‘the third day since’ not “the third
day according to the Scriptures” — Luke 24:21
(wherein I also
touch on Colossians 2:16-17 and other issues)
GE:
Day of the
resurrection of Christ from the dead throughout all the Holy Word of God
Almighty :
Matthew 28:1 AV /
KJV – not the corrupted NKJV! – "IN /ON the Sabbath's fullness
of daylight being before the First Day of the week" – Jesus by
and in his Resurrection from the dead is God's REST which He on the Seventh Day
“WORKED having raised Christ” in and by "the exceeding
greatness of His Power", Eph1:19–23, "THEREIN God having
FINISHED ALL the works of God, RESTED", Hb4:4–5.
BP:
I don't see how that can be correct. Toward
Sunday evening, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus said that it was the
third day since Jesus was crucified (Lk 24:21). Later in the same chapter
Christ said He was to rise on the third day (vs. 46). Thus Christ had to have
risen sometime on Sunday, which would have been the third day after Christ's
crucifixion on Friday.
Christ thus had to have arisen on the same day that the disciples on the road
to Emmaus talked with Jesus and said, "To day is the third day" (vs.
21).
GE:
It was a very quick
and short 'confession' I wanted to spread as wide as possible by personal
effort before the Sabbath would start here in
RE:
"Toward Sunday evening, the
two disciples on the road to Emmaus said that it was the third day since Jesus
was crucified (Lk 24:21)."
Sunday was "the third
day since Jesus was crucified";
Saturday was
therefore the second day since
Jesus was crucified;
Friday was therefore
the first day since Jesus
was crucified;
Thursday therefore
was the day upon which Jesus
was crucified.
Note that Lk24:21
does NOT mention anything about the fact Jesus also had been buried; on the contrary Lk24:21
strongly evokes the impression the two disciples knew absolutely not that
Joseph had interred the body of Jesus. The women told them the morning all that
they knew. The women must have informed all others that Joseph and
Nicodemus had buried the body. The Gospels mention only the two Marys
witnessing the two men only, mentioned, who laid the body. Joseph acted “in
secret” because he acted against the wishes of the Jews and Roman
authorities. That was why Joseph obtained permission to have the body in order
to bury it.
WHEN did Joseph do
that? The four Gospels tell the same thing: Joseph started his
undertaking only after sunset "When it had become evening already: the
Preparation Day WHICH IS the Fore–Sabbath" Mk15:42 ––– which was Friday
without a doubt, but Friday then BEGINNING with "evening"–'opsia', 'opsia',
ALWAYS used for night's first or earlier period and beginning of the Bible–day.
The implication is unavoidable and inescapable: Joseph began his undertaking
and buried Jesus on and during the day AFTER HE HAD BEEN "crucified" and had died on:
therefore, Thursday, "crucified". At the same time of day that
He had died, 3 pm., Joseph the same time of day "that same day"
that followed after: Friday, "mid–afternoon towards the
Sabbath" : "epefohsken sabbaton" closed the grave.
Lk23:54.
The Passover : Nisan
14, "killed"; Nisan 15, the
Passover, "eaten" in the same night and "that which
remains" the same day following, taken out of
Thus Christ had to
have risen "in fullness of the Sabbath before 'Sunday'",
which would have counted “the
third day after / since” –‘af’ hou’ – the crucifixion of Christ on
Thursday.
BP:
Have you looked at how Acts 10 demonstrates
that we should use inclusive reckoning? A period of 72 hours is said to be four
days. Check and see.
So you believe that the third day of Lk. 24 is the third day after His burial,
not His death?
GE:
I accept fully the
principle for a day's reckoning the Bible way, which is, inter alia, as you
have said, the 'inclusive method'
whereby any part of a day represents or is counted for the whole of it.
Then, no, I do not,
"believe that the
third day of Lk. 24 is the third day after His burial"; but that it was "the third day after .... His death", or – as Lk24 says – the third day after "the
rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death and have crucified Him".
Then, as all the Gospels unanimously and clearly indicate, Mk15:42, Mt27:57,
Jn19:31,38, Lk23:50f, THE DAY AFTER ––– that is, after sunset and evening
had set in and the new day had begun ––– Joseph had only STARTED his
undertaking to obtain the body of Jesus for burial.
This has been what
believers have been indoctrinated NOT to realise, and which, when people began
to realise it, translations were begun to create and perpetuate the old and
false idea He was buried BEFORE the day had run out – in other words, that
Joseph also buried Jesus the same day He was crucified on, BEFORE
sunset.
Historical sequence
of ‘days’, “according to the Scriptures”:—
Nisan 14: Crucified
and died, 3pm : Thursday "the ninth hour" 3pm: Lk22:7/14, Mk14:12/17,
Mt26:17/20, Jn13:1, 19:14;
Nisan 15: Friday, and
Joseph’s undertaking begun :
Mk15:42/Mt27:57;
Jn19:31/38; "mid–afternoon", entombment
finished, Lk23:54, Jn19:42 :
Nisan 16: Saturday, resurrected : Mt28:1 (Mk16:1, Jn20:1),
which had begun, Lk23:56b.
BP:
Mt. 27:57 says that even was come. But which
even? The Passover lamb was slain between the evenings, according to the Hebrew
text of Ex. 12:6.
What you write is a bit confusing. First you say that you believe that the
third day of Lk. 24 is the third day after His death, reckoned inclusively. But
then you leave the impression that that third day is Saturday. How can that
possibly be? If the disciples on the road to Emmaus said that the first day of
the week was the third day, how can you say that Saturday was also the third day?
We have to stick with the fact that Friday the day of His death was the first
day, Saturday was the second day, and Sunday, the first day of the week, was
the third day according to Lk. 24. This would be the way to do it according to
inclusive reckoning.
GE:
I understand your
concern in your remark:
First: Separate this part, "..... that the third day
of Lk. 24 is the
third day after His death, reckoned inclusively" from what follows: "But then you leave the
impression that that third day is Saturday."
Because Lk24 mentions two
types of 'third days' which the one has got nothing to do with the other.
In Lk24:21b, "today,
is the third day" : counted,
"since these things were done", namely, specifically “these
things since / after” crucifixion and the death of Jesus. It says,
"since", like Hannah (Lk2:36) who since her virginity lived with
her husband seven years. Obviously it is not inclusive counting. Cf. also
the genealogy of Jesus where the seven next generations are counted
'since' the previous – exclusively. Therefore in Lk24:21b, "Today" is
a day in its own right: it is not of a series, like "THE third day"
of the three first days of the Passover which as days are reckoned as
represented by the most important moment of their duration: the first of the
three days represented (in whole) by the crucifixion and death of Jesus; the
second by the burial; the third by the resurrection ("in the twinkling of
an eye").
'The three days' are
PROPHETIC days; the 'today' of
Lk24:21b is NOT a prophetic day although it was the fourth (or fifth, strictly
speaking) day during the Passover Season that began with
Abib 14
(Crucifixion, Thursday), first day of passover and day of lamb's slaughter;
Abib 15 (Burial,
Friday), second day of passover lamb eaten and first day of
unleavened bread eaten;
Abib 16
(Resurrection), and third day of passover as such, second day of Unleavend
Bread Feast as such, and day OF
First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD, and first day of fifty days to
Pentecost.
Abib 17 Appearances;
fourth day of passover as such,
third day of Unleavend Bread Feast as such; second day of fifty days to
Pentecost; and first of forty days of Appearances.
Which three days,
Mt12:40 also further identifies as literal and full "three days and three
nights". Therefore:
Abib 14 Wednesday
night and Thursday day;
Abib 15 Thursday
night and Friday day;
Abib 16
Friday night and Saturday day.
"The third day
I finish", Jesus said, having been speaking of his resurrection from the
dead. All his healing deeds on and of the Sabbaths so emphasised in the Gospels
find their 'finishing', completion, fulfilment, culmination, and essence and
TRUTH only in Jesus’ resurrection unto eternal life. Now what was the sense of
Jesus' doing all these wonders on the Sabbath Day specifically were He not
to rise from the dead ultimately on the Sabbath Day?
We should rather have to stick
with the fact that Friday the day of His burial was the second day,
Thursday was the first day, and "Sabbath's" (Mt28:1),
"the third day" "according
to the Scriptures", AND, Seventh Day of the week : since Gn2,
Ex20, Dt5, Is58, Is66 and the new earth's beginning. This would be the
way to reckon "the third day according to the Scriptures", according
to inclusive reckoning; not the way
to simply count the days that
elapsed after Jesus had been crucified and died.
BP:
Can you find any biblical support for interpreting "third
day since" to mean the third day, not inclusively? Somehow I don't think
your conclusion is valid on that point.
GE:
I did supply you two
examples of "biblical support for interpreting "third day since"
to mean the third day, not inclusively", that of Hannah and the genealogy of Jesus. There are
others.
Count the 'third day' of Lk24:21 'inclusively' .....
Sunday the third day
since Crucifixion;
Sabbath the second
day since Crucifixion;
Friday ENDING: Mk15:46–47, Mt27:60–61, Lk23:54–56,
Jn19:41–42— having STARTED: Mk15:42,
Mt27:57, Lk23:50 and Jn19:31/38: BURIED,
the first day “since” the Crucifixion but,
retrospectively, no crucifixion yet!
So Lk24:21 must have
said, ‘the fourth day since’ and must be in error – which I am convinced it is
not!
I repeat: The
disciples did not speak of the 'prophetic' day "according to the
Scriptures" of Jesus' resurrection in fulfilment of the First Sheaf
Wave Offering : they did NOT believe; they simply RECOUNTED their experiencing
the past three days of days' coming
and going that were the three days AFTER the Crucifixion — not after the
burial!
Then too, or rather,
more importantly, there are the myriads of other CLEAR and unambiguous
indications and statements of fact of the NT and OT, that Christ "ON THE
SABBATH'S MID–AFTERNOON" – the literal of the Greek in Mt28:1 – would
rise, and did rise from the dead.
I defend "The
Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God" and will not look on how the
Word of God is corrupted in honour of the "Day of the lord Sun", just
to please hypocritical, idolising, Sunday observance eulogising pagan Christianity!
When you Seventhday Adventists partake, you partake and serve paganism just
like the rest of Christendom.
One cannot serve two
lords at once. "Choose you whom you will serve" : Go choose
from among your pagan idols and spirit-gods; "but I and my house, we
shall serve and worship the LORD".
BP:
First of all, Lk. 2:36 doesn't give us any
clues how to reckon the 7 years regarding Anna, whether inclusively or not.
GE:
Her husband did not
live with Anna while she was a virgin; therefore the word 'since' has exclusive
application.
If the generations
'SINCE' were counted 'inclusively', at least the last in each group should be
counted together with the following group, thus making each group (except
the first one) to consist of fifteen generations –– which of course cannot
be done; JUST so with "the third day SINCE" : If the Day of
Crucifixion were 'included', it would have been the ––– impossible –––
fourth day.
There are a
multitude of 'mandates' from many angles of approach that demand Lk24:21 be
looked at exclusively.
BP:
Look at Mat. 1:1–17 again, very
carefully. The 14 generations from Abraham to David include both Abraham and
David. The 14 generations from Jechonias to Christ include both Jechonias and
Christ. That is inclusive, is it not?
You need to find a clear Bible passage that mandates that Lk. 24:21 not be
looked at inclusively.
Christ rested in the tomb the entire Sabbath day, and rose to go back to work
early Sunday morning, in fulfillment of the wave sheaf offering. Scripture is
fairly clear on these points, and I am not about to budge from what Scripture
teaches.
What I think that Herbert W. Armstrong did was that he took a popular argument
for Sunday and tried to make it fit the Sabbath. Thus, since Sunday keepers
erroneously teach that because Jesus rose on Sunday we should keep Sunday,
Armstrong tried to say that Christ rose on the Sabbath instead. But the 4th
commandment can stand on its own, and doesn't need Sunday arguments for
support.
I do not see any reason for taking the Greek preposition apo to mean something none exclusive
regarding Anna. You need to find a Bible verse that uses apo in relation to a time period that
can't possibly be inclusive.
GE:
I repeat:
"since" – 'apo' IS used exclusively in the case of Hannah, as
in the case of Lk24:21. If the burial
were part of the day of crucifixion and its concluding event, why do the
disciples not mention or even know about the burial?
1) That the disciples MENTION the Crucifixion
only, and
2) that the women – according to Luke – had to inform
them about the Burial only on Sunday morning and the third day since the
crucifixion, prove the Crucifixion and Burial were separate events of and on
separate days.
So:
3) That the disciples knew about the resurrection
but not of the burial, implies the burial was undertaken by Joseph only the
next day and in secret: which facts the Gospels fill us in on precisely so in
Mk15:46–47/Mt27:60–61, Lk23:54–56 and Jn19:41–42.
BP:
Check Mt. 1:1–17 again. The third set of
generations is inclusive. Otherwise, it would have said there were 13
generations. The only way to get 14 is to take it inclusively.
But the number of generations is not the same as a period of days or months or
years.
GE:
Dear Bob Pickles,
I want to apologise
for having used the 14 generations as an example of exclusive reckoning or
counting. You were absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong! I have to
blame my blunder on myself, my LAZINESS, and my very poor arithmetic.
However, 'apo'–'since'
is used exclusively where it is said: "from the days of John"
Mt11:12; Lk16:16; cf. Mk1:14 and Acts 13:24,25.
BP:
Mat. 11:12 and Lk. 16:16 appear to me to be inclusive. Lk.
16:16 would include the preaching of John (the time of John), and Mat. 11:12
would include the days of John.
GE:
You answered
without having taken into account the context or thrust of these Scriptures;
nor have you taken into consideration the Acts texts. John ‘sorts’ under the ‘prophets’; Jesus is
the first representative of the Gospel ‘since’ John— who does not ‘fit’ in or
into the Gospel era.
Acts13:24–25,
“When John had first preached BEFORE His (Christ’s) coming the
baptism of repentance ..... And as John fulfilled his course .... he said, I am
NOT He; but behold, there cometh One
AFTER me”— ‘met’ eme’; so that clearly from these Scriptures together,
‘apo’ is meant with the sense of ‘meta’.
You have
told me I “need to find a clear Bible
passage that mandates that Lk. 24:21 not be looked at inclusively”. But Lk24:19–22 is clear ITSELF, the meaning
and function of ‘apo’ or the statement in whole, is exclusive— in other words,
is an exception to the rule ‘apo’ is used with the Ablative that ‘indicates
source’. Here the meaning is not ‘source inclusive’.
1) Context:
The KJV reads: “And (Jesus)
said unto them, WHAT things?” And
the disciples explained: “THESE THINGS” – verse 21, specifically the
crucifixion, excluding the burial. Therefore
one day ‘since’ the crucifixion should be reckoned for the burial, which you cannot
do if the crucifixion was on Friday. You so far have ignored this point I
made. The KJV goes on:
“Concerning
Jesus of Nazareth who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all
the people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be
condemned to death, and have crucified Him. But we trusted that it had been He
who should have redeemed Israel, and BESIDES ALL THIS today is .....”
Already the
context ‘mandates’ exclusive meaning.
“Besides
all this, today is the third day since these things were done” / “had
been done” .....” The English is unambiguously
clear Luke intends
exclusive meaning.
2) It must be noted, that Luke does not employ
purely the preposition ‘apo’ per se; he uses it in the combination, ‘aph’ hou’<‘apo’
+ ‘hou’; ‘hou’<‘hos’, relative or correlative Pronoun. Grammars and
dictionaries define this phrase, “since”— “since how / since though this is
the third day these things had happened” thus further EMPHASISING EXclusive
meaning.
3) Also Matthew and Luke uses ‘apo’ in conjuction
with other words: Mt11:12, “From the days of John UNTIL NOW the Kingdom of
heaven sufferth violence”; Lk16:16, “The law and the prophets were UNTIL
(‘mexri’)John— since THEN (‘apo tote’ “that time”) the
Kingdom
of God is preached.”
“Now” is included; “then” is excluded.
BP:
I disagree. I do not believe that you have
demonstrated that that grammatical construction has to be reckoned exclusively.
You have not shown any similar Greek construction that must be reckoned that
way, and without that, your theory is but a theory.
GE:
Dear Bop Pickles, I don't write to you to win an argument –
especially not one so isolated and unimportant an argument. You may accept the
laurels, with grace. I write to confess my faith in the resurrection of Jesus
Christ for reason of and for, my believing the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Lord
your God. If you find the Sabbath without this
basis satisfactory, enjoy your sabbaths!
BP:
Gerhard, since
the Lord Jesus testified His Spirit through the prophet in Desire of Ages, why have you decided
to prove that Jesus didn't know what day He rose from the dead upon?
The night of the first day of the week had worn slowly away.
The hour, just before daybreak, had come. Christ was still a in His narrow
tomb. (DA 779)
I asked this sort of question before, but you didn't answer it. I would think
that if the Bible evidence was not convincing enough to you, that this would
settle it in your mind. In what way do you think that DA 779 does not settle
the matter? Specifically, why do you think that Jesus was wrong when He
testified by His Spirit through the prophet that He rose on Sunday before
sunup?
As far as your arguments go, you never showed that Lk. 2:36 has to be taken
exclusively.
Lk. 24 does not say that the disciples did not know about the burial.
You write:
You answered
without having taken into account the context or thrust of these Scriptures;
nor have you taken into consideration the Acts texts. John ‘sorts’ under
the ‘prophets’; Jesus is the first representative of the Gospel ‘since’ John—
who does not ‘fit’ in or into the Gospel era.
Acts13:24–25, “When
John had first preached BEFORE His (Christ’s) coming the baptism of
repentance ..... And as John fulfilled his course .... he said, I am NOT
He; but behold, there cometh One AFTER me”— ‘met’ eme’; so that
clearly from these Scriptures together, ‘apo’ is meant with the sense of
‘meta’.
I don't
understand your reasoning here.
You write:
You have told me
I “need to find a clear Bible passage
that mandates that Lk. 24:21 not be looked at inclusively”. But
Lk24:19–22 is clear ITSELF, the meaning and function of ‘apo’ or the statement
in whole, is exclusive— in other words, is an exception to the rule ‘apo’ is
used with the Ablative that ‘indicates source’. Here the meaning is not ‘source
inclusive’.
No, the meaning is not clear itself. "To day is the third day since these
things were done," could easily include the day Jesus was crucified upon.
The fact that you cannot find a clear passage that mandates that such a
grammatical construction be taken exclusively is evidence that there is no such
mandate.
You write:
“Besides all this, today is
the third day since these things were done” / “had been done”
.....” The English is unambiguously clear Luke intends exclusive meaning.
But Luke didn't
write in English.
You write:
2) It
must be noted, that Luke does not employ purely the preposition ‘apo’ per se;
he uses it in the combination, ‘aph’ hoe’<‘apo’ + ‘hou’; ‘hou’<‘hos’,
relative or correlative Pronoun. Grammars and dictionaries define this phrase,
“since”— “since how / since though this is the third day these things had
happened” thus further EMPHASISING EXclusive meaning.
Grammars and
dictionaries can be wrong. But look at Acts 20:18; 24:11 where apo os also occurs. Particularly look
at Acts 24:11 and explain to me how those 12 days do not include the day Paul
came to Jerusalem.
You might also check the LXX, which uses the same grammatical construction in
Ezek. 28:13, 15; 48:35; Zec. 8:9, and other places. It seems clear that some of
these passages have to be taken inclusively. For example, Lucifer being perfect
since the day he was created would have to include the day he was created,
since the whole point is that Lucifer was perfect from the moment of his
creation.
Bob
GE:
Dear Bob Pickles,
First: I accept
'apo' almost always ––– yes, 'always' ––– but, when used PER SE in the
Scriptures, is used inclusively. I have not once denied this bare fact as
far as I could have been able to determine. I am unable to further or
better explain that THIS, is NOT the case in the use of 'apo' in
Lk24:21, because Lk24:21 simply is not a case of the use of 'apo' PER SE.
Next: It is
undeniable for any honest person that "the third day since" in
Lk24:21 is NOT "the third day according to the (prophetic,
soteriological, christological, typological) Scriptures of the Old Covenant
REALISED in the New Testament PASSOVER OF CHRIST, referred to in Lk24:6
and 46, "Thus it is WRITTEN, thus it behoved the Christ"; "the
Son of Man MUST .... remember how HE SPAKE unto you".
Not only for its
intrinsic prophetic essentiality, but also by the fact these words (in verse
6) were spoken on Sunday morning 'orthrou batheohs' – "deepest
morning of night" (just after midnight) AFTER Jesus an untold time BEFORE,
HAD HAD risen already. In verse 6 Luke speaks of "the
(real) third day", and it not there says, "Today is the third day
since he was delivered".
'The third day since
of Lk24:21 clearly is not the Scripture's 'third day', but the day of
"today". "Today is .....", counted merely from the point of view of the Emmaus disciples; not from the messianic
point of view of "the Christ" as in verses 6 and 46.
Last: It is useless
to debate any further before this 'issue' (which is no 'issue' at all) can
be agreed upon. And it can only be agreed upon if the TRUTH OR FALSITY of
the translations, "IN the Sabbath .... TOWARDS the First Day"
/ "AFTER the Sabbath .... ON the First Day"; and, 'DAWN'
for "mid–afternoon" or 'break of day', have been decided :
and have been 'decided' in the light of
ALL the Scriptures.
Until such time no
one will be able to make a fair judgment about Mrs E.G. White. I say, she must
wait until the Scriptures have spoken; the Scriptures shall not wait until
whosoever else first have spoken: Sola Scriptura; so that eventually it is of
NO consequence whatsoever whosoever has to say on this issue, but God in his
written Word.
BP:
Please read my last email again. I never mentioned the
name of Ellen White. I mentioned the name of Jesus:
Since the Lord Jesus testified [by] His Spirit through the
prophet in Desire of Ages, why
have you decided to prove that Jesus didn't know what day He rose from the dead
upon?
This suggests that, contrary to your claim, you aren't sola scriptura on this point. Rev. 12:17; 19:10; and more
clearly 1 Pet. 1:10, 11 tell us that the Lord Jesus testifies by His Spirit
through the prophet. This is why I wrote that the Lord Jesus testified by His
Spirit through the prophet in Desire
of Ages. Since your reply mentions the name of Ellen White, not the name
of Jesus, your reply suggests that you do not believe what 1 Pet. 1:10, 11
teach, namely, that the writings of a prophet constitute the testimony of
Jesus, that it is Jesus speaking.
Mk. 16:2 says they came to the sepulcher at the rising of the sun, not just
after midnight.
If opse is translated
"after" in Mat. 28:1, the perceived difficulty disappears.
I have a difficulty with the elevation of personal opinions on doubtful
questions above the clear testimony of Jesus Himself. Who do we think we are,
declaring that our personal opinions are more important than what Jesus has
testified? Peter told Jesus He was wrong when Jesus told Peter he was going to
deny Him. But Jesus was right and Peter was wrong. And thus it always is.
Bob
GE:
I further answer in
detail:
Re: Acts 20:18—
“..... where apo os also occurs ..... and explain to me how those ..... days
do not include the day Paul came to .....”, “
Yes, Bob Pickles, “apo os also occurs”; but you (deliberately?) fail to
mention that ‘apo’ on its own, also occurs! (
17
“And from
‘(‘
“he summoned the
elders of the Church.
(‘met–ekalésato tous
presbytérous tehs ekklehsías’)
“And when they came
to him
(‘hohs de
paregénonto pros autón’),
“he said to them:
You understand
(‘eipen autois:
hymeis epístase’),
“from (the)first day
(‘apo prohtehs (heméras)’)
“from which I set
foot on
(‘(heméras) aph’
hehs epébehn eis tehn Asían’)
“how with you the
whole time I was.”
(‘pohs meth’ hymohn ton
panta xronon egenómehn.’)
As far as I can see,
you supplied an instance of both ‘apo’ on its own with inclusive meaning and
‘apo’ + Pronoun with exclusive meaning.
Paul arrives in Asia at
“Since today I have been with you,
(‘hehméras aph’ hehs
.... egenómehn .... meth’ hymohn’)
you do understand how
that
since the first day I set foot in
(‘apo prohtehs
heméras .... epébehn eis tehn Asían’)
I was serving the
Lord the whole time.”
Thank you,
Bob Pickles, for this to me, new information of a case of the Preposition ‘apo’
used in combination with the Demonstrative Pronoun, with present–time, exclusive–application meaning.
Re:
Acts 24:11—
“That thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve
days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.”
Bob Pickles argues: “....apo os also occurs. Particularly look at Acts 24:11 and explain to me how
those 12 days do not include the day Paul came to Jerusalem.”
But Paul’s argument before the governor Felix is: 11 “That
thou mayest understand (sir), that : Twelve – no more – days for me (Paul) it
had been (‘eisin moi hehmérai dóhdeka’),
since this day today (‘aph’ hehs’— Demonstrative Pronoun : upon which
Paul before the governor answered) that I went up to Jerusalem for to worship
and nobody found me in the temple .... or synagogues .... and nobody can prove
what they accuse me of having done”— which was, verses 5–6, to “move sedition
among the Jews” and to “profane the temple”. Paul had been in Jerusalem twelve
days but had not come near the synagogues or the temple to profane it; or near
the Jews to stir them up. He had done
nothing he was accused of: The ‘twelve days’ since he had been in Jerusalem are
excluded – obviously, not included. Besides, were the days Paul actually
travelled to Jerusalem to be included, it had to have been many more than
twelve only days.
Observes Bob Pickles, “It
seems clear that some of these passages have to be taken inclusively.”
It is well you say “some of these passages”, because although ‘apo’ in by far the majority
of cases is used inclusively in the Scriptures, the trend goes against the real
Greek peculiartities of the Preposition ‘apo’ itself, and should rather be
ascribed to the influence of the Hebraistic inclusive way of time– reckoning.
Dana and Mantey explain the root meaning of ‘apo’, “off, away
from”, and say, “It implies separation ....”. Their ‘Manual Grammar’
illustrates the meaning of ‘apo’ with an arrow extending from the outside
circumferance of a circle and will mean ‘exclusive’; while it illustrates the meaning
of ‘ek’ with an arrow from the inside of the circle and out and must therefore mean
‘inclusive’.
A sure method helpful for the correct reading of New Testament
texts with reference to the time schedule of Jesus’ passover – in other words, with
reference to his death and resurrection – is to compare the recent changed
passages with their earlier renderings. The changes are all intended to obscure
the implications of a Thursday Crucifixion and a Sabbath Resurrection. So,
believe the contrary for true, and be safe!
An example of this kind of manhandling of the Scriptures can
be found in our case in hand, Lk24:21 in the ‘Living Bible’. It ignores and leaves out simply, the ‘since’,
and replaces it with its own concepts, “.... besides all this which happened
three days ago”. This is what Bob
Pickles and all Friday–Crucifixion, Sunday–Resurrection obsessed would have
liked the text should have read.
BP:
So did Armstrong believe that Christ rose
on the first day of the week? According to http://www.cogwriter.com/lutherhwa.htm
Armstrong taught that Christ rose on the Sabbath.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was late
Sabbath afternoon, prior to sunset. This is proved conclusively, not only by
all the scriptures on the subject, which are many, but also by astronomy, and
by the Hebrew calendar. In the year in which Jesus was crucified –– A.D. 31 ––
the Passover was on a Wednesday, not a Friday (Armstrong HW. Autobiography of
Herbert W. Armstrong).
GE:
YOU have yourself
quoted the correct translation of Mt28:1 that unequivocally declares Christ
rose from the dead "On the Sabbath".
BP:
Mat. 28:1 does not say that Christ rose on the Sabbath, and I
have never said that it did.
GE:
Bob, Sorry, it must
have been someone else then who quoted Mt28:1 "Late on the Sabbath"
on SDANet. If you deem it necessary, I'll bring the particulars. I think it
might have been –––– no wait, I'll quickly check ....
From: "Mrs Abbott" <juliesdesk@austarnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Easter in Adventist Churches
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009
Quote:
“The gospels disagree on the time the
women went to the tomb and found it empty. Nobody witnessed the
resurrection so we do not know whether the resurrection took place before the
Sabbath ended, or on the cusp, or later. Here is the dilemma.
Matthew 28:1
(1) 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.
Matthew has Mary coming to the tomb late on the Sabbath day (the KJV translates
it as 'in the end of the Sabbath'). Either way it is twilight and Jesus
is gone from the tomb. If we accept this version then we have to conclude
that Jesus rose on Sabbath afternoon before sunset.” End quote.
ALL English
translations until the nineteenth century have either "In the end of
the Sabbath", or, "Late on the Sabbath" –– of course
in various old English words. Newer reliable translations also have
"Late on the Sabbath". This debate has been going on in SDA
circles since the beginning of the movement, and reached books like that of
D.F. Nichol. I corresponded with Bacchiocchi and he admitted to me by e–mail
early SDAtism did not properly look at MT28:1. I debated with him with regard
to A.T. Robertson in this regard, and waited all the years for his answer in
vain. See "Questions I put to Bacchiocchi" on http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
Re Armstrong :
see Book 1, 'Crucifixion'. He is a hopeless case –– doesn't know what he's
talking. He starts off with at the very end of the Sabbath
and "72 hours" after having been buried: which must have been on
the First Day , then a few minutes before sunset, until eventually about 3
hours before sunset. –––See Book 1. There is nothing but flaws
and blunders in Armstrong's best animadversions for a
Wednesday crucifixion ––– which actually is his only point (unsuccessful).
I do not follow Armstrong, and do not believe a Wednesday Crucifixion.
Armstrong – in any case – never believed that Jesus rose on the Sabbath Day.
Surely, Sunday keepers erroneously teach
that Jesus rose on Sunday. And Armstrong veered away from the
fact Jesus arose on the Sabbath. He was grossly ignorant and knew not what
he taught himself. I tried to say that Christ rose on the Sabbath
instead.
So, let's forget
about Armstrong.
Now I say there is
NO "either way" before of
after sunset "twilight".
The Greek literal is unambiguous: "mid–afternoon" / "in
the (tehi) very (epi) daylight (fohs) in the being
(ousehi)" : NEVER an exception until maybe the third / forth century AD?
See EVERY instance of 'epifohskousas' use considered at length: in the Bible
and extra–biblical sources, Book 2, 'Resurrection'. THE TOTAL LOGIC OF THE
CHRONOLOGICAL PASSING of the Sabbath and Sunday necessitates it having been the
Sabbath that Jesus resurrected on.
Please don't get
impatient with me: these things, from the pages of the Scriptures ONLY I assure
you with a clean conscience, I lie not, opened up to my own understanding over
a long period of time and the most blessed study of the Bible. The
truth of it depends on no humans or Church or philosophy. It serves nothing but
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ––– to the vindication of "the
Seventh Day, Sabbath of the LORD your God".
I attach a short
remark on the idea Jesus 'rested in the tomb'. *See below. I attach something else on this that Christ rose on the Sabbath. **See below.
And yes, the 4th commandment can
and does stand on its own, so that the Jews to this day are able to keep
and teach the Sabbath without Christ and don't need The All in
all Fulfilling Fullness of God through Jesus Christ in resurrection from the
dead for support. But I am completely dependent on Christ and His
Salvation that is God's utter rest in the utter exercising of the utter
greatness of His Power WHEN He raised Christ from the dead: "ON THE
SABBATH".
BP:
I checked the 1599 Geneva Bible footnotes,
and they maintain that Christ rose a little before sunrise Sunday morning.
Do you believe in the Spirit of Prophecy? If so, why are you trying to
establish a position that is contrary to what it says?
Bacchiocchi tried to demonstrate how Ellen White was wrong about who changed the
Sabbath and about the Waldensians keeping the Sabbath. I wasn't too impressed,
especially since the source he tried to use about the Waldensians proved his
position to be wrong.
GE:
I think you
misunderstand the Geneva Bible ITSELF; those footnotes are later on added! WHY?
For no reason other than the problems this real translation poses the
traditional understanding!
Besides, Calvin had
a great deal to do with the Geneva Bible's translation, and Calvin
unambiguously and emphatically teaches Christ rose from the dead ON the SABBATH
–Seventh Day of the week. People don't know these things because they are
deliberately kept away from them because the Sundaylovers don't like it.
Who changed the
Sabbath? The devil and his hosts! Sunday was observed in Old Testament times
already. Galatians 4 shows it tried to infiltrate the
BP:
You provided no proof at all that the footnotes were added
later.
The notes in question were printed in 1590 and it looks like 1560 as well. I
must conclude that those notes I referred to do go back to when the translation
was made.
Again, why are you trying so hard to prove Desire of Ages wrong? It isn't like the evidence of a non–Sunday
resurrection is cut and dried, clear and convincing. That being so, why go to
such lengths to disprove a divinely inspired book?
GE:
About 'Footnotes' of Geneva Bible:
Translation is not to add footnotes.
See Wikipedia – history of the Geneva Bible
From
Wikipedia, ‘the free encyclopedia’
Quote: (Emphasis GE)
“The Geneva
Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible in the English
language, preceding the King James translation by 51 years. It was the
primary Bible of the 16th Century Protestant
movement and was the Bible used by William Shakespeare, John Knox,
John Donne,
and John Bunyan,
author of Pilgrim's Progress. It was one of the Bibles
taken to America on the Mayflower, it was used by many English Dissenters, and it was still respected
by Oliver Cromwell's soldiers at the time of the English Civil
War.
What makes
this version of the Holy Bible singularly unique in world history is that, for
the very first time, a mechanically–printed,
mass–produced Bible was made available
directly to the general public which came with a variety of scriptural study
guides and aids (collectively called an apparatus), which included verse
citations which allow the reader to cross – reference one verse with numerous
relevant verses in the rest of the Bible, introductions to each book of the
Bible which acted to summarize all of the material that each book would cover,
maps, tables, woodcut
illustrations, indexes, as well as other included features — all of
which would eventually lead to the
reputation of the Geneva Bible as history's very first study bible.
Because the
language of the Geneva Bible was more forceful and vigorous, most readers
preferred this version strongly over the Bishops'
Bible, the translation authorised by the Church of
England under Elizabeth I. In the words of Cleland Boyd McAfee,
"it drove the Great Bible off the field by sheer power of
excellence".[1]
During the
reign of Queen Mary I of England (1553 – 1558), a number of
Protestant scholars fled from England to Geneva in Switzerland,
which was then ruled as a republic in which John Calvin and Theodore Beza
provided the primary spiritual and theological leadership. Among these scholars
was William Whittingham, who would come to
supervise what would become the effort to create the translation now known as
the Geneva Bible, in collaboration with Myles
Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby,
Thomas
Sampson, and Willian Cole – several of whom became
prominent figures in the proto–Puritan Nonconformist
faction of the Vestments controversy. Whittingham was directly responsible
for the New Testament, which was
complete and published in 1557,[2] while Gilby oversaw the Old Testament.
The first full edition of this Bible, with a
further revised New Testament, appeared in 1560,[2] but it was not
printed in England until 1575 (New Testament[2]) and 1576 (complete Bible[2]). Over 150 editions were issued; the last probably in 1644.[2] The very first Bible printed in Scotland
was a Geneva Bible, which was first issued in 1579.[2] In fact, the involvement of Knox and Calvin in the
creation of the Geneva Bible made it especially appealing in Scotland, where a
law was passed in 1579 requiring every household of sufficient means to buy a
copy.[3]
Some
editions from 1576 onwards[2] included Tomson's revisions of the New Testament. Some
editions from 1599 onwards[2] used a new
"Junius" version of the
Book of Revelation, in which the notes
were translated from a new Latin commentary by Junius on Revelation.
Like most
English translations of the time, the Geneva Bible was translated from
scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew
Scriptures that comprise the Christian Old Testament. The English rendering was
substantially based on the earlier translations by William
Tyndale and Myles Coverdale (80–90% of the language in the Genevan New Testament is from Tyndale).
However, the Geneva Bible was the first English version in which all of the Old
Testament was translated directly from the Hebrew (cf. Coverdale
Bible, Matthew's Bible).
The
annotations which are an important part of the Geneva Bible were Calvinist
and Puritan
in character, and as such they were disliked by the ruling pro – government
Protestants of the Church of England, as well as King James I, who commissioned the "Authorized
Version," or King James Bible, in order to replace it. The
Geneva Bible had also motivated the earlier production of the Bishops'
Bible under Elizabeth I, for the same reason, and the later
Rheims–Douai edition by the Catholic
community. The Geneva Bible remained popular among Puritans
and remained in widespread use until after the English Civil
War. The Geneva notes were
surprisingly included in a few editions of the King James version, even as late
as 1715.[2]
It has been
stated by some[who?] that the Geneva Bible was the Bible
present at the signing of the U. S. Declaration of Independence and the U. S.
Constitution, because it was the Bible that the Puritans brought with them to
America. However, the U. S. Library of Congress and the Independence National Historical Park
both state that they do not know what version/translation of the Bible was
present at these signings (Independence Hall in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania being the location of both of the signings).
The Geneva
Bible was the first English Bible to use verse
numbers based on the work of Stephanus
(Robert
Estienne of Paris). It also had an elaborate system of commentary in marginal glosses. This
annotation was done by Laurence Tomson,
who translated (for the 1560 Geneva
Bible) L'Oiseleur's notes on the
Gospels, which themselves came from Camerarius.
In 1576 Tomson added L'Oiseleur's
notes for the Epistles, which came from Beza's Greek and Latin
edition of the Bible (1565 and later).
Beginning in 1599 Franciscus Junius' notes on Revelation were added, replacing the original notes deriving from John Bale
and Heinrich Bullinger. Bale's The Image of
both churches had a great impact on these notes as well as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Both the Junius
and Bullinger–Bale annotations are explicitly anti–Roman Catholic and
representative of much popular Protestant apocalypticism during the
Reformation.
The 1560
Geneva Bible was printed in Roman type—the style of type regularly used today—but
many editions used the older black–letter ("Gothic") type. Of the
various later English Bible translations, the next to use Roman type was the Douay–Rheims Bible of 1582 (New Testament) and
1609–10 (Old Testament).
The Geneva
Bible was also issued in more convenient and affordable sizes than earlier
versions. The 1560 Bible was in quarto format (218 × 139 mm type area), but pocketable octavo
editions were also issued, and a few large folio editions. The New Testament
was issued at various times in sizes from quarto down to 32º (the smallest,
70×39 mm type area [2]). In the late sixteenth century it is likely that the
Geneva New Testament cost less than a week's wages even for the lowest–paid
labourers.
The 1560 Geneva Bible contained a number of
study aids, including woodcut illustrations, maps and explanatory 'tables', i.e.
indexes of names and topics, in addition to the (in)famous marginal notes. Each book was preceded by an
'argument' or introduction, and each chapter by a list of contents giving verse
numbers. Smaller–format editions
might be unillustrated and lack the
marginal notes, but some large folio
editions had additional
illustrations, such as one showing Adam and Eve, where Adam wears a typical
Elizabethan beard and moustache.” End Quote
Attachments
* The greater context
Respect for detail equals respect for God’s Word; neglect of detail equals disrespect for God’s Word. One needs no knowledge of the Greek to see the detail – to see enough of it to the better understanding of and proper respect for, God’s Word.
What after respect for detail is of first importance for a right knowledge of the Word and Will of God, is simply ‘good sense’ (as Luther said). Which one should never let go of with regard to the least of detail, and especially not, with regard to the larger and comprehensive concept one may be employed with. Mrs White totally fails in both. Read the following, keeping in mind she talks of “In Joseph’s Tomb” – chapter and section devoted to when “At last Jesus was at rest”.
“Now Jesus rested from the work of redemption; and though there was grief among those who loved Him upon earth, yet there was joy in heaven. Glorious to the eyes of heavenly beings was the promise of the future. A restored creation, a redeemed race that, having conquered sin could never fail— this, the result to flow from Jesus’ completed work, God and angels saw. With the scene the day upon which Jesus rested is forever linked. “For His work is perfect;” and “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” Deut. 32:4; Eccl. 3:14. When there shall be a “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21), the creation Sabbath, the day on which Jesus lay at rest in Joseph’s tomb, will still be a day of rest and rejoicing. Heaven and earth will unite in praise, as “from one Sabbath to another” (Isa. 66:23) the nations of the saved shall bow in joyful worship to God and the Lamb.” p 80, §2.
Keep in mind she supposed the whole of the Sabbath Day (and past it, into the First Day of the week, until its sunrise morning). Under our consideration is that Mrs White intended the full hours of the Sabbath that “Jesus was at rest”, “in the tomb”. “Now Jesus rested from the work of redemption; ... — this, the result to flow from Jesus’ completed work, God and angels, saw. With the scene, the day upon which Jesus rested, is forever linked. ... the creation Sabbath, the day on which Jesus lay at rest in Joseph’s tomb, will still be a day of rest and rejoicing. ....” (I had to insert a comma or two.)
Jesus’ ‘rest in the tomb’, according to Mrs White, is of such virtue and consequence that, without it, redemption could not have been; in fact, according to her, Jesus’ ‘rest in the tomb’ completes ‘redemption’ and ‘restoration’, and is the “restitution of all things”. Jesus’ ‘rest in the tomb’ meant much more than a doing of nothing. Jesus’ ‘rest in the tomb’ in itself, had tremendous value, virtue and power. “The scene” had such “result” that ‘flowed’ from it, “the day upon which Jesus rested”, i.e., “the day on which Jesus lay at rest in Joseph’s tomb”, the Sabbath, “is forever linked”, with, “the creation Sabbath”. (Never does it dawn upon her everything she has said here, she should have said of the Resurrection and Resurrection–Day!)
Now take the same passage and emphasize from yet another angle,
“... this, the result to flow from Jesus’ completed work, God and angels saw. With the scene, the day upon which Jesus rested, is forever linked. “For His work is perfect;” ... the creation Sabbath, the day on which Jesus lay at rest in Joseph’s tomb, will still be a day of rest and rejoicing.”
What does Mrs White herself, do here? She allows herself the principle of association; of connection and relationship. A valid and applicable and indeed an absolutely relevant principle! Mrs White without questioning –‘a priori’– decides on the principle of cause and effect; she brings into effect the principle of merit and ‘result’.
Is it not precisely what the Church did when
it argued from the resurrection of Jesus for the validity of the Christian Day
of Worship–Rest? Why may the Church not have argued, ‘The result to flow from
Jesus’ completed work in resurrection,
God and angels saw? Why not ‘The day upon which Jesus truly rested, is forever
linked with the scene of his resurrection’?
Why not, ‘ “For his work is perfect” ... the day on which Jesus went out of Joseph’s tomb, will for the
Karl Barth, when he weighed the authority by which the Church changed the Christian Day of Worship–Rest from the Sabbath to the First Day of the week, asked, “Was it not innovation when the primitive Church (so) decided?” He of course reckoned, No, it was no innovation, because the Church changed its Sabbath Day from the Sabbath to the First Day of the week on her conviction of the worthiness and merit of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead ––– ‘on that day’ the First Day of the week! (Assumed.) There was – the Church might have thought –, ‘the result from Jesus’ completed work’ through resurrection from the grave; There was – the Church might have thought –, ‘the scene of the day’, which ‘forever would be linked with’ when ‘Jesus at last rested’ in resurrection from the dead! “For His work is perfected” – the Church might have thought –, ... the Redemption–Sabbath, the Day on which Jesus broke the bonds of Joseph’s grave. “It is the Day the Lord has made” – the Church might have thought –, ‘day of rest and rejoicing’. So the Church must have reasoned, but— mistakenly concerning Sunday! And that’s why Barth did not think it ‘innovation’. But Seventh Day Adventists have always held the idea (or principle), the event makes the day, not the day the event, for authoritarian audacity ––– while they themselves of the exact same ‘offence’ have been guilty ––– only for far less worthy and glorious a reason, having instead of His resurrection preferred Jesus’ humiliated state in death and grave as that ‘work of redemption’ and ‘restitution of all things’ – ‘Jesus’ completed work’ for the sanctification and remembrance of the Christian Day of Worship. Is not that, the ultimate of audacity?
** 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? Quote ends
Also receive another recent conversation on Colossian 2:16. ***
"For Christ also hath suffered for sins – the Just for
the unjust – that He might bring us to God: being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit."
"Having a good conscience, that whereas they speak evil
of you as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good
conversation in Christ."
May we continue in this good conversation, and "answer of
a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
I have no answer to anyone but "by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" ––– indeed on "the Sabbath of the LORD your God".
*** Colossians
2 basics
Colossians
2
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.
Paul COMMENDS and ENCOURAGES and ASSURES the 'heathen' Christians of Collosae
in face of the haughty unbelieving WORLD:
"Do not you THEREFORE (because of Christ's triumph over death) let
yourselves be judged / condemned / damned by anybody (of the world) with regard
to your eating and drinking of a feast of yours whether of month's or of
Sabbaths': WHICH IS a spectre of things a–coming, indeed the Body of Christ's
Own (the Church) .... holding to the Head from which all the Body by joints and
bands having nourishment ministered (by eating and drinking of Christ
spiritually), and knit together (united against the world) increaseth with the
increase of God."
SHOW ME A MORE POSITIVE PICTURE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WHILE SABBATH–KEEPING!
Objection:
Now the scripture as it is actually written:
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Now word for word with scripture in BLUE
Do not you THEREFORE let yourselves be judged by anybody
Let no man
therefore judge you
with regard to your eating and drinking of a feast of yours
in meat, or
in drink, or in respect of an holyday
whether of month's or of Sabbaths"
or of the new
moon, or of the sabbath days:
Question 1
What book are you quoting exactly.
Give me the reference please.
It is
written and translated very clearly in the Amplified Bible:
16Therefore
let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard
to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath. 17Such [things] are only the shadow
of things that are to come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the
reality (the substance, the solid fact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it)
belongs to Christ.
and even
more clearly in the Message:
16–17So don't
put up with anyone pressuring you in details of diet, worship services, or holy
days. All those things are mere shadows cast before what was to come; the
substance is Christ.
Or the New
International Version:
16Therefore
do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a
religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is
found in Christ.
Any way that
you interpret this passage, it is stating not to allow anyone to judge you
about the observance or nonobservance of the Sabbath. We are adopted Jews, but
we are not under the law, we are not saved by observing the law of Moses. No
one has ever been saved through the observance of the law. The law was our
tutor to show us that we needed something, someone greater: JESUS– which is the
entire point that you are missing.
If you want
to live under the law, go ahead! But remember you must keep the whole law under
that covenant. And even then you go to hell, because no one can keep the whole
law perfectly.
And
remember, if you break one, you've broken them all.
GE:
You have proven just what 'I', have said through 'my' translation. Nothing
different. 'My' translation only helps you READ more exactly what your
representation does not make so emphatically clear as 'mine'.
But 'mine' IS NOT 'mine', because 'mine', is NOT A WORD, NOT LITERALLY THE
GREEK! Surprising? Let's see:
"Do not you THEREFORE let yourselves be judged by anybody with regard to
your eating and drinking of a feast of yours whether of month's or of
Sabbaths"
"Do not you let yourselves be judged" : 'meh hymahs krinetoh'
"therefore" : 'oun'
"by anybody" : 'tis'
"with regard to" : 'en .... en .... en merei'
"your eating and drinking" : 'brohsei kai posei'
"whether (with regard to) : '(en merei) eh'
"(either) of a feast (of yours)" : 'eh heortehs'
"(either) of (a) month's" : "eh neomehnias'
"or of Sabbaths'" : 'eh sabbatohn'
"which is/are" – 'ha estin' .......
To confirm THIS the only and the correct and TRUE translation, compare it with
1983 NAB : "Let no one PRESCRIBE to you to observe the Sabbath ....."
and these 'translators' consider themselves, Christians!
Now let’s look again at your quoted,
“more clear”, so–called ‘translations’.
You asked me, what book I quoted
exactly? You tell me, what have I said
different than ‘they’:
‘I’:
“Do
not you THEREFORE let yourselves be judged by anybody whether of month's or of
Sabbaths”
‘They’:
“Let no man therefore judge
you”
“Therefore let no one sit
in judgment on you”
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you”
Have
not all of us said:
“So
don't put up with anyone pressuring you”? I like this one!
Yet
you ask, what book I’m quoting exactly?
Next,
you tell me who is here, quoting his own ‘book’, and who, not:
‘I’:
“with
regard to your eating and drinking of a feast of yours”
‘They’:
“in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of an holyday or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”
“in matters of food and
drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath”
“in details of diet,
worship services, or holy days”
“by what you eat or drink,
or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day”
Nearly
correlating perfectly, except where some things are said which Paul didn’t say:
Paul:
“with regard to" : 'en .... en .... en merei': – cf. –
“in in respect of / in matters of
.... or with regard to / in details of diet / by what .... or with regard to”
Like a sore finger this stands out
from the above, as the ‘own books’ of each:
“in details / in matters / by what
of diet, worship services, or holy days ....” not a single word, that of Paul! “details .... diet ....
worship .... services .... holy .... days”: precisely EVERY
word, that of another than Paul. But you ask me, from whose ‘book’ I am quoting
exactly?
Further:
“details / matters”: ‘details’, ‘they’ say, about the ‘wrong ways’, of keeping
the Sabbath, propagated by surmised ‘false teachers’ in the Church— carelessly
admitting the true meaning of ‘krinetoh’ for being ‘judge’, ‘condemn’ in what
would have been ‘the right way’ of keeping the Sabbath.
There’s nothing of or about such
‘detail’ or doings in what Paul has to say here in verse 16 or elsewhere in the
whole of his letter! This is such a popular gimmick though, everybody seems to
be too scared to challenge the fancied ‘respected’ majority ––– only since
recently the majority, it must be said, and only in certain circles,
‘respected’.
Paul
said, short and sweet:
“your eating and drinking" : 'brohsei kai posei'
"whether (with regard to) : '(en
merei) eh'
"(either) of a feast (of yours)" : 'eh heortehs'
"(either) of (a) month's" : "eh neomehnias'
"or of Sabbaths'" : 'eh sabbatohn'”
Can
it be put simpler, plainer, or truer?
Because
Paul says,
“these
[not, “such”] things” : ‘ha’,
“are”
: ‘estin’ : Present Tense, Singular— not
Past Tense and not Plural:
“a
(not “the”) shadow / spectre /
promise of “things a–coming” =
“things that are to come”.
“And they”— the very real and
practiced “things” that are “a shadow”— the believers’ “Sabbaths’ feast”–keeping,
“have only a
symbolic value”—
which is true, but which is not what Paul in so many words has written.
“But....” No
“but”; rather, ‘indeed’ (from ‘de’). Because the “shadow is indeed the promise
/ spectre / shadow of things–a–coming....” “Of things–a–coming” which Paul goes
straight on to define as “the reality / the substance / the solid fact of the
Body that belongs to Christ / the Body of Christ’s (Own)” the Church.
Paul’s
intention is not what had been foreshadowed in the past and that had been
realised in Christ Himself. His intention in this verse is BASED upon it,
and “therefore” (‘oun’, in still wider scope), it FOLLOWS: “The Reality / the
Substance, the Solid Fact of what presently is being foreshadowed”— ‘ha estin’
presently since and because of the fact Christ had had come; “The Reality / the
Substance, the Solid Fact” of the CHURCH: “The BODY of Christ’s Own .....
growing with the growth of God” (verse 19)—
‘the Fact of’ the Church, in Paul’s own day having been in the process
of becoming and being realised “the Body of Christ’s Own”. This ‘whole process’
was busy being realised by “The Body’s”, “Sabbaths’–feasting”, by its / their
“eating and drinking” of Christ spiritually. Paul “comforts” the Church (2:2) “with regard to” THIS, telling them,
“Do not you let yourselves be judged by anyone!” “Let no man (in / of the world) beguile you
of your reward (in Christ) in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,
intruding into those things (in / of the world’s wisdom) which he (himself) has
never seen, but vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind has no connection with the
Head (of the Church, Jesus Christ).” (18)
Contrast and separation between the ‘world’, and the ‘Body’ and ‘Head’
of the Church, Christ, is of the essence of the Letter to the Colossian believers.
Therefore words these translations importunely ADD about the “shadow”, like “they have ONLY a symbolic value” or, “those things are MERE shadows”, misreckon themselves with “the Reality” the Church, as found in and founded upon Christ, that by its “Sabbath’s–Feasting” gloriously and honourably “semblances forth” the glory and honour of Christ “The Head”, of “The Body of Christ’s Own”.
So: What book are you, quoting exactly?
1) Give me the reference please, where ‘it is
stating not to allow anyone to judge you about the observance or nonobservance of the Sabbath’? Give me the reference please?
2) Give me the reference please, where ‘it is
stating, We are adopted Jews? Give me the reference please?
3) Give me the reference please, where ‘it is
stating, we are not under the law? Give me the reference please?
What
book are you, quoting exactly?
And
how am I the one who entirely am missing the point, the Law was our tutor to
show us that we needed something, someone greater: JESUS? How would you judge am I missing that point –
from what I have written here now?
And
why do you offer me the alternative, if I wanted to live under the law? Why should I make such a decision if all the
while I am putting forward the point, it is not anyone’s choice or liking or
mighty decision, but the Christian freedom in Christ to feast of Sabbaths’
Feast?
But
I’ll be accommodating, and will remember to keep the whole law under the Old Covenant
by the faith under the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Or did you forget, or would you deny, we received
something, someone greater: JESUS? He
who received Him has gone from death into everlasting life and shall not go into
judgment. For he who has the Son has everlasting life! It is what Colossians
the second chapter teaches about them that are feasting Christ’s Feast, keeping
their Sabbaths undaunted in the face of a hostile, judgmental, condemning
world. Just like you condemning a
Christian for feasting of Christ by Sabbath’s Feast of the Lord’s Day.
10 May 2009
BP:
Gerhard, Please read my last email again. I never mentioned
the name of Ellen White. I mentioned the name of Jesus:
Since the Lord Jesus testified [by] His Spirit through the
prophet in Desire of Ages, why
have you decided to prove that Jesus didn't know what day He rose from the dead
upon?
This suggests that, contrary to your claim, you aren't sola scriptura on this point. Rev. 12:17; 19:10; and more
clearly 1 Pet. 1:10, 11 tell us that the Lord Jesus testifies by His Spirit
through the prophet. This is why I wrote that the Lord Jesus testified by His
Spirit through the prophet in Desire
of Ages. Since your reply mentions the name of Ellen White, not the name
of Jesus, your reply suggests that you do not believe what 1 Pet. 1:10, 11
teach, namely, that the writings of a prophet constitute the testimony of
Jesus, that it is Jesus speaking.
Mk. 16:2 says they came to the sepulcher at the rising of the sun, not just
after midnight.
If opse is translated
"after" in Mat. 28:1, the perceived difficulty disappears.
I have a difficulty with the elevation of personal opinions on doubtful
questions above the clear testimony of Jesus Himself. Who do we think we are,
declaring that our personal opinions are more important than what Jesus has
testified? Peter told Jesus He was wrong when Jesus told Peter he was going to
deny Him. But Jesus was right and Peter was wrong. And thus it always is.
Bob
GE:
Who is the
one here plagued by ‘personal opinions?
I do not
react to blasphemous, above the Scriptures ‘inspirations’.
“The
Third Day Since These Things”
Or
“This Which Happened Three Days Ago”?
Dirk Schörmann
asks, (See above pp. 276 to 286)
Dear Gerhard,
could you please add some comments how you think about Luke 24,7 in connection with Verse 21.
Dear Dirk,
The difference between “the third day” in verse
7, and, “the third day” in verse 21, should not be looked for from far. It is
right there to see. In verse 7 it is the angel, reminding the women, of what
Jesus had told them, “when He was yet in
Now look at the word “must” - it means Jesus
speaks about a law that He had to obey, and that “the third Day” is
<<CONNECTED>> with the commandment that says “that the Son of Man
must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third
day, rise again”. The question then, WHICH LAW was this? will also answer the
question, Which “third day” was this? Who said Jesus “must be delivered into
the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day, rise again”?
Obviously God said so! How? In the Scriptures of course! So it is the
Scriptures that is the commandment, that says “that the Son of Man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day,
rise again”.
“The third day” in verse 7, is “the third day
ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES” - point number one.
Which Scriptures says this?
Dirk, go take your concordance, and show me this
Scripture? You won't find it! - Not in so many words at least. But you will
find it there in essence and order. The Passover-Scriptures are the Scriptures
that explain "the third day" on which the Son of Man had to be raised
from the dead. Now I always say all the Scriptures are 'Passover'-Scriptures -
the whole Bible, because the whole Bible has but one message and but one story
to tell - the story and the message of God's Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ, who
was “delivered into the hands of sinful men, and was crucified, and the third
day, rose again”.
“The third day” in verse 7, is “the third day
according to the PASSOVER-Scriptures” - point number two.
Which Passover-Scriptures say so?
The Passover-Scriptures of the three, FIRST,
days of Passover. The third 'first' day of Passover, is “the third day
according to the Scriptures” about which Luke 24,7 speaks.
To explain: Go to www.biblestudents.co.za, then click
on 'Segments' HTML. There will appear some titles; choose “Observe the Month of
Abib”. I am also sending you this page as an attachment. Or you may find the
segment in “
|
NISAN |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
||||
|
O L D E R A |
|
|
PASSOVER |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
SEASON |
|
|
||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|||||
|
L A S T S U P P E R |
L E A V E N R E M O V E D P A S S O V E R K I L L E D |
|
|
PASSOVER |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
FEAST |
|
|||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
||||||
|
P A S S O V E R M E A L |
G R E A T D A Y S A B B A T H |
|
|
PASSOVER |
||||||||
|
|
|
to Pentecost |
||||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|||||||
|
S A B B A T H |
F I R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Gerhard
Ebersöhn
Suite 324
Private Bag
X43
Sunninghill
2157
Johannesburg