dipping his hand' into the dish, and not eating this, and merely “playing in the food”.

GE:

Thank you for this clear explanation of your position. It looks like mine in certain respects. Can we go through it slowly?

Quoting ES,

“Now as they sat and ate....”

 

GE:

Make that, “18 Now as they sat and ate....”

Not Jesus, but they. The literal: ‘Kai anakeimenohn autohn kai esthiontohn, ho Iehsous eipen....’  “And they–sitting down and they–eating, Jesus said, Verily I tell you....”; or, “Now at–sitting–down–of–them and at–of–them–eating, Jesus said, Verily I tell you....”. The disciple did the sitting and the eating. Jesus only sat down with them, and spoke to them. The Verbs in Plural are “of–them”–doing; the Verbs in Singular are of Jesus’ doing.

Quite the opposite of yours.

 

Quoting ES,

“one of you who eats with me shall betray me” 

 

GE:

Is it “eats”, or is it “eat”?

Get that, more specific:

“Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray me – the one by me (met’ emou) eating.”

Anyway, where does it say, Jesus, ate or drank? Nowhere!

 

Quoting ES,

 “In another place, it mentions Jesus speaking of one who would dip his hand in the dish, along with the Lord Jesus.

I underlined “eat” and “ate” to show that it was indeed the Passover meal, and that they did, in fact, eat of it.

Frankly, I simply do not think the Lord was 'dipping his hand' into the dish, and not eating this, and merely “playing in the food”.”

GE:

As I have said, this (Mt26:23) is an idiomatic expression for or of familiarity; it has no literal meaning. You have read the many commentaries. Judas took advantage of the trust between him and the Lord, is what Jesus wanted to say and quite straight forward and frankly said with using this expression.

Luke says, “the hand of him who betrayeth me is with me on the table”. Selfsame thing; literalness is out of the question.

 

Quoting ES,

 “In another place, it mentions Jesus speaking of one who would dip his hand in the dish, along with the Lord Jesus.”

 

GE:

John 13:17, Jesus “gave to” Judas to show what He insinuated; it doesn’t even mention this expression.

Once, or, more?

 

Mk14:20, read verse 19 first, then, “And He answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish. .... Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”

Now there is no doubt bread was eaten only once during the Lord’s Supper of the Last Meal, just like the cup was drunk only once in Holy Communion. I think it is to the dishonour of the Lord’s Supper if the cup were used again. (Some people insist the cup went round as many as four times ––– and then I have noticed they deny the Passover’s Seder used unfermented wine!) 

However, if you are right in assuming both verses 18 and 20 should be taken literally as if the disciples and Jesus actually ate, then food was taken twice— which I also think would dishonour the Lord’s Supper. Besides looking like the gluttony Paul wrote against, it implies Christ’s dying once was not enough; as if He had to die again.

I will not

Then Luke (22:16, as Mt) also says Jesus “took the bread, broke it, and gave unto them. .... And He took the cup .... and gave thanks .... and gave to them .... Take (ye) this .... But I say unto you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until ....”.

The idea, “henceforth / no more”, does not imply Jesus this time did, drink, but won’t again drink until.... later. It actually is an emphatic assurance, in, “I henceforth say unto you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine”; “I say unto you, I will not this time at all / in any wise drink of this fruit of the vine!” And as with the wine, so was it with the bread.

Jesus would not at the table eat or drink of that on the table. He at the table “being in agony” and “troubled in spirit” (Jn13:21), “prayed”. (Lk22:44) As Christ “took the cup and gave thanks and gave to them and they all drank” (Mk14:23), He, in his own spirit took the cup of his sorrows, and drank it to the dredge, praising and glorifying God. “This is my blood”; yet, “Now is the Son glorified, and God is glorified, in Him.” Jn13:31.

 

Quoting ES,

“14 Nisan .... is “Passover” .... referred to as a 'feast day' in Leviticus ....”.

 

GE:

I do not find this the case.

 

Only Exodus

Nisan 14 is “Passover” referred to once as a 'feast day' in Exodus (not in Leviticus), yes!  Why? Because in Ex12:18 (23:15, 34:18 refer to the dating in 12:17) the passover sacrifice was also eaten on Nisan 14 – unlike anywhere else in the OT or Bible for that matter— until (I believe), the Last Nisan 14 Passover in which Christ “offered Himself Sacrifice” both slaughtered and eaten on Nisan 14— (an insight new to me thanks to our present discussion!) The Last Passover had to be finished before the day of Nisan 14 would end at sunset.

(The suffering and death of Christ meant the end of all Old Testament sacrifices and feasts. Feasting Christ “with regard to Sabbath’s’ Feast” (Col2:16), New Testament believers feast all OT

institutions, ceremonies, sacrifices and feasts.)

Nisan 14 in any other direct or indirect reference, is never after Exodus named a ‘feast’ again, because the passover sacrifice was always eaten on Nisan 15. (E.g., cf. Lv23:5 with Lv23:6; et al.) Nisan 15, therefore, is found named, the Feast of the Passover, everywhere except in Exodus.

In fact, Nisan 15 is not mentioned in Exodus.

 

Quoting ES,

“14 Nisan  .... is not said specifically to be a Sabbath nor an holy Convocation, unlike the Feast day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which is a Sabbath, and an holy convocation, according to Leviticus 23.”

GE:

Passover–sabbath

I am glad you said “a (s)abbath”, and not ‘the Sabbath’, and I’m sure you know why: because the Feast Day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, always was ‘a sabbath’ (Lv23:11b, 15a, 16a), but not necessarily the Seventh Day Sabbath. Passover–sabbath could coincide with the Seventh Day Sabbath because it floated through the week and could fall on any day of the week.

Nisan 15 Passover–Feast–sabbath (in the year the Lord was crucified), fell on Friday. The beginning–part of Nisan 15 was ‘our’ Thursday night. Had Jesus had either the Passover Meal or Lord's Supper on Thursday night, He should on the next day – Friday – still have been alive (and crucified)— which I and you, deny for irrefutable reasons He was on Friday.

 

Quoting ES,

 “[Sigh!] Yes, I did quote Mk. 14:1.”

 

GE:

And I replied, “After two days was the Feast Day (Sabbath) of the Passover that of Unleavened Bread Feast ...” it ‘was’, Nisan 13.

Two days before

Now Mark 14:12 also exists, you know as well as I do, which refers to the day directly after this one of verse 1, upon which the Last Supper was eaten, Nisan 14, and one day before the Passover

Feast Sabbath of Unleavened bread eaten. (I think we still agree.)

Therefore you have two indications to the sequence of the days involved before the Feast Sabbath Nisan 15, on which — in its fore–part and evening of night — the Passover’s, Meal, would have been eaten as the climax of the Feast of the Passover's eight days of duration. Only the Jews ate the passover–meal that Nisan 15. They had not had their part in the Passover Meal of Yahweh, which was Christ!

The Lord’s, Supper – according to Mk14:1 and 12 – happened one day before passover’s day on which the sacrificed lamb was to be eaten; one day before Nisan 15.

In the year of our Lord’s death,

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper the day

before Nisan 15

before the Sixth Day and

before “the Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath”;

before the ‘Passover Feast–day’ and

before “that great day sabbath” of it; and

before the night in which the Jews ate their passover meal.

In the year of our Lord’s death,

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper

on Nisan 14 >

on the Fifth Day >

in the night of the Fifth Day >

in the evening of Nisan 14’s beginning. >

The day presupposed starting and ending sunset,> the Lord’s Supper occurred the Fifth Day of the week, ‘Thursday’, in the beginning of it,> on ‘Wednesday’ night “after one hour” after sunset.  (Lk22:14)

Beginning of Nisan 14

Maybe here is cause for concern; I don’t know your position,

The Meal Jesus and His disciples gathered for, happened the night beginning Nisan 14 (cf. Mk14:12/17, Mt26:17/20, Lk22:7/14, Jn13:1), and before the Great Sacrifice of that Passover of Yahweh would be slaughtered by crucifixion next daylight, “between the pair of nights”–‘behn ha arbayim’ – Dual of ‘night’, according to Young. I think you might prefer to find a difference between us on this point. Many people force two days out of these Scriptures, claiming Mk14:12/Mt26:17/Lk22:7 implied daytime of Nisan 13, before the night of Mk14:17/Mt26:20/Lk22:14 would have begun. But in Mk14:12/Mt26:17/Lk22:7 the start of day with evening after sunset makes perfect sense, and the same time–slot beginning in Mk14:12/Mt26:17/Lk22:7, is logically and naturally completed in Mk14:17/Mt26:20/Lk22:14.

Elements of Lord’s Supper

 

The Lord’s Supper consisted of two things eaten, only, bread, and wine – as the Christian Church still observes it today! So how could the Lord’s Supper be “the passover” in the sense of the passover’s meal of the sacrifice, “bitter”, that is, with nothing else? It could not.

The old – and original – passover meal consisted of the meat of the sacrifice of Nisan 14, so the meal (of the sacrifice) could not be eaten before the day it would be sacrificed – it had to be eaten the day after, on Nisan 15, “in the evening”, and, “before midnight”. The lamb and the unleavened bread were eaten together on Nisan 15, in the “night to be solemnly observed”— in Exodus dated Nisan 14; in the rest of the Law, dated Nisan 15.  Nisan 15 therefore – because of the eating of ‘the Passover’ on it – was “Feast”, or ‘Passover–Feast’, or, “Feast of Unleavened Bread (eaten)”, or, just ‘the Passover’.

 

So what do we (or do I) quarrel about? How or where do we at all differ, if I understand you correctly, as you have, and further, have explained your position,

 

Quoting ES,

“And no, I do not believe or teach that the Passover meal took place on “the evening of 'our' Thursday night,” nor have I said this for some 40 years. (I did ignorantly say, about that time, that the Crucifixion was on Wednesday for a year or so, until I studied the Scripture a bit more closely, and realized that this took place on Thursday, by our reckoning of time.) Nor have I even remotely agreed that the Lord was crucified on Friday, by our reckoning, for more than 40 years, either. 14 Nisan (or 14 Abib) is “Passover”, and which is also referred to in the NT as “the Preparation” which, although referred to as a 'feast day' in Leviticus, is not said specifically to be a Sabbath nor an holy Convocation, unlike the Feast day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which is a Sabbath, and an holy convocation, according to Leviticus 23.”

 

Quoting ES,

“I do not believe or teach that the Passover meal took place on “the evening of 'our' Thursday night,”

GE:

Then please, on which night was it? Only one possibility remains, and that is on ‘our’ Wednesday night. Well, but that’s what he’s been saying! Half a century have I been saying the same thing, and here we are at each other’s throat? Just because you say ‘Passover Meal’, and I say, ‘Not the Passover Meal’?

 

‘The Preparation’ or “The Preparation of the Passover”

All I can think of where else we might differ, is here, “14 Nisan (or 14 Abib) is “Passover”, and which is also referred to in the NT as “the Preparation ....”“ Do you have Jn19:14 in mind? Because there, Nisan 14, the day of the Passover on which Jesus was crucified, is called “The Preparation of the Passover” – not simply ‘The Preparation’ as you here named it. Because ‘The Preparation’ ‘ordinary’, it is said in Mk15:42, is the day “which is the Fore–Sabbath”— Friday— Nisan 15 = “Feast of Passover” = “sabbath” of passover in Jn19:31 and Mk15:42, in its beginning.

The (Jews’) and OT passover’s meal was eaten on Friday— evening before, after sunset before midnight of Thursday night, according to the sunset reckoning of the day, and after that Jesus had been crucified and had died. Is that what you believe was the Meal Jesus partook in?! That is how anyone must understand you if you insist the Lord’s Supper was the Passover’s Meal. But – as we both (I believe) understand the Scriptures, Jesus would have been dead on Friday— dead since Thursday 3 pm in fact! So how would he have eaten the passover–meal since he was dead?

 

 

 

Jesus Sacrificed Both Sacrifice and Meal

 

Jesus therefore— because of everything above argued, must have ordered his disciples to “Prepare for the Passover” the Wednesday night after sunset during evening, before He the next day— for which He at the table was prepared, on Thursday / “Preparation of the Passover Day” / Nisan 14, would “offer Himself Sacrifice” and thereby himself would also eat the Passover and drink its cup— ‘eating’, as well as ‘drinking’— Himself being both Sacrifice and Meal on Nisan 14— like in Exodus, once more and for ever!  The Sinoptists called this “The Day they had to kill / always killed the passover, The (very) Day Leaven (was) Removed (Adzumos)”. Or, John, calling it “The Preparation of the Passover”.

 

 

Nisan 14

was the day of Crucifixion / ‘Slaughter’–”Preparation–of–passover”;

was the immediate day before the ‘usual’ “Preparation which is the Fore–Sabbath” (Nisan 15), and,

was the day on which the passover–meal was “once for all” ‘eaten’, Christ Himself having been both Sacrifice Sacrificed and Sacrifice Eaten.

 

Here is something it is possible we also differ on:

(We encountered the same kind of obstacle with regard to Nisan 14.)

This Nisan 15 Friday, begins in Jn19:31 (and 38), Mk15:42, Mt27:57, and Lk23:50.  “Because it was the preparation (beginning) .... and because that day was that ‘great day–sabbath’ beginning, the Jews asked Pilate that the bodies might be removed”, Jn19:31 — on “the sabbath” namely, of Lv23:11,15.

(Removing of the bodies on the passover–sabbath would pose the same problem for the Jews, whether they removed it late at the end of the passover–sabbath, or soon after its beginning. But it is silly to think the Jews only at the end of the holy day suddenly would try save face. Much rather would they be shocked back to reality of the insulting display by the crosses on their most sacred of feasts, as soon as the great day sabbath had started!)

 

Idiomatically, figuratively and literally, Jesus said,

“I with desire (acutely / greatly) desired this passover to eat with you before my suffering, but I tell you that no–more–by–any–means (‘ouketi ou meh’, definitely not) do I eat it” (‘fagoh auto’)— literally. There’s no, ‘Will I not eat’, Future; but, actually, and presently at table, “Do I not eat, until it (‘it’, ‘This Passover’) is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”.  “it is fulfilled” (plehrohthehi)— Aorist Subjunctive: “until I would have had fulfilled it I eat not!”

This has been telling us, when, Jesus would actually eat and drink the Passover of Yahweh. In fact He had already started to eat His Passover the Passover of Yahweh, and to empty the cup of His Passover the Passover of Yahweh – Aorist – but not, by eating of the bowl or drinking of the cup on the table physically, but by spiritually eating and drinking his Suffering and Death. Jesus was busy eating the bowl and drinking the cup destined for Him this Last of all Passovers of Yahweh already. He already experienced being “in the heart of the earth”! Therefore declared He to the disciples, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine”, but I shall eat the bitter fruit of your evil hearts. The cup He in the meanwhile was drinking, was the cup He already at the table, prayed His Father’s will over.

And this has also been the Lord telling us, where, He actually – retrospectively speaking – did eat or had eaten and had drunk, the Passover of Yahwheh. Where, actually then? “.... fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”!

Is that too difficult to understand, that the ‘Kingdom of God’ Jesus here spoke of, would be, and in fact had been, the very Glory of God beginning and being fulfilled in Christ in His Suffering, death and resurrection from the dead?

Not if the Word is heard from texts like, “Truly the Son of Man goeth (forth into His Glory).”  “Son of Man” is Title of Honour and Glory. “Goeth forth” is triumphal procession of Victor Lord and King of the Kingdom of God. “See how the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship.” (verse 23–25) “But ye shall not be so (nor shall the Kingdom of God be so): But He, that is Greatest among you .... He, that is Chief, (is) as He that doth serve. .... I AM – among you – (is) as He–That–Serveth!”  “Servant of the Lord”— His Dignity! And Title of Majesty, I AM Yahweh!

Christ in entering into His Suffering, is as ‘He–That–Serveth’ that enters in into His Kingdom of Glory. ‘He–That–Serveth’ is His Name: “I AM Yahweh .... The Servant of the LORD”.

Who ate the Lord’s Supper? “he that sitteth at meat (the disciples who ate), or “He–That–Serveth” and ate by, and in, serving? Serving in laying down His Life for those whom He serves as King of and King in — having entered into — “the Kingdom of God”!  “So that they may eat”; may eat of the Bread of Life and receive abundance of life.

 

On the first passover of the exodus, the Israelites had to stand up all through their vigil and meal. If they were to fall asleep, they were to perish with the Egyptians.

But on the last Nisan 14 vigil, Jesus sympathised with the weakness of human nature and flesh, and consoled the weary, “Sleep on”. Because He, kept vigil for them, Lord Protector! and He, emptied the cup of the Passover of Yahweh in their stead. The Covenant of Grace! Christ conquered: therefore: “Sleep on!”

 

Christ in His Kingdom – in the Kingdom of God – is King, the “I–AM–among–you–as–He–that–serveth”–KING!

 

I could not say these things before I found out about why Exodus dates both Passover’s Sacrifice and Passover’s Meal on Nisan 14! And why ever since the first passover, the meal of the passover, would always be observed on Nisan 15, as reached it out towards the Passover Lamb of God and of us promised, until He in having come into His Kingdom, observed Passover— Sacrifice and, Meal, on Nisan 14!

 

“Christentum dass nicht ganz und gar Eschatologie ist, hat mit Christus Jesus ganz und gar und restlos, nichts zu tun!” (Karl Barth)

 

The beginning and the entering in into the Kingdom of God by the King and Lord of that Kingdom – to me it seems – happened where and when no one would have expected. Not even for Christ, was the Kingdom of heaven some far away heavenly state of bliss in heaven or on earth; rather the very antagonist of it and final battleground between the forces of evil and darkness and the Lamb and Power of God. 

 

This to me was unexpected. This for me was the discovery of my lifetime. Now I see the Gospel mixed with faith preached to them as to us!

Whether Jesus ate or did not eat, it gives no indication it was the Passover Meal He ate! That He instituted and institutionalised the Lord’s Supper though, is what revealed His Messiahship; that He had the Authority to change times and laws Lawfully, in the very fulfilment and confirmation of His Lordship and Messiahship over times and laws and “Principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come”. He had the Authority in the very fulfilment and confirmation of His Lordship and Messiahship as Servant of the Lord and King of the Kingdom of God, for God to “hath put all things under his feet, and (to have given) Him as Head over all things to the Church which is His Body — The All In All Fulfilling Fullness (of God)”. 

....simply by Himself being Sacrifice, both sacrificed and eaten, on Nisan 14, working the “exceeding greatness of His power to—us—ward”; His Power working to—us—ward, times and law; toiling, serving to—us—ward, “This: My Body, eat! .... this: My Blood, drink!” on, Nisan 14. “Harden not your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness. ...*** So I sware, they shall not enter into my rest! Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the Living God. But exhort one another always, while it is called Today! Lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. While it is said, Today if ye will hear His Voice, harden not your hearts!”

Wait not till Nisan 15, but on Nisan 14, eat!

On Nisan 15, “according to the Scriptures” of the Passover of Yahweh “Bring the remains with” of the Lamb, His body, and outside Egypt and “the city of Egypt” (wicked Jerusalem or Israel), bury the same. And “on the day after the (passover’s) sabbath, wave First Sheaf before the LORD!”  “And God the Seventh Day from all his works, rested.” Hebrews 3 and 4.

“Moreover brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel .... which also ye, received, and wherein, ye stand! By which also, ye are saved. .... For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, How that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures! And, that he was buried (for our sins according to the Scriptures!) And, that He rose again (for our justification) the third day according to the Scriptures!” 1Cor15:1–5.

 

***This is the Day of Christ and of His Partakers.

 

November 24 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passover Lamb and Unleavened Bread the Same Meal

 

I wanted to show,

1)  the day of the passover’s eating, was the day called the passover’s ‘sabbath’, Nisan 15— in Jn19:31 described as “That day being a great–day–sabbath”— and

2)  how it is determined in its chronological context, this ‘sabbath’–day was independent of the weekly Sabbath and should not be confused for the ‘weekly’ Sabbath; and

3)  then, that when Abib 16 “the day after the sabbath” would occur on the weekly Sabbath, First Sheaf Wave offering would also, and still, occur on Nisan 16, on the selfsame albeit incidental weekly Sabbath.

 

Deuteronomy 16, Exodus 12, Leviticus 23, Josua 5 and other Scriptures of the Law

 

1) Remove leaven on Abib 14, ‘first day’

Ex34: 25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice (Abib 14) with leaven.... Leaven had to be removed on Abib 14 before the sacrifice was killed on Abib 14.  The implication is, Lamb and Leaven were eaten together.

12: 6The fourteenth day.... 14this day ye shall keep.... 15Even the first day ye shall put away leaven.... for whosoever eateth.... from the first day (Abib 14).... shall be cut off.... 20Ye shall eat nothing (of the sacrifice) leavened; in all your habitations shall ye (also) eat unleavened bread....

(The implication is sacrifice and unleavened bread were eaten together on the ‘first’ day of eating or ‘feast’–day. Sacrifice and unleavened bread were not eaten separately ever after the first passover of the exodus, see Ex12:39.)

 

2) Kill passover on Abib 14 during day

Dt16: 6Thou shalt sacrifice the passover at (or in the) even (‘even’ in the sense of ‘dawning towards’, that is, in the afternoon) at the going down of the sun.... (the fourteenth day implied.)

Nmb28: 16In the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD (killed).

Ex12: 5Your lamb.... 6ye shall keep until the fourteenth day.... Israel shall kill it in the evening (of afternoon).

Lv23: 5 In the fourteenth of the first month at (or in the) even (‘even’ in the sense of ‘dawning towards’, that is, in the afternoon), is the LORD’s passover (killed)....

Jos5: 10The children of Israel.... kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at (or in the) even (‘even’ in the sense of ‘dawning towards’, that is, in the afternoon)....

 

3a) Exodus:– Eat on the fourteenth day

 

Ex12: 6Keep it until the fourteenth day.... eat the flesh in that night.... 18In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening (after sunset) ye shall eat unleavened bread....

6.... On the fourteenth day in the evening you shall eat.... 8Eat the flesh in that night roast with fire, and, unleavened bread.... (The implication, again, is sacrifice and unleavened bread were eaten together on the first day of eating or ‘feast–day’. Sacrifice and unleavened bread were not eaten separately ever after the first passover of the exodus, see Ex12:39.)

 

3b) Later Law:– Eat on the fifteenth day, “Late”

 

Lv23: 6On the fifteenth day.... is the feast of unleavened bread.... seven days ye must eat unleavened bread; 7in the first day (of eating unleavened bread, Abib 15) ye shall have an holy convocation....

Nmb28: 17In the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shalt unleavened bread be eaten; in the first day (of eat, Abib 15) shall be a holy convocation: ye shall do no manner of servile work therein.

Jos5: 11They did eat.... unleavened cakes.... on the day–after [‘after’ Abib 14, v. 10; on ‘the day’–‘mochorath’, Abib 15; ‘mochorath’, e.g., Lv19: 6It shall be eaten the same day (‘yom’) you offer it, and on the following (next or second) day— ‘mochorath’ (which is not ‘morning’–‘boqer’): but if ought remain until the third day (‘yom’), it shall be burned in the fire. Therefore, in Jos5:11, ‘mochorath’=‘yom’]

Lv23: 6On the fifteenth day.... is the feast (of ‘eating’) of unleavened bread:– seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. 7In the first day (of the seven days of eating unleavened bread, Abib 15), ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

Even Numbers 9 agrees with the passover being killed on Abib 14 and – although not stated in so many words – being eaten in the night of Abib 15, after Abib 14. As in verse 11 implied, “The fourteenth day.... at (or in the) even (‘even’ in the sense of ‘dawning towards’, that is, in the afternoon) at the going down of

the sun they shall keep it (or ‘kill the passover’),

and (in the night after, on Abib 15),

eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; they shall leave none of it unto the morning....” or following day–time .

 “At even” in, “The fourteenth day at even”, when they shall kill the passover, or, “keep it”, is from ‘ereb’— simply, ‘late’, like in Ex18:14, Lv11:24 et al, Nmb9:3 et al, Dt28:67, Jdg20:23 et al, and virtually is the equivalent of ‘behn ha arbayim’–‘between the two nights’, like in Ex29:39, 30:8, Lv23:5, Nmb9:5,11, 28:4. 

 

4a) Exodus:– Departed on the fourteenth day

 

Ex12: 6.... the fourteenth day.... 12I will pass through.... this night.... 14this day shall be unto you a memorial.... 16In the first day an holy convocation.... 17ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of Egypt. 42It is a night to be much observed for.... this is that night of the LORD.... 13: 3Remember this day in which ye came out.... There shall be no leavened bread be eaten; 4 this day (the fourteenth day) came ye out in the month of Abib

 

4b) Later Law:– Departed on the fifteenth day

 

Dt16:1Observe the month of Abib and keep the passover.... for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.... 3that thou mayest remember the day....

Nmb33: 3They departed from Rameses in the first month on the fifteenth day of the first month. On the day after the passover (was killed) the children of Israel went out.... 4while the Egyptians buried all their firstborn (which in Ex12 was clearly on the day after Nisan 14).

 

5a) Lamb Roasted and Eaten on Abib 15

Dt16: 7And thou shalt roast and eat it....

Ex12: 8Eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire....

9Eat not of it raw.... but [eat] roast with fire....

5b) Lamb and Unleavened Bread Eaten Together on Abib 15

Dt16: 3Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith.... 

4There shall not any of the flesh which thou sacrificedst the first day at even [14 Abib], remain all night (since sunset) until the morning. 

Ex12: 8Eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire and unleavened bread....

18In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month at even / in the evening / late (‘ereb’, context demanding, after sunset) ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month in the evening / late (‘ereb’, context demanding, every day and after sunset). 

19And that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire [in the following day–time, like with the remains of the lamb].

 

Lv23: 6On the fifteenth day.... is the feast (of ‘eating’) of unleavened bread:– seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. 7In the first day (of the seven days of eating unleavened bread, Abib 15), ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

The implication is whereas before passover–meal on Nisan 14 after sunset during the night was eaten before midnight, passover–meal now on Nisan 15 after sunset during the night was eaten before midnight.

 

“Concerning the feasts....”

Further indication and in fact confirmation, of the unmistakable identity of God’s weekly Sabbath Day in clearest distinction from any and all other days–of–‘sabbath’, is their repeated, separate, extraordinary, injunction in the various books of the Law. So in Leviticus, chapter 23, verse 2,

“Concerning the feasts / holy times of the LORD (here ordained), which ye shall proclaim (observe) holy convocations....”, and:–

1)  First the Sabbath of God’s creation and redemption, the weekly Sabbath: Verse 3, mentioned before— as most important:–

“Six days shall work be done: but the–Seventh–Day–the–Sabbath–Day–of–Rest, is an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein in all your dwellings— it is the–Sabbath–(Day)–of–the–LORD.”

After it, verse 4 and onwards, follows:–

“These are the feasts / feast days (generally) .... in their seasons....”.

2)  In Exodus 34:18–22 the Sabbath Commandment is put in the centre of the feasts of the LORD,

“21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the Seventh Day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest— thou shalt rest” (the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD, no matter which season!)

Besides the centrality of the Seventh Day Sabbath, this placing of it shows the Sabbath’s independence of other feasts as well as their independence, of the Seventh Day Sabbath.

3)  In Numbers 29, the Sabbath is implied and alluded to at the end of the listing of the various holy convocational days,

“These things ye shall do unto the LORD in your set feasts [‘annual’: “seasons”, “feasts” ‘dated’, according to solar year], beside your vows and your freewill offerings....” under which the hallowing of the Seventh Day Sabbath by the people of God, must have sorted as a vow and freewill offering from a heart dedicated to and trusting in the LORD God.

4)  No holy day directly or indirectly connects with the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God— no other holy or convocational day called a ‘sabbath’—

1)  The Seventh Day Sabbath in no way except that it pointed to Christ, connects with the Day of Atonement that in Lv16:31 is called and distinguished a ‘sabbath day’

2)  The Seventh Day Sabbath in no way except that it pointed to Christ, connects with “the first day of the month” on which also the People “shall have a sabbath” (Lv23:24).

3)  The Seventh Day Sabbath in no way except that it pointed to Christ, connects with even the years of ‘sabbath’ found in the ‘fiftieth year–sabbath’ or Jubilee.

But that eschatological connection between the Seventh Day Sabbath and the Passover and the ‘sabbath’ of the Passover of Yahweh, was predestined for and appointed to the Anointed of the LORD to make in the Yom Yahweh, in that He entered in into the Kingdom of God the Kingdom of his Suffering, to triumph and glory in Victory of resurrection from the dead “In the Sabbath’s fullness” (Mt28:1)— namely, “after the sabbath” of the passover, in fulfilment namely, of the “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD”:– “It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you.... by a statute for ever”. 

 

Summary

A)  Day and Month

1)   Deuteronomy mentions no dates;

2)   Exodus dates all aspects of ‘the passover’, on Abib 14;

      a. Leaven removed, and

      b. sacrifice ‘killed’, in the day that it was:–

      c. eaten / ‘feasted’, in the night after— on Abib 14, and

      d. removed in the night after— on Abib 14.

3)   Leviticus and all other Law date on Abib 14:–

      a. sacrifice ‘killed’ on Abib 14 in daytime;

      c. eaten / ‘feasted’, in the night after— on Abib 15, and

      d. removed in the night after— on Abib 15 and burned the next daylight— on Abib 15.

B)  “The passover” was eaten

1)   while being roasted and

2)   together with the first of unleavened bread being eaten;

3)   in the night of Nisan 15,

4)   on the passover’s own ‘sabbath day’ after Nisan 14

5a)  on the ‘sabbath’ associated with passover’s feasting (Jn19:31, Lv23:11,15,16);

5b)  on the “great day sabbath” determined according to the determination of the solar year; and

5c)  not “The Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment” (Lk23:56).

 

1)  Exodus dates both sacrifice “without leaven” and meal of passover–sacrifice “without leaven”, on Nisan 14;

2)  All the rest of the Law dates passover–sacrifice sacrificed on Nisan 14, and passover–sacrifice eaten, on Nisan 15;

3)  The acknowledged difference between Exodus and the later Law being of prophetic significance showing how in the end–time the Passover Lamb of God and of us would become Sacrifice Sacrificed, and, Sacrifice Eaten, on Nisan 14, so that all the Scriptures concerning Him might be fulfilled.

 

Conclusion 

 

“The day after the (passover’s) sabbath”, and day of First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD, Nisan 16, in the year of our Lord’s death and resurrection, fell on the weekly Sabbath, and not on the First Day of the week or ‘Sunday’.

 

Accordingly:

Passover’s dates in the New Testament

Abib 14:     “first day”, Dt 16:4 x Mk14:12, Mt26:17

                “passover killed”, Mk14:12, Lk22:7.

                “leaven removed”, Mk14:12, Lk22:7, Mt26:17.

Here is where the Christ of God began entrance into the Kingdom of God in His Suffering and Glory of the Father.

 

Now let us have another look at the legitimate arguments of ES to see if they are in conflict with our conclusions,

“....our Lord was in fact, 'killed' on 14 Nisan (or Abib), just as the Scripture demands. .... 14 Nisan (or 14 Abib) is “Passover”

.... the Feast day of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, which is a Sabbath, and an holy convocation, according to Leviticus 23.”

“....”fifteenth day” (of any month) is never even mentioned in Scripture, until the giving of the Law of the feast days found in Lev. 23. That phrase is not to be found in any of the three books that are commonly considered to precede Leviticus, namely Job, as well as (logically) Genesis and Exodus. Hence, there would be no reason to mention the specific Feast Day of “Unleavened Bread” on 15 Abib/Nisan prior to this. Merely read Lev. 23, (as well as other places that mention “fifteenth”) .... Did you happen to notice that neither “Passover” nor “first–fruits” are said to be either “Sabbaths” or an “holy convocation”, here? And in fact, the 'wave sheaf' was to be waved specifically, on the day after the Sabbath! ....”

“The verses regarding “firstfruits” and the 'wave sheaf' (Lev. 23:9–12) merely say “the day after the Sabbath.” I contend that “the day after the Sabbath” means exactly that....”

““Passover” being the 14th day of the first month (23:5);

“Feast of Unleavened bread” being the 15th day of the same month (23:6); .... ....

It goes without saying that the “regular Sabbath” was every 7th day (Lev. 23:3).... The reason I said “regular weekly Sabbath” is based on the NT, where the words “first day of the week” refer to obviously and logically the day after the regular weekly Sabbath. ....

There was no Scriptural prohibition, that Pentecost could not fall “on the sabbath” that I can find in Scripture....” End quotes.

No contradictions!

 

Further confirmation:–

 

Matthew Henry

‘Commentary’,

In this chapter (Lv23) we have the institution of holy times. 1. The weekly feast of the sabbath ver. 3. 2. The yearly feasts, 1. The passover, the feast of unleavened bread (ver.4–8), to which was annexed the offering of the sheaf of firstfruits, ver. 9–14. 2. Pentecost, ver. 15–22. ....

Verses 1–3

Here is, 1. A general account of the holy times which God appointed (v. 2).... Concerning the holy times here ordained, observe, 1. They are called ‘feasts’.... 2. They are the feasts of the Lord (‘my feasts’). 3. They were proclaimed.... 4. They were to be sanctified....

2. A repetition of the law of the sabbath in the first place.... v.3....

Verses 4–14

Here again the feasts are called the ‘feasts of the Lord’, because He appointed them....

1. A repetition of the law of the passover, which was to be observed on the fourteenth day of the first month....

2. An order for the offering of a sheaf of the first–fruits, upon the second day of the feast of unleavened bread; the first (day of the feast of unleavened bread) is called the ‘sabbath’, because it was observed as a sabbath (v. 11), and, on the morrow after, they had this solemnity.... a sheaf.... was brought to the priest who was to heave it up.... We find that when they came in to Canaan the manna ceased upon the very day that the sheaf of first–fruits was offered; they had eaten of the old corn the day before (Josh.5:11), and then on this day they offered the first–fruits (sheaf).”

Alexander Cruden,

‘Concordance’, ‘passover’,

The feast (of passover) was kept.... from the 14th to the 21st Nisan.... As the beginning of the month was dependent on the moon there was nearly a month’s difference between the possible times of (its) beginning. This is the reason for the varying dates of our Easter.... There were many rules as to the Passover Supper, some given in Exodus being for the first celebration only. quote end.

Actually the beginning of the “first of the months for you”, ‘Abib’, was dependent on the turn of the year with winter solstice, which was determined astrometrically – it is not stated in the Bible, though it is definitively implied in concepts of “season”, “times”, “new moons”, “harvest”, “proclaimed”, “set”. The day after winter solstice on which between sunset and sunset the new moon occurred (regardless of its visibility), was determined the first day of the First Month (Abib or Nisan). It could occur on any day of the week, naturally. As a result the fourteenth day of the month would also have occurred on any day of the week. Its date simply had nothing to do with the weeks’ cycle. It meant the passover’s “sabbath day” in Lv23:11,15,16, could fall on any ‘week–day’, and occasionally might have coincided with the weekly Sabbath Day.

This has been the universally accepted viewpoint in both Christianity and Judaism until only about a century ago certain ill–informed decided the word ‘sabbath’ in Leviticus 23 refers to the Seventh Day Sabbath. These people relied on documents of the Pharisees who – long after Christ – in their documents disputed the Sadducees’ viewpoint who – allegedly, according to the Pharisees – argued the word ‘sabbath’ in Leviticus 23 referred to the Seventh Day Sabbath. There never existed a source originally the Sadducees’ with this claim. Regardless, the enthusiasts took hold of the Sadducees’ second hand theory to build a case for Sunday–worship on the presumption of a coincidence of Sunday and the Resurrection and Pentecost / First Sheaf Wave Offering and First Loaves Wave Offering.

Needless to say, their theory has been nothing but conjecture and groundless speculation, refuted by every fact of Scripture, science and Christian and Judaic tradition.

This then established, that “the sabbath” and “the day after the sabbath” in Lv23:11,15,16 could have occurred on any week–day, it is established both First Sheaf Wave Offering and First Loaves Wave Offering, in the old dispensation or ministration, occurred on any week–day— the fact of which forces one to completely rely on the information given in the Gospels, to determine on which day of the week First Sheaf Wave Offering and First Loaves Wave Offering in the year of the death and resurrection of Jesus, indeed occurred. Which to find out and illustrate, I have been doing for many years, as far as I could see, from anybody’s every possible angle of approach— besides, having tried to show how the Sabbath Day promised, yea, and indeed was “appointed” in the end to be just the day upon which Christ would rise from the dead.

2 December 2008

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gospels’ witnesses — A defence of

‘Visits’ as ‘Events’ in their own right

 

The Gospels’ witnesses — Are  they the angels’ witnessing each in his own account in the only event of the women’s only witnessing of Jesus’ resurrection from the grave?

Or,

Are the angels’ witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, separate accounts in the separate events of the women’s visits at the tomb?

In other words, are the ‘witnesses’ at, or are they of and about, Jesus’ resurrection?

 

Several visits

GE:

The Gospels recorded for us the one unquestionable truth of the events of the night and the following Sunday morning of Jesus’ appearances. No one Gospel gives all the information; but the only Message of, and from the four Gospels together, without contradiction or discrepancy in any detail provides the full answer to the knowledge needed by the believing enquirer for total happiness in the knowledge of the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. The details and information for the whole picture of this night and morning are discovered in separate and different events of the women’s visits at the tomb, rather than in a single event of a single visit of theirs to the tomb.

 

One Visit

TonyZ:

You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have. Luke 24 has the same sequence of events. Does that not enter into your thinking at all? 

 

GE:

It obviously hasn’t entered your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events than “in Mark 16”! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, ‘parallel accounts’, but sequential in terms of time and occurrence.

Consider, “For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.”

Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15.)

1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!

2) Then John, 20:1 further, tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angel/s etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.

3) In Luke, not only “the”, but more than “three women” “arrive”, and “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.

4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.

5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),

6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have returned to the grave after Mary had left, in detail what, without anybody’s presence or knowledge, had happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). “And as they went to tell the disciples, Jesus suddenly met them.” (Mt28:9)

 

Eleven:

And???

Hellbound:

.... and it is clear that the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other. 

Joman:

Your mind has been deceived by your master. As such you are blind and simply stumbling around in darkness. Until you come to Jesus you’ll find no remedy.

 

GE:

Hellbound, how totally unnecessary and unfounded! What! Don’t you want to tell us why – to you – it’s clear the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other? Because of what I have said? Come on! Mine is the only way there aren’t all sorts of contradictions. If it shows contradictions, then you show them; don’t just claim it’s “clear the gospel accounts conflict with each other” because of what I’ve written; anybody can do that!

Here is one guy bound for glorification and everlasting life, and not for hell, believing the Gospels for the Word of God they are, and that they contain no contradictions whatsoever, in the least, and especially not in the greatest of all events this earth has ever witnessed. Who approaches the facts of the Resurrection of Christ from the viewpoint of faith, that He in human body of glorified flesh, rose from the dead again, and was witnessed by many the Risen Jesus Christ, Mighty Saviour of their souls.

And it has been my purpose with this discussion,

1) to stop in this matter the big mouths of people like Hellbound’s. And to show,

2) No single Gospel even attempts to give the full chronological picture of times and events that preceded or followed the Resurrection;

3) Each gives one or more of many facts and facets which in every smallest particular is correct, true and fully reconcilable and in harmony with every other;

4) And that it is people who make of the Gospel–compilations of these separate, different and differing events, one and the same event of one and the same moment in time and place – yes, force them into it –, who are the creators of the innumerable number of contradictions.

I have already made this ‘clear’, for anyone with brains and eyes that can read, and, with a heart willing and believing, reading and understanding.

 

Eleven:

If you take 4 witnesses to a car accident, chances are very good that their accounts will not match exactly. In fact, they can’t because each person witnessing is in a different position with different perspectives, so how can they match exactly?

Joman:

By the ability of the Holy Ghost. Admit it...you aren’t looking at this from a position of faith. Such a position means you haven’t the ability to resolve any doubts that confront you. Because you say you can see your blindness remains.

 

Eleven:

Do yourself a favor. Go to Noah’s Lounge and take a quick glance thru the CNN discussion.

Joman:

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. John’s gospel ends by reminding us that none of these things concerning Jesus of Nazareth was done in a corner. If the gospels were not historically accurate then there would exist proof from that era. Your inability to understand the chronology means only that you yourself don’t understand it. It isn’t proof of anything other than your own personal lack.

Eleven:

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. No, but they are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because they differ (which they must) doesn’t negate that the event

happened.

That I myself don’t understand is a weakness of mine. I tend to run from those who claim to know the mind of God.

I will listen more closely to them once we get the basics down – like how human thought works, or the power behind the heartbeat. First things first, ya know....

Joman:

I know that your thought experiment doesn’t apply because Jesus told us that the Comforter would bring to remembrance of Jesus’ followers all that he had said. So, the remembrances of the gospels is the work of the Holy Ghost and not the willy–nilly work of men. 

Eleven:

Let me guess.........your favourite cologne , Joman, is......Calvin???

Joman, try one more little experiment for me, will ya.

Place a plant in the middle of a room.

Invite 8 people over to your home.

Now have the 8 people who are in the SAME room talk about the plant.

It will be IMPOSSIBLE to get 8 identical descriptions.

Why? Because for one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 8 people to be standing in the exact same spot, angle, lighting, etc. They will all have an entirely UNIQUE perspective because 8 people cannot occupy the same space. Not to mention personal, emotional, and spiritual comprehension about the plant they are looking at.

They are all looking at it from their own individual perspectives. Does that make ANY of their descriptions wrong? No, of course not. They are all correct, yet all different. That is how it is with the gospels. They are all correct, but coming from 4 different sources, and backgrounds. God planned it that way, Each addresses a different audience, yet all are truth. Very cool.

Growing Lion:

I’m with Eleven on this one, any court room will show that witnesses are not the ultimate reliable standard since everyone will have their own perspective shaded with their

own expectations, and filtered through their own experiences.

In the book “Who Moved the Stone” the author takes the whole resurrection incident into a hypothetical courtroom and examines the witness testimony and comes up with his conclusion that there must have been a resurrection. While this book is a rather old book (1930) the issue is even older so it it is still relevant.

Most remarkably Morrison, the author, started the whole process as an atheist and was converted to Christianity through the examination that the process of writing the book took.

GE:

I have had to do with the objection different witnesses will and must witness differently, or, contradictory. I say it is irrelevant; it applies not in the case of the Gospel records of Jesus’ resurrection— which records in fact were one only; so how can there be discrepancies? The four Gospels give the one witness of the Resurrection. The Word of God it is, not the word of men.

It must be approached by faith. But that does not mean one by faith excuse mistakes, discrepancies and contradictions. In the court of Law of God, witnesses agree perfectly or are judged liars. No Gospel contains lies or accidents, contradictions and irreconcilabilities, or just ‘mistakes’.

Now the solution to the alleged cases of such things as ‘mistakes’, ‘contradictions’ and ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the Gospels, the first we have had a look at, that God is the Giver of the record of the Gospels. He errs not. God is One in his Word; He is not double tongued like the serpent devil.

Remember this, “the whole resurrection incident” is the greatest and most trustworthy work of God He ever did: that He raised Christ from the dead. Can we not absolutely trust God’s Word on this, how can we trust Him in anything else?

Next point: We, are not able, to discuss “the whole resurrection incident”— not even from the Gospels. My idea with this conversation is to require into the human and natural ‘incidents’ of the Saturday night and Sunday morning as recorded in the Gospels— not to probe into things not allowed angels to see— what mortals; especially the Resurrection.

To begin with,

There are not ‘four witnesses’, four from, or four in, or four the “authors”, of the Gospels. One may only speak of ‘four witnesses’ if one has in mind “the witness testimony” written down in the Gospels individually. So one must first define what one means with the terms and phrases one uses; most importantly, what one means with ‘witness’ and ‘witnesses’. I think this is the main cause of the confusion that always results and takes over when people try to understand the Gospel stories; they actually don’t know what they are talking about.

There is but the one ‘messenger’ or “witness testimony” of “the whole resurrection incident” in every of the four ‘witnesses’ or Gospels, and that was, the angel / angels’ ‘witness–testimony’ of the Resurrection at every separate occasion of its having been ‘related’ or ‘told’; and afterwards  ‘recorded’.

By this I do not mean

1)  the anecdotes per se, found in the Gospels. By this I am also, not repeating what I have just said, that the Gospels give us,

2)  the One Word of God on the event of Christ’s resurrection. I don’t mean,

3)  ‘the Gospels’! I am not repeating; this time I am referring to the only one event, of the breaking news— of its being made known. That event–of–word, did not come from any of the writers of the Gospels; not by any apostle; not by any woman–disciple; by no human being. Nothing of the Resurrection was possible for humans to ‘witness’ or ‘observe’, but they would be dead.

The only, first, witness of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is the witness–by–word of “the angel”, who “told / explained / witnessed to the women”— the angel of Matthew 28:5, and this angel in clear and separate distinction from even himself were it he who in other places in the Gospels during the night and following Sunday morning on other occasions of the women’s visiting the tomb, related the Message of the Resurrection to them.  

Why an angel, and no living eye–witness from among men?

First,

Because that is what the Scriptures say:

“Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1Tm3:16.

When Christ rose from the dead, this was what happened:

“But in the Sabbath Day’s fullness, being mid–afternoon before the First Day of the week, when set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go look (at) the grave there suddenly was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it, his countenance like lightning, and his raiment white as snow— ANSWERED / EXPLAINED / TOLD / WITNESSED THE ANGEL, and said to the women.....”

Caution!

Matthew – most probably – might have meant the same angel in both verses 2b and 5a; but he implied separate actions on separate occasions of the angel’s appearance; his first ‘appearance’ in time was when he – unseen by any other creature – ‘came down

from heaven’ and removed the stone.

The angel’s second and later ‘appearance’ in time, was when he “explained / answered to the women” what in verses 1 to 4 had happened— the Resurrection! This – verse 5a – was the first and only time “the angel told the women” these specific Resurrection–particulars found in verses 1 to 4 that had not been recorded anywhere else in the Gospels – particulars the angel could not have told the women before because they were not prepared for it before.

The contextual and syntactical relation between Mt28:1–4 –Resurrection–, and 5–8 –(second) Appearance– is

1)  sequential. The Resurrection historically had to have occurred before the angel’s ‘explanation’ of or ‘witness’ about it to the women. But it is also

2)  rhetorical— as follows, 

The Gospel writer placed his statement, “The angel answered / explained to the women, and said ....”, both as concluding and introductory remark, in between, the angel’s ‘witness’ of and about the Resurrection contained in 1–4, and the angel’s direct “speech” to the women at the empty tomb in 5–8.

There is no equivalent of 1–4 in another ‘witness’ of the angel or for that matter in another Gospel. The fact of the incidence of verses 1–4 in the angel’s witness ‘in Matthew’, proves the course of events that developed up to the unique opportunity that presented itself ‘in Matthew’ in the form of the event (in its own right) of the women’s final visit at the tomb when the angel related his ‘witness’ to the women as not once before.

Before Jesus appeared to the women other than Mary on Sunday morning, Mt28:5–10, the angel first “explained to / answered the women” about the Resurrection, in verses 1–4 and 6. Only then, “Said he to them, fear not .....” etc. See how the differences, prove agreement that the ‘one visit principle’, can’t.

In verses 1–4, ‘Matthew’s’ angel, ‘relates’ to the women his message, “explaining” / “answering, he told them” his “witness testimony”—  

 

1)  about “the whole resurrection incident” — as the Resurrection actually had happened on the day before;

In verses 5–7, ‘Matthew’s’ angel,

2)  actually “tells the women” his “witness testimony”; and 

3)  actually “tells the women” to go tell the disciples what he had told them of and about the Resurrection.

Neither the angel’s reference to or mentioning of the Resurrection, nor his answer or explanation or speaking to the women, is the incidence of the event as such of Jesus’ Resurrection, or, is the incidence of the events as such of the women’s visits. It is the, big mistake that these things all, and together, are made, and are identified with, and so are confused for, the Resurrection per se.

 

The sole source of human knowledge of the Resurrection was the angel— no mortal eye beheld the Resurrection or the angel coming down –– not even the guard who because they could not see anything were struck unconscious and down “like dead”! So that faith shall come by hearing (from the angel); and not by seeing; and so that faith shall come by hearing from one source not capable of lying against itself, even from the Word of God. So that no Gospel in any wise contradicts another. And so that, if we do still encounter contradiction or “irreconcilabilities”, we shall surely know the trouble lies with us and our understanding or / and explanation, and not with the Gospel accounts.

I’m not inquiring into the truth of the Resurrection; my purpose with this discussion was to find out how the rest of the Gospel accounts harmonises perfectly. I’m enquiring about the visits made by the women to the tomb and in fact at the tomb during the night after the Resurrection and before Jesus’ appearances. Were the events several; or was there only one? That’s my question.

I therefore take as a–priori, four things, not debatable: 4) Faith; 3) God’s Word; 2) Believing by hearing what is incontrovertible: 1) The Good News of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead.  I wish this discussion to deal with the things that happened after these accepted and historically in that order had been made true already, facts.

 

About Eleven having said, “No, but they are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because they differ (which they must) doesn’t negate that the event happened”.

This from the outset, is a false proposition as well as false presupposition!  No, the ‘4 separate accounts’ are not, four differing accounts of one event that ‘only really matters’; they are four separate accounts of 4 or even 5 separate and different events— that in their own right, “happened” and mattered in every respect.  In other words, each Gospel gives one of four separate, different and differing, events. They are not supposed to be identical or even vaguely the same events. Because these events were the women’s very real and realised visits to the tomb.

Just because they are separate events, the four accounts in the sense of contradict, ‘differ’ not (nor “must” differ) in the least or smallest detail. And therefore – because not the one and same, or because not of, the one and same event – these separate events do not in the smallest detail negate the event per se, nor do they negate that the event happened, which one event presupposed in these events of visits, is (or was), Jesus’ resurrection.

The four accounts were in each case, of a different and other, event.

Straight forward:

Matt. 28:5–10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

John 20:11–17 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Mark 16:2–8 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Luke 24:1–10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

John 20:1–10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Mark 16:1 does not record the event of the Resurrection.

Matthew 28:5–8 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:11–17 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Mark 24:2–8 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Luke 24:1–10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:1–10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Only Matthew 28:1–4, does record the event of the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:11–17 records the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Mk16:9 implies that recording of the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Mt28:6–10 mentions the second Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Only Matthew 28:1–4, actually records, the events that accompanied the Resurrection way earlier.

For very good reason then the Gospels for every visit mention or / and imply a specific hour of night or Sunday morning— 

Mark 16:1, “When the Sabbath had passed”, after sunset 6 p.m. (3–4 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

John 20:1–10, “When early darkness still on the First Day”, Saturday evening (4–5 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

Luke 24:1–10, “Deep(est) early–morning on the First Day”, just after midnight (9–10 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

Mark 24:2–8, “Very early sunrise on the First Day”, before sunrise, 4–5 a.m. (15 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

John 20:11–17, “Mary had had stood after....; supposing the gardener”, sunrise, 6 a.m. ....

Mark 16:9, “He appeared to Mary first, early on the First Day”, daylight— 15 hours plus since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before; 

Matthew 28:5–10, “Suddenly Jesus met them”, a little later— after a little more than fifteen hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. “on the Sabbath” the day before— Mt28:1–4.

That’s the whole and full story without a single smallest hitch!

Now your “very cool” beating about the bush irrelevancies, Eleven, are no more than meaningless, without substance, beating about the bush irrelevancies. Don’t bring your weak and sinful human

witnesses stuff for witness against the trustworthiness of the events and accounts from God Himself.

Hellbound:

Sure, humans are fallible. Either the gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection are fallible, or they were never intended to be taken literally.

 

And Joman, If you want to put your money where your big mouth is, let us discuss the chronology of the resurrection stories. If you just want to talk smack like a coward, then have

fun. Let me know.

GE:

Hellbound, here’s that ever present subtlety; let me crush its head right now before everybody is led astray onto your rabbit–trail: You say, “let us discuss the chronology of the resurrection stories”; I said from the outset, let us discuss the chronology of the stories of the women’s several visits to the tomb! It’s completely a horse of another colour! There are no “resurrection stories”; there in all four Gospels is only the angel’s stories of the Resurrection. In all four Gospel–stories the only ‘story’, that tells about the ‘Resurrection–story’, is Mt28:1–4. All the other ‘stories’, only, imply, the Resurrection. In all the other ‘stories’, the angel, mentions and relates the fact that, the Resurrection had occurred. There is no Indicative, Continuous Present ‘story’ or ‘witness’ of the Resurrection taking place in the Gospels. The nearest to something like that, is Mt28:1–4.  The other ‘stories’ or ‘witnesses’ are not about or, of the Resurrection; they are ‘stories’ or ‘witnesses’ about and of, the women’s visits and their being told the angel’s story or ‘witness’ of and about the Resurrection which not while the visits took place, took place, but took place on the day before, in fact “On the Sabbath Day” before.

I no longer argue these things; I confess these things, and I confess them from the Scriptures, with the Scriptures.

 

Goat boy:

I can’t say I agree with your approach in your opening statement, GE. Allow me to borrow the car accident example (let’s say it was a hit and run): you have four slightly different accounts of what happened. One witness says the car that drove away was a van, one says it was an SUV, one says it was a Hummer and one says it was a station wagon. If we take the approach that some take to the gospels, we’ll end up with a police report that says the victim’s car was struck by four different vehicles. But there is no indication in any of the witness’s testimony that there was more than one offending vehicle...

When one attempts to compile information from the different accounts into a single narrative the same problem is encountered. An external construct is created, one that isn’t consistent with any of the gospel accounts.

.....  .....

The problem is that the accounts do contradict each other – just not explicitly. Mark mentions “a great earthquake” at the scene, for example. The other witnesses don’t. If at the scene of our car accident one witness notes that an earthquake occurred immediately before the accident and three others fail to mention this, are we to assume they are agree through their silence? We can’t just assume that because one gospel writer doesn’t mention something that they would agree with another that does mention it.

From what I can gather your sequence faces the fundamental problem of assuming that slight differences in language mean the gospel writers are describing different events. This technique is problematic in and of itself, but even more because it isn’t used consistently: it’s only used to solve supposed gospel contradictions. Using the same approach we could determine that the gospel writers describe multiple events in other locations.

To quote Wallace: “In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! 

Dabmic:

I liked what you said and wanted to add to it. Like in the Gospels you don’t get the exact accounts but what you get is complementary information, and from that you will get a very close account of what happened.

Just my two cents.

GE:

A well appreciated two cents contribution!

May I suggest one little change to what you have proposed:

 

In the Gospels you get the exact accounts, but you don’t get the full account in one Gospel only; but what you get is precise complementary information in each, and from that you will get a very close account of the full picture of what happened.

About Goatboy having said, “....you have four slightly different accounts of what happened....”  ‘Slightly different’?

Hellbound has given you the manly challenge: To discuss the

chronology of the events; not fake court cases. I gave you my chronology to tear apart if you can. Try to! :—

 

Mary is the central figure:

Mary in Jn20:1–10;

Mary in Lk24:1–10;

Mary in Mk16:2–8;

Mary in Jn20:11–17/Mk16:9.

 

1)  The Gospels have:—

Four/five accounts, by the Gospel–writers of, four/five events of, women who, visited at, the empty tomb:

The visits....

1) Of Mary alone, in Jn20:1–10;

2) Of the two women of Mk15:47, Lk23:55–56 and others, in Lk24:1f;

3) Of three women named in Mk16:1 and probably others, in Mk16:2f;

4) Of Mary alone who “had had stood after”, in Jn20:11–13;

5) Of the other women, in Mt28:5–7.

 

2)  The Gospels have:—

Two accounts, by the Gospel–writers of, the two events of, Jesus appearing to, women away from, the tomb:

The appearances....

1) “To Mary first” —after her fourth (or third continued) visit—,

          in Jn20:14–17 (Mk16:9); after Jn20:11–13;

2) “Jesus met them”, the other women, after their third and last visit —   in Mt28:8–10, after Mt28:5–7.

 

3)  The Gospels have:—

One account of, the event of, the relating of, Jesus’

Resurrection:

Mt28:5,1–4, “The angel answered the women, explaining to them.... In the fullness of the Sabbath being daylight mid afternoon.”

Jesus in both appearances of his to women, some distance away from the grave, appeared to them. Jesus did not ‘appear’, from the grave, meaning, He did not ‘appear while rising’, as some people falsely ‘translate’ Mk16:9. In fact, Jesus was “raised, by / in the glory of the Father”, “from, the dead”— all presence else expelling!

No sinner or creature could behold the mystery and glory of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Yes, in the very last analysis not even was it an angel who witnessed or saw God raising Christ from the dead. We have noticed that Mt28:2 states the angel “rolled the stone back away from the door, and sat on it”— he did not enter the tomb, and he also, did not actually by sight witness the resurrection of Jesus! (See ***) For indeed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and no presence, God, “worked the exceeding greatness of His Power”, Eph1:19, which no creature could partake in or even see with whatever faculty of his created being! So that ultimately the Only Witness of, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, is “the Blessed and Only Potentate”, God in the Full Fellowship and Presence of His Own Being of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  So that ultimately the Only Witness to, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is “The Faithful” and “True Witness”, through the “Spirit of Christ”— mighty to both raise Christ from the dead, and to witness to Christ–Risen–from–the–dead.

*** The women on the occasion of their being told of Jesus’ resurrection by the (same?) angel in the story found in Mt28:1–4 only, seem not to have entered into the grave, but to have departed from it without having gone inside, no longer doubting, but believing! All showing different events of different points in time; or everything must be contradictory and confused and confusing.

Now this Power of God of, and in, and to the revelation of Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, Paul says in this Scripture of Ephesians, “God worked to–us–ward”, so that – Paul saying in another place – “no one is able to say Jesus is Christ, but by the Holy Spirit”. Christ the Risen, “whom God, has set forth a Propitiation through faith.... to declare, His Righteousness for the remission of sins”. That is, God both witnessed and revealed the Intimacy and Inner Most Holy Sanctuary of His Own Being “to us, for us”: even Christ Jesus “come in the flesh”, “from the dead”.

The Gospels therefore ‘give account of’, or they ‘witness to’, different and differing yet reconcilable, complementary, separate,

historic events:

1)  Jn20:1–10,

2)  Lk24:1–10,

3)  Mk16:2–8,

4)  Jn20:11–17/Mk16:9 and

5)  Mt28:5–8

— events which

1)  not one of, marked Jesus’ resurrection;

2)  only two of, marked Jesus’ appearances; and

3)  all four of, marked accomplished visits to the tomb by women and

4)  all four of, contained the angel’s ‘witness–accounts’ of and about the Resurrection.

And Goatboy, I do not “compile information from the different accounts into a single narrative” of visits and, Resurrection and, Appearances! I accept the information given in each Gospel account or ‘witness’ for already ‘compiled’ and completed, of, the specific event in each account related or ‘witnessed’— in all four cases, accounts of, visits, of the women at the tomb, and not of the Resurrection; but therefore about, the Resurrection indeed.

Goatboy:

Yes, this is the fundamental problem I see in your approach; it does not follow the evidence and does not follow logically either (probably because you are working from an assumed premise of some level of biblical truth or inerrancy). You and I make the same initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable. But you take an additional step not supported by the evidence, making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events.

I’ll close here with one more example: compare Mark and Matthew, bit by bit, and see if it is more reasonable to assume these are completely different speeches given on different occasions, or whether the

authors are relating the same speech.

 

[Mark 16.6–7; Matt 28.5–7]

Mark: “But he said to them,”

Matthew: “But the angel said to the women,”

 

Mk: “‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.”

Mt: “‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.”

 

Mk: “He has been raised; he is not here.”

Mt: “He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said.”

 

Mk: “Look, there is the place they lay him.”

Mt: “Come, see the place where he lay.”

 

Mk: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Mt: “Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.’”

The point I’m making is that treating the gospels as if they provide complementary information is problematic.

The external chronology in the OP demonstrates the problematic nature of this approach. Take an element of the master chronology, and see if the evidence supports it. For example, the appearance of two angels/”men in dazzling clothes” reported by Luke. You can include this in your account; the problem is that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.

Your assumption that these two accounts, despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events does not seem supported by the text. Rather, I think it more prudent to conclude that the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event. Subtle variations among different writers telling a slightly different version of the same event is the simplest answer, certainly simpler than creating a complex external construct to try to reconcile the events.

And it is complex, I mean how do you come to the conclusion that the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse? Is that the most obvious, straightforward reading or are you just taking a more awkward reading in order to reconcile the different accounts? What indication is given for a sudden change in subject? 

GE:

“....one more example...”. No; this is your only ‘example’; you gave no ‘example’ before; The ‘accident witnesses’ example, is irrelevant and alien.

And that you could think that you hereby ‘close’ the debate, is presumptuous; you scarcely have opened it.

You also do not ‘compare’; you extract from two ‘Gospel–accounts’, the one and same message what you call a “speech”. What you did, was to have extracted the mutual subject told of in every of the accounts or ‘witnesses’ of the four Gospels. One may add below your extracts from Mark and Matthew, the exact same ‘speech’ or ‘witness’ from Luke and John (as I did) – without a single contradiction or ‘irreconcilability’.

1)  The “speech”

The “speech” which you ‘compared’ (actually extracted) is the fully ‘reconcilable’ repeated “speech” or relating or ‘witness’ of the fact and event at, and of the truth about Jesus when he rose from the dead, repeated in and as per each of the accounts or records or stories or ‘speeches’ or ‘witnesses’ of and in all four Gospels, virtually identically repeated without the least ‘irreconcilability’. All the four Gospels tell that Jesus suffered, was crucified and died, and was resurrected as He had told his disciples he would. They are not the event of the Resurrection; they do not record the event of the resurrection (except Matthew in 28:1–4). It is the angel’s ‘witness’ in each visit–story that every time is “a slightly different version of the same event” told, told of, and told about—  the Resurrection! The angel’s ‘witness’ is, not, the Resurrection; the Gospels’ inclusion of the angel’s ‘witness’, is, not, the Resurrection. The angel’s ‘witness’ in each visit–story, is part of, each visit–story and visit–event.

2)  The ‘speeches’

The ‘speeches’— the angel’s ‘witness’ or “speech” four times told in the Gospels, are the anecdotes of and about the Resurrection. ‘Anecdotes’ or ‘relating’ or ‘witnesses’, are not ‘events’ although they are integral of the Gospels’ ‘accounts’ or ‘anecdotes’ or ‘relating’ or ‘witness’ of and about the women’s visits at the tomb. The anecdotes are the Gospels, that ‘relate’ or ‘account’ or tell of, the events at which the Message or the angel’s “speech”, had been ‘related’ or told— the events of the women’s visits at the tomb.

There cannot be contradiction or discrepancy or irregularity as far as the Truth of the Gospel – the Truth of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection in the flesh – is concerned. Just so is it impossible that the Gospels would contain contradiction or discrepancy or irregularity or “irreconcilability” as far as is concerned the events at which this only and fully reconcilable “speech” in each of the Gospels was told or ‘witnessed’ by the angel, and heard or ‘witnessed’, by the women at every event of their visits to the tomb. Your claiming the Gospel accounts or ‘witnesses’ contain or “must” contain ‘irreconcilabilities’, is untenable.

You, Goatboy, make the authors or compilers of the Gospels,  the ‘witnesses’: “.....the gospels..... witness .....”; “Mark mentions”; “the other witnesses”; “the authors are relating”.....  

And they “witness” and “mention”, “at the scene”. Of what or which ‘scene’? ‘At the scene’ of the Resurrection, or, ‘at the scene’ of the Resurrection being related?  So that it may appear ‘at the scene’ of the Resurrection, you pretend the Gospels’ ‘witness’, ‘account’, ‘an historical’ ‘scene’— the ‘scene’ of the Resurrection as were it playing off! 

Meanwhile the Gospels only recorded and are just anecdotes albeit ‘witnesses’,

1)  of the events of the women’s visits at the tomb,

2)  of the telling or relating or the making known by the angel

of and about the Resurrection at these very visits at the tomb by the women.

You, Goatboy, make of

 

1)  the Resurrection— of the thing told, “these different speeches”;

2)  “these different speeches” of the angel /angels, you make the ‘irreconcilable’, “versions” or interpretations or “witness”— not of the angel, but of the Gospel writers! It’s not far–fetched; it’s fetched from nowhere.

To try “.... to conclude that the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”, and that “Subtle variations among different writers telling a slightly different version of the same event is the simplest answer, certainly simpler than  creating a complex external construct to try to reconcile the events”, certainly is very easy to say; it is another matter to illustrate, what prove! Because your “slightly different versions” “of the same event”, are,

1)  presumed, “of the same event”, and are not ‘concluded’ “of the same event” in the least. First conclude, that is, first prove them of the same event!

Your “slightly different versions”, are,

2)  presumed, “slightly different (versions)”. How can you ‘conclude’ your ‘answer’ “is the simplest answer”? Only by presumption, presumptuousness, and pretence. The “different versions” that each includes the angel’s ‘speech’, if of one event, are not “slightly different”. They are what you yourself say they are, “irreconcilabilities”— that is, unsolvable contradictions! The differences, if of, or in, one event, are irrefutable and huge; the differences, if of the Gospels’ accounting of only the one event as were it the Resurrection happening, are totally “irreconcilable”.

First demonstrate different “versions” in their total context, that is, as had there been no separate visits of the women at the tomb— demonstrate them ‘slightly different’, that is, ‘reconcilable’— and so destroy, your own argument. 

No! friend (I hope). You say of me, that “Your assumption that these two accounts, despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events, does not seem supported by the text”..... while you, admitted, the “extremely similar wording” of the “text”— which I relied on, to say, they “actually describe two distinct events”!?

I did not “create”  “the complex external construct” of “complementary information”. Its very own “text”, and ‘compilation of information’, ‘support’ its “very close account

of what happened”, namely, “distinct events”.

Show just one particular in any of the accounts that cannot conclusively be explained by different events of visits! There is not one! While there is not one that can be reconciled if of the one event of the Resurrection: either with itself or with things like names, numbers, times, circumstances, manner and aspect that surrounds any particular in the accounts.

Treating the Gospels as complementary information, is the only, unproblematic solution to the ‘problem’ that would not have existed but for treating the gospels as if they do not provide complementary information, but imaginary mental projections of human witnesses like in a court, for the witnesses of the Gospel accounts!

Why? If you viewed the events of the appearances of the two angels – reported / ‘witnessed’ / ‘related’ by Luke and John – as being ‘complementary’ – that is, as being separate events of visits – the two angels would have been two angels on the two occasions of visits they are mentioned (Lk and Jn); and the one angel would have been one angel on the two occasions of visits, one angel only is mentioned (Mk and Mt).

In all four events–of–visits, angels were the witnesses who told the women that Jesus had risen. Being twice one angel and twice two angels, it can only tell there were four visits, at the tomb— which is “the most obvious, straightforward reading”. You want to deny it?!

The external chronology in the OP (several times by now illustrated), demonstrates the solution –– the only one. Have a proper look at it. What textual, contextual objections do you propose? .... please not your subjective predispositions! 

In fact, just look at your own ‘construct’, “For example, the appearance of two angels/”men in dazzling clothes” reported by Luke. You can include this in your account; the problem is that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.”

Nonsense! False ‘logic’! You can include this in Luke’s own individual account only, and no problem exists or ‘remains’, that according to 100% of Gospel–witnesses, two angels in fact appeared in Luke! The only internal conciliation, lies right before you, in ‘the text’, in the “external construct” of “the events”! It lies right before your eyes to regard each event as recorded in every Gospel,

as an ‘event’ in its own right.

“Extremely similar wording”, “slightly different versions of the same event”, “subtle variations (in) telling.... of the same event”, in “the most obvious, straightforward reading”, suggest the original ‘witness’ (rather than ‘eyewitness’) of Jesus’ resurrection, could only be, an angel— most probably “the angel of the Lord” who rolled the stone out of the opening, Mt28:2, who told / ‘related’ / ‘witnessed’ his story at four different occasions under differing circumstances to different women at different times of night— four separate ‘accounts’, one in each Gospel (as it happened to be)!

The differences or variations in this one and the same relating of the angel— every time at another visit of the women to the grave, seem too ‘slight’ that different angels would have reported; but even were it the relating or ‘witness’ of or by different angels, it would still indicate ‘witness’ at separate occasions under differing circumstances at different times of night, of ‘relating’ to various women, the exact same account of the event of Jesus’ resurrection— ‘spelling out’: separate ‘events’ of visits at the tomb. Therefore, yours is a false question, presuming it too ‘complex’ to unravel.

About Goatboy having said, “... how do you come to the conclusion that the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse?”

GE:

Who says I say “the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse?” I maintain the “they” in Mk 16.2 refer to the very same three women, named, in verse 1 – all my life I have.  I also have always maintained there is no ‘sudden change of subject’— but that the women who actually “came upon the grave” in verse 2, could have included others than the three named in verse 1.

The most obvious, ‘straightforward reading’ of verse 1, says everything possible or needed to say that in verse 1 three women went to the traders in spices and ointment for to buy some of it for to, “when they go, they would salve the body”. Mk16:1 does not ‘say’ the women went to or arrived at the tomb, and therefore says, they did not, go to the tomb;  but you want to make belief they did and that they, witnessed the Resurrection?!  [Apparently, you are assuming that because verse 1 does not say, they went to the tomb, therefore it says, they did go! — exactly your kind of reasoning in the case of Luke’s two angels— “that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.”] 

You want to make belief the women did go to the tomb;, and then also that they actually witnessed the Resurrection at the tomb?! Well, then – by your vicious calculation of ‘evidence’ and ‘logic’ from Mark 16:1 – the time of the Resurrection must have been just after sunset Saturday evening, would it not? And you wouldn’t have liked it, would you? Why? Because it further would have demonstrated several events of visits and more impossibilities created by your ‘fundamental approach’ of ‘irreconcilabilities’ that is supposed to explain any and all discrepancies.

The most obvious, straightforward and only possible reading of

verse 2, says everything possible or needed to say that in verse 2, several unidentified women actually came upon the grave and inspected it only to confirm what they already by then, knew, that the body was gone and the grave was empty. But again, you want to make belief they, witnessed the Resurrection?!

Besides, how would you then ‘reconcile’ Mk16:1 with Jn20:1 (or any other of the accounts which I enumerated for you above), that only Mary witnessed; how would you ‘reconcile’ what she witnessed; and the time she witnessed; and what she did after she witnessed etc.; and that everything she did, excluded any other, that no one else, also witnessed? Unless of course – according to you – to be reconcilable, the accounts must be “irreconcilable”!

Yes Goatboy, I can also see, this, what you here have ‘exampled’ – the angel’s ‘witness’ –, shows the fundamental problem in your approach; that you have ‘followed the evidence’ in your ‘example’, but was unable to have seen that you – not ‘the evidence’ – do not follow the evidence through ‘logically’, precisely because you are working from

1)  the assumed premise of some level of biblical ‘errancy’  

and, because you are working with

2) translations,

so that the ‘slightly different versions’ in the ‘translations’, of the same event’ in ‘these two accounts’ of the ‘different writers’ — ‘despite their extremely similar wording’ and ‘subtle variations’ in their ‘telling’, cannot be seen clearly enough and “must”, be “irreconcilable”!   For this reason, I am supplying you with a transcription of the Greek, herewith:–

 

Lk24, Mk16, Mt28, Jn20:

 

Lk 3    eiselthousai ..... 5b klinohsohn ta prosohpa eis tehn gehn

Mk 5b eiselthousai eis to mnehmeion 8 ekselthousai ephygon apo

Mt  5a ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8 apelthousai tachy apo t. m.

Jn 11, Maria de heistehkei pros tohi mnehmeiohi eksoh klaiousa

 

Lk 4b     kai     idou       andres     dyo 

Mk 5a     kai    eidon    neaniskon –––––

Mt 5a  ––––––––––––––––– ho angelos –––––

Jn, 12 ....kai theohrehi  angelous2  dyo1

 

Lk 4b  epestehsan autais –––––––––––––––––– en esthehti astraptousehi

Mk 5b kathehmenon e. t. deksiois peribeblehmenon stolehn leykehn

Mt       ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Jn 12b kathedzomenous hena pros tehi kephalehi kai hena pros tois

                posin (en leykois) hopou ekeito to sohma tou Iehsou

Lk  5a emphobohn de genomenohn autohn

Mk 5c  eksethambehthehsan –––––––––––––––     

Mt,  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Jn,  ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk 5b  ––––––––––––––––– eipen  pros  autas –––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk 6a  ho de –––––––––– legei ––––––– autais,  meh  ekthambeisthe

Mt  5a  apokritheis de, eipen tais gynaiksin, meh fobeisthe ymeis

Jn  12b  kai legousin ––––––––––––––– autehi ekeinoi: –––––––––––––––

 

Lk 5c   ti dzehteite –––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk 6a  –––––––––––––– Iesoun          dzehteite

Mt 5b  oida gar hoti Iehsoun ..... dzehteite

Jn 13  gynai, ti klaieis? –––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk,  ton dzohnta meta tohn nekrohn ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk, ton –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Nadzarehnon ton estaurohmenon

Mt,  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ton estaurohmenon

Jn,  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk, 6, ouk estin hohde, _alla_ ehgertheh ––––––––––––.

Mk, ehgertheh, ouk estin hohde ––––––––––––––––––––––;

Mt, 6, ouk estin hohde; ehgertheh gar kathohs eipen;

Jn, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk, –––––––– ide  ho  topos hopou ethehkan auton.

Mt,  deyte idete ton topon hopou ekeito. ––––––––

Jh, –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk, mnehsthehte hohs elalehsen hymin eti ohn en Galilaia

7, legohn ton wyon tou anthrohpou hoti dei paradothehnai

eis cheiras anthrohpohn hamartohlohn kai staurohthehnai

kai tehi tritehi hehmeras anastehnai.

Mk, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mt, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Jn,  ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk 7  alla –––––––  hypagete     eipate     tois mathehtais autou

Mt  7  kai  tachy  poreytheisai eipate      tois mathehtais autou

Mt 7b hoti ehgertheh apo tehn nekrohn

Mk 7b –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– kai tohi Petrohi,

 

Lk, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk, –––––––––– hoti proagei hymahs eis tehn Galilaian;

Mt, kai idou, ––––– proagei hymahs eis tehn Galilaian;

Jn,  ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Lk, –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mk,  ekei auton opsesthe  kathohs eipen hymin.

Mt,  ekei auton opsesthe; ––––––––––––––––––––––––

Jn,  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Lk, –––––––––––––––––––––

Mk, –––––––––––––––––––––

Mt,  Idou, eipon hymin.

Jh,  –––––––––––––––––––––

One does not need to know Greek to be able to see from the above interlinear,

1) where the Gospel writers used different words for the same thing,

2) where the one omitted something the other has said,

3) where one used an extra word, or used

4) different modes or forms etc.,

5) showed individual style (Mt, ‘gar’, ‘hoti’, ‘kai idou’, ‘tachy’).  

Proving, ‘logically’:

1)  Fully ‘reconcilable’, ‘witness’ of the single, true, Event, of the Resurrection; which again proves,

2)  the Gospels’ different accounts of the original angel’s / angels’ flawless but differing ‘relating’ or ‘witness’ because at separate and different occasions! Which again proves,

3)  different ‘Gospel accounts’ or ‘witness’, in full agreement— like as of one! Which again proves,

4)  the identity of the original ‘witness’, an angel or angels, and that he / they

5)  under different circumstances on separate occasions, ‘witnessed’ or ‘told’ of the Resurrection. Which again – seeing Mark and Matthew mention one angel and Luke and John mention two angels – proves,

6)  separate events or occasions at which the angel / angels ‘witnessed’ or ‘related’

7)  as recorded by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; each Gospel having incorporated only one original ‘witness’–of–secondary–source— ‘sources’ such as the women, or later on, ‘oral tradition’ or ‘witness’; or still later on, ‘sources’ of written ‘traditions’, from which (secondary) sources all ‘related’ / ‘accounted’ / recorded / used ‘sources’, the Gospel writers chose only one, ‘witnessed’ or ‘related’ event.

It need not have been different angels who at each visit of the women, told them that Jesus had risen. That the ‘slight differences’ in the same ‘speech’ suggest the same angel could have ‘related’ or ‘witnessed’ in every Gospel, is fully explainable by the different situations at each visit of the women to the tomb and at which, the angel every time, repeated his only and same ‘witness’. 

I therefore even the more, still maintain the only solution to

the alleged ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the Gospels, is:–

1)  Not a single event but a number of different events;

2)  Not a single point in time, but a number of different points in time;

3)  Not a single group of people, but a number of groups of people;

4)  Not only one positional setup, but the same place from different approaches;

 

5)  Not necessarily the same angel or angels, but most

probably the same angels or even more correct, the only angel relating on different occasions.

6)  I still maintain, the free choice of every Gospel–compiler or author in deciding his use of the ‘sources’ or ‘witnesses’ he used—

7)  Which choices together and as a whole, give the perfect bigger picture of:

1)  the women’s visits at the tomb; and of

2)  Jesus’ appearances at last; and of

3)  Jesus’ resurrection, at the very first! 

Different days, is what it boils down to; not one day upon which both Resurrection and Appearances occurred, but one day upon which several visits occurred! Which is the root–cause of all the contradictions, discrepancies and burlesque of the traditional viewpoint, that these things are ignored, neglected and negated to save Sunday–sacredness!

Goatboy:

Well, I believe I’ve made my point... Treating the gospels as complementary in cases such as this is convenient, but it doesn’t follow the evidence and by doing so we are treating the gospels much differently than we would treat other witness accounts, historical or otherwise.

Dabmic:

Goatboy, with all due respect, I am not following what you are saying. If we use the case of the witnesses each saying they saw different cars in an accident then yes that would be a conflict, but the gospels are not doing that. The writers of the 4 gospels are looking at the events from different sides but the concussion they come up with is that Jesus was not there. They add more information to the account and never contradict each other, meaning their accounts are explainable. The car accident account is a little suspect.

Hope that helps.

GE:

I liked the concussion!

One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, ‘parallel accounts’, but logical and sequential in terms of time and occurrence. I say again what I at the beginning answered TonyZ, who maintained, “For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.”

Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15 ––– verse 47.)

1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!

2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.

3) In Luke, not only ‘the’, but more than three women, “arrive”, and actually, “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.

4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.

5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14–18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),

6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody’s presence or knowledge, had happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciples, Jesus appeared to them.

What fault do you find in this summary of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ appearances?  Show the faults and flaws; is what I asked for. Thanks.

Goatboy:

The problem is that the accounts do contradict each other – just not explicitly. Mark mentions “a great earthquake” at the scene, for example. The other witnesses don’t. If at the scene of our car accident one witness notes that an earthquake occurred immediately before the accident and three others fail to mention this, are we to assume they are agree through their silence? We can’t just assume that because one gospel writer doesn’t mention something that they would agree with another that does mention it.

From what I can gather your sequence faces the fundamental problem of assuming that slight differences in language mean the gospel writers are describing different events. This technique is problematic in and of itself, but even more because it isn’t used consistently: it’s only used to solve supposed gospel contradictions. Using the same approach we could determine that the gospel writers describe multiple

events in other locations.

To quote Wallace: “In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! 

GE:

Goatboy, the accounts do not “contradict each other”! Not, explicitly and not, “just not explicitly”. 

(Don't mind that ‘explicit’ mistake “Mark mentions “a great earthquake”.”)  Matter is, the accounts do in fact contradict each other – in every respect explicitly and with irreconcilable and many contradictions – contradict each other if.... if one refuses to accept the gospel writers are describing different events of visits women brought the tomb. So the Gospels’ accounts “must be irreconcilable”— your way.

“This technique”, of ‘different events’— of “treating the gospels as complementary in cases such as this”— solves every “supposed gospel contradictions”— every 'problem' of different times given, different persons given, different angels given, different events given, different words given etc. etc. ad infinitum, because it is the only ‘technique’ that is ‘consistent’! 

The ‘technique’ of ‘different events’, solves every 'problem' of “silence”, of “extremely similar wording “, of “slight differences in language”, “slightly different versions of the same event”, of “subtle variations among different writers’ telling of the same event” and “awkward reading”, of “complementary information”, of “external chronology” and “complex external construct”, of “distinct events” and “different accounts”, even of “sudden change in subject”.

This “approach”, thoroughly ‘determines’, “that the gospel writers describe multiple events in other locations” or rather, on, other occasions! I do not ‘just take a more awkward reading’; I stick to the literal words and their literal meaning in the Greek, while in full agreement in this case, with accepted translations such as the KJV’s. And I maintain, in order to reconcile the different accounts, they must be acknowledged for their being the different accounts of different events.

‘Different events’ is the only solution. To reckon that the

solution lies therein that “the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”, just does not go up. We are not questioning the Resurrection; we are enquiring after the events other than the Resurrection.

It is true in the one and only case of the angel’s report / witness / account / relating of, the Resurrection, that “the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”. Actually, it is not “the gospel authors” who “tell”; it’s the angel who told; and “the gospel authors” who used some source that contained the angel’s telling or ‘witness’. The angel in reality had to four times “tell” his ‘account’ or ‘witness’ to the women of the event of the Resurrection— in each different situation of each separate event of their visits, as precisely, accurately and fully reconcilable ‘accounted’ by “the gospel authors” in the ‘Gospel–witnesses’.

That the different occasions of the angel’s ‘witness’ were not actually different events of the women visiting the grave at least four times, but merely were the irreconcilable ‘witnesses’ of certain “authors” in the Gospel ‘accounts’— it is shear untenable nonsense. How much greater nonsense is it, your idea, the ‘different versions’ were “of the same event” of Jesus’ resurrection! Your method comes short in every respect because your unsubstantiated ‘differences’ and ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the four Gospel accounts, are far too many, far too big and far too unlike, ever to be compressible into or reconcilable with only one event, no matter which event. Your ‘technique’ or ‘strategy’ fails if differences, peculiarities and irreconcilabilities not only must imply, but necessarily must be, differences, peculiarities and irreconcilabilities because the four Gospels allegedly accounted only one visit to the tomb allegedly when, the Resurrection occurred.

Now these different events mentioned by the Gospels of women visiting the tomb – each Gospel mentioning one of them of his own choice – are separate and different and differing events, not because “of assuming slight differences in language”, but, because of “the fundamental problem” that no two given data of fact in any two stories or ‘Gospel accounts’ – what in four ‘Gospel accounts’ – are reconcilable if, not accepted for and of different, separate, subsequent and consecutive events, as well as accounts of women’s visits at the tomb, as well as the angel’s relating his  witness at the tomb.  

And ‘Wallace’ (Morrison, Wenham.....), surrenders case; that's all, trying to save face. His are vacuous arguments being irrelevant, out of context, and, unnecessary!

Besides, it not at all is difficult to harmonise specifically the reports of the Lord's Supper and Peter's denial. ‘Wallace’, gave up these two incidences for hopelessly contradictory without even having attempted a conciliation which in any case is totally unasked for; then used his failure to support another failure of his. In fact, Wallace should not have tried to prove a case of reconcilability, but of   irreconcilability in these instances, because where are the alleged irreconcilabilities he sees in them?

I ask the sensible and ‘logical’ question, Why can different events not be accepted as the once for all solution to the alleged and preconceived contradictions and irreconcilability of the Gospel accounts of the Appearances and Resurrection? Why can different events of visits at the tomb not be accepted? Because then the Resurrection would appear to have occurred on the Sabbath Day. That a priori to the Sunday–worshippers is unacceptable; they have judged and decided, heretical and damnable!

I myself for the first time so clearly have seen the independent Gospels’ account of the angel’s, one ‘witness’, for the very reason its “extremely similar wording” actually describes distinct events! Thank you, Goatboy! You have opened my eyes for what I have seen, but as trees, people walking!

 

Here clearly and beyond a doubt observe therefore what we both believe was the case, that in the Gospel–accounts of the angel’s relating, we have,

1)  the only original ‘eyewitness’, the angel;

2)  his ‘witness’ of Jesus’ resurrection; and

3)  the women, hearing and ‘witnessing’, his ‘message’.

In the Gospel–accounts of the angel’s relating, we therefore find four independent and unique Gospel–accounts or ‘Gospel–witnesses’ of these three factors, derived from as well as comprising, the women’s four times carried out visits to the tomb, Jn20:1–10, Lk24:1–10, Mk16:2–8, Jn20:11–17/Mk16:9, Mt28:5–10.  In these four ‘Gospel–witnesses’ of the women’s visits at the tomb, we find the angel four times with reference to Jesus’ resurrection recited his ‘witness’ to some women.

In Matthew’s account, we find the most comprehensive, informative and impressive of the angel’s ‘speeches’. I personally believe the angel’s actual relating was the real ‘witness–source’ of the ‘Resurrection–Witnesses’ of events generally, before, during and after the Resurrection.

But in Matthew specifically, in this section of the Gospel, the use of the angel’s witness as the truly original ‘source’, begins in 27:62, because there is no way the women might have known of the things told there and right through up to 28:4. In the dramatic moments of the opening of the grave and Jesus’ simultaneous resurrection, there were no human witnesses or even angels. The guard were struck “down like dead” by the brightness of the angel’s appearing “like lightning”; so the guard saw, and knew, nothing! And “the angel of the Lord”, “sat down upon the stone” outside, and also did not see, but in fact knew, everything!  

In Matthew’s account, we find the most informative of the angel’s ‘speeches’ therefore, which also explains why and how the women for the first and only time, reacted in faith on his ‘witness’.

What is beyond a doubt or contention, lies before hand: the different and differing but never contradicting or irreconcilable reports found in the four Gospels of the angel’s ‘witness’.  

This truth, is the real point of contention between us!

Just here, our paths part. Here, is where you, depart from the “fundamental approach” the ‘witnesses’ or Gospel “authors”, “witnessed”, that is, saw, at, the time and place and event, of their telling about— i.e., the ‘witnesses’ or Gospel “authors”, “witnessed”, at, the Resurrection— and here, is where you, “conclude”, for the very reason of their being ‘eyewitnesses’ in order to be trustworthy, the ‘witnesses’ must be “irreconcilable”!  You, even use the illustration of an eyewitnesses–account of a car accident and the supposition, had the witnesses agreed one hundred percent they must have been lying, and therefore, must be “irreconcilable” to be believable.

Here is where I, depart from contextual and chronological presupposition, the witness / witnesses or, even the only eyewitness, the angel, witnessed of and about the time and place and event of his telling— which was at, (four) visits the women paid the empty tomb (Resurrection long past).  Here is where I in fact depart from the presupposition the witnesses or, only witness, the angel, at each visit of the women, ‘witnessed’ or “explained to and told the women” about the Resurrection. At each, visit in fact, as indicated and mentioned and ‘accounted’ from every possible angle and dimension of reality of space and time and people in the Gospels’ ‘resurrection–witnesses’!

The difference between our views has become evident in two words of just two letters each, ‘at’, and ‘of’!

Nevertheless, had it not been for the ‘slightly different versions of the same event’ in the ‘accounts’ of the different writers or Gospels, we would have been forced to conclude — exactly by the preciseness of the supposed replica — that the Gospel–writers then would have copied from one another precisely, or that they must have copied from the exact same source precisely. But because no such imagined preciseness exists, it only proves the Gospels used different ‘sources’ related to different events the angel or angels delivered his or their witness or witnesses— a ‘witness’ that is in precise agreement with itself in all four the accounts, and ‘witnesses’, that are in precise agreement one with another in all four the Gospel–accounts.

The ‘slightly different versions of the same event’ in the Gospels, are quoted ‘versions’, quoted verbatim as it were, from the real, live, ‘witness’ of the angel on the separate occasions of the women’s visits at the tomb and of his having met them there. The ‘slightly different versions’ confirm the “versions” were taken from four instances of the telling (or ‘witness’) “of the same event” by the same angel or angels— every time absolutely reconcilable with regard to

1)  its own content;

2)  the other instances of its having been told;

3)  the event told of, the Resurrection,

4)  the witness or messenger, the angel, and

5)  the Gospels compared with one another.

You, though, Goatboy,

1)  mistake the complete picture or impression created by all the events of the night and Sunday morning for one presumed event at which the Resurrection supposedly occurred.

2)  mistake the Gospel authors or compilers for eyewitnesses.

3)  mistake that which each Gospel chose and used from separate ‘sources’ to ‘relate’ / ‘account’ / ‘witness’ with, for the Gospels. 

4)  mistake the angel’s ‘witness’ or ‘speech’ on, and of, four separate occasions, for a one–time ‘witness’ or ‘speech’ on, and of, one presumed and imagined, occasion.

5)  mistake the ‘irreconcilabilities’ in and of and between events not the Resurrection, but visits by the women, for assumed ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the angel / angels’ ‘witness’ / ‘witnesses’ of or about the Resurrection.

6)  mistake the events of visits at the tomb as recorded in the Gospels, for the Resurrection as such.

7)  mistake the ‘witness’ of the angel / angels, for human ‘witness’. The Resurrection did not occur with any of the visits at the tomb; which excludes any possibility the ‘witnesses’ could have been women or men or Gospel–writers present at or near to the event or scene of the Resurrection. That, besides the factor of human sinfulness that is unable to witness the Divine work of God’s having raised Christ from the dead.

8)  mistake your “example” – the ‘report’ / ‘witness’ of the angel about and of the Resurrection – for the women’s actual visits at the tomb.

9)  misunderstand the very real ‘evidence’ and factual incidences of various visits made to the tomb for, or as, some undefined, void of all evidence, ‘taking’  “.... an additional step not supported by the evidence”.

10)  completely muddled yourself, accuse me of “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events” as not “logical”, and not “following the evidence”. Instead you propose a ‘logic’ that says, ‘making the assumption that the accounts must be irreconcilable, the accounts therefore must be describing one event’.

That is not the ‘logic’ I used.

On the contrary, you, are the one making the assumption that:

because the different accounts of

1)  “the witnesses” (the Gospels), and

2)  ‘the witness’ or “speech” of the angel itself,are ‘irreconcilable’ subjects, they ‘must’ therefore prove your imagined and presumed one event of both the women’s only visit at the tomb and the Resurrection, at once.

[It’s no use you garb your concept of compelling ‘irreconcilability’ (‘must’, was Eleven’s word) with euphemisms like “complex” and “problematic”; your every argument demands it and relies upon it.] 

Your ‘logic’ and ‘evidence’ – to be anything –, must prove because the different accounts of ‘the witnesses’ (the Gospels) allegedly confirm your imagined and presumed one event of the Resurrection and supposed and presumed single visit, they therefore, “must” prove to be “irreconcilable”— which completely is illogical and contrary all evidence!

 ‘You and I’, for these reasons, do not, ‘make the same initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable.”  I make the observation – that is, I see in the Gospels and from the Gospels – that the accounts of the Sunday morning’s events are in every respect and particular, reconcilable. You are by yourself when you ‘observe’ that they are “irreconcilable”. I don’t share your “observation”!

Each Gospel records one of four events–of–visits fully in agreement with the other three events–of–visits recorded in the other three Gospel–accounts or Gospel–witnesses of and about the night and the following Sunday morning of Jesus’ appearances. Each Gospel records one event–of–visits which, besides being evidenced in and from the many other facts and factors of reality actually taken up and recorded in the Gospels, is also implied and evidenced in and by the angel’s witness as recorded in Matthew specifically from 27:62 to 28:8.  Thereby it in fact is evidenced every Gospel does not record the same event, but an event – a visit – of its own choice taken up and recorded in it, so that all four Gospels record different events, but events fully in agreement and reconcilable one with another as well as with the Resurrection and the Appearances as recorded in all four Gospels.

Only you, Goatboy and co., “make the initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable”; I do not!

Then to ‘prove’ your point, “the accounts are not

reconcilable”, you present everything agreeing in the Gospels about the Resurrection and Appearances. How does that help your theory? Because you, ‘declared’: “the accounts are not reconcilable”? How do you arrive at a negating conclusion through only confirming and affirmative proof— proof of agreement in and between every and all accounts in the Gospels!?  You can do that only if you departed from the presumption, “the accounts are not reconcilable”!  You try to arrive at a negating conclusion through only confirming and affirmative proof of agreement by everything and nothing than which contradicts your, ‘observation’ or rather presumption, “the accounts are not reconcilable”!

You, above, listed only the angel’s report to the women of Jesus’ resurrection — the truthfulness of which I for one, have not denied, but the accounts about it, you, have consistently insisted must be ‘irreconcilable’— and irreconcilable ‘they must be’ if of one event only and that event the event of the Resurrection! 

This you have done carefully above, while you not at all gave account or ‘explanation’ of the many other events and factors besides the angel’s evidence or witness— the human and natural things, that followed (or preceded) the Resurrection. You have beaten about the bush, and never have even aimed at the heart of the matter at issue, namely, to give due account of these other factors of event, time, and circumstance etcetera as being either perfectly agreeing matters of fact (as I maintain), or (as you maintain), as being varying, contradicting and ‘irreconcilable’ accounts of human, ‘witnesses’, to wit, according to you, of four, ‘irreconcilable’ Gospels— only for being – according to you – four ‘irreconcilable’ accounts of the only event of the Resurrection!

I have ‘assumed’ the truthful and agreeing events and accounts in and of every and all historical facts and factors which really had occurred and which accurately had been recorded according to the 100% in agreement ‘witness’ of in the last analysis one only ‘witness’— the angel of Mt28:5a (which I have explained above for having been the witness of God, ultimately)— but, which you, ostentatiously treat as if they do not exist and only the report of the angel to the women is real and in agreement with itself while the several witnesses’ witness about it, namely, the Gospels’ telling of the women’s visits, are untrustworthy for being ‘irreconcilable’ with, in your words, “the evidence” and “logic” of “different accounts” of “witnesses” “of what happened”.

Actually you argue the illogical, that every and all the ‘witnesses’ are trustworthy for being ‘irreconcilable’!

You— to claim the truth of the Resurrection and Appearances, Goatboy and co., ‘assume’ “irreconcilable” and contradicting accounts as well as “irreconcilable” and contradicting events implied and, according to you, in fact mentioned “irreconcilabilities” in the “different accounts” of your “witnesses”. To show what? — according to you, yes, in fact, believe it or not, to show disagreement! But you still suppose us to believe the Gospels? What then is the use of using agreements to show disagreements? Simply unbelievable!

You in your ‘example’ have resorted to precise agreement in Mark and Matthew, to show me how wrong I am, to presume the Gospels are in precise agreement and harmony!  An ‘example’ of what was your ‘example’  supposed to be? An ‘example’ of disagreement in the stories of the Resurrection and Appearances, yet it turned out to be nothing but an ‘example’ of agreement in the stories of the Resurrection and Appearances?   

Or have you changed tune, and now are the resilient defenders of agreement in and between the anecdotes of the Sunday morning?

You,  Goatboy, make the stories or ‘accounts’, the Event, and you take the Event – Jesus’ resurrection and both his appearances –, for the one, ‘account’ or “witness” of the angel.  You confuse and confute the accounts for the event told of— the faultless and without contradiction told of— the in all four Gospel–accounts faultless and without contradiction told–of–event— even the Resurrection being told about and ‘witnessed’ of by the angel ..... then claim, the accounts of and about the women’s visits and Jesus’ appearances, are “irreconcilable”!  

My challenge to you is,

1)  Show the difference in the “different accounts” of the Gospels, so that I can show you they are not differing accounts?

2)  Bring “the evidence” against ‘my’ “fundamental” “biblical truth and inerrancy”–”approach” in this matter, and be specific, so that I – well knowing there won’t be a thing – may know in what to answer you.

3)  Explain, your ‘logic’, “the accounts”, are “supported by the evidence”, but “are not reconcilable”?

4)  Tell me what negates ‘logic’ or “does not logically follow”, in “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events”?

5)  What is going against the evidence or “is not supported by the evidence”, in “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events”?

6)  Tell me what is “subtle variations among different writers” and  “relating the same speech” by the same writers proving, other than that the same “speech” was “related” on separate, consecutive incidences of it’s being told?

7)  Explain the ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the “slightly different versions of the same event” and “extremely similar wording” of the ‘text’?

 6)  Explain what is the “fundamental approach” than to “follow” and be “supported” by the “evidence” of the “complementary” but “consistent”  “information” of the “exterior construct” of the women’s visits to or rather at the tomb, and to proceed from the presupposition they are fully reconcilable and trustworthy?

7)  Is your better alternative of a ‘fundamental approach’ , ‘the evidence’ is and “must” be “irreconcilable”; an “initial observation”, the “evidence” “must” be “irreconcilable”, even despite its “extremely similar wording” .... before it may be believed?

You create, and do not solve, insurmountable misconceptions about the Resurrection and Appearances by ‘making the fundamental assumption’ the accounts or ‘witnesses’ are ‘irreconcilable’.

But the Gospel stories give the faithful accounting of the historical events and “external” factors / “external information” / “external construct” / “external chronology” mentioned or / and implied with regard to the Resurrection— the truth and trustworthiness of which ‘Witness’ is destroyed by compressing these stories into a supposed or rather presumed one and only story of a supposed or rather presumed one and only event supposed or rather presumed of Sunday morning.

So one can either succumb to contradiction and confusion or be courageous – and honest – enough to acknowledge and accept a ‘fundamental’ alternative— the only alternative of separate, different and differing but never “irreconcilable” events in full harmony and sympathy with the resurrection and appearances of Jesus.

We (or I) question no report in the Gospels of the angels, or of anything else in the Gospels. I do not question that everything in them are in perfect agreement. We differ as to whether these reports were of the same moment in time and of the same event in time because that is what causes agreement or irreconcilability.

Owed to the “slight variations” in the “extremely similar wording’’ in the angel’s ‘witness’ or ‘report’, one may safely assume that in every event, the same angel reported / ‘witnessed’ / ‘related’ Jesus’ resurrection — which witness in every of the four Gospels is separately ‘accounted’.  But you allege different angels

‘related’ – another for every Gospel!

The ‘alternative’ – the simplest and most fundamental of any, of the ‘witnessing’ of the same message on different occasions at different events recorded with and in different anecdotes –, shall never be given due credit just because it discovers the deception of Sunday–sacredness.

About Goatboy having said, “Your assumption that these two accounts [Mark and Matthew], despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events does not seem supported by the text.”

“The assumption that these two accounts... actually describe two distinct events” isn’t mine; it’s your story of my story. I have never said what you say I said. Show me! On the contrary, I have all the way agreed with you “these two accounts” in “Mark and Matthew”, are one and the same and fully reconcilable with itself and everything else account of the angel’s, relating or “witness”, of and about, the Resurrection.

But the angel’s ‘account’ and references to the Resurrection, every time are contained within an anecdote about the women’s visits to the tomb at every ‘historic’ occasion of their visits. It is so simple to see and understand, I cannot see for what good the ‘comparison’ (I mean your ‘example’) could be used to disprove my thesis that every Gospel has its own story of the events of the Sunday morning of the visits to the tomb and Jesus’ first appearances during – or rather, to be exact, after –, the last two of these visits.

Your ‘example’ therefore is as irrelevant as can be because it ‘compares’ the references to a referred thing, the Resurrection – referred to and told of, in the ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’ that actually tell of the women’s visits at the grave that were not merely referred to visits, but actually and indicatively described, visits.

It is not assumption, but presumption, that you, Goatboy, and not I, first assume that the accounts —both of the angel and of the visits— are “irreconcilable”, and that they therefore must be describing  one and the same event!  I assume in contrast,

both, that,

First, The accounts are describing different and differing events, and that they therefore –in themselves and mutually–, must be reconcilable accounts of, those “distinct events”— events separate and differing one with another— events of visits of the women at the tomb, after, and never at, Jesus’ resurrection.

I assume,

Next, The accounts are, reconcilable because in the last analysis they are the Word of God, and that therefore every and all distinct ‘evidence’, must be considered for true in every detail in itself, which inevitably evidences “distinct events”— events separate and differing one with another— events of visits of the women at the tomb, after, and not once, at, the Resurrection.

We therefore hold opposite and opposing ‘initial observations’!  It is by your ‘initial observation’, Goatboy, and by your ‘assumption’, that you, “take an additional step”, namely, to “assume” (actually, presume), that the accounts must be irreconcilable because they must be describing one and the same event. Does that, ‘follow logically’? Does that, ‘follow the evidence’? Neither!

Now we may look at a few details, only with reference to Goatboy’s ‘comparison’ or ‘example’. Not all, because all will be so many it will fill books. See book 7, ‘The Last week’, et al.

Goatboy,

“Mark: “But he said to them”

Matthew: “But the angel said to the women”

GE:

Who is ‘he’, in Mark? “A young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white garment” – ‘neaniskon kathehmenon en tois deksiois peribeblehmenon stolehn leykehn’.

Who is ‘he’, in Matthew? “The angel” – ‘ho angelos’.

Who is ‘he’ according to Goatboy, Eleven, and co.? ‘He’, is Mark and Matthew, Luke and John!

Look at the Greek. It’s obviously not the same ‘source’ or same ‘speech’. Yet there is precisely nothing ‘irreconcilable’ anywhere!

Look at just one other particular— In Mark the angel is inside the grave before the women entered; in Matthew the angel first converses with the women outside, then invites them inside to see the place where the Lord was laid, as though challenging them, ‘You should come inside and see for yourselves, if you don’t believe me!’— ‘deyte idete’. Not just ‘ide’, like in Mark where the angel is inside the grave, and as were he pointing straight at the place, talked to the women.  Also note that this command is not recorded in Luke or in John because in Luke the angels confront the women as they came out of the tomb after for the first time having seen the place where He lay. In John Mary knows what is going on, and is not even surprised by the two angels. It almost looks like she knew they were sitting in the grave, and bent over to speak to them where they sat inside. Every little detail indicates growing awareness and apprehension on the part of the women, everything indicating several exercises in awareness and apprehension during the course of the night.  So here at their last visit to the tomb, the angel seems to have stopped the women, and they seem to not actually have entered the tomb, because the angel before they could enter, it seems, summoned them, “But be going! Quickly! Go tell his disciples....! And gone! they there and then went....!”

In Matthew, what the angel told the women, even could have begun in 27:62, because the women knew nothing about the events there made mention of about the guard, unless someone informed them— who else than the angel?

The angel doubtless told the women what happened at the tomb (28:1–5), “....when (‘kai idou’) there suddenly was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord came down and rolled the stone from the opening of the grave”, because no human eye ever beheld or could have beheld the event that then occurred “in the Glory of the Father”.

“The angel explained to the women”, says Matthew, these

things they could by no means otherwise have come to know.

Matthew’s angel must have comforted the women greatly, because they without hesitation and “with great joy, went to tell the disciples”.

Mark’s angel’s message greatly upset the women so that “they fled from the tomb terrified and told no one anything”!

See my closing remark.

Again notice the different language and particulars. Although Jesus and his resurrection are spoken of, and while most likely it was the same angel who spoke, it cannot have been the same occasion, time or conversation made mention of and ‘accounted’ in writing in the Gospels. Only in the angel’s witness was the Resurrection referred to in every Gospel— virtually exactly the same and without any irreconcilabilities in it!   Don’t try to fool us to believe you it was the Resurrection itself ‘witnessed’ by sight!

There are no ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the angel’s accounts of the Resurrection; that is my ‘fundamental approach’. Your ‘fundamental approach’ is that there “must”, be, “irreconcilabilities” in the angel’s ‘relating’ of the Resurrection because – according to you – 1) the accounts of the angel’s ‘relating’ are the accounts of four or more, and different, Gospels, whom you, call, ‘the witnesses’; but 2) which the presumed “irreconcilable” ‘witnesses’ of, you view as the women or individuals like Mark and Matthew, whom, 3) you also call, ‘the witnessesses’ and ‘irreconcilable’ ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’ of

4) a single event of several things happening together,

1)  the women arriving at the tomb,

2)  Jesus ‘while rising’, and

3)  Jesus while appearing to

4)  the whole party of “witnesses” of angels, guards, women, and Evangelists!

This cannot be an “irreconcilability”; this must be a mess.

The uncompromisable difference between the two of us, lies in our use of the Singular and Plural, like with ‘account’ and ‘accounts’; ‘angel’ and ‘angels’.  Your view of the one event of the Resurrection for four ‘relatings’ or ‘witnesses’ in the Gospels, must give rise to four and therefore “irreconcilable” stories / accounts / “witnesses”.

My use of ‘accounts’, is for the repeated relating or ‘witness’ at four events of women visiting the tomb on four occasions in time and space that in the end resulted in four fully ‘reconcilable’, accounts / stories / ‘witnesses’, in the four Gospels irrespective which, and four ‘witnesses’ of relating in the four Gospels irrespective which.

You  are prejudiced against “evidence” and “logic”, so that

you, against all “evidence” and “logic”, insist, one visit only at which the ‘account’ was ‘related’ / “witnessed”, once, and which afterwards was ‘witnessed’ four times by the four Gospel writers, so that, in order to be reconcilable, they must be “irreconcilable”.

My conclusion from the “evidence” and through “logic”, means there were four visits at which the same ‘account’ or ‘witness’ of the Resurrection was ‘related’ / “told” / “explained” / “answered” / ‘witnessed’ by the angel to the women, four times, once with every visit during the night and Sunday morning. Every and all “slight differences” are fully ‘reconcilable’ through this ‘approach’ – no exceptions! Which “evidence” and “logic” only prove separate and different occasions or events when the same ‘witness’, the angel or angels, ‘related’ or ‘witnessed’  his or their ‘witness’ or ‘Message’ which we can read in the ‘witness’ or ‘accounts’ of, and in, the Gospels. 

In the Message of the Gospels, there are multiple differences, but never ‘irreconcilabilities’— that by their perfect agreement indicate separate— indeed prove, different events and occasions of their telling, rather than different ‘witnesses’ whether in human or angelic form.  That is my ‘fundamental approach’; while being more than one event, everything correlates and agrees, and is reconcilable with everything else; and all the Gospels, are reconcilable the one with the other.

A.  There are no “irreconcilabilities” if the Gospels–accounts are regarded accounts of separate events at and of the women’s

visits at the tomb, at which

1)  the only ‘witness’ of the Resurrection, “the angel”,

2)  told the women the only witnesses of his witness,

3)  in separate moments in time (“early morning” etc.) and

4)  accompanying eventualities (“she ran”, “they fled”, the guard, an “earthquake” etc.),  

5)  under various circumstantial surroundings (the grave, the stone, the place where He lay, etc.)

6)  of and about the Resurrection.

(Emphasis not for nothing under ‘of and about’!)

B.  Not two things about the Message could be correlated or reconciled with anything else, including itself, if the Message were delivered or received, heard or told, while invariably

1)  the same women – every and all of them,  

2)  ‘witnessing’ by hearing –

3)  at one point in time

3)  in one place

4)  and circumstance —

5)  the event of the Resurrection.

C.  Nothing, not even the angel’s message itself, could be reconciled with itself or anything else, were the ‘witness’ that of men or women – or even of angels –, seeing! Never has there been a mortal— human, eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection. But a mortal sinner or sinners must have ‘witnessed’ Jesus’ resurrection, were Resurrection and only visit at one and the same time, circumstance, event and witness. It is not strange therefore at all there is no mention made of an accomplished visit or arrival at the tomb before or simultaneous with the Resurrection.

Your, ‘fundamental approach’ is the opposite of mine.

You do not take into consideration the subject matter of contention, which is the ‘different witnesses’, the Gospel records of different visits, and not their corresponding and mutual ‘Witness’— the Truth of the Message of the Gospel as such, which neither you nor I have doubted incontrovertibly trustworthy and factually in perfect agreement with itself! 

Goatboy therefore confuses the matter of agreement, for imagined disagreement. According to Goatboy’s “fundamental”  “approach” of “irreconcilable evidence” and “not following the logic”,  “an external construct”  “of the master chronology”  around Mark and Matthew has been “created, one that” have the following in every respect and irrevocably, “irreconcilable”,

 

The night and the morning of the First Day of the week

Mark                                   Matthew

Space          filled in with       27:57–60          

15:47          parallel with       27:61               

space          filled in with       27:62–66 to 28:1–4

16:1            filling in after     28:1–4

space          Filled in with      Jn20:1–10 and Lk24:1–8      

16:2–8                filling in before   28:5–8      

space          filled in with       Jn20:11–17

16:9            parallel with       John 20:11–17

space          filled in with       28:9–10

The Message of the Resurrection has been told for two millennia now, and, though witnessed to by millions of different witnesses who never knew of one another, has always been the same and virtually the identical replica of these two Witnesses Goatboy is referring to, Mark and Matthew, that Jesus rose from the dead. Ironic therefore is it, Goatboy endeavours to prove his theory of contradictory and ‘irreconcilable’  ‘witnesses’ – even contradictory and ‘irreconcilable’ eyewitnesses –, with supplying us with his “example” of two perfectly in agreement, unique and authoritative, ‘Witnesses’!

However, it is the mistake of Goatboy even to speak of the Gospels as such or of their authors, as the ‘witnesses’ of the Resurrection and Appearances of Jesus. Because the actual ‘witness’ in the place and in the occurrence and time of – or rather –, of before the Appearances as such –, was, first, the angel who, next, “explained and told the women” about the Resurrection, who, thirdly, told the disciples who, fourthly, proclaimed the Gospel Message of the Resurrection to all the world who, in the fifth place, some of, informed the authors or compilers of the Gospels who, sixth and most importantly, under the Witness of the Holy Spirit, penned in writing what we, in the last instance, have “received” (Paul, 1Cor15:4) as the ‘Witnesses’ of the four ‘Gospels’. So the only “True and Faithful Witness” has all along been ‘The Message’, even Jesus Christ Himself.

Therefore already – before we have even started to “argue the irreconcilable witnesses” –, it is beyond controversy more than one events of visits at, the tomb have been recorded in the Gospel accounts or ‘witnesses’ which chronologically occurred after the Resurrection and before the Appearances. The Gospels recorded no realised visits or visit concurring with Resurrection; the Gospels only recorded two visits of concurrence with the first and the second Appearances.

Then because of more than one events, more than one times for the occurrences of each visit, occurred; and more than one circumstantial evidences, manifested; more than one groupings of or from the same persons developed; and more than one movements to and from the tomb took place, while more than once the same angel or same two angels, gave evidence or “witnessed” at each visit. 

Now the ‘events’ I refer to, are these very ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’— that tell of, the irrefragable event of Truth, the event and events of Jesus’ resurrection and appearances, not at all here doubted or questioned.

In a word, like you, Goatboy, I do not question any aspect of the Resurrection or its reality and truth as such. I question the confusing of these stories of the different ‘historic’ events and aspects and / or stages during and of the human discovery of this Truth, by ‘interpreters’, commentators, critics, scholars— call them anything— who behave as were they Inspiration itself.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobby:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, your answer is far too long! 

GE:

Thanks Nobby, for having noticed, and for telling me. I only replied to Goatboy’s arguments with which he tried to refute my views. One cannot arrive at a satisfactory answer to these issues in just a few words. It is then that one forgets what has been said before, or confuse things and take them out of context, etc. Please therefore allow me this long dissertation; it was unavoidable. And please allow me again to stress, it is the only way properly to give an answer; or for my capabilities it is. 

We seem to have become addicts of junk–food theology.

Goatboy:

GE, I can see you must have put a lot of time into your post. Unfortunately, after attempting to read through the first third of the reply I’m going to have to give up for the moment; your writing style is nearly incomprehensible to me. If your tactic is to overwhelm me with muddled verbosity then you have surely succeeded.

I ask that you either supply a more succinct reply, or simply allow me a few days/weeks/months to decipher and comprehend what you have written.

Nobby:

Hi GE, now do you see the problem with loooooong posts. They take too long to read & forever to answer.

GE:

Everybody seems to complain about me being ‘incomprehensible’. Everybody can’t be wrong. So I regret I just cannot improve on myself. Maybe it will help if I remind you I have replied to or on your, statements, Goatboy.

In one or two words I would say my dissertation boils down to,

.... the ‘evidence’ or ‘witness’ to Christ’s resurrection is the thing agreed upon 100% in different and ‘slightly’ differing ‘witnesses’; which is not our point of contention, but which was that with which you attempted to refute my ‘theory’ the Gospels each give an independent account of an independent event in total harmony the one with the other— events of women who visited the tomb on Sunday morning; not the event of the Resurrection.

 

Zyzzyva:

Poor goat boy. :cry:

It might be prudent now to point out that Mark wasn’t even there, and so therefore has no credibility, as a witness that is. He was going on hearsay, if we want to take the legal terms and make them applicable to this discussion.

GE:

Not poor Goatboy or poor Mark, but poor sleeper Zzzzzzz, who cannot wake up to the fact Mark in fact was, “going on hearsay”:– what the learned men call oral tradition. Poor Mark also had to rely on ‘written sources’ for every bit of information he penned down in his Gospel. ‘Hearsay’ of ‘tradition’ has it, poor Mark was going on hearsay from an apostles named Peter. And poor Peter again, these very hearsay–Gospels tell us, was going on hearsay from certain women; which certain women were going on hearsay from an ‘angel’ it is believed, called “an angel of the Lord” –– an angel that attended the commands of his Lord the Lord Jesus Christ.

And then poor Mark as well as all the other poor mortal and fallible intermediaries, it is believed, was going on what them believers call the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So that that is all and the best them believers have for to claim there were several visits made to the tomb during the morning of the First Day upon which their Lord “appeared risen to Mary Magdalene first” at – or just after – the second last of those claimed visits, and to the rest of those women on – or just after – their last visit to the tomb – according to hearsay.

You see, just because poor Mark “wasn’t even there”, and was not himself an eye–witness of this believed One who on the morning early of the First Day of the week appeared in the flesh, for the last fifteen hours at least, having been, “risen”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pete:

Whenever a post isn't complete on my screen and I have to start scrolling, I usually keep scrolling to the next post.

There's no reason a point can't be made in a paragraph, or two, but then some folks don't seem to know what a paragraph is.

GE:

Ja well, we have become addicts of junk–food theology, obviously.

Goatboy:

Well, I tried once again today to approach that monstrosity of a reply. I think I shall admit “defeat.” Gerhard Ebersöhn, I generally need to read your sentences 3–4 times before I can fully comprehend their meaning, working through that entire post will just be too time consuming. From what I've been able to gather you seem to also attribute positions and ideas to me that I did not intend to imply at all; the task of clarification on top of interpretation is again just too great. Believe me, I'm not trying to “back out” or to offend, it's just a communication issue. In the future, perhaps you might have some compassion for those you discuss with and avoid responding to 500 word posts with 5000 word replies.

GE:

What I usually try to do with such a long 'reaction', is to post it to the answered person personally, for which there usually is a facility, or by private e–mail. But I don't know the mechanism of this

forum. My apologies once again, friends, and thanks for your – let's admit – your 'patient' handling of my defence.

I think you will get the drift of my reasoning much easier from my answer to Zyzzz–something. What did you ask for, Goatboy? A 'succinct' statement? In my posts of before this 'monstrosity', you will also find my ideas formulated quite simply.

It is just this:

There were several visits of the women to the tomb during the course of the Saturday night, and at each visit only an empty tomb was found. At every visit the women received a message from an angel / angels that Jesus had had risen before! Then He appeared to Mary first on the second last of these visits, and to the other women, on the last of these visits, early after sunrise on the Sunday morning.

Implications:

Jesus did not rise any time during that Saturday night or Sunday morning.

Jesus rose as “explained / answered” by the angel of Mt28:5 ––– NOT by the angel of verse 2! The angel of verse 2 (although he could have been the angel of verse 5 and the other Gospels) never spoke to any women; nor was seen by any! The women were not then ‘there, even’! The two Marys also were not ‘then there’, but according to Mt28:1b, then have just “departed” / “started out”, from their abode wherever, “to go have a look at the grave”. “Then suddenly” — when the women departed “there was a great earthquake” — not when they arrived or saw; they never then, ‘arrived’, or, ‘saw’! When the women “departed to go have a look at the grave” and “there was a great earthquake”, Jesus of course rose from the dead and the grave— “at once / suddenly” (‘idou’), “in the twinkling of an eye”— his resurrection being witnessed in the Inner and Most Holy of the Sanctuary of the Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is at this point that you will find the grotesque monstrosities of translators, learned men and the haters of God’s Sabbath, to try and smother these facts under a heap of verbosity. (I have used some terms used by you people, so you can understand me well.)

To close,

The information Mary brought the disciples after her first glimpse of the rolled away stone, was a psychological preparation for what awaited the women as soon as all the others had joined those who had had spices prepared, “so that”, after by midnight the guard would have left, “coming, they might anoint him” (hina elthousai aleipsohsin auton, Mk16:1b). The women still believed the body was intact, although they must have shared Mary’s fears that Joseph and Nicodemus might have taken it away. Mary says she thought the body was taken away – she didn’t say, ‘stolen’; she at no stage said she assumed the body was ‘stolen’. She definitely never said that the body was gone, either. No one knows what Peter and John would have done, had Mary told them the body was certainly gone. If they already were assured they probably would not themselves have run to an empty tomb to make sure about something they already knew and would have believed.

Mary never said that the body was gone, or she would not have persuaded the other women to join her in her errand to go salve the body of Jesus “as women were accustomed to do to their beloved dead”. (Gospel of Peter.) So it came as a great disconsolation to the women when they found the grave not only opened as Mary had told them, but also against their expectations, empty, and the body, gone. They came out of the tomb with “faces (and hearts) bent down to the earth” (Lk24:5a), greatly disappointed. Two angels confront the unbelieving women, and tell them to go rethink Jesus’ words to his disciples before his death. No other Gospel account contains these wise recommendations. The women left the tomb and went and told the disciples, who this time, after they had seen for themselves the body was gone, got impatient with the women, and accused them of “idle tales”. Only separate, consecutive events of the women’s visits at the tomb, explain these smaller as well as bigger aspects and details in their accounting by different Gospel compilers.

No wonder therefore that these very women so blamed for just telling idle tales, went back to the tomb – Mark 16:2–8 – to ascertain their rethinking of Jesus’ words and their findings with their previous visit. They no sooner left completely disorientated and in great fear and obviously ashamed, not even prepared to tell anyone they actually had gone back to the grave as if there was any hope left of finding some answer to their many questions.

The time was ripe that God might intervene! Grace works that way, always. When everything has been given up for hopeless, God reveals his power to bring comfort to his children at their weakest. So, when everybody was totally dismayed and had “fled from the tomb” — “Mary had had stood after, crying.....” John 20:11.

And so it is obvious, the clear way in which the one visit prepared the way for, and gave occasion to, the next. It while uncomplicated and strictly realistic and factual, makes perfect, feeble, human nature, sense. Even in the angels’ ‘witnesses’, this slow but certain and steady development towards the angel’s final revelation of the whole truth to the women’s fullest possible comprehension, can be followed, trace by trace of evidence from one visit, to the next.       

 

31 December 2008, To God alone all honour!

 

 

 

Acts 20:7, ‘They assembled’, or,

‘They being assembling still’?

 

 

Yehushuan wrote:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “Yehushuan, let's hear what our one eyed genius amongst the dumb, deaf and blind, has to say!”

Calling me out eh?  You’d better duck.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: Acts 20:7 does in fact imply, the Lord's Supper, with what is called the Infinitive of Noun Force. But the sentence uses no Indicative finite verb that says, “They assembled for Holy Communion” like one would have done on any normal Day of Christian Worship. No, it uses a Perfect Participle which actually means its very literal and precise rendering with, “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembled–still, Paul discussed matters with them.”“

 

GE:

Luke says, “synehgmenohn”— “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them,

Therefore, let us discuss,

 

YS:

“First, it should be agreed upon that you’re not very good at getting your ideas across, but I’ll ascribe that to the difficulty one normally has with a second language.”

GE:

I don’t believe you. You received my idea across easily enough; that, your words, “Calling me out eh?” proved.

But I don’t deny; I do have difficulty expressing myself in English. So, your sympathies with my language skills to me are in bad taste. (My unassuming ways must be due to my German lineage and heroes, like Karl Barth, who had better and more knowledge and insight in the nail of his left small toe than you have in your big, thick skull.)

 

YS:

“At least we are in agreement that the gathering

they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service as can be seen here:  Acts 2:42 ....”

GE:

Objection! We not in the least “are in agreement .... as can be seen here: Acts 2:42”! 

“That the gathering they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service” I maintain, ‘can be seen’, and must be seen, here: Acts 20:7, and the words, “synehgmenohn hehmoon klasai arton”. It’s not I who am ‘not very good at getting my ideas across’; it’s you who are not able at all to get Luke’s ideas! Deal with the text under consideration; which is Acts 20:7 and context; not the text of eighteen chapters back in Acts!

 

YS:

“KJV And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And described here:

1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

GE:

I have not denied the Holy Communion was the purpose for and the substance of the service IMPLIED in Acts 20:7. In fact, I am the only one who showed how the Lord’s Supper is meant in Acts 20:7 being mentioned in the word ‘synehgmenohn’. I saw, while you clearly missed to see it and still miss to see it; even after you have read my explanation. (I must take for granted, wrongly, obviously, that you have read; how could you have read what I wrote and not have noticed my explanation for the Holy Communion in Acts 20:7? For that was, what I had written!)

In any case, what’s the point in ‘proving’ the Lord’s Supper in these other texts, here, now? I am the one that must tell you to go back to Acts 20:7 to discover the Lord’s Supper, right in there; not you tell me how to find it somewhere else!

 

YS:

“You just seemed to be concerned about the time line, having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul, no?”

GE:

Again it is quite obvious the ease and clarity with which

I come across in my ‘second language’, English, you having caught my idea I concerned myself “about the time line” quite easily enough. No, surely, you did read! But you knew not what you read, obviously. Or no, you must have understood; you’re saying it ––– exactly what I meant, “the time line”. Only problem is, you do not want to see! You won’t budge no inch; because it would mean you must admit you were wrong, and Luke was right. Not that I was right, because I am just telling you what Luke said; just, only, and literally and idiomatically, strictly according to the linguistics of the Greek words used, what Luke said. Do I bring my ideas across clearly enough for you to understand?

Nevertheless, don’t think I cannot perceive your smooth fraudulence.  I nowhere and no how ‘concerned’ myself with showing “(they) having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul”. I somewhere used the word, ‘accidental’; you make me sound if I said ‘intentional’. These things here stated are your statements of untruths; not mine. I made no statement of an untruth; if I did, quote me, and not yourself!

 

 

YS:

“So let’s drill into this verse, Acts 20:7 a bit more where we read (since you used the Westcott Hort text…):
Acts 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου”

GE:

I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

I referred to one word only in the Greek text “συνηγμενων”, and one phrase only, “συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον” ––– which appears just like this in all known ‘texts’ without any variant; as a Participle and an Infinitive of Noun Force! If you cannot get the idea from this phrase, Paul and company observed the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath before ––– mark the quotation marks and the perfect translation of Luke’s phrase: “They on the First Day of the week being together still as having been gathering before for Holy Communion”, don’t try to intimidate me with a few lines of the Greek language you obviously have no clue about! This very instance of your ineptness with the language is a wise warning to you to stick to your own first language, English, my friend!

Mark too, that I say, “phrase”; and not “clause”. Therefore observe, that I do not use a single Indicative Verb, but Participles, only! Why? Because Luke did exactly and unwavering, just, that!  Ja, look at the sentences –––– the only and single, one clause you are here quoting, literally as well as by implication, means, “And on the First Day of the week being together (‘in the Present’ still), having been gathering together for to eat the Lord’s Supper (in the Past already), Paul dealt with them (the individuals of 20:4, on matters of concern).”

The next, proper, clausal ‘sentence’, is, “Μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.”  Meaning:– “Paul, ready in the morning to depart (on his further journey, verses 1–3; 13–17), continued his discussion until midnight.”

 

YS:

“Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:” After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembled–still, Paul discussed matters with them.”

But there are few problems here.”

GE:

Indeed there are ––– gross and immoral ‘problems’, to say the least! You, word for word, misquote me, with the view to mislead and persuade your readers away from what I have said, after what you hold for your own opinion.

I ask you here before all our readers, to quote me where I was “stating”, quoting YOU supposedly quoting ME, “that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”“!!!

Everything I ever said was to show that NO ‘Verb’ ‘assembled’ exists in Acts 20:7! Are you blind? No, you are not blind; that we have seen already. So you must be mischievous. In fact, where you will be able to quote me, it will be seen by anyone willing to see, that I was stating ––– emphatically –––  that the verb “assembled”, in fact, IS, an absolute incorrect and false, ‘rendering’ of the Greek word, ‘synehgmenohn’, because, I, “Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:” After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembled–still, Paul discussed matters with them.”“   I challenge you to prove my phrase, “After having had assembled .... having–been–assembled–still,” is a clause; in other words, that I say, ‘synehgmenohn’, is ––– what you stated it is ––– “the verb “assembled”“!

 

YS:

“First, the word “after” is not in the text. If the author wanted to indicate a time after the stated action (this gathering together) he would have written “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this example:  “μετα δε το εγερθηναι με”  “but, after my having risen,” (Matthew 26:32 Young’s).”

GE:

Ag shame .... must I really react to this shear nonsense that would make you miserably fail first semester Greek – which betrays competence in Greek you would have scored a round zero for at whichever stage of your education???

Compare apples with apples, and not Participles with Infinitives of Noun Force; and not Perfect Participles with Infinitives of Future Noun Force.

Let me tell you a little secret, Yehushuan, If the author wanted to indicate a time ––– a present time ––– after the stated action (this gathering together ––– in the past –––) he would not have written, “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this very implementing of his in Acts 20:7 where he, Luke, used the best of Greek tools, the Perfect Participle, for stating just this idea of a present time, after the stated action of this gathering together in the past!

 

YS:

“But the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …” and hence you cannot add in the word ‘after.’ (Please recall it was you who complained about others adding in words. Best you don’t do that yourself. Yes?)”

GE:

First, where “complained (I) about others adding in words”? It’s impossible to translate without sometimes adding in words, as everyone knows. But too often the lazy or shrewd ‘translators’ would add in words only to propagate their hidden agenda.

Then sure, “the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …”“, because if he did, he would have said the silly thing that ‘After the First Day of the week we being together still having been assembling for Holy communion before Paul addressed them.’

Now what would that, have meant for Sunday–holiness! Reckon, then, the Sundaydarians’ claim of a First Day Lord’s Supper incidence would have been absolutely waterproof!

Poor Yehushuan! Alas, Luke did not employ that added in word, ‘after’!

 

 

YS:

“Second, the prepositional phrase “for Holy Communion” is also NOT in the text. Since you desire a “very literal and precise” translation, you must realize that the author actually penned an infinitive form of the verb “to break” {bread} and did NOT write the noun “Communion. (Don’t demand precision from others if you’re going to be sloppy yourself.)”

GE:

Again, ag shame! But fortunately I have explained to you this before, so need not to repeat myself. And also this is so sloppy, it deserves no answer.

Nevertheless, I could have stressed the relation between the Participle and the Infinitive of Noun Force a little more:

“On the First Day of the week being together (still after) having been gathering together for The To Break Bread (of Holy Communion before on the Sabbath), Paul dialogued with them.”

Yes, the “having gathered together” for this holy purpose, is what makes it beyond a doubt Luke here is speaking of the Lord’s Supper. Like this was no ordinary “breaking of bread”, this also was no ordinary “assembling together”. And in this, I can confidently call on about every good Christian scholar for support.

 

 

YS:

“Looking more closely at this verse, then we see a gathering taking place TO break bread.”

GE:

Yehushuan, why do you go on and on to display your hopeless insight, and zero mastery of the Greek language? We don’t “see a gathering taking place to break bread”; we see the present result of that past gathering to break bread, that had taken place. We see it in the Perfect Participle, ‘synehgmenohn’. 

YS:

“Acts 20:7 YLT And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight.”

GE:

Yes! Young gives a ‘literal’ translation. Asked you him whether he would say this meant the Lord’s Supper, what do you think would he have answered you? I have no doubt what his answer as a believing Christian would have been.

However, Young, despite he called his translation, ‘literal’, is not translating literally whatsoever.

“the disciples”, are ‘added in’ words;

“having been gathered together to break bread,” is omitting half of the full ‘literal’ meaning of ‘synehgmenohn’;

“was discoursing” would have been ‘literal’ if of a Verb in the Present; it is not ‘literal’ of the Verb in the Imperfect. The KJV, “Paul continued his speech”, is a great improvement in literalness on Young’s.

The word “also” is also an ‘added in’ word, totally unnecessary, that destroys the ‘literal’ clausal construction of the separate sentences, fusing them into a single un–literal, sentence.

Which all ––– unintentionally or intentionally, unawares or awares ––– is meant and aimed at creating the idea of a Sunday–case of Christian worship by Young, and, sorry to say, which all is a false motive that resulted in a false ‘translation’ altogether.

“The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination (not its beginning, as according to you and your ‘exampling’) and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses.” To render this linguistic principle or peculiarity in any other language, inevitably shall involve the use of explanatory ‘added in’ words and even added in phrases and clauses. Professor!

 

YS:

“Unfortunately, it absolutely is impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread. If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it. If you read the text closely, you will see they celebrated communion only once, in verse 11. Verse seven declares the intent of the gathering – TO break bread – it can give no indication whether the breaking of bread had

or had not actually occurred.”

GE:

It is not “impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread” because it is implied in the Perfect Participle in combination with the Infinitive of Noun Force ––– which you, confuse for a Present Indicative, finite Verb and Infinitive of Intent. The two things are two different things.

If (as you put it) ‘the gathering .... actually occurred’, with “the intent .... TO break bread”, ‘if you read the text closely, you will’ ask, if it was their intention in the first place, why would they wait until after midnight to begin with the Lord’s Supper?

And why would only Paul ‘eat’ (or just ‘taste’), if it was the Lord’s Supper in verse 11?  

In verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person. Is Holy Communion for “them” or for him, Paul? How does one person only ‘break bread’ and keep Holy Communion? That’s how the Roman Catholics do Mass; not how Christians observe the Lord’s Supper.

But strangest of all if the Lord’s Supper is meant on this Saturday night of the First Day of the week, is, Why no word of Paul’s supposed fervent and prolonged ‘sermon’ is mentioned? No word of his ‘sermon’ and no word from the liturgy of the sacrament; not even an indirect reference to it? It’s simply untenable a notion, and ridiculous.

In verse 7 Luke used the words, “to break bread” in the sense of to keep the Lord’s Supper. In verse 11 he added the word ‘geysamenos’ which means Paul ate his fill, something he himself forbid should be done with the bread of the Lord’s Supper.

And nowhere is wine mentioned, which was as prescribed course of the Lord’s Supper as was the bread, the prayers, the song, and the washing of feet. None of these things mentioned, means none of them was part of Paul’s after midnight early breakfast.

‘Verse seven’, does not only “declare the intent of the gathering – TO break bread”; it’s completely your faulty notion. Verse seven, by the use of the Perfect Participle in conjunction with the Infinitive of Noun Force— in the Plural , ‘declares’ the fact the Lord’s Supper had been observed: the Perfect; no Infinitive per se or Future Participle or even Present Participle or whatever ––– “If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it.” In verse seven something, the Lord’s Supper, is “said to HAVE” been, “done”; it is not said they were “going TO do something”. You don’t understand an Infinitive of Noun Force; and you have no idea of how great a characteristic of the Greek language and idiom it is. It is obvious you have never even heard of it.

 

YS:

“But we do see a verse which speaks about the action of breaking bread. Acts 20:11 YLT and having come up {from finding out about the dead guy}, and having broken bread, and having tasted, for a long time also having talked––till daylight, so he went forth.”

GE:

The more you quote ‘Young’s’, the more evident it becomes how un–literally ––– and incorrectly ––– he ‘translated’;  if I must accept you are quoting Young’s in this instance.

Because where does Luke state that ‘the guy’ was “dead”? Rubbish, man!

Where does Luke make mention of bread being “tasted” or of Paul “having tasted”?

Where does Luke say Paul “talked––till daylight”? ‘Homilehsas’ does not mean to speak; it means to interact with others, for which interaction talking need not be important even.

 

 

YS:

“Rather than speculating that communion took place twice, it is clear that the intention of their gathering was TO perform–communion, and that such took place when mentioned in verse 11.”

GE:

It’s you who are arguing from the supposition “that communion took place”, on the First Day; not me. I contend the Lord’s Supper not at all “took place” ‘on the First Day’; but that it had taken place according to the Perfect Participle ––– according to which it had had occurred before while ‘they (were) being gathered in the Present (still) on the First Day’, and “Paul dialogued with them”.

 

YS:

“Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

GE:

Before you proceed, forget it, if this is what they say, it’s wrong and not true or truth. But you are yet not quoting the “King James” correctly. The KJV says “WHEN came together”, which no finite Verb can be rendered with. “WHEN came together” must be how a Participle may be rendered; unfortunately the KJV does not render the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’ completely, and therefore undeniably is incorrect. No half–fact can be the full fact.

 

YS:

“συνηγμενων G4863 V–RPP–GPM from συνάγω sunago G4863 A. bring together, gather together I. of persons 2. bring together for deliberation or festivity 3. match, pit one against the other 4. bring together, join in one, unite. (We’ll use A. I. 2.)”

GE:

Exactly! Let me repeat again: ‘synehgmenoon’ is no Verb; it is a Participle; not an Indicative, finite, ‘Verb’!  “συνηγμενων .... the Participle, “from, συνάγω ....” the Verb! Can’t you read the word, “from,”?!  

 

YS:

“The conjugation of the Verb is RPP, having a Perfect Aspect; a Passive Voice; and Participle “mood.” Being a participle, it has the declension Genitive, Plural, Masculine to show that the verb represents action done by the “we” (Wescott Hort) or “the disciples” (Textus Receptus). So just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?”

GE:

Timely interruption! You unperturbed go on, calling and treating the word ‘synehgmenohn’ as “the Verb”! It is no Verb; the Verb of the sentence ––– its Predicate ––– is ‘dielegeto’, Singular third Person, Imperfect Indicative, ‘from’, ‘dialegomai’.

 

YS:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together? First, the “perfect aspect” of a verb refers to a current state resulting from a previous action that is relevant to the present position in the story. In this case, the action of gathering was complete by the time Paul speaks, and the state of them

continuing to be gathered is indicated.”

GE:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?” is a full fledged, conjured, lie! ‘Synehgmenohn’ does not stand for “this act of gathering together”. A Participle – any Participle – tells,

1) adjectively HOW a Subject acted, in this case “Paul, (after) they having been assembling (while) being assembling (still) on the First Day, discussed....”;

2) adverbially HOW a Predicate was acted, in this case, “they being together (still) on the First Day (after) having been assembling (before), Paul discussed....”

So then, what you say here, “First ...” etc, is exactly what I say, except ....  except that you corrupt the text once again, you saying, “Paul speaks”. It’s not ‘the time Paul speaks’, Present Tense; it, “in this case”, refers to the original ‘Perfect’  “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”,  “spoke”:– Imperfect, in the past, ‘dielegeto’. ‘Dielegeto’ ––– ‘the time Paul spoke’ having been “our still having been assembling on the First Day of the week”— inevitably, “after” that earlier and original ‘Perfect’  “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”,  “spoke”.

 

 

YS:

“Now there are 417 verbs conjugated as Perfect Passive Participles in the Textus Receptus and 406 in the Westcott Hort, and while I will not pretend to have scrutinized every instance of these (that is, after all, what graduate students are for) I’ve not found one instance where any translator has felt the need to add in the word “after.” (Of course you are welcome to show me one.)”

GE:

I, no graduate student or not, haven’t made of it a study, particularly. But I am able to assuredly state that the concept of ‘after’ shall occur, for it is without exception always implied in cases of the Perfect Participle. Just like I have above every time been able to put my use of such concepts as ‘after’ in brackets, while my statements will make the same and perfect sense without its ‘adding in’ non the less.

I translate maybe the best of the best of first year Greek Grammars, that of JPJ van Rensburg, “The Tempus of the Participium does not in itself express time, but in fact the relation in time between die subservient action which is expressed by the Participium, and the action of the Verb (or Predicate) to which the Participium is subservient. .... Now the Verb of this clause is by English Past Tense, undoubtedly, “Paul spoke”— Lukes does not say ‘Paul speaks’!

The Participium Praesens expresses a subservient action which occurs simultaneously with the main act expressed by the Verb – for which purpose to translate, words like ‘while’ will have to be used. “Tauta legohn akousei” – “While he says it, he listens” ....”. Compare the familiar Scripture, Mt25:10 “while (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bridegroom came”, ‘aperchomenohn autohn agorasai, ehlthen ho nymfis’. 

The Participium Perfectum expresses a condition, which is the result of a subservient action which preceded the main action (“Paul discussed”).” Hence the ‘added in’ words like ‘after’.

Like in the case of the Participium Aoristus, the Participium Perfectum, in order to be translated properly, might find it inevitable to use supplementary words like “after”. “Panta paraskeyasmena legoh” – “I speak after everything had been prepared”.  The Greek language itself, often makes use of adverbial words, ‘added’, like ‘hate’–‘while’; ‘hohs’–‘as when’.

Even a concept like ‘because’, may be necessary to be ‘added’, and in the case of the Perfect Participle in Acts 20:7 may be rendered: “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them.” Because time, with the Participle in Greek, is absolutely relative, and more often than not, cannot be translated without auxiliary words and ways to express the relation implied in the literal Greek.

The Perfect from both ends, looks at both ends, of an action. Simcox (I’m quoting from Dana and Many, p. 201), says, one “ought, in every case, to look for a reason for one tense being used rather than the other”. In the case of Acts 20:7, why is the Participle in the Perfect, and not in the Present – which is used for simultaneous gathering and being gathered? Because in the case of Acts 20:7,

1) no simultaneous gathering together and being together, and

2) no simultaneous gathering together and Paul speaking,

are intended to be made understood, but separate

1) in the past gathering together and

2) in the present being together are being intended to be expressed by use of the Perfect Participle. 

 

YS:

“In addition, may I call your attention to the fact that while the perfect aspect indicates that the action was indeed completed, the verb having such an aspect is sunago (the action of gathering together) not klao (the action of breaking). Don’t you find it interesting that the author did not write “having broken bread” {they spoke with Paul}, but rather, “having gathered to break bread”? The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect.... “

GE:

So that that is a question you should ask yourself, Yehushuan; not me! I find it irrelevant; as you say yourself, “It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect”.

 

YS:

“.... You obviously don’t understand me. The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect, not any act of breaking bread (which doesn’t seem to have happened until mentioned in the list of actions in verse 11, all of which were after “midnight.”).”

GE:

“The only implication of the (past) action in this verse” that remained over in the present, was, “our having been gathering together still”.  The breaking of the bread had been finished by the nature of its case; something they did, and finished with; but the being together still kept on, even for the night.

Have you experienced something like it? I have; a few times, especially at an occasion like “our gathering together for to wed” (wedding) ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn nymfeyoh / gameoh / hymenaio–oh’. (cf. Mt22:8–9) All the guests from far and near would have arrived for the wedding. Then after the wedding had been finished, everyone or only some “having been staying behind”, would ‘visit’ (‘homileoh’) virtually all night. Sometimes – with us –, in the early hours of the morning we would go to sleep; on the couches, on the floor; anywhere. We may even have breakfast or lunch the next day before the guests would go back to their own. The wedding had been over with the day before; but the party went on until the next day. (The party after the actual wedding could go on for days on end! Cf. Mt22:2–3, Jn2:1.)

Grammatically the same situation as in Acts 20:7 can be seen in Jn20:19 / Lk24:34–35 / Mk16:10 “when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews”, and the Emmaus disciples “found the eleven and others with them”, “as they mourned and wept”, “thus having been thronging together still”, and “told them, the things that happened”. The actual ‘coming together’ of the disciples in the upper room, must have had happened long before the point in time the Emmaus disciples “found” them, or “spoke” to them, “while having been thronging together still”.

 

YS:

“But we must back up a bit. In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

GE:

Pure rubbish!   In the first sentence in Acts 20:7, the first and only clause has its noun in the Nominative case in the name of the Subject of “Paul”.

If I were your professor, I give you nil out of ten; nil out of hundred; nil out of infinity; I fail you summarily! I ban you from my classes! How much worse the pretence, you appointed yourself my professor!

 

YS:

“since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case.”

GE:

For crying out loud! ‘The noun’ you got from where? I see a Pronoun, ‘they’ in the English. Who is ‘adding in’ his own surmised words and concepts? Yes, ‘they’ do stand for ‘disciples’, but not even ‘they’, appears properly as a Pronoun in the Greek; it also, necessarily, must be ‘added in’ in the translation, BECAUSE ‘they’ – or rather – “we”, also, is implied, right there inside the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! No, I’ll in disgust leave your classroom and will report you to the dean!

 

YS:

“This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute....”

GE:

I said before, “in verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person”. “The genitive use of the participle is not suitable when the noun [or Pronoun— ‘hehmoon’] that goes with the participle is also the subject, object or indirect object of the main verb ....”, J. W. Wenham, ‘The Elements of NT Greek’.

 

 

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.” 

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, “done”, and, afterwards, going on in its end–result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.”  No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”!   The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”   No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being–gathering–together–still–on–the–First–Day–when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “on–the–First–Day–when–Paul, spoke to them”.

 

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No!  In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.”  All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words ––– “{because}” ––– in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

 

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by “them” (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

 

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' – better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.

You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw–man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

21 January 2009

Acts 20:7 second consideration

 

Yehushuan:

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.

In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.

Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate. Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,”

… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having–been–assembled–still”. Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the –ed to an –ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?

Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having–been–assembled, but having–been–assembled–still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.

The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over. You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having–been–assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious. Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled. BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having–been–assembled–and–still–being–assembled…” and this would result in a translation:

“…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

It seems you wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul . You want the text to say,

“… Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …”

The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

Yes, they were Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled. When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.

Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference. The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled – they were assembled). The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.

In order to remove the “flavour” of time–value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...” The text would then read:

“…in the first of the week Others.Having.Assembled.Us.And.We.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference?

All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”

Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously.

They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me.   But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.”

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, ““done”“, and, afterwards, going on in its end–result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.” No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”! The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being–gathering–together–still–on–the–First–Day–when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “....when, on the First Day Paul spoke to them”.

 

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No! In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.” All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words ––– “{because}” ––– in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

 

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by “them” (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

 

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' – better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.
You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw–man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

 

Now we can begin with your post above.

 

 

 

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the –ed to an –ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Soon you will have explored every linguistic possibility and impossibility for you to make a case of Sunday–worship out of Acts 20:7. The last, before, was the Infinitive; then the Genitive Absolute. Now it's the Passive. Yes, I did see where before you have made mention of the Passive Voice. As if it might make a difference in your favour. But it won't, sorry for you. Because it is meaningless with regards to the fact the disciples “before having been assembling together for to break bread (of Holy Communion) having been assembling together still on the First Day of the week, Paul spoke to them” ––– it just keeps on having an Active meaning and the same old meaning still.

So what's your point with your issue with the Passive? You think that will scare the lion out of the bush?

 

 

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the –ed to an –ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Yehushuan, your answers keep on completely to ignore the fact THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THIS 'VERB' YOU KEEP ON REFERRING TO: “.... the verb in question is passive.....”. IT IS ‘such imprecision’ OF YOURS, that ‘will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?’

Sigh! Why do I torture myself like this?

But let us take your reply from the beginning; I’ll try to be orderly. So here’s what you’re now saying,

 

 

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,”  .… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having–been–assembled–still”.

GE:

First, you never said “had gathered” or whatever to the effect? You forgot what you have been arguing over and over and I over and over told you, was wrong?

You never used the word or words, “They assembled”? Besides you constantly speaking of ‘the Verb’, what about these instances .....

1)  “Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:”

..... or are these not your words?

2)  “Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

..... or was it not you who used others’ use of it?

Or is ‘gathered’ not the same as ‘assembled’?

3)  “The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

..... or does a Participle mean an “action” like a Verb means an “action” ––– I mean, for you?

4)  “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

..... or does the Present Continuous cancel out the fact it’s the Verb to gather?

5)  And right here now, and many times else, where you are telling me, “Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the –ed to an –ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

..... or isn’t “the verb in question”, “assembled” / “gathered”, in view of the fact ‘synehgmenohn’ is a Participle and not a Verb?

Your whole argument you base on wrongly considering the Participle like “the action” of a finite, Indicative ‘Verb’. You yourself from the outset are so destroying your own argument. You have no case with which even to begin an argument for “the disciples’ gathering .... in the first day”, a Verb not being a Participle man! Get it into your head!

 

 

 

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn, I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.”

GE:

I give up! How can you say you are ‘perplexed’, but give me a clear explanation of your clear ‘understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect’, of, “.... this .... description .... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect”“?

You think I would loose focus? Because why do you pretend to have lost focus all the time? Just listen to yourself: “.... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described is complete”.

It’s not an “action”, “described”, “complete”! It is an “action”, only, implied, as, “complete”— the implication “they before having been assembling together (which action) having had relevance to the Breaking of Bread”;

It is not a “completion”, “said”, but a “completion” implied with the use of the Participle, a ‘completion still having relevance to the ongoing story’ of Paul’s speaking to the disciples.  It involves the difference between a Participle and a Verb, which difference you not accidentally, but intentionally, don’t ignore, but underhandedly smother because it proves you a fake. 

 

YS:

“In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.”

GE:

Which I never meant to make an issue of. It’s you who ‘rambles’ on and on for no reason. In my OP I make NO case of the disciples who were hiding behind closed doors; I referred to this Scripture because of its use of the Perfect Participle in there; you recognise it? Now answer me again!

But you are the professor remember; not me; so instruct you, me, better, kindly.

 

YS:

“Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate.”

GE:

At last you woke up to your own voice.

 

 

YS:

“.... Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb  συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having–been–assembled, but having–been–assembled–still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.”

GE:

No, it’s you, who “keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having–been–assembled”; I don’t anything about a ‘verb’, ‘συνηγμενων’ that does not even exist! If a ‘Verb’, the ‘word’ would not have been “συνηγμενων”; it would have been ‘synagoh’. Now it isn’t, ‘synagoh’ the ‘Verb’; it’s ‘συνηγμενων’, the Participle.

It’s true I “keep asserting that the”  the Participle ‘συνηγμενων’, “means having–been–assembled”. I also think it is virtually impossible to make difference between “having–been–assembled”, and “having–been–assembled–still”, only that “having–been–assembled–still” is truer to the real meaning of the Participle which more strictly should be rendered, not, “having–been–assembled”, but, “having–been–assembling”.

Which is the reason why I “chang(ed) the –ed to an –ing.”  Because such strictly correct ‘precision’, certainly helps us understand the facts, now, not so? And so I in fact ‘changed’ nothing, but rendered only the real and true meaning of the Participle, “συνηγμενων”. (Cf. Marshall, Nestle’s Interlinear.)

 

 

YS:

“The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over.”

GE:

What on earth could be “The problem”, with “adding the  (relevant) word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action....”?  “This Greek idea” you will find in every Greek Grammar— only where it deals on the Perfect or Perfect Participle!

But notice your, “artifact” (sic.) Yeyushuan! Notice that you, “by adding”, “to the action about to be described”, have ‘created a linguistic artefact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was’ .... about to begin; was “about to be described”, in the words “Paul spoke to them”! (You contradict yourself. You have just alleged Communion wasn’t implied in verse 7, but only started in verse 11.)

 

 

YS:

“You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having–been–assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

GE:

No! I have answered this nonsense of yours. I am not going to repeat. Go back and read what I have told you, Professor! (Or should I rather address you with, ‘Impostor’?)

 

YS:

“So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious.”

GE:

Now what are you arguing about?! Everything except what you have argued about yet!

 

YS:

“Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled.

GE:

For heavens’ sake! So what “is inaccurate”, what is so “curious”, about my “addition of the word “still”“, when I wrote, “They being assembling still”?

When you say, “Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled”, it must be OK; but when I say the very same thing, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and say things that are not written.

What’s the difference between “the verb συνηγμενων” to “mean having–been–assembled” and “having–been–assembled–still”, except that the phrase is better with the word ‘still’ than without it?

What else would “Yes .... this too would seem obvious .... they were still assembled .... they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”“ mean, than “.... that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”?  Your very own finding!

But when I say it, I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis” – your ‘hypothesis’ you yourself have just arrived at in the affirmative but would not admit because it implies “that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul.”  How well you understand; how precisely have you explained the working of the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! But refuse to see with the eye of faith!

However, it’s not so that I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support (my) hypothesis”. Firstly, I do not “insert different clauses out of sync”; I only ‘insert’ what is required, for clearer meaning; a word or two perhaps, or at most some phrase or phrases; but no “clauses” in order to create an independent sentence like you do— a sentence that says “They on the First Day assembled / gathered / acted getting together to break bread.”

It’s not so, that I, “wish to break this verb in half” (Again, I do not ever, treat ‘synehgmenoon’ as a “verb”!), but it is people who want to create a case for Sunday–worship from it, who do. They recognise only the first and previous ‘half’–circumstance implied in the Perfect Participle, and confuse it for the last, resultant, ongoing ‘half’–circumstance implied in it. People like you use only the first and past–‘half’ implied in this Perfect Participle, and ignore the latter, present–‘half’ implied in it, namely, the resultant ongoing circumstance of “having been assembling still”.

This latter, resultant, ongoing, present–‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, the circumstance of “our having been assembling still when”, was the ‘half’ of it ‘still’ applying “on the First Day of the week”,  and when “Paul spoke to them”.

The past and initial ‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, “our before having had been assembling”, gets ignored dead! But one hasn’t said anything until one has said everything the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ has to say.

To hush “our having been assembling still when” / “they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”“, and to shout “our before having had been assembling (for to break bread)” only, is telling no accidental half truth, but a full error.

Or worse by far is it to treat the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ as if it were a Verb, and to say, “They on the First Day assembled / were assembled to break bread when Paul spoke to them”, because then the error has become intentional and most wicked lie.

Then blindly to go on defending that lie .... well ....

 

YS:

“You want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse) 

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …”“.

GE:

You have a very bad memory when it suits you, Yehushuan! I refer you to your statements:

“The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day).”;

“In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them.”.

Therefore, again, it’s not I who “want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse) 

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …”“— it’s you!

I not once, alleged “Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them”, because I would never like you do, use “assembled”, an Indicative Verb, for ‘synehgmenohn’, a Participle; I would never like you do, use “was speaking” a Present Verb, for “spoke”, an ordinary Past Tense Verb for the Imperfect, ‘dielegeto’ here in context in Acts 20:7.

 

YS:

“The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

GE:

And so you have been talking of yourself, to yourself, my dear fellow.

 

YS:

“BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having–been–assembled–and–still–being–assembled…” and this would result in a translation,  “…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”“

GE:

‘BUT’, isn’t this, “Paul was speaking”, what you have just accused me of doing so absolutely by default? What is it with you? Where has your short term memory gone to?

And where has your memory gone to that exactly this, “…in the first of the week we having been assembling (in the first place, past circumstance,) to break bread, and still being assembling (in the resultant present ongoing circumstance), Paul spoke with them”? Don’t you remember, once again, I did not say, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, Luke did not write, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, it’s you who says, “Paul was speaking”?

And since when are you admitting Holy Communion spoken of in verse 7? Don’t you remember you until now have been maintaining Holy Communion is spoken of for the first time in verse 11?

 

YS:

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled  When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

GE:

Have I ever said differently? This is what I, have said, and have argued for, every inch of the way: “Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.” But I have also consistently and unwavering said and argued, “Yes, they were having been assembled”— When? before when “they were .... still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) in the first of the week” and before when “Paul spoke to them”!

 

YS:

“Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

GE:

Ja, not exactly. It’s so easy to leave out indispensable factors and aspects concisely implied but nevertheless very thoroughly implied in the single word of the Perfect Participle. You try to fuse the past and the present aspects of the Perfect Participle into one, thus confusing the differently related things of both the breaking of bread and Paul’s speaking into the single time space of the last and ongoing resultant time aspect of the Perfect Participle, of when the disciples “were still being gathering together and Paul spoke to them”. You will not allow the breaking of bread its own time aspect of belonging, the initial and past stage or aspect of the disciples’ “having been assembling (originally)”, “(before) their / our having been assembling (after still)”, “and Paul spoke to them”— “spoke”, the only, ‘Verb’ of the sentence. 

Letter for letter literalness won’t help for idiom and syntax. It may only confuse, as is obvious from your struggling here. But admit to truth – simple, common sense truth – Yehushaun would rather die than admit.

 

YS:

“But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference.”

GE:

Would the Perfect then convey a Present aspect of ‘tense’? Of course the Perfect – whether Verb of Participle – conveys time–aspect or in English, ‘Tense’! The Perfect though, in fact conveys dual time–aspect— the first, past: ‘past’ in aspect and time and tense; nothing continuous or ongoing still can be ‘perfect’. The second, ongoing, resultant, ‘present’ aspect or time or tense, even also in a ‘Past Tense’ sense of a ‘perfect’, ongoing condition. Like the Present Past or Past Present in the English language or in any language for that matter. It’s a linguistic phenomenon that cannot be done without. It’s easy; not difficult. If it’s difficult, you don’t understand it yet. And so is our case in hand. The Perfect Participle of Acts 20:7 cuts both ways, implying two time–aspects and relating to two different (impossibly at once) actions, the passed Past of “having” or “being (originally) assembling”, and the resultant ongoing Past of “having” or “being assembling (still)”; the first, when “to break bread”, the last, “when Paul spoke to them”.

 

YS:

“The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled – they were assembled).”

GE:

Yehushuan, in the Passive Voice, the Subject receives the action. “I am surprised” ––– ‘I surprise’ as some languages may have it. No one else do my surprising for me. Who do you think, did the disciples’ assembling for them? ‘Synehgmenohn’ is not a passive with direct or impersonal agent. Maybe ‘synegmenohn’ can be viewed as a Deponent, that is, a Participle with Passive form, but active meaning. If “the disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others”, then it would not have been the disciples who assembled or who were assembled, but some others who assembled or were assembled, and Luke would not have been able to write “WE, being assembling”! I don’t want to be rude, but you should catch up your junior school level grammar.

 

YS:

“The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.”

GE:

You are speculating out of touch with Greek idiom. And I cannot see at all, “the assembling” in both its time–aspects of past perfect and present continuous perfect is clearly in the first day of the week”. By nature of its dual time–aspect, the past ‘half’ must have gone before the ongoing resultant ‘half’.  I can clearly see how the disciples’ “still having been assembling”, was “on the First Day”; but not how the Perfect aspect of their “having been assembling” in the first place, could also have been at the same time of “on the First Day”, because the Perfect demands “having been assembling together” originally should have been before “still being assembling”, as well as before, “on the First Day”.

To me, here it is clear the implied original act with which their “having been assembling” had or was begun, was before, their “on the First Day having been assembling still”.

 

YS:

“In order to remove the “flavour” of time–value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...”

GE:

It’s not for you or anyone else “to remove the “flavour” of time–value” of the Perfect, mate! Are you the creator of the Greek language? You cannot sense the most basic ‘flavours’ of linguistics generally, what decide to get rid of what to you is the unsavoury flavour of “time–line” in the Greek Perfect Participle.

You make a lot of noise against ‘adding in’ necessary words, but cut and “drop” indispensable words for a correct understanding and pure ‘flavour’ of the language at will ‘in order to’ say your own unimaginable sottish things like “others having assembled us”.

 

YS (unperturbed):

The text would then read: “…in the first of the week Others Having Assembled Us And We Still Being Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference? All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”.

GE:

Well, thanks, Yehushuan. That just about explains everything; what exactly, I shall rather leave unsaid.

 

YS:

“Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously. They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me.

But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

 

GE:

No comment. Comment impossible.

25 January 2008

Gerhard Ebersöhn

 

PS

Dana and Mantey,

182, “(the) basal significance (of the Perfect ‘Tense’) is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination [[or stopping]] and the existence of its finished results. … It implies a process as having reached its consummation and [[then as to continue]] existing in a finished state. The point of completion is always antecedent to the time implied or stated in connection with the use of the Perfect. It may be graphically represented thus: ___ . –––––”. Gildersleeve says it “looks at both ends of the action”“.

183, “In the indicative the perfect signifies action as complete from the point of view of present time. Its exact meaning is often difficult to render, because of a blending of the sense with the English simple past. ... the confusion arises from the effort to explain the Greek in terms of our own idiom. It is best to assume there is a reason for the perfect wherever it occurs ...

The fundamental difference between the perfect  (more restricted in use than the parallel English tense) and aorist (much wider in range than the English simple past) is vividly illustrated in Col.1:16. We have first the statement, en autohi ektistheh ta panta, “all things were created by Him”, which simply notes the fact that Christ was the active agent in creation, while the last clause, ta panta di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai, “all things through Him and unto Him  have been created”, views the universe as a result of Christ’s creative activity – it is a ‘Christ–created universe’.”

 

184, “The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its use.”

224, “The term ‘Participle’ … includes nearly all parts of speech EXCEPT VERBS …”.

(Emphasis CGE)

The ‘translation’ presented by yourself renders the participle synehgmenohn as if it were an active, Indicative Verb. Fact is, the disciples did NOT on the First Day “assemble” for Holy Communion. The fact they “assembled”, is IMPLIED – not stated! And because implied through a Participle of the Perfect Aspect of Action, the implicated result is the disciples did not come together at the time of their still having been together on the First Day of the week. They therefore had to have assembled on the day before – “antecedent” – which happens to be the Sabbath Day as always.

 

John Calvin (Emphasis GE):

Calvin:

7. And in one day. Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, (Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place . . . . they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. . . .”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts 20,7, The Third Struggle

 

Yehushuan

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I see you managed to get the previous discussion on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in)

Not wishing you to think you were being ignored, I would at least like to comment on this one rather peculiar phrase you used – “Infinitive of Noun Force.”

From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of “Infinitive of Noun Force” with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.”

Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to “Infinitive of Noun Force,” (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, “Infinitive of Noun Force,” seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).

So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”:

M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself,” one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself,” ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).

 

Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).

Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive absolute), I provide the following:

Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as “to loosen” in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.

In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.

And while the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled “for communion.”) And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.

Kindly,

Yehu

PS:

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

No, from your use of the word “we”.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembled–still, Paul discussed matters with them.”

The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.

(I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)

 

GE:

The best answer to your ‘arguments’, YS, is to let you give it yourself. I have not before met an opponent so persistent, headstrong and proud in his ignorance. I have never seen someone so blind in his blindness to his own folly. I have never seen a dead horse being beaten so, Yehushuan, by his own master, than yours.

But not everyone who might read our debate, may pretend to be so informed as you pretend to be. For their sakes therefore, I am obliged to answer you once again. Otherwise I would not further have wasted time on you or your ‘benevolent intent’. You think I trust you? I pray the readers won’t. You could only help them from the edge of the cliff, off and down it.

 

YS:

“Mr. Ebersöhn, I see you managed to get the previous discussion on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in.)”

GE:

I didn’t lock it down; the moderators did; maybe in sympathy with your agony. Obviously you suffer none; I no longer could be surprised. If you put in less of your own mighty works and listened to others a little, you might still have suffered, but to your own improvement.

 

YS:

“From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of “Infinitive of Noun Force” with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.”“

GE:

No, YS, from your posts, it is clear you, confuse the Infinitive of Noun Force for “something you” – not I –, “call the “Infinitive of Intent””.

 

YS:

“Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to “Infinitive of Noun Force,” (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, “Infinitive of Noun Force,” seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).” 

GE:

“.... since you used Luke 4:21 as an example”— I, “used Luke 4:21 as an example”? As an example of what? I can categorically state I did nothing of the sort!

But credit to you at last, for admitting you “being unfamiliar with both phrases”. But ploughed in another examination, you being unable to point out the Perfect Participle in Luke 24 to which I was referring, mistaking “πεπληρωται” for it; and that, after I g–a–v–e it to you. I never asked you to identify “πεπληρωται”, and I, never claimed “πεπληρωται” is “an infinitive”. Now you try make me, look like the town’s simpleton.  

From a basis where one admitted “being unfamiliar with” the things in question, one might have reached some intelligent apprehension. But whereas you from the outset was of the opinion you already knew better than anybody else, I’m afraid we were doomed to be disappointed, and I am not at all surprised by your veering away from the subject–matter to your inventive lightning–deflector, “as an example .... πεπληρωται”. I made no reference to this word. Why you do, only you would know.

 

YS:

“So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”....”

GE:

What a compliment to me, Yehushuan, you thought the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force was “some kind of.... unique.... personal creation of” mine, of ‘a grammatical concept in normal linguists’— which indeed it is, and which makes it the more confusing why you “used Luke 4:21 as an example” and observed, “but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive”?

Only because you don’t know what you are talking of or are dealing with— which is thus obvious again in your quoting, “M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek” totally out of context and irrelevantly. I can see it without having seen it. You can’t see it although you have seen it. There’s the difference between us!

 

So you blunder on, “Since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although....”

1)  you, ‘found’ abstract reference to but one ‘Koine Greek linguist’ while you stayed ignorant as to so many other ‘Koine Greek linguists’ who do ‘recognize the existence of such’ as the Infinitive of Noun Force; and 

2)  you, yourself, ‘found’ “one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”“ which says nothing for or against “the existence of such” as The Infinitive of Noun Force.

I think it might be wise of you to ‘strive for simplification of analytical expression’ and to go to the library to find some recognised Greek grammarians on this issue, before you embrace your own erroneous conceptions for examples of precision.

Besides, I am not concerned with “grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists”. I deal with ‘Greek linguistics’, in this case, with the linguistic peculiarity of the Greek language of the ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’.

And may I suggest you stay by printed books on Greek linguistics, and forget ‘googling’. (Nevertheless I am pleasantly surprised “both of .... (the) two references to “Infinitive of Noun Force”“ you could find through your ‘googling’,  were mine. Thanks; I did not know.)

However, that does not mean anything like you decided it should, “It is obvious, then .... “Infinitive of Noun Force,” seems to be some kind of personal creation of (mine)”. Your conclusion non the less only proves the poor research you have done.

I shall be considerate out of bounds for myself and – to see if it’s “some kind of personal creation of” mine or not –, shall refer you to a ‘reference to ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’ from the most understandable Greek Grammar I have come across, that of ‘Dana and Mantey’,

“The Infinitive is an indeclinable Noun .... in historical Greek is used in all Cases .... The Infinitive is a Substantive expressing an act or state ....”. So  “an observation of Webster”, from D&M, “.... an incomplete idea .... supplemented by the epexegetical infinitive, expressive of object, design, purpose”.

 

This is why D&M, IV,187,  could declare, “Intelligent expression inevitably occasions at times the naming of an action with substantival relations in a sentence. Here we have noun and verb occupying common ground. This may sometimes be expressed by an ordinary noun of action, but is more forcefully expressed by a verbal substantive. For this function the chief device of language is the Infinitive, which doubtless reached its highest known stage of development and variety of usage in the Greek language.”  (Emphasis GE)

 

 

YS:

“M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.”

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself,” one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself,” ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).”

 

GE:

All this tells me is you are still battling to understand the Passive. I am not sure; all I’m sure of is, this is as much worth to the issue of the ‘existence’ and validity or not of the Infinitive of Noun Force as you being my helper to understand it.

In any case, this is fantastical surmising, “.... this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form.” “The infinitive no longer used”? Yehushuan, I don’t think M. Z. Kopidakis would accept this gracefully! You see, you’re like a bull that storms a china shop; you don’t notice or mind that you overthrow everything in your way. So did you overthrow what MZK stated in full, “The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced....”. You never noticed the word ‘likewise’? You tell me you didn’t! ‘Likewise’, that is, ‘like’, “gradually” – not instantaneously, but also and more so, not completely! Not totally, because to this day the Infinitive has not been ‘replaced’, completely. I don’t know if MZK is still with us; I never knew about his ‘Introduction’. But if he still lives, please write him a letter and tell him I dare say he never intended to say ‘replaced’ completely, but only to an extent.

And here, with complements of the occasion, to Yehushuan, is a good example of how I think the Infinitive of Noun Force in the English language would be looking like, if I said,  ‘I carried the sword of the word for to cut the nerve of his surmising.’ 

 

 

YS:

“Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).”

 

GE:

Yes, I would, but not only for the reason “that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”, but mainly because the Participle with which the Infinitive is combined through immediate context, is Perfect, with its dual time–aspect of ‘past’ as well as resultant ongoing past ‘present’. Just to keep proper perspective, please.

However, let us also keep in mind the actual state of things here, that (like also the Participle) the Infinitive, is no ‘Verb’, but rather functions as a Noun! So, you’re already wrong to say, “the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”.

Rather, this meaningful combination of both the Aorist Infinitive and the Perfect Participle, even more emphatically implies “that communion had already occurred since the [Infinitive] is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).”   Yehushuan, you have again helped me to see better, and in better perspective than I before did see. I have until now just overlooked the fact the Infinitive was Aorist. Thank you.

But before we leave from this scene, once again a correction. You say, “Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….”“   No. You do not understand me correctly. I would rather see this phrase properly ‘translated’, ‘literally’, that is, as I have said, with both its time–aspects given their rightful weight or worth,  first, past: “We, while having had been assembling to brake bread (“to have broken bread”)....” next, ongoing in the past present, “.... and while after having had been assembling still….”. I want it ‘translated’ in full and to full implication of its dual time–aspect. The KJV does not do it; the KJV verges on the edge of making of the Participle an Indicative Verb. (It daringly hovers over the ‘finite’ brink of the abyss, instead of to keep wise distance from it. See Marshall trying to do it, and I think, succeeding to an extent.)  The KJV therefore in my opinion is plainly wrong, though not as intentionally wrong as virtually every modern ‘translation’ is, which / who consciously omit mention of the past and Perfect implication of “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them”. How does one separate the two aspects? I find it impossible. The Perfect, Participle, Aorist and Infinitive together, will not allow any time–aspect (“time–line”) be separated from the rest together. But we modern people are too lazy and hasty, so that although there is nothing wrong with it, “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them” to us sounds clumsy and too taxing to maintain our attention.

 

YS:

“Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive absolute), I provide the following....”

GE:

Speak for yourself, yes!

 

YS:

“Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as “to loosen” in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.”

GE:

So what have we actually learned? I guess that in Acts 20:7 the Infinitive being and Aorist, might better express a Lord’s Supper of the past than an ongoing one of the present, and therefore a Lord’s Supper not while Paul spoke to them on the First Day while they were being assembling still, but rather a Lord’s Supper while they before were having been assembling. Just what I have tried to say all the time, and what you denied.

 

YS:

“In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.”

GE:

Yehushuan, you don’t write your quotation marks; so who is now speaking, “Clayton Croy” in his “Primer of Biblical Greek“, or you?  I would say it’s you because to say “klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular” (sic.) is so evidently contradictory, I cannot think it was Croy who wrote it.

If ‘punctiliar’ “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, then I would be unable to tell what would. Dana & Mantey actually say it is almost inevitable to translate the Aorist with Past Perfect in English.

I recommend, avoid the word ‘punctiliar’ and instead use the words ‘constative’ and ‘ingressive’. They are much clearer and understandable ––– to me in any case ––– (and spell easier). Be that as it may, fact about the Aorist is, it exactly conveys typical Greek “time information” to indicate that action had been accomplished.

Most ironic that you are the one who brought the Aorist aspect about this Infinitive to the fore; now are the one who tries to wangle its meaning to suit your lost case of a Lord’s Supper indicated by an Aorist Infinitive “klasai”, that “does not indicate action that had been completed”, and that “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, but must have been ongoing. Which is just ugly, wrong, and false, but spot on correctly exposes you for the linguistic conman you are! 

Once again as well, you should be asked, since when do you propagate the Lord’s Supper from verse 7? You previously denied it, and insisted the Lord’s Supper only ‘exists’ from verse 11 on. So even your inconsistency is consistently fraudulent.

 

YS:

“While the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled “for communion.”) And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.”

GE:

So we’re back to square one. There’s no ‘clause’ here, if a ‘clause’ means a phrase that contains a Verb, because there is no Verb involved in this phrase. YS can still not perceive it. 

And now, ‘since it’, ‘it’, the phrase ‘klasai arton’?, “fits into the construct of the genitive absolute....”? How does ‘klasai arton’, ‘fit into’, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’? It rather, ‘links up’ with it, I would say. So, alright, since ‘klasai arton’ fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’, what was your, conclusion? “The disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread.”  There you say it yourself, they ‘did’. But again you suppress all the other factors of the reality implied in verse 7, that they were not presently and ongoing ‘assembl–ing for the purpose of breaking bread’, but “While we before were in the past assembling for to Break Bread, and on the First Day were presently and ongoing assembling still, Paul spoke to them”.

You straight on commences with your old story, “And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.” ‘Synehgmenohn’ is no Verb!  And back again to no Lord’s Supper in 7, only in 11. You are a hopeless case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?” 

No, from your use of the word “we”.”

GE:

From my use of the word “we”? So does the TR not have ‘synegmenohn’, because ‘synehgmenohn’ says ‘we’? So does the TR not have ‘hehmohn’, because ‘hehmohn’ says ‘we’? 

 

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembled–still, Paul discussed matters with them.”  The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

(Thanks for the opportunity and please allow me to improve what I have written here, to make it read, “After having been assembling for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having–been–assembling still, Paul discussed matters with them”, only to be more correct ‘technically’, thanks.) 

 

YS:

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

I have made double sure; I looked up Nestle Aland’s ‘codices’. I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”–‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa. 

Yehushuan, The TR has ‘hehmohn’; so does NA. I don’t know about W&H, if they have it. It is this Pronoun that implies ‘us’, ‘the disciples’. The Textus Receptus does NOT “have the words “the disciples”“! 

Honestly and earnestly, Yehushuan, for your own sake, stay away from Greek linguistics and for that matter from all linguistics; you’re just not up to it, my boy.

 

1 February 2009

 

 

 

YS:

Ebersöhn,

Despite your rude and obnoxious bitter old man behaviour, I took the time to find the evidence you demand. The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE, which you may download for free at: http://www.lulu.com/content/731315

Now unless you’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick you, I don’t expect THIS source to be challenged without adequate PROOF from you. (And I’m certainly NOT going to buy a plane ticket for you to travel and see the manuscript with your own eyes.)

As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, “σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος” (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)


Image


I expect an apology. (And we’ll know just what type of Christian you are from how you respond to this.) 

 

The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc.

I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest, and since YOU have overtly declared that I don’t know what I’m talking about I would suggest that any honest person would surf the above link, download the file (save as target) and actually READ page 362 (it’s near the bottom).

Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).

Yehushuan

 

PS: The entire forum can now judge just who isn’t “up to it.”

 

GE: 

Whose handwriting is this?

Was Acts written in 1522?

Scrivener ––– Erasmus ––– what's the difference? Both are THEIR 'New Testaments' ––– neither are the manuscripts; and the actual sources of the TR are manuscripts ––– written perhaps two to six centuries AD, but not in the sixteenth century!

O Lord, it's hard to be humble!

 

For those who might be interested.

Yehushuan’s own referred to source, reads,

“Erasmus' third printed edition of Greek New Testament published in 1522. Colophon to Apocalypse contains the date 1522 but the Introduction says 1518. It contains both the Greek and the Latin (Erasmus' own translation) texts in parallel columns.

This is the first printed edition of Greek NT to contain the Comma Johanneum (1Jo5:7–8), howbeit in a rather unusual form. ....  This edition was used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (1526), by Stephanus as a base for his 1550 edition and by the translators of Geneva Bible and KJV.”

 

The mss of the Geek NT can, according to content, be divided mainly into two different groups: a) the ‘Majority Text’ or Byzantium text, about 5200 mss and about 99 percent of which very closely resemble each other; and b) the group of mss that contain the main differences, about 50 of them or 1% of all mss. About 600 mss are capital letters, and the rest are minuscule. 

The history of the Greek text from about the fifth century AD for approximately fifteen centuries was dominated by the Majority Text or Textus Receptus. It originated over a vast area north and east of Egypt.

Erasmus wrote his GNT using these mss, and Tyndale wrote his English Bible using Erasmus’ GNT while he for every word and phrase tried to keep to the manuscript readings itself. Tyndale mostly had to work in exile, so how available the real mss were to him, I cannot tell, but he in the end could witness that he translated no single word against his conscience –––– a conscience he most certainly did not weigh against the work of another man, Erasmus, but must have weighed against this centuries old and used source of the original manuscripts, which by the time Tyndale translated his NT, was long known already by the collective name of the Textus Receptus ––– later called the Majority Text.

So do I understand things, and so have I maintained throughout this childish bickering about the fatuous and inflated issue about the presence or not of the words ‘the disciples’ in Acts 20:7 in the TR which was started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

 

JB:

Interesting read:  So are you saying that you trust this heinz 57 text?

GE:

As I very clearly said, I am no scholar; least in the field of Text and Text criticism. Therefore, I do not understand what you are saying or might be insinuating. All I say is, the TR _is_ NOT, that which is, 'Erasmus', or, that, which is, anybody else's 'NT' based upon 'Erasmus'. So, 'the disciples' or no disciples, it's immaterial! And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering “_of us_”, and “_we_” is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.

That, I do trust, yes!

 

2 February 2009

 

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering “_of us_”, and “_we_” is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.
That, I do trust, yes!

You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: When I speak of the TR I have in mind that of Erasmus, which, if I am not mistaken, Tyndale translated from.

I gave you both the link AND provided the picture of the actual publication used by Tyndale as published by Erasmus. You can plainly see the words “the disciples” even with your bad eyesight.

Hard to be humble? You don’t even know the meaning of the word.

So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it?

 

Prove it. I mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)

First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)

So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:…started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.

And I formally request of the Father that he hold your feet to the fire for the sake of saving your own soul. (May you be delivered from the pathetic bitter old man syndrome that has you in bondage.)

Yehushuan

 

GE:

3 February 2009

 

 

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I have been trying to follow this discussion and maybe I missed a few ideas, but I am a simple fella. Just out of curiosity, do you prefer the Byzantine writings over the Alexandrian writings? If so why?  Thanks in advance for your response.

By the way, Yehu has thumped on me a few times in Greek discussions. But to be honest I had it coming. But at the same time I learned quite a bit as a result of it.

GE:

But JB, please tell me what you mean with “this heinz 57 text”?   Thanks

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: But JB, please tell me what you mean with “this heinz 57 text”?

The phrase “heinz 57” is an American colloquialism, meant to express a condition similar to the word “mutt” or “mongrel” – saying that an item is all mixed up having numerous and conflicting varieties of everything all at once, as if a cook took each of the 57 Heinz products (ketchup, mustard, relish etc.) and put it all together in the same pot.
Hope that helps.

Yehu

(One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history.)

 

JB:

The Lord has laid it on my heart to write this post and I am not sure why but I must be obedient to this prompting. I participate in several forums and have had the privledge to get to know and to debate with many people. But in all the time that I have participated in these forums, there is only one person that I haver come to know on a very personal level. That person is Yehu. I consider him a very close friend. We have not only battled on the forum but we have fellowshipped at the dinner table. I believe that Yehu is one of the humblest men that I have ever met but at the same time very exacting. What I mean by exacting is his sense for detail. We have cried together and laughed together. We have shared victories together and failure together. I have grown to respect him and appreciate his concern for peoples relationship with Christ. I love Yehu and I deeply respect his commitment to the study of Gods word. I have learned more through discussion with him than all the time that I spent in college. And I thank God for him and I thank him for that. God has used Yehu in my life in a mighty way. we may disagree from time to time but for the most part I believe that we both serve the same God.

Thank you Yehu for your commitment and your influence in my life.

JB

 

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I believe that Yehu nailed it down for me. Since business has been good and I don't find a lot of personal time, I find it difficult to respond quickly to questions on this forum.

I believe that there were several ideas in the translation process. One of which is the accumulation of many texts from various regions of the world and then are compared. The translators then take what they believe is the best idea and that becomes the translation.

With the advent of the printing press and the need for greed, there was a race that took place to print the first Greek text available to the public on a mass scale. Unfortunately, the race was about money and not the scriptures. Another unfortunate event was that many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed and many of these first mass produced manuscripts were littered with error. What I find most concerning is the fact that after the first production of this Greek text, a much earlier text was recovered and when it was compared to this mass produced text there were many differences. But since this was the standard, these mass producers continued to produce this Heinz 57 text and it became more ingrained in people that this was the original text. To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today.

This is what I mean by the heinz 57 text.

 

 

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn,  All you needed to say was, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’.”

But you see this isn’t about ME being right. (So why did I press the point?) This is about you being unable to admit you’re ever wrong, because if you did admit you were wrong in this one point, you might also start to wonder if you might be wrong about your basic premise. (And heaven help us we couldn’t have that, could we?) It would be very sad were you to realize that your entire ministry is quixotic. That your mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Saturday is something God doesn’t really care about. You might realize that it’s your mission, not His. (I feel for you.)

But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.

It’s hard for you to mount a convincing argument against this based upon the Greek text when you also admit that you have no training in Greek translation. Suffice it to say, your arguments are not convincing. Nor have your insults to my person been beneficial in convincing others.

I’ve shown that you invented a term unknown to any other linguist. I’ve shown that the perfect aspect describes that it was their gathering together which is to be seen as completed action, not their breaking of bread. I’ve shown the initial phrase of verse seven conforms to the genitive absolute which in turn prohibits a conclusion that communion was completed. And if nothing else, the text clearly shows they broke bread in verse 11. What more can be said?

Now I’m not sure what resources you have at hand nearby where you live, but it may be of great benefit were you to toddle on down to University and take a professor of Greek to lunch.  If he disagrees with you, you’ll learn something. If he agrees with you, you may learn how to better present your arguments.

 

GE:

JB, Am I right, to conclude, Erasmus (as Scriverner's) and “many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed”, and that, according to you, “this Heinz 57 text .... became more ingrained in people that this”, ('type sets' –– like Erasmus and Scrivener centuries later) was not “the original text”? And, that while we are here concerned with the words, “the disciples” in Acts 20:7 actually being 'type set' (by Erasmus and others), make up one of the 'flaws'; and that “To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today”, though veiled, is an inference to one who on this discussion is calling himself “One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history”?

Edited: JB, I shall not mind if you don't want to answer to this post of mine; I think I understand.

 

JB:

Actually I was responding more directly to your question about Heinz 57.   There were many events that impacted the accuracy of the Heinz 57 text. But yes, there were many type set errors.

You asked: “Another question, Do I understand you right, that you 'say', the textus receptus' is, this, Heinz 57 text?”  That is what I am saying.

 

GE:

Then why do some people insist on its precise content so, if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex? (By the buy, who could tell us who use the word ‘codices’ for the manuscripts, first? (I think, first.))

 

JB:

Some do praise it but not all. There are just as many that don't trust it as those who do trust it.

I believe that this is a very difficult question but it is one that needs to be addressed. I struggle with this idea daily. But the truth of the matter is, we don't have to go very far in our studies to see the textual difficulties that exist among the variant texts. In my Greek Library I have books that address the variant texts and while I might not like them, they are really there. The TR was developed from many manuscripts and documents directly and indirectly. As the translators went through all these variant texts they in fact found contradictions.

The questions should be, “where did the contradictions come from” and “How did they deal with the contradictions in the many translations that existed”?

I believe that the contradictions came from the original autographs. While they were perfect and inspired, they were used to make copies. The original letters or writings would be sent to the Church and after the letters were studied, they would make copies and they sent the copies to other Churches. From the earliest copies, variant texts began to appear. Sometimes the writer would spell wrong or would get lines mixed up. The result is variations.

Another difficulty was when a letter was sent to a community where the language was slightly different. The writer would attempt to translate the letter into a more understandable language for the people with a slightly different language. And what happened with that? They began to develop their own ideas. After many years the result was that many of the letters and texts used to develop the TR were found to be paraphrased and in many case new and added text had been discovered.

How they dealt with these contradictions was through an attempt to develop a consistent theological theme. They would study all the extant texts and then decide which one would best fit the theological idea. After these texts were developed they found there way to the printing press and were mass produced.

What I find to be really sad is that after this mass production of these texts, earlier scripts were discovered but were rejected because they weren't even close to what the translators thought should be right.

You said: “if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex?”

That is the interesting thing. I compare the KJV with the NAS and NIV and several others and I see the differences. There are many. I believe that the Alexandrian text played a crucial role in the differences that we see today as I am sure you will agree. There are textual commentaries on the New Testament that show just how graphically these differences are.

 

GE:

JB,  Thanks for these posts.

First, a little light my wife has thrown on the 'Heinz 57' expression ––– she is a very bright and sprightly person without whom I don't know how I would have managed in life. She amazes me every day. She always says, “I'm just a nurse”, but I haven't met her peer yet intellectually. In any case, she tells me of when she was young, her family was sometimes treated on a tin of 'Heinz all–sorts' sweets. She says she doesn't remember the '57'. But just maybe the tin contained just 57 sweets? So, could this tin of sweets perhaps have been the very original 'manuscript / source' that later on became the 'standard' or 'assized' (Afr., 'geykte') or 'textus receptus' of the expression as used today by everybody not at all knowingly, of its origin? Then that is how I understand what the TR is, and if I'm not mistaken, you as well.

If so considering this post from you, the real TR consisted of the actual collection of mostly not the original but hand written copies of the original. So that:– the first complete handwritten 'text' of one specific preferred choice of these 'scraps' and 'parts', that of Erasmus, is not or was not, itself, the, 'Textus Receptus'. That is how I understand you, from this post, of yours. Erasmus' therefore, was the first tin of all–sorts sweets, marketed being branded, 'Heinz', perhaps?

 

YS:

The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir which reads: : textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus, translated “so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt.”

The words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative case to the nominative, and the term “Textus Receptus” was born.

This was mostly a marketing gimmick intended to sell books, as the publishers declared that their printed book comprised the definitive edition of the Greek text used by the KJV translators in 1611.

In reality, the translators would have had access to all the printed editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (and printed editions of revisions made by other printers) but the SIX manuscripts used by Erasmus (none of which contained the book of Revelation) were not physically available in England, and were never referred to as the Textus Receptus.

Since the Elzevirs' book was published, the term “Textus Receptus” has come to identify any member of the family of the Greek texts (i.e. printed books) used by the KJV translation committee, specifically the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament first printed by Froben of Basel (Switzerland) in 1516.

Again, the term Textus Receptus refers to printed books, not the source manuscripts.

(HEY, you all have access to Google and Wikipedia, why do I have to do all the work?)

Before Martin Luther (circa 1515), the Greek text of the New Testament didn’t really matter, as there weren’t any Protestants. The teachings of the Church were based upon The Apostle’s Doctrine, (cf. Acts 2) which in practice meant Apostolic Authority which in turn meant Apostolic Office (the Bishops and the Pope) because Ecclesiastical Authority was not vested in scripture but rather in the Church Fathers (the living ones being a bit more important than the dead ones).

You did not look to the Bible for your faith; you went and asked your priest.

It is only because of the Protestant Reformation, which relied upon the principle of Sola Scripturae, that the Bible (and hence an accurate and “true” Bible) became important. The Reformation can almost be isolated to one single moment when Martin Luther read in the Greek text that Jesus preached “Repent” rather than “Do Penance” as was written in the Latin Vulgate.

Up until this time, and for nearly one thousand years, there had been only ONE Bible (sort of) which is now called the Vulgate, written in Latin by Jerome, and published between 382, 405. (And remember any such Bible was hand written and hand copied until the first printed edition on a Guttenberg press published in 1445. Yet even by then there were various manuscripts of the Vulgate that differed.)

Since the year 400, the Western Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Eastern Church, or the Orthodox Church) had the Latin Vulgate as its Bible. The Bible was the Latin Vulgate. The name Vulgate comes from the Latin word for common, since by 400 AD, hardly anyone in the Empire spoke Greek anymore. Interestingly enough, Jerome did not create a new Latin translation from any authoritative Greek texts, but rather was commissioned by the Pope to gather up as many Latin Versions as possible and create a standardized version from these.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the local priests would make a Latin Translation on his own to use in services. These are known as the Old Latin Texts, and Jerome was to compile these and fix any errors he found.

Again, it is the Protestant principle of Sola Scripturae that created the near psychotic need for an accurate and true and singular Bible that was based on as “original” a Greek text as possible. The fact that there are significant differences between various Greek manuscripts from different regions (not the innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses “we” as found in Acts 20:7) is something that each Believer needs to rectify for his or her own faith.

Oddly enough, while the KJV relied upon the Greek Texts compiled by Erasmus and printed in a book, Erasmus didn’t care about the Greek text. He was on a mission to fix the Latin Vulgate, and included this Greek text in order to show how his Latin was better than Jerome’s.

 

GE:

Reply to Yehushuan's two last posts above:

Thank you for these; they make me realise the big holes in my canvas on the easel. I especially appreciate your explanation of the very first use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus', and must admit I did not understand it that way simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters. I have always thought 'TR' is the equivalent of a collection of collections of actual manuscripts – I wrote of them as those smaller and larger pieces of writing material that are identified with 'A's and reversed 'R's and stuff in the museums and places where they are preserved. That is why I contended that the 'TR' does not have the words, “the disciples” — since not one of the real manuscripts actually have these words!  But as you said above, it was an “innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses [sic.] “we” as found in Acts 20:7”.

I herewith therefore formally admit having been sadly informed regarding the meaning and use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus'.

 

GE:

Regarding the KJVO ‘issue’,

My viewpoint – for what it may be worth – rests on the assumption no ‘Version’ or ‘translation’ is perfect; but, that each ‘case’ of alleged ‘mistake’ in whichever ‘Version’ or ‘Translation’ should be treated individually.

Like in the case of Matthew 23:24 —

The KJV has “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”. Some presume “the KJV doesn't make any sense in this verse” because the Greek – they claim – would say, “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”.

 

Adam Clark, ‘Commentary on the Bible’,

“Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. – This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense.”

 

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, ‘Commentary’,

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat––The proper rendering––as in the older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators' hands––evidently is, ‘strain out.’”

 

John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes’,

“.... Ye blind guides, who teach others to do as you do yourselves, to strain out a gnat – From the liquor they are going to drink! and swallow a camel  (much too arrogantly, declares),  It is strange, that glaring false print, strain at a gnat, which quite alters the sense, should run through all the editions of our English Bibles.”

 

Robertson, “Word Pictures”,

“Strain out the gnat (diulizontes ton kōnōpa). By filtering through (dia), not the “straining at” in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V.”

 

Albert Barnes, ‘Notes on the Bible’,

“Which strain at a gnat ... – This is a proverb. There is, however, a mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. “To strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat; and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions, and so it was undoubtedly rendered by the translators. The common reading is a “misprint,” and should be corrected. The Greek means to “strain” out by a cloth or sieve.”

 

I disagree, there is no ‘misprint’ in the KJV. There is – here – no suggestion to ‘straining out’ in the sense of another action than swallowing, like to sieve out. If, as Barnes admits, “This is a proverb”, it’s a proverb for ‘to swallow’ and is not the literal of ‘to sieve’. The section speaks about swallowing with ease or difficulty.... The drinker swallows both wine and gnat though with difficulty and repugnance – he 'strains at' it. But gross impurity – the proverbial ‘camel’ – he swallows and downs like wine without effort and with great relish.

I do not try prove the KJV – whichever edition – is faultless or directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. I only try prove my own point – take it or leave it – that each suspect instance of ‘mistake’, ‘flaw’ or ‘irreconcilability’ or whatever, should be judged on own merit or demerit. I therefore say the Bible, though it contains human error and imprecision (even in the several Greek ‘translations’), it, as the Word of God, is infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk. And I shall go so far as to say and accept – even to confess – that text–compilations from the ‘differing’ or ‘minority’ manuscripts like the compilations of Westcott and Hort and Nestle and Aland, still contain the infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk Word of God.

7 February 2009

 

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn Wrote, “Reply to Yehushuan's two last posts above: Thank you for these....”

You're quite welcome.

Mr. Ebersöhn, Isn’t it wonderful when we’re not insulting one another?  Trust me, I have my own large holes in the canvas; I just purposefully stay well away from them which is why I come across as arrogant. I tread very lightly and cautiously around the holes until they can be filled in with concrete evidence.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:… simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters.

Not a problem. There must be many things of which I’ve not been properly informed, and it’s always fun to learn. But all theologians such as you and I fight like badgers when backed into a corner – at least until the moment light dawns, and then we will fight like badgers for our new understanding. It is a matter of integrity, and JB knows I will grab onto an issue and bite into it like a bulldog until I’ve chewed it through to the bone.

So let’s see, I think we were discussing the impact of the perfect passive participle of “gathered together”??

(Give me a moment to catch up.)

Yehu

 

GE:

No Capitulation!

That having been said (my posts of 7 February 2009), which I think explains my position clearly enough, many things from the posts of one Yehushuan may for some still seem undecided, or decided in his favour due to his ‘very exacting sense for detail’. I shall therefore (only God knowing, and I leave it in His hands, if He will), go through the above ‘Heinz 57’ discussion once more, to try to sort out the rotten eggs from the good, which may seem an impossible task; but is very easy to do in fact. Just place all the eggs in a bucket of Water of the Word and Life, and if in the end they find rest in Him, it’s good; but if they float above the Water of the Word and Life, it’s gone bad already and unrecoverable and must be disposed of (carefully, or the result may be ‘rudely obnoxious’).

The inference was made to, “what resources you have at hand nearby where you live”, in South Africa. Now I have great admiration for the American people, but am not impressed by the innuendos.  There is no ‘resource’ (I’m talking of the written word) in the field of human sciences and its categories I am interested in, like ‘divinity’, “textual analysis and history”, that Americans may have access to and may be ‘versed in’, that are not accessible to South Africans. The library I use most is that of the University of Pretoria, a library to be proud of and that compares favourably with any in the world, I would say, although I have not as much as entered an overseas one. ‘Sources’ that cannot be reached from Hans Merensky may not be worth finding anywhere else.

It is said I “demanded Evidence”.  I, ‘demand’  ‘Biblical’ – not extra–biblical – ‘evidence’, ja.  I ask ‘evidence’ evident to all the world and his wife.  And I gave, ‘evidence’ – evidence kept back from the poor man for no reason whatsoever than Christian Sunday–worship and the self–esteem of those who place their “whole Christian Identity” into this Sunday “Church Service obsession”. Because this one text, Act 20:7, is – they too easily forget – their only text in Scripture when perverted to lean upon. 

I am ‘expected’ — unless (I’)ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me’ — to ‘challenge’  ‘with adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, “a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”....

To challenge it in what respect? For which reason?  Why would I disagree with any of the given data of ‘this source’?  I would indeed challenge ‘this source’, unless I’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me. But I’m not that mad yet. (Yet soon will turn that mad ––– when I get to ‘internal evidence’.)

But here is irony at its best.

I quote, one Yehushuan,

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”. (I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)”

“The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE....”.

“Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one”

“So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.” (“THAT”, “the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press”)

I, confused the Textus Receptus for the actual manuscripts. What does our benevolent ‘gentle’ man do?  He claims, “the TR (Erasmus' own text)”.

Note the date, 1522.

For ‘adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, in fact is, the, “Textus Receptus”, and that ‘THIS’ Textus Receptus indeed contains the words, “the disciples” in Acts 20:7, I quote,

“As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, "σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος" (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)” — which is the whole point of our authority in this matter, “One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history”.

To quote this ‘very well versed’ authority,

“The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir” 

Please note the date, 1633.

Please note our authority claims “The term Textus Receptus comes from”, this 1633 “Greek New Testament”.

But just before, our authority has claimed “The term Textus Receptus” existed, was in use in, and in fact had been, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

 

To test if I’m mistaken or dishonest, here’s an honest and earnest statement by our better knowing guru, “.... you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus’ own text) says “the disciples”....”. 

Jubilating, our ‘very well versed’ authority celebrates victory as were it over the most formidable opponent (meanwhile only me), “I expect an apology.” No sooner, than he repeats demanding acclamation from this non con poop challenger (me), “I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).”  And a third time! “This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.” 

In the end, I owe my benevolent and gentle instructor an apology over an "innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses (sic.) “we” as found in Acts 20:7".

The tyrant cannot stand the silent taunting of the contemptible.

He who knows better saith: “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc. .... I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest....”.

Has anyone heard a word from him who knows less, one word to the contrary? He who knows less (that’s me) did in fact confuse, “manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy” for being the ‘Textus Receptus’. That, I did. That, said I, and say I still, and shall I say, is not, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

I also said, still say, and will say, the words, ‘the disciples’, are not contained and do not appear in or on a single manuscript or remainder of a manuscript of the original; not in or on a single first hand, or second, or third hand copied manuscript before Erasmus or before a printed handwriting. ‘External evidence’!

(Except perhaps, in the Vulgate?  I’m too lazy to ‘Google’ for the answer. Like the real manuscripts, I have never read the Vulgate, nor intend to. And the Vulgate I won’t and cannot read, not even to save face.)

So that, as it now seems to me, Erasmus was the first person ever to have used the words “the disciples” in his own translation, of the few actual manuscripts which he used to compile his ‘New Testament’ from. None of these few manuscripts (were they five, or six? What does it matter?) contained the words, “the disciples”. And whether or not I personally ever set eyes upon these or any other real manuscripts or photographs of them, changes nothing about my claim they do not contain these words. Until the one so well versed in texts and manuscripts with actual exhibit from before the sixteenth century – at least a photograph of it – the onus rests with anybody but me, to prove the word’s ‘the disciples’ do exist handwritten in Acts where we now posses the demarcation 20:7.

(Can the reader now understand why I won’t be a fundi in text and text–criticism?)

This debate has become a monologue between arrogance and foolishness, because I have always maintained and never denied, the concept of ‘the disciples’ is, first, implied, in verse 7, by the words synehgmenohn and hehmohn; and next, in the context before verse 7, through the disciples’ names being mentioned.

My ‘mistake’ was that I incorrectly thought the actual manuscripts that predated the Textus Receptus, were the Textus Receptus. I admit my folly, and herewith retract and rectify it, with remorse and repentance.  I acknowledge my deadly error before everybody, and before everybody do give our well Googled authority due credit for having in this regard steered me back onto the gentle way of his benevolence – a way and a regard he clearly does not understand himself.

My mistake no moment was that I denied the words ‘the disciples’ appear or are contained, in the manuscripts.

Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.””

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details (‘internal evidence’, a little later.

So having reinvestigated my case, our judge came up with another judgment against his lowly pupil, Gerhard Ebersöhn,

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'. That, I do trust, yes!....”

condemning him,

“You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.”

Really enlightening!

 

My lecturer tells me, “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus.”

Why does he tell me that? Did I say that in my exam? That is not how I remember my answer. Let’s see. I wrote,

“I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”–‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa.”

Now here, as far as I am able to discern, appears my vulgar error of having confused the Textus Receptus for the original manuscripts. But I am not able to understand how from this can be concluded that I confused the ‘variants’ for the Textus Receptus. I think I was being done in; I did not earn a pathetic mark. I admit I earned an average, because my actual mistake is very common, one, one should not be surprised to find made by even scholars, more often than not.

 

Had I further to endure,

“First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)”

Alright, I was WRONG about “the real TR”; so were you, o master! Difference is, now I have mended my misconception; you persist in yours.

Just like you persist in creating false impressions about me, saying, I first said, “only the Erasmus text is the TR”. I never said that; in fact, that was what I have consistently denied, and blamed you of doing; which in fact you have been doing consistently and uninterruptedly until this very second and until this very second have refused to admit has all the while also been wrong and a mistake of yours.

Then again, yes, “the Erasmus text .... was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg [sic.] press, not written”. Who claimed differently? I? No sir! I asked you – rhetorically – “Whose handwriting is this?” Is it someone else’s? So, it’s not Erasmus’? Come on!

Have you not read the web–page? Its comments to this NT ‘of Erasmus’? How they (or he) in the comments describe this was the first time a certain comma was used? Whose invention was this comma? Was it Erasmus’ handwriting, or the printers’? I won’t know. Fact remains, this printed publication was that of Erasmus, and from the hand of no one else.

 

But thanks for allowing me a little enjoyment; this is going to be a pleasure ....

“So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it? Prove it. I

mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)”

Prove:–

Experiment need catalysts lying and swearing:–

Thesis:–  Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

“ACTUAL PROOF”:–

ALL manuscripts: “synehgmen–OH–n”;

Control:– 

ALL manuscripts:–  “hehm–OH–n”.

Secondary, confirming proof:– 

Erasmus:  “t–OH–n matheht–OH–n”.

Result:– Found, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

Test:– Does experiment need catalysts lying and swearing?

Conclusion: No.

 

9 February 2009

 

So, after all, there remains a need to say something about, the fact or no fact, “.... the TR does say ‘the disciples’.” 

If, the TR were editions or – without permission used “codices” –, like and since the “New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, then, all I say, is, I admit, and I accept, and offer an apology – a real one; no fake one,  and undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

 If, the TR were the edition or – without permission used “codex” –, of the “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, then too, all I say, is, I would admit, and would accept, and would offer an apology – a real one; no fake one, and would undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

 

BUT SINCE “The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, and therefore cannot formally or legitimately apply to “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, I formally herewith point blank before the entire formal forum confess my stubborn old man syndromic refusal to say an admittance or apology repeating after, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’”. Never in your life or mine!

Because this is, about me, having been right “about (my) basic premise”, but having been sidetracked and taken with, off the narrow way, and paraded on the broad way the parody before a united (or perhaps not so united) formal board. And heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, because then we would have sat with no Scripture at all for our mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Sunday, because God really cares about our worshipping him as long as it’s on Sundays, and might realise that Sunday worship has been our mission in life all along, and not God’s, but all the while has been contrary His care.

Ja, heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, or we might start lying and confirming our lying with swearing, “But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.”

Have I recently been reminded of Peter and the rooster’s crow? Yea; and his bitterly crying afterwards. Because it was hard for him to war against his conviction, and hard to be tried by fire for the sake of saving his soul. But the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ his Lord and Mighty God and Saviour thus in him gave him a contrite spirit and created in him a new heart. 

 

It has become time I do as I said above I would, “Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”” 

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details, a little later.”  (‘Internal Evidence’)

It isn’t much in detail I want to say, so I won’t ask too much of your time. What I want to say is much in meaning though, and so I ask so much of your attention as possible, please.  It is all, about the conditions and implication for and of the grammatical phenomenon of the syntactical ‘construct’, called an Absolute Genitive.

According to the thrust of our well Googled instructor’s argument, first understand that to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, would be to ‘have’, “the words “the disciples””.

But then also understand according to the thrust of his argumentations, to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, it would have been desirable, in fact, necessary or conditional, to here have an Absolute Genitive. I quote him,

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled  When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

I don’t want to tell the reader anything YS hasn’t said himself.

Does YS insist we here in Acts 20:7 have a Genitivus Absolutus? 

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

YS said, “.... the genitive absolute .... indicate(s) a(n) .... action done by ANOTHER party .... in reference to the main action. The main action is PAUL’S speaking.”

 

I ask, therefore,

Are ‘the disciples’ the ‘doers’ (the ‘Subject’) of ‘the main action’? THEY ARE NOT. Paul, is. YS said so.

Now, what was this again?:–

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

This already, had been a self–destructive misconception! “.... the first clause has no noun” ––– conditional to form a ‘Genitive Absolute’; YS stated, “In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. .... This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

So, “.... the first clause has no noun....”, yet, “....the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case”.  How can there be no noun, but the noun is ....?  Simply because the very Genitive Absolute tells the words, ‘the disciples’ are supplied in error. Erasmus made a blunder when he inserted – ‘added in’ – the words ‘the disciples’ into the EXISTING Genitive Absolute.

Rule of the Gen. Abs.,

“Only when there is no syntactical relation between the Subject of the subordinate clausal phrase ‘synegmenohn hehmohn’/‘our (the disciples’) having been gathering still’, and the Verb or Predicate of the principle clause or verbal phrase, ‘Paulos dielegeto’/‘ho Paulos dielegeto’.” 

YS alleges: “Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”  False!

The Gen. Abs.— “our (the disciples’) gathering”–‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’— ‘is used to describe’, “Paul spoke”.

It is not the words or the use of the words ‘the disciples’, that “describe the disciples’ gathering”; the words ‘the disciples’ are superfluous, and would effectually have destroyed the Genitive Absolute that in fact and correctly, without them, exists and tells about ‘the disciples’ gathering’ which was “OUR gathering together”.  From this very presence of the words ‘the disciples’ it is incontrovertibly clear no original, used manuscripts, would have contained them – words that could not have been in there in the first place, or no Genitivus Absolutus – recognised by even YS – could have existed.

And in the second place – by now really insignificant an inducement – should the words ‘the disciples’ have formed the Subject, it is incontrovertibly clear the words should have been in the Nominative Case, and not in the Genitive; so that one would have had a Verb – an Indicative Verb and not a Pariticiple, and its tense probably would have been Imperfect, and not Perfect.

Therefore, the question, “Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”, is wrong, and should have read,  Question:– ‘Why — since the inserted noun “disciples” is in the genitive case — did Paul, the Subject of the sentence and ‘main action’, speak?  Answer:– “Because the disciples (implied, not mentioned) in the First Day of the week having been assembling still”. But mainly, “because the next day he would depart”.

I really benefited from my taking my Greek professor to lunch, although I feel for him that he had to forfeit the only Sunday motivation he thought he had from the Scriptures. A big thank you.

 10 February 2009

 

Yehushuan » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:38 pm

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: No Capitulation!

What the crap does that mean?

Gerhard, come back when you learn to speak English.

Wading through your tortuous expressions is just not fruitful. I have better ways to waste my time.

(Like they say, ya can't teach old dogs new tricks)

 

 

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, A little trivia for you:

Heinz 57 is a shortened, popular form of the "57 Varieties" slogan of Pittsburgh's H. J. Heinz Company. In its early days, the company wanted to advertise the great number of choices of canned and bottled foods it offered for sale. Although the company had more than 60 products in 1892, the number 57 was chosen because the numbers "5" and "7" held special significance to Heinz. The number "5" was Henry John Heinz's lucky number and the number "7" was his wife's lucky number.  The company now has more than 6,000 products. Prepared horseradish was their first product.

In response to the question "What does the '57' stand for in Heinz’s famous slogan, '57 Varieties?'" the Heinz company's official Web site states: "While riding a train in New York City in 1896, Henry Heinz saw a sign advertising 21 styles of shoes, which he thought was clever. Although Heinz was manufacturing more than 60 products at the time, Henry thought 57 was a lucky number. So, he began using the slogan '57 Varieties' in all his advertising. Today the company has more than 5,700 products around the globe, but still uses the magic number of '57.'" 

Although the company does not often use the slogan on its products today, the number 57 remains pervasive in its corporate culture and is known worldwide (although younger generations are markedly less familiar with it). In the United States and Britain, the number 57 is still printed on the packaging of various Heinz products.

The slogan is printed on Heinz pickle pins that are distributed by the millions.

Heinz 57 is also the name of one variety of Heinz steak sauce.

By the way I really enjoyed the discussion

JB

 

GE:

So did I, JB, thank you, I'll give the ‘trivia’ to my wife to read!

 

GE:

And another thank you to my lunch professor, Yehushuan. I ‘tools–thesaurus–ed’ his word, ‘tortuous’, and made a beautiful discovery ––– for me. And came to a happy conclusion, ‘Heinz 57’, ‘tortuous’, and, ‘Byzantine’ which I have seen used to describe the ‘Textus Receptus’ many times and have always (I think correctly) thought had to do with where the TR originated from, have the same meaning— more or less, 'cosmopolitan', ‘mixed’, or as I noticed someone on this discussion has described it, ‘mongrelised’. And this is our best source – someone told us – for knowing the words ‘the disciples’ are, “in the Textus Receptus"!

It was lunch hour, well spent.

 

10 February 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za