“The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn”
Joe Viel answered
Fifth delivery
Joe Viel:
Why The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn
The Greek
version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou
batheos", which means the earliest part of sunrise or what
southerners might call "the crack of dawn." "Orthrou" means
early morning and "batheos" is an intesifier to that. It refers to
when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon. (The Peshita calls
it "Dawn, while it was still dark" - basically the same thing.)
The gospel of Yochanan / John tells us it happened while it was "still dark"
(similar to the Peshitta Luke), and Matthew and Mark use a bit more ambiguous
terms which have been translated "dawn" since that's the only meaning
that will agree with Luke and John.
Some people
have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at
"episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to
"prove" a Saturday night Resurrection. First, the word here is a bit
vague since it could mean dawn or dusk, so it neither proves nor disproves the
point being made. But also, it must agree with the rest of scripture, if it too
is to be believed, and the KJV translates it "dawn" since it has to be
referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly refers to the
earliest part of dawn. Let's take a look at all 4 gospel accounts and harmonize
them...
Greek
Matthew 28:1
After the sabbaths, toward the dawning of
the first of the week, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the
sepulchre,
Mark 16:2
and early in the morning of the first of the
week, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,
Luke 24:1
And on the first of the week, at early dawn,
they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others]
with them,
John 20:1
And on the first of the week, Mary the
Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth
the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,
Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of
things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close. OK,
let's assume that's true. If it's true, we have a problem necause it
disagrees with the other 3 accounts. Matthew 28:1 is an account of when
the women WENT TO THE TOMB! In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the
women went to the tomb, which may or may not be the same as when He rose.
They went there on or after the timing of His rising.
Greek Matt
28:1 places it "after the Sabbaths, towards the dawning of the first
of the week..."
Mark 16:2 places it "early in the morning...at the rising of the sun"
Luke 24:1 places it "at early dawn"
John 20:1 places it "early (there being yet darkness)"
John 20:1
tells us it was STILL DARK. Now if the sun just set, what's the point of
saying it was "still dark". It just got dark, so there's no
"still" to talk about. The phrase "still dark" makes
sense if this happened at sunrise, since it tells us if this is just before
sunrise or just after. But it makes no sense if this happened at
sundown. If it happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK",
not "STILL DARK". Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising
of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the
same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.
Now the
Hebrew version of Matthew 28:1 gives some
insights on timing that are rather hard to reconcile without a little
background knowledge. Click here for
more detail.
Is it
possible Y'shua rose sometime in the night on Saturday evening? No. Y'shua
appeared to Mary and said, "Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father" in John 20:17
during
early dawn. Also, Mark 16 clearly tells us that the earthquake and removal of
the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to visit
Y'shua's tomb. Also, the Torah makes it clear that the sacrifice Y'shua was to
fullfill was to be offered in the morning as we'll see in the next section.
Occasionally
people have suggested that Yeshua rose on a day PRIOR to the first day in the
week, and they point out that Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1
don't say He rose on the first day of the week, just that His tomb was found
empty on the first day of the week. But the fact is it DOES tell us that this
is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and that He appeared to the
women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17 . So those verses do seem to make it clear that this was indeed
when He rose.
Now some
Sabbath keepers have concluded that Y'shua rose on Saturday night because it
somehow disproves the Christian tradition of celebrating on Sunday morning. But
we should not allow a "sabbath" agenda to determine how we interpret
when He died or rose, but rather read the scriptures for what they have to say
without attaching an agenda to how we interpret facts.
JoeViel:
“Why The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn
The Greek version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos", which means the earliest part of sunrise or what southerners might call "the crack of dawn." "Orthrou" means early morning and "batheos" is an intesifier to that. It refers to when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon. (The Peshita calls it "Dawn, while it was still dark" - basically the same thing.) The gospel of Yochanan / John tells us it happened while it was "still dark" (similar to the Peshitta Luke), and Matthew and Mark use a bit more ambiguous terms which have been translated "dawn" since that's the only meaning that will agree with Luke and John. ”
GE:
You will have to decide what you actually believe.
1) Do you believe, “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”, or do you believe, “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"”?
2) You will also have to decide whether you speak about the time “The Resurrection had to be Sunday”, or about the time “the two Mary's found the tomb empty”?
3) Then you will have to make sure whom you are talking of, “the two Mary's”, or, Luke’s “version of” who the women were who came to the tomb, 24:10?
4) And you will have to establish what happened at the time you have in mind, “The Resurrection”, or, that they “found the tomb empty”?
Now as it sounds to me, you have precluded, “The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn”. But as it sounds to me, you have also concluded, “the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos" .... version of Luke 24:1”. Which is it? How is it possible that the Resurrection was the same point in time of day, but the women “found the tomb empty”? The resurrection must have happened any unspecified time before.
“The Greek version of Luke 24:1 tells us the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos",” Absolutely so! Luke tells us the women brought their “spices with them”— which implies a lot! It implies two things, before anything else:
1) That they already knew the tomb was opened though not that it was emptied. They knew it was open; now they “found” the tomb was empty as well; they have brought their spices with them in vain. Mary’s worst fears are confirmed— ‘they’, must have removed the body.
2) So the next thing implied is that Mary before this visit at the tomb must have seen the tomb opened, but did not investigate further. For this information one must turn to the Gospel according to John, in chapter 20, from verse 1 to verse 10. John in fact recorded how “Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre— Then she runs and arrives at” Peter and John.
These consequential inferences prove Mary had to have seen the grave at an earlier stage than the time of the women’s actual visit with the intention to embalm the body. So Joe Viel cannot be accurate when he alleges “John tells us it happened while it was "still dark" (similar to the Peshitta Luke)”— it wasn’t “similar”. Mary made her first observation of the opened grave before midnight; the women came to salve the body, only to find the body was gone, after midnight.
“John tells us it happened ....”, “it” .... referring to what? Joe Viel obviously must have had in mind, “it” .... both “The Resurrection .... Sunday just before Dawn”, and, “the two Mary's found the tomb empty at "orthrou batheos”— both.
Both at the same time of night, disregarding that Luke wrote, “orthrou batheohs” = “morning of night’s deep / just after midnight”; not, “when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. And John wrote, “proh-i skotias eti ousehs” = “early darkness still being”. John wrote not of after midnight, but of before midnight. In fact, John wrote, “before/early-dark / before/early-late night” and “still being early-dark / still being before-late night / still being early / still being before-night”. John emphasised with using “proh-i”; he didn’t only say, “while yet dark” the way this passage gets translated, as though John only wrote “skotias eti ousehs”. No; John wrote “proh-i skotias eti ousehs”—“early, fore-part darkness still being”. Which simply means, ‘dusk’ or ‘evening’ after sunset; literally, “before dark, still”.
Joe Viel:
“Some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection.”
GE:
The fact remains, it is Joe Viel who maintains it is Matthew “which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"”, whether “some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1” or not.
Matthew does not say
1) “the tomb was found” by any; or that any,
2) found the tomb, “empty”.
We have just established it was Luke, who stated “the tomb was found .... empty”. But Luke does not say “the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"”. Luke states the tomb was found to be empty “orthrou batheohs”, “just after midnight”.
If these ‘people’ use “"episooskousé" (they cannot “quote” it) to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection”, then surely “there are several problems” awaiting them, for “sabbatohn tehi epifohskousei” – “Sabbath’s-time in the very midst of light-being”, disproves “a Saturday night Resurrection” as it disproves a Resurrection “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"” or “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. “Sabbatohn tehi epifohskousei” disproves any Resurrection other than “In Sabbath’s fullness-of-day, Sabbath’s-time-mid-afternoon” – ‘Opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi’.
Neither Luke nor Matthew says “the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé"” (sic.)— Joe Viel’s transliteration-spelling does not show the Dative, ‘-ousehi’; and he omits the Dative Article ‘tehi’, so that it looks like an Accusative construction, “at / before” whatever else – like “a Saturday night Resurrection” at “the earliest part of sunrise / "the crack of dawn" / while it was "still dark"” or “just before Dawn / when the sun's rays first begin to reach over the horizon”. Only not what is written!
Joe Viel does not show the actual Dative, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’ – “in-the epi-centre-in-light-being”, so that
1) the connection, correlation and relation with the Genitive “Sabbath’s (time) in mid-afternoon (it) being” can get lost, and
2) the real Accusative, ‘eis mian sabbaton’ – “tending towards the First Day of the week” must seem pleonastic and virtually superfluous.
The meaning of “still dark” will not agree with either Luke or John. It may be “similar to .... Mark”, who uses the terms ‘lian proh-i anateilantos tou hehliou’, which may be translated “dawn” or “still dark”, or more literally, “very early up-coming of the sun”. But even then, Mark’s use of terms is unique, and unambiguously is “similar to .... Matthew” or John’s use of terms in no way whatsoever. It is ONLY when the Gospels are ostentatiously telling of one and the same event of the Resurrection that any irreconcilabilities begin.
Tricks an old dog should know; knowing of which translators hate him for.
Joe Viel:
“Some people have quoted the Greek Matt 28:1, which says the empty tomb was found at "episooskousé", but there are several problems with using this to "prove" a Saturday night Resurrection. First, the word here is a bit vague since it could mean dawn or dusk, so it neither proves nor disproves the point being made.”
GE:
Re: “the word here ("episooskousé") is a bit vague since it could mean dawn or dusk”.
Yes, in fact it so “the word here”, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’, “could mean dawn or dusk”— depending on the English one may be using. The ‘bit of a vagueness’, mustn’t be blamed on the Greek which is very precise and very specific, and should as far as possible be literally interpreted.
No one has solved this ‘difficulty’ more authoritatively than A.T. Robertson.
Quote begins: Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week (opse de sabbatwn, th epipwskoush eiί mian sabbatwn). This
careful chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that
before the sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women
was made "to see the sepulchre" (qeorhsai ton tapon). They had
seen the place of burial on Friday afternoon (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61; Luke 23:55). They had rested on the sabbath
after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke 23:56), a sabbath of unutterable
sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices after sundown when the new day has
dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark 16:1). Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke 23:54) use dawn (epipwskw) for
the dawning of the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the
twelve-hour day at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses.
The so-called Gospel of Peter has epipwskw in the same sense as Matthew
and Luke as does a late papyrus. Apparently the Jewish sense of
"dawn" is here expressed by this Greek verb. Allen thinks that Matthew
misunderstands Mark at this point, but clearly Mark is speaking of sunrise and
Matthew of sunset. Why allow only one visit for the anxious women? Quote ends “Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Only point I differ with Robertson on, is that he thinks the women’s
visit “was
made”; that it was “one visit for the anxious women” that must be ‘allowed’ as though
they accomplished it. But Matthew only
wrote that the women “departed to see / set out to go have a look at the
grave”. Matthew does not say that the women’s intended visit realised. Matthew
wrote “they went”; but he didn’t write, “they saw”. Matthew instead
wrote, “suddenly there was a great earthquake”— which must have
prevented the women to accomplish their intended visit. That they did not finish their excursion is certain
from the simple fact they afterward were
to learn about the grave that was opened; were to learn about the grave that was empty, and were to learn about every other detail
of before and after the Resurrection— things they would have experienced first
hand, had they actually visited the tomb at the time Matthew wrote of. The women were to learn about every
detail of before and after the
Resurrection and of the Resurrection itself
from “the angel”, who, in Mt28:5, “answered / explained / informed
the women, saying .....” the things Matthew recorded from verse 1 to verse
7 at least; or more probably, from 27:62 to 28:7.
Joe Viel:
“But also, it (a Saturday
night Resurrection the point being made) must agree with the rest of scripture,
if it too is to be believed, and the KJV translates it "dawn" since
it has to be referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly
refers to the earliest part of dawn.”
GE:
I acknowledge “a Saturday
night Resurrection” does not “agree
with the rest of scripture”. Neither does a Sunday-resurrection. Only a
‘Sabbath Resurrection’ does: compare Scriptures like Hb4:3-4, 8-10, Gn2:3. “Because that God in the Seventh Day
RESTED.”
That does not mean, however, that “the
Greek Matt 28:1”, ‘tehi epifohskousehi’ “too is to be
.... referring to the same event as Luke 24:1 and Luke 24:1 clearly refers to
the earliest part of dawn”. Matthew
and Luke are ‘referring’ to neither “the same
event” nor to the same time of day or night. Matthew records the angel as
telling the women (verse 6a) of the Sabbath’s-events when the angel opened the
grave and Jesus rose from the dead (verses 1-4). “Luke
24:1” does not
even refer to “the earliest
part of dawn”; Luke records that the women arrived at the tomb to salve the body,
but discovered it was gone— the earliest part of “morning” – ‘orthros’,
“orthrou batheohs”, which is right after midnight and long before “dawn”. Which
makes easy and perfect logical and chronological sense.
Make them speak of the same event and same time and both Matthew and
Luke — no! he who makes them speak of the same event and same time — speaks
utter nonsense.
Joe Viel:
“...... Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close.”
GE:
So confused does everybody make it. To say “the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close” is self-contradictory. “As the sun sets” is not “on Saturday” or, “as the Sabbath comes to a close”. “As the Sabbath comes to a close” is before the Sabbath came to a close “as the sun sets”.
It’s the same confusion and obfuscating of the ending of the Sabbath we have before discussed when we discussed Luke 23:54. Luke 23:54-56a supposes and implies the last three hours of “after noon” of daytime on Friday. Precisely the same, in John 19:42. Those three hours are “as the Sabbath comes to a close”. Those three hours are past “as the sun sets”. Those are the three hours after noon and before sunset: “mid-afternoon on the Sabbath toward (before) the First Day of the week” – ‘eis mian s.’ – the Sundayworshippers ignore dead. These three hours are that “toward” of the KJV which itself is the “dawn” of the KJV— that ‘later part or latter halve of afternoon’ in perfect synchronism with “Late on / in the end of, the Sabbath” – ‘opse sabbatohn’.
Sunset per se are the few seconds it takes the upper curve of the sun to disappear behind the horizon from where one observes; it is neither the past or the new day; it cannot be dated. Sunset observed with the eye is like a full stop that marks the instantaneous and simultaneous end of the previous day and beginning of the next.
Joe Viel:
“...... Now some have suggested that Matthew 28:1 is really placing the timing of things as the sun sets on Saturday and the Sabbath comes to a close. OK, let's assume that's true. If it's true, we have a problem because it disagrees with the other 3 accounts.”
GE:
But of course “Matthew 28:1 .... disagrees with the other 3 accounts”! There is nothing it agrees in with the other three accounts! Why must it agree with the other three accounts? There’s where “we have a problem”— with the ‘why’ everybody must find Matthew – not in agreement with the other Gospels, but –in agreement with his own views of what ‘agreement’ consists in. As long as Matthew is not allowed to tell his own story, and each of the other Gospels its own story, ‘disagreement’ must rule. But let each Gospel tell his part of the whole of the Gospel, and all the Gospels fully agree and every “problem” is solved.
Joe Viel:
“Matthew 28:1 is an account of when the women WENT TO THE TOMB!”
GE:
Yes! “..... of when the women went to the tomb”; not, that, or, of when, the women arrived, at the tomb.
What was the women’s purpose, according to Matthew’s Gospel? “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to go have a look at the grave.” Does that say they did see or did arrive at the tomb? We have dealt with this before. I cannot see why we should repeat. Enough is enough for those with eyes to see and ears willing to hear.
Joe Viel:
“Matthew 28:1 is an account of when the women WENT TO THE TOMB! In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the women went to the tom ......”
GE:
They are not the same.
Three Gospels give accounts that are about when the women actually got to the
tomb at different occasions. Matthew does tell of women who got to the
tomb— it is clear from verse five on. The angel explains to them, “He is not
here”, which implies the
angel is at the grave, and is speaking to the women who therefore must have
been at the grave as well. “And they
departed quickly from the sepulchre”— which says it all. The women are at the grave on Sunday morning after Jesus had first appeared to Mary only. (Mk16:9, Jn20:11f) What Matthew and only Matthew tells us, is
that the women afterwards, were at
the grave again.
But we know this
from what Matthew tells us from verses 5 to 8.
Matthew in verses 1-4 accounts another
event or events— which other event, the angel
actually “explained, and (then and there went on and) told the women,
He is not here, He is risen .... (as I have just explained to you).”
So yes, Matthew does
tell that the women went to the tomb before Jesus’ second appearance on Sunday
morning. It must have been quite some time after sunrise already (this second
appearance), considering Jesus “appeared to Mary Magdalene first” in the
garden when she thought He was the gardener (who normally starts working from sunrise).
John 20:11-17.
Therefore “In fact, all 4 of these accounts are when the
women went to the tomb” yes, but Matthew’s does not say or imply the women actually got
to the tomb; but on the contrary implies they did not get to the tomb due to
the great earthquake. And since no earthquake occurred again and since the
guard’s watch expired at midnight, it is
to be expected any endeavour to go to the tomb after midnight, succeeded— which
is indisputable the case in Luke 24:1.
Yet no resurrection occurred during any visit at the tomb because the
Resurrection had happened much time earlier on the Sabbath Day before, as
Matthew without a doubt explained in 28:1-4 (and 5).
Joe Viel:
“..... all 4 of these accounts are when the women went to the tomb, which may or may not be the same as when He rose.”
GE:
Definitely Jesus arose at no visit of any women at the tomb. No ‘account’ of a Gospel of ‘when the women went to the tomb’ is indicative of when Jesus rose from the dead, except Matthew’s account of when the two Marys “departed” or “set out” from home with the idea, “to go have a look at the grave”. It’s another thing than to arrive at the grave and to see the events described in 28:1-4 happen! No women saw or was present or even near. No human eye beheld “the same as when He rose”. Therefore, neither of all 4 of these accounts of when the women went to the tomb, was “the same as when He rose.”
The simple fact an angel or angels at every visit at the tomb told the women that Jesus was risen, proves none of all four of these –virtually identical – accounts recorded in the four Gospels of when the women actually were at the tomb, are ‘the same as when He rose’— none!
Also, the simple fact an angel or angels at every visit at the tomb told the women that Jesus was risen, proves that none of these at-the-tomb-events is the same as another.
Only a fifth visit — the first in Matthew’s account in 28:1-4, intended, but in 28:5-8 last recorded visit, “when went Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre suddenly there was a great earthquake : for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door” — was “the same as when He rose”.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His rising.”
GE:
For every and all the reasons given above, they did not!
What on earth for would
1) the angel have explained to the women – four times and every time in their presence at the tomb – that Jesus was risen, if “They went there on .... the timing of His rising”?
2) And why would the angel or angels’ supposed only account in each Gospel differ and contradict itself – however little or much – if “They went there on or after the timing of His rising” (only once)?
3) And why would the Gospel writers’, separate accounts, differ so with one another if “They went there on or after the timing of His rising” — only once?
4) Why does every Gospel writer supply a different time of day?
5) Why does every Gospel writer describe a different event?
6) Why are the angel / angels described differently?
7) Why are localities so different?
8) Why are the persons different?
9) Why are the actions and reactions of the women so different?
Why is there absolutely NO harmony or consensus between more than one factors? Why are no two things in agreement or reconcilable? Only because the Resurrection must be on Sunday. The Word of God will be infested with myriads of lies, to prove Jesus rose on Sunday. Blasphemy! “They went there on or after the timing of His rising”, sums it up.
No! The women went to the tomb, and arrived there, in each Gospel as each Gospel writer gives account of another visit of the women’s, which therefore could only be accounts of separate occasions and times of night or day “on the First Day of the week”, AFTER the Sabbath.
All the four Gospels – Matthew included (except in 28:1-4 where the angel “explained to the women” (28:5a) the circumstances of Jesus’ resurrection “On the Sabbath”) – record,
1) the women’s visits at the grave, and,
2) the angel / angels’ accounts to the women of Jesus’ resurrection at each visit.
No one went to the tomb on or immediately after Jesus’ rising! Everybody
who went to the tomb and got there, went there after midnight or after on Sunday.
Jesus’ rising was “On the Sabbath”
before.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising.
Greek Matt
28:1 places it "after the Sabbaths, towards the dawning of the first
of the week..."”.
GE:
Incorrect! Everyone went
there after the timing of His
rising.
Greek
Matt 28:1 places it “In the end of the Sabbath, towards the dawning of
the first of the week...” or more precisely see above.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... Mark 16:2 places it "early in the morning...at the rising of the sun"”
GE:
Yes,
everyone went there after the timing
of His rising. “Mark 16:2
places it “early in the morning...at
the rising of the sun””.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... Luke 24:1 places it "at early dawn"”.
GE:
No; Luke says the
women had come to the tomb to embalm Jesus’ body “deep(est) morning”,
that is, just after midnight morning.
Joe Viel:
“They went there on or after the timing of His
rising. ..... John 20:1 places it "early (there being yet darkness)"”.
GE:
Everyone
who visited at the tomb went there after
Jesus’ resurrection. John 20:1 places Mary’s first glimpse of the opened
grave shortly after the Sabbath "while still early dark / before
darkness yet on the First Day of the week”.
If “early (there being yet darkness)”, the women must have entered
the grave even before Mary had seen it opened “early
in the morning...at the rising of
the sun”.
Joe Viel:
“John 20:1 tells us it was STILL DARK. Now
if the sun just set, what's the point of saying it was "still
dark". It just got dark, so there's no "still" to talk
about. The phrase "still dark" makes sense if this happened at
sunrise, since it tells us if this is just before sunrise or just after.
But it makes no sense if this happened at sundown.”
GE:
John
20:1 does not “tell us it
was STILL DARK”. The Greek, ‘proh-i skotias eti ousehs’,
literally is, “early dark / night / before-darkness still / yet being”. (See above.)
It was the “before-darkness” still; simply, it was the evening
after sunset yet and fore-part of night when Mary went to the grave and saw it
opened. The sun just set, that's John’s
point of saying it was "still dark". He actually is saying it
was “still early darkness”,
you see. If “It just got
dark .... there's no "still" to talk about”, you’re quite right! The point is it did not just got dark .....
it was “early darkness still”.
Joe Viel:
“If it happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK", not "STILL DARK". Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.”
GE:
“If it happened”— what “it”? The Resurrection, “Since all 4 record the same events”? Or, “Since all 4 record the same event....” Singular; the Resurrection? Not one – not even Mt28:1-4 – records “the same event”, or the “events” of the Resurrection. Mt28:1-4 records the events that accompanied the Resurrection; it does not record the Resurrection directly. Mt28:1-4 in fact is only the angel’s explanation to the women that is ‘recorded’; not the accompanying events of the Resurrection even, directly.
So, “If it” – the Resurrection – “happened Saturday night, you'd say "AFTER DARK", not "STILL DARK"”, yes; ‘if ....’. But now John doesn’t say the Resurrection “happened Saturday night”; he is not even saying the Resurrection “happened”. John tells of Mary who saw the grave’s stone door removed; he doesn’t tell of Jesus’ ‘rising’, or, of “the timing” of Jesus’ ‘rising’.
Joe Viel:
“Mark 16:2 clearly says "at the rising of the sun" and Luke "early dawn". Since all 4 record the same events, we can only conclude that Matthew is saying the same thing.”
GE:
Yes, anyone should read
Mark 16:2 clearly says "early dawn at the
rising of the sun" and Luke "deep darkness of morning". But anyone may just as clearly discern Mark
and Luke are saying nothing about the Resurrection in the verses you refer to,
but that they are clearly recording separate
visits the women brought the tomb.
It’s impossible “we can .... conclude
that Matthew” in
28:1-4 “is saying the same thing”. He is not.
Joe Viel:
“Now the Hebrew version of Matthew 28:1
gives some insights on timing that are rather hard to reconcile without a
little background knowledge.”
GE:
For me
A.T. Robertson (above) has said enough about the ‘Hebrew factor’. According to
him it confirms a Sabbath’s Resurrection.
Joe Viel:
“Is it possible Y'shua rose sometime in the night
on Saturday evening? No.”
GE:
I agree,
but not because I believe a Wednesday Crucifixion or a Friday Crucifixion; or
depend on a Hebrew translation of Mt28:1. Simply because I believe the Gospels
as we have them do not contradict.
Joe Viel:
“Y'shua appeared to Mary and said, "Touch me
not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" in John 20:17
during early dawn. Also, Mark 16 clearly tells us that the earthquake and
removal of the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to
visit Y'shua's tomb.”
GE:
“Clearly”? Where does Mark
do that? Clearly, Mark does not “tell
us” anything of
1) “the
earthquake”, or,
of
2) “the removal
of the stone”,
or, that
3) “the removal
of the stone from Y'shua's tomb occured while they were on the way to visit
Y'shua's tomb.”
On the
contrary, it seems Mark is telling
us of a return-visit to the tomb to ascertain the women’s findings at their
first visit according to Luke, and
at which visit Mary, according to John
20:11, “had had stood after at the sepulchre”. (See several times elsewhere
considered.)
Joe Viel:
“Occasionally people have suggested that Yeshua
rose on a day PRIOR to the first day in the week, and they point out that Matt
28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 don't say He rose on the first day of
the week, just that His tomb was found empty on the first day of the week.”
GE:
In fact
“Matt 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and
John 20:1 don't say He rose on the first day of the week”. Quit right.
And, “Mark 16:2,
Luke 24:1 .... just say that His tomb was found empty on the first day of the
week”; not “John 20:1” though. Quite right again. “John
20:1” states
Mary saw the tomb opened – “the door stone moved away from the sepulchre”;
not she saw it was empty.
Very
‘occasionally’ one might find someone who noticed only Matthew mentions – and
that he only in one place mentions – the circumstances that surrounded the
Resurrection. Very ‘occasionally’ one might find someone who noticed that not
even Matthew mentions the Resurrection as such, but that he supposes Jesus’
resurrection to have taken place in space in time in glorified and incorruptible
body of flesh, “In the end of the Sabbath”-‘opse sabbatohn’ – that is,
while it was still Sabbath and “mid-afternoon Sabbath’s”-‘sabbatohn tehi
epifohskousehi’. I think Joe Viel also
has seen it; but he won’t admit, I think.
Joe Viel:
“But the fact is it DOES tell us that this – on
the first day of the week – is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and
that He appeared to the women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17 . So those verses do seem to
make it clear that this was indeed when He rose.”
GE:
The fact
is, it does NOT tell us “that”, that “He rose on the first day of the week”, or “this”, that “on the first
day of the week is when the stone was rolled away from the tomb and He appeared
to the women”. Both are plain, untrue.
Then,
yes, it is true “He appeared
to the women having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17
”. So what does that tell us about when He rose
from the dead “On the Sabbath” the day before?
It only tells us He has not yet ascended to his Father. So it’s another mistake to have said “having not yet risen to the Father in John 20:17”. In Jn20:17 Jesus said
‘ascended’; He did not say ‘arose’. Very
different things! See many comments; you
may find them with a few clicks on your mouse.
It’s
important to distinguish because “God raised Christ by / in the Glory of the
Father” and of the Father’s Presence.
Many other Scriptures state God, or God the Father, or God the Holy
Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. So
the Father and the Son in the Full Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit worked in unison to, raise Christ up out of death, and when, Christ was raised from the dead—
right inside the tomb in space, and
right “Inside the Sabbath” in time,
right inside the body of Him whose
flesh God declared would not see corruption. Three dimensional REALITY and DIVINE
TRUTH.
So some of
those verses do make it clear that this was indeed when He appeared! Not when He
rose!
Joe Viel:
“Now some Sabbath keepers have concluded that
Y'shua rose on Saturday night because it somehow disproves the Christian
tradition of celebrating on Sunday morning. But we should not allow a
"sabbath" agenda to determine how we interpret when He died or rose,
but rather read the scriptures for what they have to say without attaching an
agenda to how we interpret facts.”
GE:
I am a
Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant, Christian; yet I do not believe the
‘Sunday-agenda’ that directs and inspires the Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant,
Christian Church to disregard and where
necessary to change the Scriptures to suit its ‘Sunday-agenda’.
For most
basic Confession of Faith I accept, believe and confess and to the best of my
sinful abilities, try to ‘keep’ the Apostolic Confession. I believe the Seventh
Day Sabbath is included in the greater scope and extent of the Apostolic
Confession of Faith, in that I believe He was “raised the third day according
to the Scriptures” and the Confession, and this “third day” had been the
Seventh Day Sabbath predetermined and predestinated and pre-appointed by God
since before the creation of the world.
I do not find the First Day of the week anywhere in Scriptures or
Confession so “blessed” or “sanctified” or honoured unto the service, glory and
honour of, and to, Jesus Christ.
Therefore to allege “we (Sabbath-believers) allow a "sabbath" agenda to determine how we interpret when He died or rose” is utterly false accusation against us, the contrary of which is the blatantly assuming and openly defying Sunday-agenda of Sunday-believers “to determine how we interpret when He died or rose” by all means “The Resurrection had to be Sunday just before Dawn”, whether by means of defacing the Written Word of God or by defaming God, Christ and all Truth. For thus — rather than to read the Scriptures for what they have to say without attaching an agenda to how we interpret facts — “the Christian tradition of celebrating (the Resurrection) on Sunday morning” came into being and is insured to stay.
1 July
2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za