<<
MAIN PAGE - www.biblestudents.co.za
Matthew
28:1 is an Undividable Unit
Presenting:
"END
OF SABBATH" VS "DAWN"
by Ralph
Woodrow, Missing Dimension, Whistler’s Tune, 2001.
– Consideration will follow after full quote –
“We now come to another scripture
that some use as a major proof text to support the idea that Christ’s
resurrection was on the Sabbath (Saturday) – Matthew 28:1:
"In the end of the Sabbath,
as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary to see the sepulchre…"
The context mentions a great earthquake; an angel descends
from heaven, rolls back the stone from the tomb, and announces that Jesus has
risen from the dead! The women quickly go to tell the disciples the glad news,
and then actually see the risen Christ and worship him! All of these things
took place "in the end of the Sabbath," we are told, and not on
Sunday morning at all!
One writer, whose booklet on this
subject has been around for many years, states:
The women came to the tomb
"late on the Sabbath."
The stone was rolled away
"late on the Sabbath."
The tomb was empty "late on
the Sabbath."
The angel said Jesus had risen
"late on the Sabbath."
Since all these things happened "late on the
Sabbath," he reasons, "Is it not the silliest kind of nonsense to say
that the resurrection took place on Sunday morning?"
A Sunday morning resurrection is not silly for the
following reasons:
If it was late on
the Sabbath when the women went to the tomb and found it empty, why do all the
other Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb early in the morning on
"the first day of the week"?
If it was late on
the Sabbath when the women discovered the stone was rolled away, why would they
be asking the next morning: "Who shall roll us away the stone from the
door of the sepulchre?" (Mark 16:2,3)
If it was late on
the Sabbath that the women found the tomb empty, why would they be taking
spices to anoint the dead body the next morning, knowing it was not
there?" (Lk 24:1).
If it was late on
the Sabbath that the angel told the two Marys to "go quickly, and tell his
disciples that he is risen" (Matt. 28;7), why would the disciples be so
unconcerned that they calmly waited until morning before going to check it out?
The fact is, they "ran" to the tomb as soon as they heard the report!
(John 20:4)
If it was late on
the Sabbath that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, found it empty, and actually
saw and worshipped the resurrected Christ, why would she be weeping the next
morning at the tomb and asking the supposed gardener where the body had been
placed? (John 20:1, 11, 15).
If it was late on
the Sabbath that the women discovered the empty tomb, why do the other accounts
link it with dawn, and why does even Matthew 28:1 say it was "as it began
to dawn"? Dawn is when the sun is coming up, not when it is going down!
How can we explain the inconsistent statement "in the
end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"?
There is a very simple solution, so simple that it’s a wonder that it’s often
been overlooked! That solution is that the words "in the end of the
Sabbath" were not describing when the women went to the tomb, but when the
tomb was sealed and guarded, in the previous verse.
Without changing the wording in the least, the entire
passage can be brought into harmony with every other verse by simply placing
the period in a different place. To do this is certainly not out of order, for
punctuation was not a part of the original text. With this simple change, these
two contradictory clauses ("end of the Sabbath" vs "dawn")
are no longer linked together as being the same thing, and Matthew’s account
comes into immediate alignment with the other Gospels.
The change would look like this:
66 So they went,
and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch in the end
of the Sabbath. CHAPTER 28:1. As it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulchre.
Thus, the simple movement of the
original period, which was never a part of the original text to begin with,
brings this text into total harmony with the other gospel accounts.
Consider:
"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…"
The context mentions a great
earthquake; an angel descends from heaven, rolls back the stone from the tomb,
and announces that Jesus has risen from the dead! The women quickly go to tell
the disciples the glad news, and then actually see the risen Christ and worship
him!…”
Says Woodrow: “… All of these
things took place "in the end of the Sabbath," we are told, and not
on Sunday morning at all!
The fallacy here is generalisation.
Woodrow alleges everybody who disagrees with the traditional interpretation ‘tells
us’, “All of these things took place "in
the end of the Sabbath" … and not on Sunday morning at all!”
But not all of these things took place "in the end of the
Sabbath", and Matthew makes that clear enough. What happened on
Sunday morning, of course will become clear when the four Gospels are
compared. And what is eliminated by such comparison must then have happened on
the Sabbath Day. The mutual factor in all the Gospels is the women, and their
actions of the Sunday. Specific of Matthew are the events
surrounding the opening of the grave. These things could not have
happened after the women’s actions, nor simultaneous
with it. So the time-indications found in Matthew, necessarily are applicable
to the angel’s deeds. And those time-indications apply to: “in the
end of the Sabbath”, and not Sunday morning at all!
Consider:
“The women came to the tomb “late
on the Sabbath”.”
This is not entirely true, as anyone who
has read The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace should be able to see.
The women did not come in the sense that they arrived at the tomb; they only
“set off to see” to be exact and literal.
But what Woodrow it seems deliberately
doesn’t say, is what the text at this place says, namely, that “at
this very moment – <kai idou>, there was a great
earthquake”! Therefore, in fact,
“The stone was rolled away
"late on the Sabbath"!
And the tomb for that very reason,
“… was empty
"late on the Sabbath".
But, just as surely and just as
obviously for sheer common sense, the angel did not, late on the
Sabbath, say, that Jesus had risen. He must
have “told the women” that – “the angel answered
the women” exactly that – on the morning of the First Day of the week,
naturally, although not stated in words. The women, were not
at the grave on the Sabbath.
Since all these things pertaining
Jesus’ resurrection happened “late on the Sabbath”, and on the morning
of the First Day “the angel said Jesus had risen "late on the
Sabbath"”, “is it not the silliest kind of nonsense to say
that the resurrection took place on Sunday morning?” Indeed it is!
“A Sunday morning resurrection is
not silly”, says Woodrow, “for the following reasons:
If it was late on
the Sabbath when the women went to the tomb and found it empty, why do all the
other Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb early in the morning on
"the first day of the week"?
If it had not been for the false and
confused reasons the question is posed, one could have echoed, yes, why? But
who said they “found it empty”? If they went is not saying they
arrived, or saw, or found the tomb empty. Then what brilliant question is it to
ask: “(W)hy do all the other Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb
early in the morning on "the first day of the week"?” Is it
not common sense, then Matthew would place ‘his’ visit to the tomb, also
in the morning on "the first day of the week"? And would not the
angel now see fit to make the women understand events and circumstances? What
could be objected to his informing – “answering” – the women on the issue?
But there lurks a few silent
misapprehensions in this question, for it asks, “(W)hy do all the other
Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb early in the
morning on "the first day of the week"?”, as were there just
the one visit of all the women together. And it asks, “(W)hy
do all the other Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb early
in the morning on "the first day of the week"?”,
as if at no other time (of night) there could have occurred another visit or
visits.
For these reasons just the idea
of a Sunday morning resurrection is silly, as it is for more reasons
contained in the next objection:
“If it was late
on the Sabbath when the women discovered the stone was rolled away, why would
they be asking the next morning: "Who shall roll (for) us
away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?" (Mark 16:2,3).”
One woman “discovered the
stone was rolled away” – Mary! And she, “ran”, and told the disciples. Not “women”. And the
Gospel of John did not place this visit to the tomb, “early in
the morning on "the first day of the week"”, but “on the First
Day of the week while being early darkness still” <proh-i
skotia eti ousehs> – which is (late) evening before ‘late
night’ – not long after the First Day had begun with sunset. It could not have
been early in the morning because by then just about every disciple had
paid the tomb a visit.
It is reasonable though to ask, “(W)hy
would they be asking the next morning: “Who shall roll (for ) us
away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?””. The main difficulty
with this clause is the way it is translated. Properly translated it would have
shown the type of question it is – that it is more an expression of surprise at
the magnitude of the feat than a worry over a prospective task: “Who (on earth)
will roll the stone away for us!?” Remember Mary earlier had observed how the
stone lay removed from the door, and she already had told the women. The women
were as perplexed as surprised as they approached the grave downhill
<epi to mnehma> and saw the heavy door stone must have been flung “away”
from the door uphill. This clearly then had been a visit to the grave later
on that night – a visit of several women this time. No
fleeing from the tomb this time, but pensive wonderment. And this time an
encounter with two angels and even conversation with them! Not the same visit
of the evening before was this! By now, it was “pitch dark”, “thick morrow”
<orthros batheohs> – says Luke.
For these reasons just the idea
of a Sunday morning resurrection is silly, as it is for more reasons
contained in the next objection:
“If it was
late on the Sabbath that the women found the tomb empty, why would they be
taking spices to anoint the dead body the next morning, knowing it was not
there?" (Lk 24:1).”
If not for the false premise of the
question it would not have been asked. Mary did not find “the tomb empty”
when she “saw” it the first time. As soon as she “saw the stone
taken away” lying at one side, she “ran”. She at first impression assumed
the body had been stolen, and shared her fears with the others. But she
obviously afterwards must have collected herself and she and her friends in good
faith must have decided to finish with their preparations of the Friday
afternoon. The women still must have believed the body was intact inside the
grave, or they would not have come to anoint it, despite all fears and
suspicions. They obviously did not “know it was not there”. It
only proves Mary did not have a look inside the grave when she,
with her earlier approach, first saw it opened. Luke therefore records the
second visit to the grave, Mary’s solo sighting according to John 20:1-2 having
been the first.
For these reasons just the idea
of a Sunday morning resurrection is silly, as it is for more reasons
contained in the next objection:
“If it was
late on the Sabbath that the angel told the two Marys to "go quickly, and
tell his disciples that he is risen" (Matt. 28:7), why would the disciples
be so unconcerned that they calmly waited until morning before going to check
it out? The fact is, they "ran" to the tomb as soon as they heard the
report! (John 20:4)”
Again, if it were not for the false premises
and preclusions of the question it would not have been asked. Everybody
hurried to and fro, that Sunday morning. Who would not? But who says it
was late on the Sabbath when the angel told the women, "go
quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen"? Not “Matt.
28:7”! Who says the angel told “the two Marys”?
Not “Matt. 28:7”! That it was “the angel” who “told”,
is sure; that he “told” the women, also. That he “told”
when the thing that happened, happened, namely, “on the
Sabbath”, is certain; that he “told” what
had happened, “that he is risen”, most certain. Yet nothing was “told
the two Marys” because the angel answered all “the women” (verse 5),
except the one absent. Mark 16:9 informs us Jesus, “early <proh-i> on the
First Day of the week, appeared, first, to Mary”. So He could not have appeared
to Mary Magdalene where she was accompanied; He appeared to her where and while
she was alone, and that incident John vividly pictures in 20:11f. Jesus there
appears to Mary while she thinks He is the gardener (having come on duty –
which should be with sunrise). This is the first and also the earliest of
Jesus’ appearances. When Jesus therefore appears to the several women on their
way from the grave to
What about Mark 16:2 then? It tells of
yet another visit of the women to the grave – a return-visit, which the women
undertook in between Luke’s visit and Matthew’s to ascertain their findings of
the night. Who could blame them? This visit therefore was earlier
than sunrise (John 20:11f and Matthew 28:7). This visit was just before actual
“sunrise” <lian proh-i anateilantos tou hehliou> – the (English) “dawn”
of “very early sunrise”, and therefore later than Luke’s
time at “thick morning” / “mid darkness” <orthros batheohs>.
The only problem with
these different visits by different persons at different times during the
night-part of the First Day, is us, who want to ascribe the
resurrection of Jesus to each or all of them as one, while the simple truth is
He at or during NO visit to the tomb, rose from the dead. Because He had risen
from the dead the day before, “late in the Sabbath”, when the two Marys “went
to go see the tomb” but obviously were frustrated in their intention!
So the protest, “why would the
disciples be so unconcerned that they calmly waited until morning before going
to check it out?”, is irrelevant, is false, and not at all provoked by
the basic truth Jesus had been raised from the dead “in the slow hours of
the Sabbath’s afternoon the First Day of the week approaching” –
Mt.28:1, exactly.
Again, if it were not for the false
premises, preclusions and presumptuousness of the questions, they would not
have been asked,
“If it was
late on the Sabbath that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, (She didn’t
visit it – she went to see it but failed to see it.) found it empty,
(She didn’t find it or found it empty – these things happened on ‘First Day’
expeditions to the grave.) and actually saw and worshipped the
resurrected Christ, (That only happened on Sunday morning after sunrise
– first appearance.) why would she be weeping the next morning at the
tomb and asking the supposed gardener where the body had been placed? (John
20:1, 11, 15).”
Because all her previous excursions and
endeavours to find her Lord, disappointed.
If it was late on
the Sabbath that the women discovered the empty tomb, (Same
objections.) why do the other accounts link it with dawn? Not one
Gospel nearly or remotely “link it” – the resurrection – “with
dawn”. The nearest to dawn visit though – that of Mark 16:2 –
was the third of Mary and second of the two Marys and Salome – the making sure
visit.
“(A)nd why does even Matthew 28:1
say it was "as it began to dawn"? Matthew mentions his time
in connection with the resurrection and not in connection with the visit he
mentions. And he does not say "as it began to dawn",
but literally “in the very being of light / sun / day”
<epi-fohs-k-ous-ehi> – “afternoon”!) “Dawn is when the sun is
coming up, not when it is going down!” <Epifohskousehi> is “when
it is going down” – from noon till sunset when the First Day (Sunday)
were to begin.
“How can we explain the
inconsistent statement – of translations – "in the end of
the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"?”
By translating correctly “afternoon”
instead of “dawn”. Then accept the inevitable, that tradition is wrong, and the
Sabbath, and not the First Day, is thereby invested with a meaning and honour
it previously only held prophetically and by promise – the honour
and significance of becoming and of being the Day of the Lord’s resurrection
from the dead.
The Proposed
Solution!
“There is a very simple solution”,
it is claimed, “so simple that it’s a wonder that it’s often been
overlooked!”
Fools rush in where angels fear to
tread!
“That solution is that the words
"in the end of the Sabbath" were not describing when the women went
to the tomb, but when the tomb was sealed and guarded, in the previous verse.”
“That solution” will soon
prove to be an illusion, and no more than the promise of fools’ gold.
“Without changing the wording in
the least”, it is claimed, “the entire passage can be brought
into harmony with every other verse”.
But what is proposed in this thesis is
impossible, even by the English words, for the change would directly contradict
the time of day which Matthew 27:62 gives for the sealing of the grave, which
is, “in the morning” – the Greek opposite parallel
of “afternoon”, namely <epaurion> – <epi>, “in”, <aurion>, “orient”
/ “sunrise” / “morning” or “after-morning” – the extension and positive
parallel of Mark’s <anateilantos> – <ana> plus <telloh> –
“up-coming” / “rising (of the sun)” or pre-sunrise morning;
“dayspring” in Luke 1. Matthew 27:62 gives the post-sunrise
morning for the sealing of the grave, so it could not have happened “late on
the Sabbath”.
Or the Jews and Pilate wasted all their
day and defeated their own objective, to get the sealing done as soon as
possible!
“Without changing the wording”
is even more impossible in the Greek, for then it should have read: <…
sfragisantes ton lithon meta tehs koustohdias opse sabbatohn. Tehi de
epifohskousehi, eis mian sabbatohn …>, in stead of reading: <… sfragisantes ton lithon meta tehs
koustohdias. Opse de sabbatohn, tehi epifohskousehi eis
mian sabbatohn …>. And <eis mian sábbaton> should have read <miai
sabbátohn> - leaving out <eis> and changing the case of <mian>
from Accusative to Dative and the case of < sábbaton > from Accusative to
Genitive <sabbátohn >. Even
<kai idou> – “at that very moment”, will have to be moved from after the
main time-indicating phrases, to before it. (Quickly thought of changes in “the
wording”: 6!)
Also the parties concerned – “Mary the
Magdalene and the other Mary” will have to be changed to either only Mary
Magdalene or the several other women; and the angel from one to perhaps two;
and from coming down from heaven to sitting inside the tomb, etc. etc. Which
makes absurd the whole notion of “simply placing the period in a different
place”.
To do this is certainly
out of order, for punctuation was not so much a visible part of the
original text, as intrinsic to its nature.
“With this simple change”
one’s ignorance of the intelligence of the Greek language is farcically
understated.
“(T)hese
two contradictory clauses ("end of the Sabbath" vs "dawn")”
glare like phosphoric eyes from the gross darkness of six centuries of stubborn
refusal to admit and rectify the human error of that holy man who so rendered
them first, Tyndale – who himself declared that his part in Christ be taken
from him had he but in one instance translated against his conscience. While
the Roman Catholic Church has excommunicated and anathemised, persecuted and
killed Tyndale for his translation of the Bible, that Church has capitalised on
this unfortunate translation of Tyndale’s as were he a saint by papal
announcement.
“(T)hese two contradictory clauses
("end of the Sabbath" vs "dawn")”, must be “linked
together as being the same thing”, by supplying the literal meaning the
word <epifohskousehi> at that point in history had had, the meaning of
“afternoon” – its simplest and most easily understood English equivalent … “and
Matthew’s account comes into immediate alignment with the other Gospels”.
<< MAIN PAGE -
www.biblestudents.co.za