Christ Rose on the Sabbath--strongest proof-text

[The Biblicist]

The weight of scholarship in the referred posts are against your opinion, Biblicist.
Here it is again, not what I say, but what your, scholars had to say,

Barnes - ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~At even, or at midnight~
The Biblicist said: ↑

A..T. Robertson - (οψε), midnight (μεσονυκτιον), cock-crowing (αλεκτοροφωνιας), morning (πρω).
‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~evening (οψε), midnight (μεσονυκτιον)~

JFB - ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 …

John Gill - ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 … ~at even, or at midnight~

John MacArthur - ‘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.~

Now I, GE, could have gone on and on listing commentaries, Biblical background authors who all say the very same thing. In fact, it is very very difficult to find any New Testament scholar that says otherwise, ~authors who all say the very same thing~ ‘opse’ in Mark 13:35 …‘LATE in day’!

Note one of these commentators support your theory of a four part 24 hour day and to quote snips of them out of context is dishonest. Here is what they really say in context:

Barnes - "At even, or at midnight or, at etc.: This refers to the four divisions into which the Jews divided the night. "

A.T. Robertson - "The four watches of the night are named here: evening (οψε), midnight (μεσονυκτιον), cock-crowing (αλεκτοροφωνιας), morning (πρω). "

JFB - "35. Watch ye therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning — an allusion to the four Roman watches of the night."

John Gill - "at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning. This is agreeably to the division of the night among the Jews, who speak of the first watch, the middle of the night, the cock crowing, and morning, as distinct from each other.

John MacArthur - "The normal expressions designating the four three-hour watches of the night from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 am."

Why stoop to dishonesty?

 

[TCassidy]

Place the Scripture(s) ---from any English Bible before the 20th century.

Then ask yourself, WHY "ON the Sabbath" / "IN the Sabbath" had to be CHANGED to <<after the Sabbath>>?

Then ask the Greek grammarians, all Sunday believers, before or of the 20th century, Why it is IMPOSSIBLE and CORRUPT to say 'after' instead of "in" or "on" or "Sabbat's-time", or join some of them in their fraud and dishonesty and fear and cowardice and hypocrisy and the judgment that awaits such.

Ὀψὲ (after) δὲσαββάτων (the sabbath) . . . Ὀψὲ after the close of the day. From
ὄπίσω: after, back, behind.

Tyndale (1534): which dawneth the morrowe after the Sabboth . . .

Geneva (1560): the later end of the Sabbath day, when the first day of the weeke began to dawn . . . .

 

[TCassidy]

In NT Greek, Joshua is 'Iohsias' Matthew 1:10,11.

LOL! ROFLOL! ιωσιαν (ιωσιας) in Matthew 10, 11 is Josiah, not Joshua. You remember Josiah? The son of Amon? The father of Jechoniah?

Here, let me help a little. יֹאשִׁיָּה = Josiah. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = Joshua.

See the difference?

 

[The Biblicist]

In NT Greek, Joshua is 'Iohsias' Matthew 1:10,11. And 'Jesus', 'Iehsous'.

Hebrews has 'Iehsous' for Jesus, eight times. So the writer knew that he was not writing about 'Iohsias' in 4:8, but about "JESUS who gave the People of God, REST", “once for all””.

Joshua 21:44 says "the LORD gave them rest round about"--not 'Iohsias';

Joshua 22:4; 1:15 say, "the LORD your GOD hath given rest"--not 'Iohsias'.

Joshua 14:15 says, "the land had rest from war". Jesus said "Not as the world gives peace do I give peace."


Innumerable times after Joshua, the LORD spoke of "another day ... as is said (written), Today if ye will hear His (the LORD'S) Voice, harden not your hearts." But "If JESUS gave them Rest, God would not ever after THESE things (Jesus having given them Rest and Jesus having entered into His Own Rest as God) speak of another day" of Salvation-Rest.

Your point is pointless, as the bible of the day was the Septuigent and "Iohsous" is found in the LXX in the book of Joshua (Josh. 1:10; 2:1; 3:1 etc.). Again the weight of scholarship is against your personal opinions.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Because I ain't gonna throw ANY stones.

Your before last post was no stone thrown ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

LOL! ROFLOL! ιωσιαν (ιωσιας) in Matthew 10, 11 is Josiah, not Joshua. You remember Josiah? The son of Amon? The father of Jechoniah?

Here, let me help a little. יֹאשִׁיָּה = Josiah. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = Joshua.

See the difference?

Thank you, Cassidy, thank you. I am ashamed, justly ashamed. God, be merciful to me, because I spoke against my own conscience. I in fact acted dishonestly.

I don't want to bore you with the story behind this blunder, but the truth always is exposed. I needed this lesson. May God have mercy on me. I know He loves me still. And, that He loves you all, his children.

God bless

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Post corrected ...

In Hebrew Joshua is 'Jehoshua', and in LXX and NT Greek, 'Iehsous'.

The Letter to the Hebrews has 'Iehsous' for Jesus, eight times. So the writer knew that he was not writing about Joshua long after the temptation in the wilderness, but about the only Jesus of the Gospel and his Letter.
Joshua was not long after the temptation; he was in the temptation.
The writer speaks of “JESUS” in 4:8, "who gave the People of God, REST", “once for all”.


Joshua 21:44 says "the LORD gave them rest round about"—“Jesus gave” the Eternal “Rest of God”;


Joshua 22:4; 1:15 say, "the LORD your GOD hath given rest"—Jesus is the “Prince of Peace” our Lord and King of kings, our God.


Joshua 14:15 says, "the land had rest from war". Jesus said "Not as the world gives peace do I give peace."


Therefore “Iehsous” in 4:8 is Jesus, and not Joshua.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Your point is pointless, as the bible of the day was the Septuigent and "Iohsous" is found in the LXX in the book of Joshua (Josh. 1:10; 2:1; 3:1 etc.). Again the weight of scholarship is against your personal opinions.

Thank you, Biblicist. Please see my above two posts.

 

[TCassidy]

The Letter to the Hebrews has 'Iehsous' for Jesus, eight times.

13 times meaning Jesus and 1 time meaning Joshua.

If that verse is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ then Christ was a failure in that he failed to give them rest.

It obviously speaks of Joshua, who led the people into the promised land. In fact the Syriac version adds, "the son of Nun."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Note one of these commentators support your theory of a four part 24 hour day and to quote snips of them out of context is dishonest. Here is what they really say in context:

Barnes - "At even, or at midnight or, at etc.: This refers to the four divisions into which the Jews divided the night. "

A.T. Robertson - "The four watches of the night are named here: evening (οψε), midnight (μεσονυκτιον), cock-crowing (αλεκτοροφωνιας), morning (πρω). "

JFB - "35. Watch ye therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning — an allusion to the four Roman watches of the night."

John Gill - "at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning. This is agreeably to the division of the night among the Jews, who speak of the first watch, the middle of the night, the cock crowing, and morning, as distinct from each other.

John MacArthur - "The normal expressions designating the four three-hour watches of the night from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 am."

Why stoop to dishonesty?

Who says, <<"At even, or at midnight or, at etc.: This refers to the four divisions into which the Jews divided the night.">>?

Barnes! Is Barnes the Scriptures?

What says the Scripture? It says, ‘opse mesonuktion’—not, <opse alektorophohnias> or <opse prohi>. ‘opse’ – “late” is paired with “until midnight”, not with “in the early morning before sunrise” or “in the early daylight”.

But don’t let it seem that I am the one who says Barnes ties ‘opse’ – “late” with “in the early morning before sunrise”! For he does not!

Barnes ties ~at even, or at midnight~; but Biblicist, ties ‘opse’ with <<AFTER the previous day>>, <AFTER> <<at even>> and <AFTER>, <<at midnight>> which is in the early of day, according to the Biblicist, “in the early morning before sunrise”. Because that is what Biblicist is arguing towards, namely, that the Master may come within the 12 hours of the four night watches, ‘opse’ according to Biblicist being the last of the four night watches, <<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">>.

My argumentation is the same for all the scholars Biblicist referred to. And as I have before pointed out, I reject the claim that the four time indicators in Mark 13:35 refer to only the night time, because they refer to the WHOLE day cycle of 24 hours in which the Master could come back ANYTIME!

No scholars’ authority is above either the Scriptures or clear logic, especially when they are so biased they are not even aware that they are.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

13 times meaning Jesus and 1 time meaning Joshua.


If that verse is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ then Christ was a failure in that he failed to give them rest.


It obviously speaks of Joshua, who led the people into the promised land. In fact the Syriac version adds, "the son of Nun."

2:2 "Christ Jesus our Lord",

2:9 “Jesus crowned with glory and honour”,

3:1 “High Priest of our confession Christ Jesus”,

3:14 "Christ the beginning of our confidence",

4:8 “Jesus gave them Rest”,

4:14 "Jesus the Son of God",

6:20 "the Forerunner Jesus",

7:22, “Jesus Surety”,

10:10 “Jesus Christ once for all”,

10:19 “by the blood of Jesus”,

10:25 “He that speaketh”,

11:26 “the reproach of Christ greater riches”

12:2 “Jesus Author and Finisher”,

12:24 “Jesus the Mediator”,

12:29 “our God a consuming fire”,

13:8, "Jesus Christ the SAME yesterday, and TODAY, and forever",

13:12 “High Priest Jesus”,

13:20 "Lord Jesus Great Shepherd",

13:21, “Jesus Christ to whom be glory”.


But no! because concordances and scholars have difficulty with all glory and honour to belong to “JESUS” who “gave them Rest … the Rest of God … HIMSELF” both Sacrifice and Offering a sweet Savour unto God, and extracted JESUS-Name from all HIS Names forever the SAME, only to bestow it upon Joshua, who, according to those same scholars <<was a failure in that he failed to give them rest>>.


And <that verse>, 4:8, is speaking of the Lord “Jesus” Christ, of “Jesus” who was no failure but “GAVE them Rest”! It obviously speaks of the only “Jesus”—‘Iehsous’ the writer ever has in mind, “that Great Shepherd” who leads the people of God into the promised land and gave them perfect Rest even “the Rest of God” He Himself “ever was, today is and forever will be— JESUS”. In fact, the Letter adds, "Jesus, the son of God."

 

[Alcott]

Your before last post was no stone thrown ...

Indeed not.... to the best your statement makes any sense.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Judge this:

For Sunday worship the hand-reared monster of pagan idolatry nothing is too far-fetched, like stealing Christ's Resurrection from "In the Sabbath" and placing it <<after the Sabbath on the First Day of the week>> to give it a Christian semblance.

Flaming and goading ?

Literally and historically exact ?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

13 times meaning Jesus and 1 time meaning Joshua.

If that verse is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ then Christ was a failure in that he failed to give them rest.

It obviously speaks of Joshua, who led the people into the promised land. In fact the Syriac version adds, "the son of Nun."

Re:
<<13 times meaning Jesus and 1 time meaning Joshua.>> If you say so, it's your opinion, incorrect 13 to 1.
Re:
<<If that verse is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ then Christ was a failure in that he failed to give them rest.>>
Absolutely so! But was Christ a failure in that he failed to give them rest? The writer does not think so, because he a priori declared that "Jesus" --not Joshua-- "GAVE then Rest".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ὀψὲ (after) δὲσαββάτων (the sabbath) . . . Ὀψὲ after the close of the day. From
ὄπίσω: after, back, behind.

Tyndale (1534): which dawneth the morrowe after the Sabboth . . .

Geneva (1560): the later end of the Sabbath day, when the first day of the weeke began to dawn . . . .

Matthew 281)— The New Testament first translated in English from the original tongue by "martyr" William Tyndale 1525 - 1526 printed in 1526 by Peter Schoeffer in the German city of Worms.

“The Sabboth daye at even which dauneth the morowe after the Sabboth Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to se the sepulcre”


1534 W.T. edition with variants, Miles Coverdale 1535, "martyr" John Rogers Mathew's Bible 1537, "martyr" Thomas Cranmer Great Bible 1539...

"Upon the evening of the Sabbath holy day which dawneth the morrowe of the first day of the Sabbaths"


Not your, TCassidy’s, clip, <<which dawneth the morrowe>>, but Tyndale’s complete added English variant, reads,

"Upon the evening of the Sabbath holy day which dawneth the morowe of the first day of the Sabbaths".


The 1534 "evening" = the 1526 "even"

= the 1611KJV, DRB 1899 et al “In the end of the Sabbath”

= DBT1890, ASV1901[*] “Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” / “Now late on sabbath, as it was the dusk of the next day after sabbath”

= the Greek -100 AD, “mid-afternoon (before the First Day of the week)”.


Therefore:

The 1534 “evening of the Sabbath holy day”—“the Sabbath holy day’s evening” = the 1526 “The Sabboth daye at even which dauneth the morowe of the first day of the Sabbaths”


[*Revised Standard Version 1901, 1971, the Amplified Bible, 1965, the New American Standard Bible, 1995, and the Recovery Version, 1999he Sabboth"]


So, TCassidy: <<Ὀψὲ (after) δὲ σαββάτων (the sabbath) . . . Ὀψὲ after the close of the day. From

ὄπίσω: after, back, behind.>> is quite amusingly off the mark.

NO precedential incidence of ‘opse’ meaning <after> exists in all of Greek literature anywhere at any time before ‘late Greek’ e.g., in Philostratus’ use of ‘opse’ with the Ablative, in an ‘Ablative sense’ of ‘time left over at the end of or after’ an event.

<<Ὀψὲ (after)>> is a novel, Sunday sacredness propagandistic invention. Because ‘oψὲ’ having always been an Adverb of time—of ‘late time’—, has ever so consistently meant “in the end or ending hours / months / years” of time-periods like days and seasons and eras… <<the close of the day>> if you will, thank you. From ‘heh opis’ – pay, end-wage (respect for old age); Adjective, ‘opsios’-late; ‘opsidzoh’-come late, go late; ‘opsigonos’-born in old age. ‘opsimos’ poetic for ‘opse’-late, slow tardy.


‘Opisthen/opithe’-opposite to ‘prosthe’-in front; ‘remaining (books)’; ‘to/ta opisthen’-hinder parts, rear, back; ‘opsithios skelea’-hind legs.


‘Opse’ therefore does not come from <<ὄπίσω: after, back, behind>> which is beyond description inventiveness. ‘Opse’ NEVER means ‘after’ or a day <back>. ‘Opse’ ALWAYS means “on the current day before the one after it”, in other words, “on the current day—on the Sabbath—LATE”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That is a bunch of garbage! We do not venerate Sunday at all especially "for itself". We set the day apart to honor Christ, His Word, his worship and our hope of his soon return. The day has no meaning apart from His finished work is commemorated on it.

The principle, to <<set the day apart to honor Christ, His Word, his worship and our hope of his soon return. The day has no meaning apart from His finished work is commemorated on it>> is lofty bright and pure and white for as long ... for as long it's SUNNY SUNDAY'S song!