Featured In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,

Non sense were not my only response.

Let's discuss those texts by themselves. They have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion except by specific implications which also are irrelevant to this discussion except by specific implications.

 

I have been waiting for this. Nothing gives me greater pleasure to quote ---for you, dear Biblicist, with respect, I beg you, one ~other Greek authority~ if I may,

Concerning:

“In the end of the Sabbath / Late on the Sabbath Day …”, Mt.28:1



Disputant:

My friend from South Africa, you are indeed most magnanimous in your display of hyperbole and backbush rhetoric. You presume that no one but you have studied the scripture and can ever understand its truth. I gave my reasons in the quote from A.T. Robertson, Ma, DD, LittD, professor of New Testament and Greek, writer of the Life of Christ and a notable Baptist. I should think he has a little more weight than you have thus far demonstrated. I shall believe him and his viewpoint. Have you read his harmony of the gospels? Have you read anyone's harmony of the gospels?

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

 

You're quite right, again, DHK, ~The passage (Genesis 3:24) says nothing about keeping the Sabbath day--not one word~ in that it does not say the words ~keeping the Sabbath day~; so you are quite right, again, DHK, that the passage says nothing about ~keeping~ the Sabbath Day--but every word about NOT ~keeping the Sabbath day~! Because God through Jesus Christ the Flaming Sword of his Word and His Law, DROVE THEM OUT and forbade, "They shall NOT enter into MY, Rest"!

How right you are, DHK!

 

If ~the Biblical text~ in Matthew 28:1 ~MAY be perfectly translated to mean … AFTER the Sabbath~, it would be just reasonable and honest and unbiased and responsible to at least find the above ~rules~ of Greek Grammar, Syntax and Idiom reflected fairly in the ‘translation’; but NONE is seen to be respected BUT abused through quasi ‘translation’ to FORCE the Biblical text to directly contradict its true meaning.

Nevertheless more linguistic ‘rules’ might justify translation of ‘opse’ plus Genitive with ‘after’, and ‘eis’ plus Accusative with ‘on’ … ‘rules like’ Etymology or historic incidence and meaning, and Comparative meaning in contained and exterior Context?


Then let’s go FIND those precedents before 100AD!

Precedents for ‘opse’ meaning “late on” / “in the end of”, are existing, e.g. in Dionysius with reference to Matthew 28:1, “in the slow hours of the Sabbath Day”; and abound “seit Homer (850BC) auch Papias, LXX, Philo, Josephus, Oracula Sibyllina, Adverb ‘spät’ mit Genitive”. W. Bauer. NO exceptions! NO incidence of ‘opse’ with translated meaning ‘after’!


And none in the CE to this very day, not even in Philostratus more than three centuries into CE. Forget it to try to show ‘opse’ meaning ‘after’ in the sense of ‘on the next’. With Ablative ‘opse’ means ‘in the after(math)’ of a situation, like ‘After the party the children opened their presents’ which actually was the climax (climactic ending) for their party. (Like “In the climactic ending of the Sabbath” in Matthew 28:1.)


Last, the ‘rule’ of Context.

First ‘opse’ is the equivalent of just the following phrase, ‘tehi epiphohskoh’, which again indicates the almost identical phrase and time of day Joseph had closed the grave in Luke 23:54, “mid-afternoon = LATE ON That Day the Preparation while the Sabbath was nearing.” [Sabbaton epephohsken]

So, ‘opse’ in both NT and LXX, NO exception! NO incidence of ‘opse’ with translated meaning ‘after’!


Yet suddenly since the late 20th century burst on the scene dozens –in fact hundreds of ‘translations’ around the globe with ‘after’ for ‘opse’ (only, in Matthew 28:1)!


Makes one think. And if it does not make one THINK, it makes one switch over to insults, false accusations and typical, gross un-Christian, behaviour. ALL FOR HOLY SUNDAY’S SAKE AND HONOUR.

 

Correct. (Never disputed it.) Makes no difference though to the meaning of 'opse' + Genitive, of 'tehi epiphohskousehi', or, of 'eis' + Accusative.


The issue in Matthew 28:1-5a though, is, not the fact it says "late on the Sabbath mid-afternoon towards the First Day", and not, "after the Sabbath on the First Day", but, whether the circumstantial evidence it describes is Jesus’ Resurrection or not. It is indisputable Jesus' Resurrection is implied through the evidence, not a mere visit of the two Marys which in any case never was realised but was thwarted by the "great earthquake as soon as [kai idou] they set out to go see the grave".


Robertson is perfectly correct about the days and time of days mentioned; but he is perfectly wrong about the visit as the supposed event described in the passage. By far the majority of exegetes agree that Matthew 28:1-4 evidences Jesus’ Resurrection. Wenham, for example, stresses the implication of the Intentional Infinitive, that the real event of Matthew 28:1-4 is the Resurrection and not an unaccomplished intention of the two women merely. (Easter Enigma]


So, if you don’t mind, give us Robertson’s notes on Mark 16:9, so we can discuss them directly at the hand of Robertson himself. But please note, that what you have mentioned, that Robertson’s ~…solution is to suggest two different visitations by women ("why allow only one visit for the anxious women?")~, is his ~solution~ to understanding Matthew 28:1-4 and not, to understanding Mark 16:9. By any means not!

 

Not to ~the Jew~, DHK. According to all the Scriptures the Sabbath was not given to any but Israel. Correct!

So was Jesus Resurrected and Given to none other than Israel. If you're a Jew, DHK, Jesus is none of yours; and if you're a ~Gentile believer~, DHK, the Resurrected Christ of God is none of yours BY THE SAME RULE OF LAW! Therefore, are you an Israelite DHK, because only if you are, has God Raised the Christ whom you have crucified, for YOU!
For thus saith the SCRIPTURE!

 

The word in Mark 16:9 translated as you say, ~"risen"~, is no mere ~word~ which ~is aorist tense and can be understood perfectly to mean that he rose from the grave on the first day of the week.~

Very sorry but that is an extremely reckless claim without regard for any factor of language or its actual meaning to make. Irresponsible!


No! Not irresponsible or negligent, but carefully planned.


The word in Mark 16:9 truthfully translated “risen” / “was risen”, in fact is the Aorist PARTICIPLE, which with any regard for fidelity and integrity MUST be understood perfectly to mean JUST WHAT IT SAYS AND IS, that “He – Jesus – risen / as the Risen / the Resurrected / was risen when, early on the First Day he APPEARED.” Not, ~that he rose from the grave~. It is THE lie of anti-Christ of all ages.


The Participle ‘anastas’ is an Adjectival Participle and tells that Jesus “was risen when He appeared”; it is not a Verb which tells that Jesus ~rose~.


God does not sleep. He sees his written Word of the Scriptures in the Name of his Holy Son being twisted and mutilated and abused in idolatrous worship of “The Day of the Lord SUN”

 

Opse consistently means nothing but “late” – also in this case. Mark 13:35 “The master (may) come late (in day) – opse, (very late) against midnight (accusative) – mesonuktion, at cockcrow –alektorofohnias (Genitive – while very early after midnight), or, (any time) early (in the day) – prohi. Nothing at all necessitates the idea that opse should mean “evening”. Nothing also necessitates the idea that every time description in this verse should indicate a specific part of the night. It only would be natural and common sense that the Master could come any time of the whole day, night and day. As a matter of fact, opse should stand in the chiasm contained in this verse for the opposite of the duration of day after midnight till midday. The day in the form construction of this verse extends from midday till midnight – opse and mesonuktion – over against the day’s continuation from midnight till midday – alektorofohnias and prohi.Opse thus indicates the end of day. (This is no case of a noon to noon reckoning of the day. The chiasmus is simply used as a literary form without any ulterior implications.) Cf. Par. 5.3.1.3.1. This meaning emphasises the Master’s warning to his labourers not to get slack – obviously when it gets late – but to be zealous and watch throughout the working day. Christ tells of the time of judgement in the end of days when “the Master will come”. He begins by referring to the end of the day as such as a possible time for the coming of the Master, and ends with the early day to allow for any other possible time for his coming. Christ’s coming could be near – “early”, or “after a long while” – “late”. (Follet Classic Greek Dictionary)

 

Good post, thank you!

The main difference between the above explanations and Jesus' own application is that they do not take into consideration the context of the labourers whom Jesus warns not to be slack and lazy or tired but to persevere all day long and stay diligent all night long. The exegetes do not take into regard the daytime the actual working time of the labourers, as if the Master would ONLY return during the night and not catch them asleep while broad daylight and work-time.

The text does not contain only the four watches of the night; it covers the whole cycle of first, ópse' from midday to midnight the "late-of-day"; and after it, 'proh-i' from midnight to midday the "early-of-day".

Your rebuttal of this understanding with accusations that I build false doctrine upon it, is but your way to admit its correctness and expose YOUR OWN DEPENDENCE upon 'opse' to mean 'after' in order to get the Resurrection on Sunday.

So it gives me great pleasure although the pleasure of self-satisfaction which is a very ugly thing a Christian must always withstand. I have to thank you therefore for the exercise you give me in Christian behaviour and self-examination.

May Christ give you peace with yourself, because peace with regard to the point at issue, I cannot see will come to you from Jesus Christ or even from the dead letter of the Scripture.

 

~this proves…~—~this…~. What is ~this~? ~This~, is

~… Barnes … A.T. Robertson … JFB … John Gill … John MacArthur … I [Biblicist] … commentaries … Biblical background authors … New Testament scholar(s) … who all say the very same thing~


Now what is ~this~ supposed to do?

~…this proves that opse may be translated "after"…~

~…opse translated "after"…~ meaning what?

~…this proves that opse may be translated "after" as the first watch between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. was AFTER the previous day which ended at 6 p.m. and it is called "opse".~

Does ~this~, ~prove~, ‘opse’ ~may be translated "after" as the…~ last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.!?

Never in your life!!

And so we are back to square one… exactly to where we started this discussion and I started my remonstrance with having shouted, Never in your life!!

 

About ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 …

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~At even, or at midnight~

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~evening (οψε), midnight (μεσονυκτιον)~

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … No comment; left hanging in the air.

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~at even, or at midnight~

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~…watches of the night from 6:00 p.m. to 6 a.m. Their names identify the ends of the three-hour periods rather than the periods beginnigs.~

In short, ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~…authors who all say the very same thing~ …‘LATE in day’!

…and show the same shortcoming, viz., that they all limit the period of time of the four designations to night-time FOR NO REASON AT ALL (than perhaps create a precedent for ‘opse’ in Matthew 28:1 to mean ‘after the Sabbath’ and not properly “ON / IN Sabbath Day-time”).