[QUOTE ASAPH:]

Continued to asaph,
Concerning the clause “as it began to dawn” toward the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1) in POST #27, you said:

QUOTE ASAPH:

"As it began to dawn" Does not have to mean the sun was peeking over the hill. I do not think this is meant to be a precise phrase indicating an exact moment. It could mean any time prior to sunrise yet with time enough allowed for Jesus to rise after the Sabbath. In order to be the antitype of the wave sheaf offering, Jesus would have to rise on Sunday, the Day after the Sabbath. I was not there so I can't fill in the details. Only God Knows.

The same Greek word is used in Luke 23:54 “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath DREW ON.” The Greek word is epiphosko (S.2020). It means to “grow light” or “dawn” “drawn on” i.e. something begins or approaches. It is used in Luke 23:54 to indicate that the Sabbath was so close that Jesus had to be buried in a borrowed tomb (John 19:42). I do not believe Matthew 28:1 can be used to indicate “sunrise” or the “beginning of the light” part of the day for several reasons:

• First, because there was so much activity by the women and the disciples that took place before sunrise. Therefore, Matthew 28:1 “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” must indicated the end of the Sabbath (sunset) as the First Day of the Weeks was DRAWING ON (just like it is used in Luke 23:54).
• Furthermore, the truth of the clause can be seen in the preposition “toward.” In the Greek it eis (S.1519) meaning “into” something. The sense is going from one place “into” or “toward” another. For example: Matthew 2:12  “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.” Notice that Joseph and Mary departed from the area around Jerusalem to go INTO their own country of Galilee. Another example: Matthew 15:11  “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Here Christ is explaining what does and does not defile man. Man is not defiled by putting something (food) INTO his body.
  
  If you wish to study this on your own, there is an abundant of Scripture containing this preposition. It is used over 1700 times in the New Testament. A few random choices should be enable you or anyone else to prove whether this is so or not. In any event, “as it began to dawn TOWARD the First Day of the Weeks” must mean during the final moments of the Sabbath day. The time line is being described as being in one day and going INTO another.
• This being so, the tomb was empty. How do we know this? Because Mary Magdalene never came to anoint the body of Jesus. She and the “other Mary” (presumably Martha’s sister), came to the tomb at this time because of the earthquake. They came as the Word of God says, “to SEE the sepulcher.” They were interested in what the earthquake might have done. Everyone else came at or near sunrise with the spices they had bought and prepared on Friday, the day between the Sabbaths that year (Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-9).
• Finally, I do not believe that the Roman guard would have gone into the city between midnight and 3AM and awakened the chief priests to tell them about what had happened. Just after sundown would be more likely for such a circumstance. The chief priest would still have been in the Temple area just after the evening sacrifices had been completed.

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE ASAPH]

Continued to asaph,
Concerning POST # 25 and my saying that the WAVE SHEAF Offering was harvested on the Sabbath, you asked:

QUOTE ASAPH

Wouldn't the Wave Sheaf Offering have to be harvested after the Sabbath to avoid breaking the Sabbath?

NOT NECESSARILY - All of what the priest did on the Sabbath, technically broke the Sabbath, but they were blameless as Christ said in Matthew 12:5  "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?"

I thought I read in one of my Bible helps that the Wave Sheaf was cut in ceremonial fashion while the sun was still going down on the Sabbath, but I cannot find what I thought I read. I must, therefore, merely quote Matthew 12:5 concerning the priests profaning the Sabbath, and yet being blameless. I hope to prove the hour of Christ's resurrection, using additional Scripture elsewhere.

QUOTE ASAPH

Saturday then, if it is the resurrection day, should also be the day of Firstfruits. But this violates what is set forth in Lev. 23:11 which states that Firstfruits occurs the day after the sabbath, meaning the day after the 15 Nisan sabbath (1st day of Unleavened Bread, v.7). So, Firstfruits could not have been on Saturday, since it would clearly not be after a sabbath. So Saturday is clearly disqualified from being Firstfruits. Let me quote Lev. 23:1111  And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

agree that the Wave Sheaf Offering represents ChristI. It was offered during the time of the morning Sacrifice (6AM) on the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEKS, which always landed on a Sunday (our time). It was the first day counting toward the FEAST OF WEEKS or our Pentecost. If it represented Christ's resurrection, then Christ would have risen at 6AM on the FIRST OF THE WEEKS at the very time of the offering, just as He died on the cross at the very time of the slaying of the PASSOVER LAMB. The Wave Sheaf Offering represents our heavenly Father formally ACCEPTING the sacrifice of Christ. Christ represents the harvest of men (Romans 16:11; 1Corinthinans 15:20-23). The harvest (SALVATION) cannot continue until the Wave Sheaf Offering is made and accepted by God.

It is my contention that Christ rose at the time of the harvesting of the bundles of barley grain that was used for the Wave Sheaf Offering, but I am unable at present to prove to you that the barley grain used by the priests was indeed harvested on the Sabbath. The Bible, itself, is silent on this matter, at least I have never found a verse that refers to the harvesting of the grain used in the offering of the Wave Sheaf.

QUOTE ASAPH

Does not the sheaf waved represent Christ in resurrection? And is it not waved the day after the sabbath? You are right when you say we do not know the time of His rising, but it has to be after the Sabbath. I do not have a problem with it being done in the dark, so I am not sure what your point was on that issue.

No, to your first question; yes, to your second question (as explained above). I believe that we DO KNOW the time of the resurrection. I believe it is between 5PM & 6PM on the 7th day Sabbath falling within the 8 day Passover Festival.

Concerning my point about the dark, I was using the word metaphorically. Neither would I mind if Christ rose at night. What I meant by "dark" is that we don't know  the hour of Christ's resurrection, if we hold to the traditional viewpoint. Yet, this is the most important event in Christian history. It seems to me, that God would have made that pretty clear somewhere in His Word. Everything else in Christ's life is detailed pretty well. Why shouldn't we know the hour of Christ's resurrection? It is only obscure if we adopt a Friday crucifixion.

MORE TO COME

P.S. Just to clarify: the Wave Sheaf does represent the resurrected Christ, but not the resurrection itself. The resurrected Christ was formally received by God in the Wave Sheaf offering. Our Heavenly Father formally accepted His sacrifice at that time.

[QUOTE ASAPH]

Continued to asaph,
Concerning POST #24 and my coupling Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 saying that there must have been two Sabbaths and a day of business between them during Passover week that year, you said:

QUOTE ASAPH

You make a good point. To hold to my view I would have to speculate only. The Bible is silent on this. But let me speculate. Perhaps the women had relatives in Jerusalem or close connections with people that had all they needed. Therefore they didn't have to shop at all, but only wait for the sabbath to end. When the Sabbath did end they would have began immediately to prepare them.Another thing I would like to mention is that, if I am correct,  the 15th of Nisan landed on the 7th day Sabbath, making that day a special Sabbath; you might say a double Sabbath on the same day. A verse that I believe confirms this is John 19:31.John 1931  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.What made it an high day is the fact that the feast of unleavened bread began on that day. The passover was the day before on the 14th of Nisan. Then there's the 16th of Nisan, the day of Firstfruits, a clear type of the resurrection day, which occurs after a sabbath day, but is not itself a Sabbath day!

• Speculation: they acquired the spices etc. from friends or relatives in the area.
• The Word of God says in Mark 16:1 that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome - all three BOUGHT the spices AFTER THE SABBATH.

Concerning your thoughts about the "high day" mentioned in John 19:31 concerns the historical importance of the Passover Holy Day. The Greek word is megas (S.3173). It is used 195 times in the New Testament and is translated "great" 150 times; "loud" 33 times; and miscellaneous (which includes "high") only 12 times. It does not mean that there were two Sabbaths together, though that did occur from time to time. The Jews did not want the bodies hanging on the crosses, because it would have been an embarrassment to them as a nation. On the one hand they were celebrating becoming a nation, being brought out of slavery by their God and on the other hand Pilate wrote above the head of Jesus "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" in three languages. The Jews would have done almost anything to have the legs broken and removed from the hill.

As for the 16th of Nisan, it has no religious significance unless in the course of time the 15th of Nisan does land on the 7th day Sabbath. Then the 16th of Nisan is the First day of the Weeks; i.e. the first day of the count toward Pentecost or FEAST OF WEEKS in the Bible. BTW This is what all these Scriptures, regarding the testimony after the resurrection of Christ in the New Testament, are referring to. The clause "first day of the week" is only secondarily a reference to the 1st day of the week. Wave Sheaf was always offered (not on the 16th, but on the day after the 7th day Sabbath which fell in Passover Week. Using it we count to Pentecost - 50 days (see Leviticus 23).

MORE TO COME

[QUOTE ASAPH]

Greetings Asaph,
I hope you had a good weekend. Let's see where we are in our discussion: INCLUSIVE RECKONING Post 19:

Concerning the "three days and three nights" of Matthew 12:40 and the "after three days" of Matthew 27:68 and Mark 8:31 you said:

QUOTE ASAPH:

These verses are appealed to in order to propose a full 72 hours in the grave. They do seem to say a full 3 days and 3 nights don't they? How can this possibly be reconciled with the traditional chronology? If you believe the Bible cannot contradict itself, then these verses MUST be harmonized with the rest of scripture on the subject.

These Scriptures cannot be reconciled with traditional chronology - not without redefining them. While one can say that "three days and three nights" are THREE DAYS or their fulfillment can be referred to as the THIRD DAY, they cannot be referred to as "the day after tomorrow."

Yes, I do believe the Bible cannot contradict itself and therefore it is my (our) responsibility to read it in such a way that Scripture is harmonized without doing damage to what the words say. In other words, I MUST NOT redefine a phrase so it agrees with another phrase of Scripture. I must find out how they agree without imposing my own prejudices upon the Scripture.

QUOTE ASAPH

Well... please note the following story in 1 Kings-

1 Ki 12:5 And he said unto them, Depart yet *for three days*, then come again to me. And the people departed.

1 Ki 12:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *the third day*, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again *the third day*.

The king tells the people to depart for three days, but they return ON the third day, not on the fourth!! Why? Because the king did not mean to be gone for a full 72 hours. The counting of days was inclusive in nature. The same day that the king told them to leave was the first day. The second day they stayed away, and then they returned the third day, as the king had intended. This is the exactly the same manner of counting used for the resurrection. It is inclusive in nature, with whatever portion of the first and last days being counted as full days.

Just for good measure, this same story is told in 2 Chronicles-

2 Chr 10:5 And he said unto them, Come again unto me *after three days*. And the people departed.

2 Chr 10:12 So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam *on the third day*, as the king bade, saying, Come again to me *on the third day*.

Note the way this is worded compared to 1 Kings. Come again unto me after three days, depart yet for three days, and Come again to me on the third day, these all mean exactly the same thing, which is NOT a full three days or a full 72 hours.

There is nothing here said of "inclusive reckoning." Using our time frame for easy reference, the king could have said on Monday, "Depart from me for three days" or "Come to me 'after three days' " and if the people came to him on Thursday it would be just as the king requested. THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT SAYS IT MEANS THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!

QUOTE ASAPH

Luke 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Note that here in Luke 13, the third day clearly means the day after tomorrow, not after 3 full days. So, in light of all the evidence, Matt 12:40, 27:63 and Mark 8:31 do not really mean a full literal three days and nights or 72 hours, since Jesus clearly rose ON the third day. By Jewish understanding, referred to as inclusive reckoning, three days and three nights, and after three days, simply meant the same thing as ON the third day.

This is true, but how would you define "after 6 days" of Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2? Is it 4 days? Is it 5days? OR Is it just as it appears - 6 full 24 hour days?

The answer is: 6 full 24-hour days! There can be no question! How can I know that for sure? Well Luke 9:28 describes the same event saying "And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray." Here Luke says ABOUT eight days. He is speaking of two actual partial days, but 6 full days. Matthew and Mark speak of only the WHOLE DAYS. Luke describes a time just before sunset being the 1st day, + 6 full days + a few hours after sunset and when the disciples were sleeping (the second partial day). WHERE IS THE INCLUSIVE RECKONING IN MATTHEW AND MARK?

How do you know for certain that inclusive reckoning MUST  be the defining principle concerning the time Jesus spent in the tomb? Throw out "tradition" and just use the Bible. If the tradition is true, the Bible with prove it. The Word of God should define tradition. TRADITION should NEVER define the Word of God!

MORE TO COME

Hi There Mr. Ambassador!

[glow=Green,2,300]DITTO![/glow]

Greetings Allinall,
QUOTE from Post #14:

Perhaps I'm simplistic...but isn't it just wonderful that He died for us, and rose to live in us?  

No, my friend, you are quite profound! This, indeed, is the most important thing. Knowing this, however, I believe asaph and I can have a little fun as he also has said.

Every Word of God is important. Jesus was even concerned over a "jot" and a "tittle" (Matthew 5:18). There is much to learn from one another, and I have found that it is good to discuss with brothers and sisters and see one's thoughts through the eyes of a friend. Asaph and I are like neighbors talking about our favorite subject - Jesus. We'll end our discussion some time and go home feeling a little better about what we believe. At least this is how it has usually been with me, when I discuss anything in God's Word - even about what three days mean.

Good night and God bless,

John1one

[as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week]

Continuted to asaph,
Concerning the third day (POST 16), I understand and admit that the day after tomorrow is the third day from now. BUT let me ask you a question. If I said that I would meet you at a specific place three days and three nights from a specific time on Friday, when would you look for me? Wouldn't Monday be the third day?

If a Jew in the New Testament times actually desired to meet with someone exactly three days and three nights from a specific time, HOW WOULD HE PHRASE IT?

I admit that partial days can be understood to mean "three days" or the "third day", but what if you really did desire to do something in 72 hours, how would you phrase it? AND Would a description like "three days" or "the third day" necessarily confuse the issue?

While I understand how two partial days and one full day can equal "three days" to someone, I do not understand why "three days" or "the third day" confuses the issue if one actually means 72 hours.

Concerning POST 18, your thoughts on Matthew 28:1 regarding "the end of the Sabbath" has really made me think. I am not certain that it can be used with the guard, but I am also not certain that it cannot either. I have never heard that before. I found it very interesting.

However, that aside, we still must consider Mary's coming to the tomb at the end of the Sabbath, because if we use this phrase "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" to mean sunrise, how could Mary arrive at the tomb while it was yet dark (John 20:1)? How would all the activity that took place before sunrise take place, if Mary came to the tomb at sunrise? Therefore whether you place the phrase "in the end of the Sabbath" with Matthew 27 or with Matthew 28 it makes no difference with respect to the resurrection. Mary had to have come to the tomb just after dark on the first day of the week (our Saturday evening). She found:

• the stone cast aside,
• the tomb empty
• the guard gone
• JESUS WAS RISEN!

This is how I see it. What are your thoughts, my friend?

God bless,

John1one

P.S. AS IS MENTIONED ABOVE. I DID NOT NOTICE YOUR LAST POST UNTIL NOW, BUT I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND BEFORE MONDAY. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND

[EARLY]

Continued to Asaph,
Now let's turn to what you say concerning the women coming to the tomb on the first day of the week. The Scriptures you quoted in this regard were:

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

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

Let's look at another to add more color to the story:
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.

Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb EARLY. Early when? Early in the morning or early in the evening? The Greek word is proi (S.4404) and means "early" or "early morning."  Mark 1:35 speaks of Jesus rising in the morning a great while before day to pray, indicating it was still dark when He rose up in the morning. In Mark 13:35 we are told about the watches through the night; "proi" can also indicate the MORNING WATCH being the last before daybreak. The night was divided into four watches, even, midnight, cockcrowing and morning - each lasting three hours. If Mary Magdalene came to the tomb in the morning, it was sometime between 3AM and 6AM which is the last watch of the night, for we are told that she came while it was "still" or "even" dark. Nevertheless, I hope to show that Mary came rather Early on the 1st day of the week, just after sunset.

First we shall assume that all that the Bible records is in the morning of the 1st day of the week. Now notice that when Mary first came to the tomb, she did not see Jesus and thought that His body was stolen (John 1:2). She went to tell the disciples and Peter and John came to investigate the tomb. They left believing Mary's assumption that someone had taken the body of Christ (John 1:3-10). They may have been staying somewhere on Mt Olives or in the Upper Room where they last ate with Jesus.

Mary stayed outside the tomb and it wasn't until after the disciples left her at the tomb that Jesus appeared to her (John 1:11-16). It was still dark since the other women had not yet arrived; for they came at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2-8) and had no idea that the Jesus' body was no longer there. Continuing in Mark 16:9, we see that the very first person that Jesus appeared to was Mary Magdalene and when she saw Him, immediately she returned to the disciples, this time telling them the good news.

All this, concerning Mary, was done while it was yet dark! How do I know this? I can know this because Jesus is the Wave Sheaf Offering, our Firstfruit that must be received by the Father before we can be harvested for the Kingdom of God. Notice John 20:17 where Jesus told Mary not to touch Him, for He was NOT YET ascended to His Father. This means that the Wave Sheaf was not yet offered at the Temple, which took place at 6AM (sunrise). Later in the morning Jesus permitted the women to hold onto Him (Matthew 28:9-10), making it clear that the Wave Sheaf was already offered to God to be accepted for the people and He had now returned to finish His ministry to us. They too were told to go and tell the disciples.

Returning to Matthew 28:2 - before Mary's first appearance there had been an earthquake and an angel came and removed the stone. The Roman guard was terrified. Yet, Jesus had risen even before this, because the angel only revealed an empty tomb. When did Jesus rise from the dead? He had to have risen before the morning watch (3AM - 6AM). If Mary came in the morning of the first day of the week it was during the morning watch. The stone was already removed and she didn't see the guard. They had fled before she arrived.

Moreover, time was spent going to the tomb, investigating it enough to see that Jesus was no longer there. More time was spent going to tell the disciples. More time was spent while the Peter, John and Mary returned to the tomb. More time was spent while Peter and John investigated the inside of the tomb, talked about it and probably to Mary before leaving her. Then Jesus appeared to Mary and spoke with her, saying to go and tell the disciples. All this was done while it was still dark - before sunrise and the time of the morning sacrifice which would include the Wave Sheaf Offering - the time that Jesus would ascend to the Father. How much time would have to be spent for all this to occur?

All this took time YET, Jesus rose before all this time. The angel opened the tomb before all this was done. The guards left and spoke to the chief priests before all this happened (Matthew 28:11). Do you really think the Roman guard went to see the chief priests sometime before 3AM?

Now look at the Scripture in Luke: Luke 24:10  It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. 11  And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. 12  Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulcher; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

Mary Magdalene, remember was alone when she saw Jesus, but at least one other group of women saw Jesus a little later. They all told the disciples, but the disciples did not believe, yet Peter ran a SECOND time to view the tomb and went away wondering.

The women did not come together. Some came and told the disciples (Matthew 28:10; Luke 24:10) and some did not (Mark 16:2-8). Some came at sunrise, but Mary while it was still dark.

My point is that I believe that John 20:1 must be understood that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early on the first day of the week just after dark. Only then does it make sense that the Roman guard went directly to the chief priests. It would have been early evening on the first day of the week (still our Saturday). Only then does all the activity of the disciples make sense. If part of the activity was in the early evening of the first day of the week and part just before and after sunrise, it seems to fit better. This would then pin point the resurrection of Jesus to just before the end of the Sabbath as the Wave Sheaf Offering was being harvested. If this is not done, then the most important event in Christian history was done in the dark, we do not know the time of day that Jesus was resurrected.

MORE TO COME

[Verse-54]

Greetins Asaph,
I really enjoyed reading what you have written. However, I copied your posts up to post 18 and worked from my copy off line. When I returned to post, I noticed that you also have a post 19. I will be quite busy this weekend. I may not be able to address this post before Monday. I hope you understand.

Quote Asaph

I can't answer you on the basis of word studies because I am not a greek scholar. So I will have to stick to the english translation and hope that I can cast a reasonable doubt on the thursday and wednesday theories.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I am a scholar. I have invested in some good "Bible helps" but nothing more than that.

Quote Asaph

Let's begin by looking at exactly which Sabbath Day followed His passion. Was it the first day of Unleavened Bread, or the Seventh day (Saturday) Sabbath?

...The women viewed the sepulchre and the body of Jesus on the preparation day (Friday evening before sunset) and then rested according to the 4th Commandment, on the Saturday Sabbath. When the Saturday Sabbath had past, the women returned to the tomb at sunrise, and that day was the first day of the week (Sunday). Clearly then, Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, the preparation day for the Saturday Sabbath.

This Friday preparation day is mentioned in Mat 27:62, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:54, Jn 19:14, 19:31 and 19:42. It is worth noting that "the preparation day" is apparently always used to define the day before the seventh-day Sabbath, but not a day preceding a non-seventh-day festival sabbath. The term always means what we call Friday, in both scriptural and non-scriptural usage.

In conclusion the seventh-day Sabbath was the day after the crucifixion, because the women rested that Sabbath day (Saturday) according to the fourth commandment of God. Therefore, the crucifixion had to have occurred on a Friday.

I can save a little time here by first of all admitting that the 6th day of the week is indeed a day of preparation as Exodus 16:5 makes clear. However, every Sabbath was a day of rest. No work could be done in any of the Holy Day Sabbaths either. Notice Leviticus 23:6-7. Here it is speaking of the 15th of Nisan the Feast Day of the Passover. It is a Sabbath and no work is to be done. Therefore, all the preparations that were normally done for a weekly Sabbath had to be done for this day as well. Moreover, a great deal of more work had to be done for this particular Sabbath - more than any other. All the leaven must be cast out of their houses and unleavened bread only could be eaten. Houses had to be cleaned so no bread crumbs etc could be lying around anywhere (Exodus 12:15-19). It was a big deal. Leaven was a type of evil or sin. This seven day festival celebrated the Lord leading them out of Egypt which is also a type of sin or evil. The fulfillment being that we celebrate Christ leading us out of sin, removing all our sin, casting away all that offends etc. It was a seven day Festival - eight if you include the Passover day (not a Sabbath) upon which our Lord was crucified.

That this time is also called a preparation day is made clear in 2Chronicles 35:3-8 and 16-18. Here Josiah made great preparations for the Passover so that all Israel celebrated the Feast. No Passover celebration was quite like that one even in the times of David. The Lord was really pleased with the preparations.

You quoted the last few verse of Luke and I would like to quote some of them here to ask a few questions:
Luke 23:54  And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55  And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56  And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Verse-54 makes it very clear that the sun is going down and that indeed it is the day of preparation. John 19:42 shows the reason for them using Joseph's tomb is that it was so near to the place where Jesus was killed. There just wasn't time to make any arrangements for a proper burial or to select a grave site of His own.

Verse-55 clearly shows the women following those who took Jesus' body to note where they laid Him. Remember, these women were from Galilee and a few from Bethany. They didn't know where Joseph's tomb was. They had to follow.

Verse-56 makes it plain that they returned (to where - there homes and places they were staying for the Feast). Then they prepared spices and ointments, but also RESTED according to the commandment.

One thing is clear to me that when they RESTED, it was to obey the commandement to rest on the seventh day Sabbath. We are in agreement here. My questions are these:

• When did they have time to prepare the spices and ointments since the sun was already setting by the time they laid Jesus in the tomb?
• Moreover, where did they get the spices and ointments? It should be clear that they did not bring such things from Galilee.
• Certainly by the time that they returned to their homes it was already the Sabbath. Wouldn't the places of business be closed?
• Even if they were able to buy them on their way home, when could they have prepared them?

You also quoted Mark 16:1 which I will quote here as well because I have a few questions:
Mark 16:1 "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

This verse makes it clear that the women named (at least these 3) bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath.
When would they be able to buy the items they needed? The Sabbath would have continued at least until 6 PM. No Jew would be in his place of business before the Sabbath, for they were not to conduct any type of business during that day. The priests sought Jesus life because He healed on the Sabbath. Could you imagine what they might do to a Jew who was in his place of business before the Sabbath was past?

Did these places of business open during the night? Wouldn't that leave them prey for robbers? Why would they do such a thing? How much business could a person do between the hours of 7PM (at the very earliest) and say 9PM? All night stores are a modern phenomenon. When I was a child, it was a big thing if a store (usually a small grocery store) was open at 9PM.
I don't believe that any place of business that dealt with funeral arrangements would have been open after dark. Do you?

I see no reason why Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 shouldn't be coupled together to make it clear what had happened. I believe that this is only logical. If we do this, however, we must place a day of business between two Sabbaths. The one an annual Holy Day and the other a weekly Sabbath. But what do you say?


MORE TO COME

[perfect participle active]

Greetings Sower,
I believe in the deity of Christ and have defended this doctrine on other forums, but I don't believe that these verses in 1John and 2John have anything to do with defending His deity except indirectly. That is, why would He be IN us if He were not God? Why would an angel or any other being have such a universal effect upon man's salvation?

Let me explain why I believe that these verses do not have the meaning that you claim. 1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

The verb "is come" is in the perfect participle active and should be translated "having come" according to my Greek morphological tool. If this word were to give the meaning that you claim, it would have to be in the aorist tense showing that it was an action that took place at one time in the past. That is Christ came in the flesh and does not have to become flesh again. Nevertheless, this is not the case. The perfect tense indicates an action or more correctly a process that took place in the past, but is having an effect in the present. An example of what I mean would be in Mark 5:34 "Daughter thy faith has made thee whole." Though the action takes place at one time, its effect continues on. Secondly, you will notice that the verb in 1John 4:3 "is come" is in the active voice. The Greek has an active, middle and  passive voices. Let me show you what I mean. 1Corinthians 13:12 has all three:

1 Corinthians 13:12  "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Each of the above clauses are in the order: active, middle and passive respectively. "I know" is what Paul is doing at the present when he is speaking. This is in the active voice. "Shall I know" is in the middle voice and indicates an action upon himself, that is he is going to know something about himself that he doesn't know at the time he is speaking. The middle voice expresses an activity that the subject does upon itself. John 1:14 indicates such an activity "the Word became flesh." The verb here is in the middle voice. It expresses the subject acting in some way upon himself. Jesus was involved in His becoming flesh (Philippians 2:6-8). The third clause above is in the passive voice and represents the subject receiving the action.

What I am trying to express is that if 1John 4:3 is meant for us to believe that "is come" means Christ becoming flesh, it would have to be in the middle voice, just as it is in John 1:14. In fact John 1:14 is in the aorist tense, middle voice; just as I indicated above that "is come" should be in 1John 4:3, if it should mean what you claim. It is not, however, and must indicate something else.

I am aware of the fact that there were many Gnostic elements present when John wrote his books. Some denied that Jesus was God, that God became flesh, or claimed that God was three modes instead of three Persons; but this is not what this verse is defending against. Personally, I believe it is defending against the Nicolaitan heresy (Revelation 2:6, 15) that really has never been effectively addressed in Christianity. The Nicolaitans were leaders with a deity complex. They lorded it over the people. This exists in every denomination today, and in many cases (but not all) is responsible for the denomination's coming to be.

If the believer would trust Christ within him rather than looking for men to teach and lead him, we would all still be one body, rather than the mass of schisms we see today; each one claiming to have the correct form of truth taught by Christ. Difference of opinion can exist within the Body of Christ without dividing up the body of believers. You and I disagree, yet I believe we would have no problem worshipping together.

Sower, I am willing to believe I am wrong here, but so far you have not presented a convincing case. As I understand the "Bible helps" I have been given, what you say about these verses cannot be true. Nevertheless, I am willing to be wrong, if you can prove it.

Have a evening and God bless,

John1one

[epiphisko]

Continued to Asaph from above:

Concerning your first post (#5) I am not certain that I understand your thoughts here. Do you imply that we can throw out the proposition that the women had to have a time to both "buy" and "prepare" spices so they could anoint the body of Jesus and still not break the Sabbath? I know what your link says, but what do you say?

What of the fact that there was an earthquake at the end of the Sabbath in Matthew 28:1-2?
Matthew 28:1  In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher. 2  And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Notice the words as it began to dawn toward  the first day of the week. The Greek word is epiphisko (S.2020). The same word is used in Luke 23:54 for the Sabbath "drawing on." Here in Matthew 28:1 it was the end of the Sabbath (near sunset on Saturday), as the first day of the week began to "draw on" or "draw near." Again, I know what your link says, but what do you think?

Let's take a closer look at the "three days" and the "third day" with particular attention to the prepositions involved.

Matthew 26:61  "And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." - The word translated "in" is the Greek word "dia" (S.1223). It means to pass through as in Hebrews 11:29 where the Israelites "passed through" the Red Sea. Concerning time it has the meaning of through, throughout, and during. In Acts 1:3 it has the meaning of "throughout" a 40 day period. In Hebrew 2:15 it means "during" an entire lifetime. For the three days in Matthew 26:61 it would be the entire three day period, complete days and nights, not partial. Mark 14:58 uses the same Greek word, "dia" (S.1223), but is translated "within" three days.

Matthew 27:40  "And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." - The  Greek word is "en" (S.1722) and has the meaning of resting or staying within a thing; it means in or within - as "in" a ship Matthew 4:21; "in" a synagogue Matthew 4:23. In Matthew 27:40 it means that Christ will be in the tomb "within" the parameters of three days. This Greek word is also used in Mark 15:29 and John 2:19-20 concerning the length of time Jesus would be in the tomb.

Matthew 27:63  "Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again." Here the Greek word is "meta" (S.3326) and has the meaning of after.  It expresses succession of time as in "after six days…" (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2). Because we say "after" we should not think this must mean that it refers to a period of time after the 72 hour period is complete, because this is not how this word is used. It would mean "after" the third day had begun, but in the midst of it. Notice how it is used in Hebrews 7:28: "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Meta (S.3326) here is translated "since." The oath was taken "after" the law was in effect, not after the age of the law was completed. The oath is record in Psalm 110:4, and the age of Law was certainly still in effect. Concerning the length of time Jesus was in the tomb, this same Greek word is used in (Mark 8:31).

Matthew 12:40  "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." There are no prepositions to help us here, but frankly I think it is pretty clear.

Matthew 27:64  "Command therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." The Greek word for "until" is "hoes" (S.2193) and has the meaning as long as or continuance until the end of a matter. In Matthew 27:64 the guard was to stay at the tomb for the entire period mentioned by the priests.

The rest of the Scriptures concerning the "third day" are Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40 and 1Corinthians 15:4. There are no prepositions to help us in any of these Scriptures except perhaps Luke 24:21 where the disciples say that this is "the third day since these things". The Greek word here is "apo" (S.575) and means from or since. It has the sense of "from" any time onwards. Here we would have to consider the whole day (the first day of the week) because the two disciples were speaking to Jesus toward evening that day. If you count the final moments of Friday, it has the possibility to mean what you say, provided Christ rose at sunrise the first day of the week rather than sunset on the 7th day of the week as indicated by Matthew 28:1. The clause in Luke 24:21 can also refer to the third days since all those things that happened were done, but then again, according to your link, I may be very devious in how I present my case here.

All things considered Christ died and rose:

• "dia" (S.1223) a full three days later,
• "en" (S.1722) within the parameters of three days (i.e. no longer than 72 hours),
• "meta" (S.3326) after three successive days (yet in the midst of those days),
• three days and three nights later or
• on the third day

If you wish to go with "tradition," asaph you are welcome to it, but I do not see how you can prove your case using the Word of God. Merely quoting the Scriptures that say "the third" day proves nothing. By itself, it can mean as you say, but when figured into the whole scheme of events that took place and all the other predictions that Christ made concerning how long He would be in the tomb, it MUST mean a literal 72 hours. But, these are just my thoughts concerning the Scriptures. I would be interested in yours, but please don't just send me to a link. This is a discussion forum. If I was interested in a study I might use a search engine and be guided to such a link as you posted. Nevertheless, I am interested in you thoughts and the adventure of a good exchange of ideas. Perhaps neither of us will fully embrace the other's point of view, but there is a certain excitement in seeing one's belief's challenged and how to respond. All this is lost on a mere "link" - don't you think?

Have a great evening and God bless,

John1one

[Christians]

Greetings asaph,

Concerning your second post (#6), if you wish to discuss inclusive reckoning, state your case. It is difficult to carry on a discussion with a link. Links are fine; I have read  yours out of respect for your post, but what I read I've heard before and I am not impressed. There is so much more to the reason Christ was in the tomb for 72 hours than just arguing over three days, the third day, after three days and three days and three nights. There are certain types that Christ fulfilled by resurrecting in the end of the Sabbath day, just as the priests were harvesting the Wave Sheaf Offering to be offered at sunrise the next day. Incidentally these same sheaves were bound together on the Passover day as Christ hung on the cross. The significance of this being that Christ is the Firstfruits. Nothing could be harvested before the Wave Sheaf was bound, cut and offered. Christ was bound to the cross with nails while the priest bound the selected grain offering on Passover Day. He rose from the dead in the end of the Sabbath just as the priests were harvesting that grain, and He ascended to the Father at sunrise on Sunday morning just as that same grain offering (the Wave Sheaf Offering) was offered before the rest of the harvest could be taken in from the field. Your link spoke about Christ fulfilling the Wave Sheaf Offering, but failed to give the complete picture. Near the end of your link the author says:

"The issues here are much deeper than most people realize. Had Christ not fulfilled every single Old Testament type and shadow pointing forward to His atoning death and resurrection, He would be an imposter and fraud."

I agree with this, but the author presented nothing new to me. I have heard all this before and had to take it into consideration before adopting what I believe to be true about this issue. Incidentally, by promoting a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection, the link fails to be true to what the author says in the quote I cut and pasted above. This is not just about three days and three nights. It is about fulfilling each of the things in the Law that prefigured Christ.

Your link says that because I hold to a Wednesday crucifixion and a Sabbath resurrection that I am:

• devious,
• that my conclusions are grossly imaginary,
• that because I do not buckle to its verbal intimidation that I am not open minded,
• that I base my conclusions on the twisted interpretation of a single Bible text,
• that I take all the Biblical evidence and force it into an artificial conformity with the "three days and three nights."

About the kindest thing your link says about me is that I am part of a "vocal minority of Christians who have made a tremendous issue out of the phrase 'three days and three nights.' " How the author of such a link could consider me a Christian when he assumes I am devious, grossly imaginary, closed minded, twisting the meaning of God's Word in order to force Scripture into an artificial conformity to my own views... is just beyond my comprehension. Perhaps he was just being kind when he included me as a Christian. Yet, if he was being kind, why would he call a brother devious… etc.?

Continued below

Greetings A4C,
I agree with most of your post - that is that Christ indeed died on Wednesday and rose in the final moments of the Sabbath on our Saturday. However, I have a few things I would like to discuss, if you don't mind.

We are in agreement up to the point where you say:

…but he himself went into paradise and declared that the perfect sacrifice had been made and then led the O.T. saints out of that place and Paradise has been moved into the third heaven. (Ephesians 4:8-10; II Corinthians 12:2)

I Peter 3:18 for Christ also hath one suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, and quickened by the Spirit:

I Peter 3:19 by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

I know what many Christians think concerning Christ's promise to the thief (Luke 23:43), but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for only the body of Jesus dying. If Christ did not "surely" die (Genesis 3:4), do we have a Savior? According to the Word of God, there is silence in the grave, no thoughts in one's mind or the ability to praise God or enjoy learning His Word (Psalm 30:9; 146:4; Isaiah 38:18-19). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). If Christ did not pay that penalty, what did He do to pay for our sins?

As far as preaching to the "spirits in prison" who were disobedient during the time of Noah (1Peter 3:20), it was the Spirit of Christ in Noah that witnessed to those before the flood. Consider 1Peter 1:11, 12, where it plainly says that it was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets of old that witnessed to both the prophets and to those to whom they were sent.

Indeed Matthew 27:51-53 speaks of a resurrection, but the Word of God does not say exactly how long after Jesus' resurrection those saints rose from their graves. They were yet in their tombs at the time of Peter's first sermon on Pentecost, for as he testifies, the body of David was still in the grave near Jerusalem (Acts 2:29); so at this time David still slept as the Word of God says. Therefore Christ didn't take any spirit anywhere while He was in the grave for three days and three nights.

The next place that I cannot give you a DITTO is:

John 12:1 then Jesus six day before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

This would have been Friday that he made the trip from Jericho to Bethany. If the Roman Catholic Palm Sunday is historically correct, it would mean that Jesus made a trip on the Sabbath (six days before Friday) in violation of the law.

Exodus 16:29 see, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Bethany was a Sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem.  

Acts 1:12 then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey.

John 12:1 is a bit premature. Jesus came from Jericho as you say, but He entered Jerusalem first, threw the money changers out of the Temple, preached to the people and left for Bethany (Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:11). He came to Bethany from Jerusalem, not Jericho. Also, He spent the Sabbath at Bethany, because from the town of Bethany to the city of Jerusalem was NOT a Sabbath day's journey. Let me explain.

Notice your Scripture above (Exodus 16:29). Moses said that no one could go out of his place during the time of the Sabbath. "HIS PLACE" came to be defined as the city limits of a town or 2000 cubits if you were on a journey between cities when the Sabbath came. The word for "place" (S.4725)  is maqowm and means locality, country, or home. In Numbers 35:5 the Law fixed the limits of the city to its suburbs of 2000 cubits on every side. This was considered to be a Sabbath Day's journey, set by ancient rabbis and continued to the time of Jesus (Acts 1:12). That Jesus agreed with this prohibition of travel on the Sabbath can be seen in the Olivet Prophecy in Matthew 24:20, where He tells the apostles to pray that their flight in persecution would not occur in winter or on the Sabbath day.

Some Bible scholars believe that there is a contradiction between Luke 24:50 and Acts 1:12. The one says that Jesus ascended into heaven from Bethany, while the other says He ascended from the Mount of Olives. There is no contradiction when one considers the "city limits" of the Sabbath day's journey. 2000 cubits (a Sabbath day's journey) is about 7-8 furlongs. The problem is that Bethany is 15 furlongs from Jerusalem (John 11:18). The Mount of Olives is between the two cities and somewhere on the mount the two "city-limits" meet. One could walk up the mount from Bethany and speak to people come from Jerusalem on a Sabbath, but one could not go from city to city (Exodus 16:29; Numbers 35:5) on the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus did not enter Jerusalem on the Sabbath; moreover the Jews were not to burden their beasts (Deuteronomy 5:14) on the Sabbath, and Jesus rode the colt of an ass into Jerusalem. He spent the Sabbath, the 10th of Nisan (called the Great Sabbath in Jewish tradition), in Bethany.

What we refer to as the Triumphant Entry of Christ did indeed occur on what we call Palm Sunday. The fact is Jesus made no less than three entries into Jerusalem. Each time on an ass, and each time He threw out the money changers and preached to the people. The priests were positively livid by His third entry, and welcomed Judas' offer to betray Him. Incidentally, he did not decide to betray Christ until two days before the Passover (Matthew 26:2, 14-16).

The rest of your document gets one great big DITTO!!!

Have a great evening, my friend, and God bless,

John1one

[Jesus Christ is coming in OUR flesh]

Greetings,
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I do have another view. I believe the "DOCTRINE OF CHRIST" has to do with verse 7 - "the coming of Christ in the flesh." Let me quote the Scripture here so the context would be clear.

2 John 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Notice that John calls the one who does not "confess" that Jesus Christ "is come in the flesh" a "deceiver" and an "antichrist." The problem, as I see it, is that many of our translations (including my favorite - the KJV)  do not translate the clause "is come in the flesh" properly.

The Greek verb, Erchomai 'to come' (S.2064) is in the Present Passive Middle Participle and should be translated "coming" rather than is come. The NEB does translate it this way. I believe the sense is that he who does not teach that Jesus Christ is coming in OUR flesh, is a deceiver and an antichrist.

An antichrist is anyone who opposes Christ. That is, someone who does not allow a person to be dependant upon Christ who is within the believer. There are several denominations and radio and TV evangelists that put a great deal of stress upon their own doctrine, not permitting their fellowship/followers to question their teachings or policies. In other words, they demand total acceptance of what they say without giving a thought to what that "still small voice" within us is saying. This is opposing the leadership of Christ. Notice what Paul says in Colossians:

Colossians 2:18  Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19  And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

The words "worshipping of angels" might be better translated worshipping of messengers to include men who go about teaching their own doctrine and demanding that their followers believe their every word. Notice how they are "vainly puffed up by their fleshy mind." In verse 19 it is said that they are not "holding to the Head" who is Christ. It is He who nourishes and builds up the Body, not men. Men at best are obedient messengers.

Coming back to 2John 1:9, those who "transgress" the "doctrine" of Christ are those who abandon the teaching that Christ is coming within each of His followers. Once a deceiver gets his victim to look to him instead of HE WHO IS WITHIN, it leaves the believer dependant upon man instead of his/her Head who is Christ. This is a deceiver and an ANTICHRIST.

Just another thought.

Have a great day, and God bless,

John1one

[God]

Greetings Sean,
Here is a Scripture that shows that the ANGEL OF THE LORD was also called God by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When Jacob was blessing Joseph's sons, he gives a stunning revelation. Notice:

Genesis 48:15  And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16  The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

Here we see Jacob asking for one blessing upon the lads, but that blessing comes from the ANGEL that he also calls GOD!

It is my opinion that the ANGEL OF THE LORD is the only PERSON of the Godhead that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spoke with. I am not altogether certain about Moses, but I am leaning toward the belief that he, too, knew only the ANGEL OF THE LORD.

God bless,

John1one