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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
In Heb. 4, the Sabbath points to rest,
- Thread starter Gerhard Ebersoehn
- Start date
- Status
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.
Look, it does not matter to you what other Greek authorities say. It does not matter to you what the Biblical text MAY be perfectly translated to mean. You have your false doctrine and you are committed to defend it by hook or by crook and it is a waste of my time to give you any more time on this subject.
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.
Last edited:
Robertson agrees that the resurrection was early Sunday morning as he interprets Mark to mean just that. His solution is to suggest two different visitations by women ("why allow only one visit for the anxious women?"). The word "risen" in Mark 16:9 is aorist tense and can be understood perfectly to mean that he rose from the grave on the first day of the week. If your idea was in view he could have used the perfect tense to express your idea of a previous completed resurrection that stands completed up until the arrival of the women.
The Greek term "opse" is used in Mark 13:35 for the first watch which began at 6 p.m. and lasted until 9 p.m. Thus, it is used in scripture for a period of time AFTER the Sabbath was completed and therefore it can be translated to mean "after the Sabbath had ended and INTO the first day of the week just before sunrise."
Matthew only uses the singular Sabbatou for the weekly seventh day Sabbath in every instance previous to Matthew 28:1. He uses the plural here which can easily be translated "week" instead of "sabbath" singular. So it can also be understood to mean "And the week ending, and into (eis) the first day of the week when the light first began to appear." Hence, this gives the plural the same meaning "week" in both cases and harmonizes perfectly with Mark 16:9.
Last edited:
Therefore that verse, as well as the rest of scripture, IMO, does not teach that a Gentile believer should keep the Sabbath. I find no such command in the Scriptures. To stretch the Bible to those limits scripture must be taken out of its context. The Sabbath was given exclusively to the Jew.
Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
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!
Last edited:
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)
Yes, it was a command given to Israel and their generations forever.
Christ
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![/QUOTE]
You play games of semantics.
Paul prayed for the nation of Israel that they might be saved, and yet he also claimed to be of Israel. Those who live in that land surrounding Jerusalem given to the Jews in 1948 by the UN make up the nation of Israel. The word "Jew" is a synonym, though used in the slang and originates from the tribe "Judah."
Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite, went "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile."
We read that expression over and over again in the Bible.
The three: Christianity, Israel, and Gentile are clearly delineated for us by Paul:
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
--Are you a Jew or of "the church of God"?
Are of an Israelite or of "the church of God"?
You cannot claim both just as you cannot claim to be both Muslim and Christian at the same time. You must choose.
The nation of Israel now believes in a false religion called Judaism and worship a false god. If you call yourself an "Israelite" you do not worship the God of the Bible, for they reject Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
These are the four designations for the four watches in the night. The watch identified as opse is between 6-9 p.m. AFTER the close of the day at 6 pm. Gerhard, you are simply not being honest with the historical background because you are committed to a false doctrine no matter what you got to do to make it fit.
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 - — 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. The three first of these we have in one passage
John MacArthur - The normal expressions designating the four three-hour 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.
I 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.
Whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not, 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".
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
~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”).
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”).
In short, your responses are absolute nonsense! Be honest! The "or" is transition between the diffferent watches not that one is inclusive of the other. Christ may come in the first watch (opse 6 to 9 p.m) OR in the second watch (9-12 pm) OR in the third watch (12-3) or in the last watch (proii - 3-6 a.m.)
Honest scholars admit this is an obvious reference to the four watches of the night. Your dishonest scholarly shows you are motivated by false doctrine so you mishandle the word of God to make it fit your theories.
Last edited:
During the day time people do no sleep. It is during the night they sleep. Hence, the four watches of the night are the times that laborers would not be watching. So your point is pointless.
Find any New Testament Greek scholar that would agree with what you just said. Jesus does not agree with what you just said. Opse is not used "from midday to midnight the late-of-day" and proii is not used "from midnight to miday the early-of-day." This is your own imagination at work rather than scholarship of any sort. The united opinion of scholarly research is that these are the four watches of then night rather than two as you are claiming.
You are just proving what I said. It does not matter what evidence is placed before you as you will manipulate God's Word to suite your unbiblical dogma.
It does not change the fact that opse still refers to a time period AFTER the close of the previous day rather than late in that day.
Last edited:
What in the world are you talking about? I never said that opse proves that Christ rose after the "last watch between 3 a.m. to 6 am." I said it proves this use of opse proves that it can be translated "after" the end of the Sabbath - that is all I said. 6.p.m to 9 p.m. is AFTER the Sabbath. The word proee and "dawn" prove it occurred between 3 am to 6 a.m.
Both verb and participle are Aorist tense showing identical action. The resurrection and appearance both occurred "on the first day of the week." Your view would require the use of the perfect tense or imperfect tense.
Last edited:
- Status