My Position on the Fourth Commandment

With this entire argument, and all that you say, you cannot get past that one verse: Mark 16:9. Just that one verse defeats all that you say. Jesus rose on the first day of the week. It is clear. It is plain. It is easily interpreted. It cannot be denied.

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. (Mark 16:9)

Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. (Mark 16:9) WEB

Now when he had risen very early, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala, out of whom he had cast seven demons. (Mark 16:9) Darby

 

GE

Re:
Dr Walter,
“Your questions are irrational. Matthew 28:11 explicitly tells you that they reported "all things" they had witnessed…”

GE:

I have no argument with Matthew, because 28:11 “explicitly tells you that they reported "all things" they had witnessed”, that is, “"all things" they had witnessed”; no thing they had not witnessed nor had the faintest idea of.

I love the Greek language here; it is a language of such powerful grammatical functionality! Everything that happened in Matthew 28:1-4, happened as the result of a single Participle!

The single propelling force of all earthly “things that happened”, was “the angel of the Lord and the “brilliance of his appearance DESCENDING from heaven” – the very same causal power that set off the great earthquake, cast away the door-stone, struck down like dead the guard, and stopped the Marys in their plans and tracks.

After— no, AT— no! BEFORE the “brilliance of his (the angel’s) appearance DESCENDING from heaven” – which is, “FROM the fear – killing fear of him” (‘apo tou phobou autou’), until they came by again, the guards KNEW NOTHING of “all the things that happened”.

That’s for you, Dr Walter, to argue with Matthew; not for me.

After they had regained consciousness, the guards must have decided what was next for them to do, in view of an opened, and empty grave they had no inkling about how it "all happened".

Not all the guards agreed… “some of the guard” only, were clever enough to see opportunity when opportunity arrives. “All the things that were done” – “some of the guards” fully realised – had certain worth for the Jews, who believed ‘geld wat stom is, maak reg wat krom is’, dumb money keeps silence.

The guard showed arrogance. They “reported” nothing as if called to account. They were the aggressors. The guard themselves decided to “SHOW the chief priests”, right in their hiding haunt, a thing or two— “Having happened all things” considering, what was it worth? “What was done”? What was reached?! (Cynically in their sleeve… your pockets, mates!) You landed up with an opened and empty tomb, my friends; your plans were worth, sultsch!

What’s OUR alliance worth to you? We have the knife at the haft; we hold the cards. (“Having happened all things” considering, the guards could incriminate the priests of having committed treason; but far worse for the rulers of the Jews would be, to save face before their own people.)

The high priests capitulated, “Say you, his disciples came by night and stole him away …” and we give you large sum of money, OK?

Not a single word of truth in all the underhanded dealings between them Jews and cocky conscripts most probably themselves clever Jew boys from the local populace! And all questions and answers “irrational”, based on the witness of witnesses unscrupulous, and as ignorant the one as the other, of events that happened in the world of reality and truth during Jesus’ resurrection.

 

GE:

No, dear DHK, EVEN were it true what you suppose!

Because there is the rest of the whole Bible that contradicts your 'version' of the text in Mark 16:9 ... the rest of the whole Bible that in so MANY Scriptures, demands a "Sabbath's-time" Resurrection of the Creator-Saviour of the world.

The FAULT is with you and so many Sunday-resurrection believers, who, DHK, JUST LIKE YOU DO, PUT, an Indicative, Finite, Predicative VERB - a direct action-word - where the TEXT, has an adjectival and substantivisable so to speak, PARTICIPLE! "He The Resurrected (Jesus) appeared ..." "He appeared to Mary, risen"; or, "He appeared to Mary, The Risen"; or, according to the KJV, "Now when he (Jesus) was risen".

I have shown it from the literal words and syntax and idiom and truest of CHARACTER of the Greek language, how many times now, but you all discard and disown REGARDLESS!

Now I am just as sure of my case when you reach for your Bible to quote me the quotes you made above; for I also know a little about the English language, and that is, to tell you, this, the following words KJV, Mark 16:9, "now when Jesus was risen", is NO Verb and most definitely not the Verb "(he) rose"!

And I know you, DHK, well enough, to know that you know it too, as well as if not better than I, a Boertjie, ever could know it. YOU, DHK, and Dr Walter, KNOW before your soul (as we say in Afrikaans, 'voor julle siel'), this WHOLE PHRASE - yes! it's a PHRASE, NO, 'clause', because it - the whole group-of-words the PHRASE - does NOT contain a Verb - this whole phrase COMES FROM THE ONE WORD in the Greek, which is the word, the PARTICIPLE, "RISEN" - "anastas" Masculine Singular Past Perfect Tense in English to the equivalence of the Greek Constative Aorist, here functional as the ADJECTIVAL SUBSTANTIVE or DESCRIPTIVE NOUN "The-Risen-One", Jesus Christ, who "early on the First Day APPEARED to Mary, first."
NOT, the only Verb or a Verb of more than one of the sentence, “He early APPEARED , risen to ...”, because the sentence or its main clause, has THIS, Verb, ONLY: “he APPEARED”.

DHK, Don't you remember the reference on Baptist Board to this Boertjie's "back bush rhetoric"? Well here you receive more of it, of which I am not ashamed in the least, and of which I before the best in the world of Greek scholarship, can, and do, give incorrigible and irreproachable account!

 

Quoting from previous posts...

GE:
..............
I presented non-contradictory quotes from the Gospels, for the purpose of emphasising the reliability and trustworthiness of each and every Gospel anecdote on the different but never differing events and particulars of that night on the First Day of the week,
namely,
1)… the first glimpse of the opened tomb “while still being early darkness”;
2)… the discovery of the emptied tomb by the women while they came to embalm the body of Jesus “deepest morning-of-night” just after midnight;
3)… certain women’s re-assessment-visit at about “3 am” “VERY early of before-sunrise-morning”, when they fled and told nobody anything;

Dr Walter's answer:

If they had their first "glimpse" into the tomb Saturday evening they would have know the stone had been moved already but Mark 16:3-4 demonstrates that Mark 16:1-2 was their first visit as they were still discussing who would move the stone!!!!!


GE:

4)… Mary Magdalene’s “stayed standing outside the tomb” ‘visit’, when Jesus approached her and appeared to her before anyone, “first”, sunrise by the time a gardener might begin his day’s work;


Dr Walter's answer:

If this was a "re-assessment-visit" as you imagine, then they would have already seen and known the stone had been moved but Mark 16:3-4 says at the time of their visit in Mark 16:1-2 they did not see or know the stone had been removed. Hence, Mark 16:1-2 and Matthew 28:1-2 are one and the same visit just with differing details.


Re:

"If they had their first "glimpse" into the tomb Saturday evening..."

GE:

Not "they ... their", but Mary Magdalene ... her...!

NOT - definitely NOT, ""glimpse" into the tomb"!
Not once have I said this! This is Dr Walter telling GE what he said.
It was Mary Magdalene's first and obviously VERY HASTY 'glimpse' of the rolled-away-door-_STONE_ and deserted, sepulchre. "She runs" - back - without having entered "into the tomb".

Now Mary runs to Peter and John and tellS them her story, and after them, must have told the other women too just WHAT SHE HAD SEEN.

Luke who records the earliest and logically first actual visit of several women AT and "into the tomb", and he says with these words of his, "And they _FOUND_ the stone, rolled away from the sepulchre", EXACTLY as Mary Magdalene had observed according to John 20:1. In other words, They women saw CONFIRMED what Mary Magdalene must have had told them.

Then the women actually ENTERED "into the tomb" and for the first time discovered that it was not only opened, but EMPTY! This discovery, or the news about this discovery, "SURPRISED" the disciples as 'breaking / first-time', news, verse 22.

So what doubt can remain Luke recorded the first of any visit properly AT the tomb?


Dr Walter:

... they would have know the stone had been moved already but Mark 16:3-4 demonstrates that Mark 16:1-2 was their first visit as they were still discussing who would move the stone!!!!!

GE:

“Mark 16:1-2” contains two totally different and separate events. It’s not necessary for me to say everything over again. Just read the texts again, Dr Walter!

“Mark 16:3-4” does NOT “demonstrate” that Mark 16:2-8, “was their first visit”; it proves it was a ‘follow-up’ visit. MANY things show it, and some of them, I have many times highlighted in CURRENT discussions here on Baptist Board.

You mention one of them; I shall react to it, briefly.

“… they were still discussing who would move the stone!!!!!”

“They come to the tomb”, Present tense. Not, ‘they approached / they were approaching the tomb’. No, like in Luke, the same words, they came to the tomb DELIBERATELY, ON PURPOSE.

In Luke they wanted confirmed the expectation the grave was opened; they found what Mary had told them, confirmed. They came on purpose to also enter the tomb and see if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb, to see whether what Mary Magdalene feared, was true, that “they must have taken the Lord away”, which they did not believe because they had brought their spices with and were ready to embalm the body they thought was still in the grave. But they were disappointed in their expectation.

In Mark the women also “come”, their minds set to find answers to their questions! Urgently!

Mark 16:2-8 “… was their first visit as they were still discussing who would move the stone!!!!!” In other words, a discussion between them, went on as they were coming, says Dr Walter. But Mark describes this as something the women, each, asked herself; as something in each of their minds. Not a discussion. The women all thought, “Who (on earth!) will (do something like this, and) roll the stone out of the door of the sepulchre for us?

Their question, presupposes the known fact of the removed stone; it does not anticipate the stone's removal, They already – first hand – KNEW the stone had been removed.

So the text states the women already had been at the tomb when they thought about this – for them –, mystery. They did not all say the same thing while they were coming, but they may all, have thought, the same thing when they were still on their way— which is what Mark says, they did.

Mark uses the Past Present Tense; the women had already come upon (that is, right at) the tomb, and this question, “Who, for (the life of) us, would do something like this and removed the stone— it is far BIGGER than (we ever) expected?!” is a question of speechless wonder RIGHT AT THE OBJECT OF WONDERMENT. In Luke it was not the womens PURPOSE to pay attention to the finer detail of the stone; they were happy to see what Mary had told them, was in fact so.

“And they looked, and looked again (‘anablepsasai’) and they SAW (‘theohrousin’) that the stone was (actually) rolled / hurled / cast UP and BACK away from the tomb! (‘anakekulistai’).”

Unbelievable! First the outside of the tomb; now its inside!

“They were exceedingly astonished (‘eksethambehthehsan’) entering the tomb.” Even the angel’s clothing, is observed in “all-around / total whiteness” (‘peribeblehmenon stolehn leukehn.) KJV, “_long_, garment”.

This ‘inspection-visit’, shows NEARER and CLEARER information and confirmation AFTER a visit that raised only questions - Luke; and the angels telling the women to go think about what Jesus had told them. The Markan visit shows the women were really struggling with the angel's advice.

With Mark’s visit, the women’s knowledge and insight improve. They still do not have all the answers , but their answers begin to evoke more question, that eventually answered, would explain everything --- the Matthew visit, 28:5-10.

But at this stage, the questions only increased the women’s confusion and fears, so that “They went out QUICKLY, and FLED from the sepulchre; for they trembled so astonished were they (by what they came to make sure of) that they told no one anything, for that was really how afraid they were.”

This is the end of Mark’s story, as recognised by just about every New Testament scholar.
What follows in verse 9, is Mark’s recollection of John’s story of Jesus' first appearance.
Verse 9 is NOT the continuation or the ending to Mark 16:2-8; it is not called “Mark’s second ending”, for nothing.

 

GE:

Dr Walter, just one, civilised, fair, request,

Gives us the statements of Lightfoot and Broadus, here, and supply us the sources of your quotes?

 

[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]

This is a quote from Lightfoot on Mat.28.


It is found here:


http://philologos.org/__eb-jl/matt27.htm#twentyeight

[/FONT]

 

Dr Walter,

Are the following, "correct", or, "wrong"?

"opse" - late on / late in / ripe / slow hours / ending

"sabbatohn" - Sabbath's / sabbath's-time / of the sabbath / sabbathly / belonging to the sabbath

"tehi" - in the / with the / by the

"epi" - middle / centre / in essence / very / precise / emphatic / strong / superior / over / on / onto / down upon / in / with / inclining in direction of

"phohs" - light / day / daylight / brightness / shining

"ousehs > ousehi - being / is / in the being / while being / for being : something Feminine Gender grammatically, like 'day' - "heh hehmera > hehmerai (by Ellipsis) sabbatohn"

but being in the towards / in anticipation of / before / against / with the view to / prospective

"eis" IN TERMS OF TIME - towards / in anticipation of / before / against / with the view to / prospective

"mian" - first / first day -

but Accusative BECAUSE towards / in anticipation of / before / against / with the view to / prospective of first, first day?

Do you or Lightfoot or Broadus know of other secret meanings and or rules of words and grammar and syntax A.T. Robertson might not have known about that may explain WHY, Robertson is not "right", and Lightfoot and Broadus, are not "wrong"?

 

GE:

Thank you very much.

I haven't had a proper look, but at one glance could see the top quote AGREES with Robertson.

 

Here is the most important part of what Lightfoot says:

The first day of the week, the Christian Sabbath, is the same as today's Sunday, which again is the same day that Christ arose from the dead. That is the summary of Lightfoot's teaching if you go back and read the full article.

 

Re:
Dr Walter,
“1. Matthew 28:1-2 and Mark 16:1-2 must be the same event BECAUSE if Matthew 28:1-2 preceded Mark 16:1-2 as you demand then the women would never said what Mark reported them saying in Mark 16:3-4. Therefore, Mark 16:3-4 proves that Mark 16:1-2 was their FIRST visit to the tomb.”

GE:

Again, it is Dr Walter telling GE what he said, what he never said.
Anyhow …

Mark’s reference clearly being a rhetorical question of comparison / estimation, “They asked themselves, WHO, would have rolled the stone away for us, it being so impossibly LARGE!?”, it could, it would certainly be, true, “… the women would never (have) said what Mark reported them saying in Mark 16:3-4”, “(BECAUSE) IF”, as you Dr Walter, “demand”, “Mark 16:1-2 … preceded … Matthew 28:1-2” in time.

For only if Mark 16:2-8>"3-4" preceded Matthew 28:1-2<1-4 in time, would the women not have known the grave had been opened already.

But since Matthew 28:1-2<1-4 tells of the actual events that accompanied the Resurrection, “Mark 16:3-4” in time HAD to have FOLLOWED on Matthew 28:1-2<1-4 in time and timing or time-description.

So I am not ‘labelling or dividing to present a false picture’; it all the time has been you, Dr Walter who with “YOUR LABELS and YOUR DIVISIONS and YOUR EXPLANATIONS”, “present(ed) a false picture”, and I have proved it in the last two sentences.

I could have gone on to rave about this... but I would rather not. I want truth to keep on being sounded on Baptists Board.

 

GE:

That to DHK and Dr Walter undoubtedly is the most important part, however impertinent to the text, however.

I for one, do not attach any importance to this part of what Lightfoot says, although I have given more and proper attention to what Lightfoot's first principles of Bible-interpretation are than the two of you together, and I can prove that to you by simply to refer you to my writing of twenty to thirty years ago...

May I here inform you on Lightfoot's basic approach to 'God's' way for 'timing' the First Day as Christian day of worship in context of the passover just like we - or rather I - am trying to do in this thread.... After having concluded from the exodus that God placed Israel in the land of freedom and true life on the very Seventh Day Sabbath, Lightfoot tries his contrived 'principle' that God under the New Testament improved things one day in time forward and away from the actual day in history and prophecy.

That, gentlemen is not how I believe, and I am sorry … sorry? No! grateful and proud to admit, I have no schooling or skill or aptitude in such higher wisdom. Because my Sabbath-believing back bush plaasboere parents brought me up in this foolishness, “as it is written” where the scholarship of the world has it “as it is written PLUS ONE DAY”.

Thanks, but no thanks!

 

Retrospection and Parenthesis

Afternoon Friday Burial Day, day ending with Mark concluding, “Joseph laid Him in a sepulchre and rolled… [‘prosekúlisen’] …a stone unto the door…”

…and in retrospective parenthesis, “…and Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses beheld where He was laid.” 15:4.

Matthew in 27:60,61 fills in a few more particulars. He tells the stone was “great”, and that Joseph, after “having had rolled…” [‘proskulísas’] it – downhill else it would be impossible for even two men – “…to the door of the tomb, he went away from… [‘apehlthen’] …the grave, and home…

…and in retrospective parenthesis, “… and there were Mary Magdalene and the other, Mary”— “Mary of Joses” in Mark. Matthew describes these two women, “sitting over against”, while they “looked” (Mark) down and into the tomb.

Luke has still more information. 23:53-56, On Friday late, mid-afternoon. “Joseph … laid … the body of Jesus … in a sepulchre … and That Day was The Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on…

…and the women also, who came with Him from Galilee, followed after (in procession to the tomb) and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and began to rest the Sabbath day according to the Commandment.”

John 19:42, “There, therefore, laid they (Joseph and Nicodemus) (the body of) Jesus, due to the preparation-time of the Jews (having begun).”


Up to the Burial and down from it…

Nothing “is written” for nothing; even topography has its message for us.

The impression of a sloping landscape where the grave opened in the hill, is created in all the Gospels in different ways that every time implies a unique situation and circumstance…

…In Matthew and Mark, at the end of the Burial and day of Burial, Friday afternoon, the stone is rolled downwards into the opening;
…In Matthew, the women “sat, opposite the grave” – lower or higher.
…In Mark the women while the men laid Jesus’ body in the tomb, “looked” – down or up – , and into the tomb.
…In John 19:42, the distance up to the tomb must have been difficult, but fortunately, “the sepulchre was nigh”.
…In Luke, Joseph after he had taken the body “down”, and Pilate had it “delivered” (Matthew) “away” as Joseph requested (John) that night, he (and Nicodemus) brought it back up again in the afternoon, to lay it down in the tomb that was in the garden where He was crucified (John).
…In Luke, the procession towards the tomb with the embalmed body, the women “following after” is as if with difficulty, uphill.
…In Luke, the women after the burial returned home, prepared spices and ointments, and began to rest the Sabbath Day. At their leisure…

 

Uphill arrivals to visits, and downhill returns…

…In John 20:1,2, Mary “comes”, to the grave – walking, uphill?
…In John 20:11f, where “Mary Magdalene had had stood after without at the sepulchre … she stooped down and looked down into the sepulchre.”
…Of only Peter and John has it been recorded that they ran to the grave John 20:3-10. “And they believed…” it was FIRST WORD THEY RECEIVED Jesus had been buried! Returning to their homes, they just walked back, obviously exhausted from their uphill run towards the sepulchre.
…In Luke also with the women’s first visit, we see two angels confronting the women, standing higher up in front of the women as they came out of the grave in a bent over forward position.

…In Mark, the women, ascertaining evidence about the things the two angels at their after midnight hours visit (Luke 24) had told them to go and think about, “looked the stone up, re-inspecting” [‘anablepsasai’] it, and could clearly deduce it had despite its huge size, been “cast upwards” [‘anakekulistai’]. That’s why the women were puzzled, and thought by themselves, “Who would have rolled the stone away for us?!” Just to think what immense power was needed for such a feat, “astonished” and “frightened” them, “measurelessly” [‘eksethambehthehsan’].

…In Mark, the women on “entering in …” [‘eielthousai…’], went “… down into [‘…eis’] the tomb”.
…In Luke the women “came upon the tomb … and going in, found not the body”.
…In John 20:11f, where “Mary Magdalene had had stood after without at the sepulchre … she stooped down and looked down into the sepulchre.”
…In Matthew, the women do not even enter the tomb; the angel stood outside, and “answering, explained… [‘apokritheis … eipen’] …to the women the additional and new information about events “of the Sabbath Day” [‘sabbatohn’] before, verses 1 to 4.

Departure downhill:

… In John 20:1,2, Mary “runs” back – as if downhill.

…In Mark they “fled”, away from the tomb, but with real fear of disbelief. They ran from the sepulchre without effort, so, downhill.

…In John, “Mary comes, announcing … I have seen the Lord…” doesn’t sound like she’s taking her time or was too tired to speak. No, she must have hurried, and hurriedly, she tells the news.

…In Matthew the women ran away from the tomb with joy and enthusiasm to share the news. The angel’s NEW information about the resurrection “In the Sabbath Day”, caused them suddenly to understand and believe everything!

The angel was STILL “explaining to the women…”, when, IN THE MIDDLE of his words to them, “… the keepers became as dead men, but don’t you, be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified…” he had to CALL after them, “…Come, you must see [‘deute idete’] the place where He lay! But they already GOING, with anxious zeal and great joy, were gone from the sepulchre… [‘tachu poreutheisai’] ...and RAN to bring the disciples word!”


Mark’s two stories, fused

It would certainly be true, “… the women would never (have) said what Mark reported them saying in Mark 16:3-4”, “IF”, as you Dr Walter, “demand”, “Mark 16:1-2 … preceded … Matthew 28:1-2” in time, Mark’s reference in 16:3,4 clearly being a rhetorical question of comparison / estimation, “They asked themselves, WHO, would have rolled the stone away for us, it being so impossibly LARGE to move!?” For only “IF” Mark 16:2-8>3-4 “preceded” Matthew 28:1-4 in time, would the women not have known the grave had been opened already. But since Matthew 28:1-4 tells of the actual events that accompanied the Resurrection and the women already had been informed about the opened tomb by Mary Magdalene, “Mark 16:3-4” in time HAD to have FOLLOWED on Matthew 28:1-2<1-4 in time and timing and time-description.

Two of the several more undisputable reasons that it was not “all the women” who together only once went to the grave, are contained,
First, John recorded that Mary “comes to Peter and the other disciple”, John. Only Mary is subject of action in verses 1,2;

Next, Only the two disciples, on the news Mary had brought them, had afterwards gone to the tomb. John recorded that the two men immediately went to the tomb. The fact no women went with them, implies there were no other women who could go with.

While all this which John recorded – Mary’s discovery of the OPENED tomb – happened during that night “on the First Day of the week” (Saturday night), inevitably and consequently was the single only event that happened BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, and triggered all subsequent actions and events of that night, until eventually next morning Jesus had “appeared, first to Mary Magdalene”, and to ‘all the women’ other than Mary, after her, “early on the First Day of the week” John 20:11-17 Mark 16:9 Matthew 28:8-10 in that order of events, logic and chronology.

It is indisputable.

 

It is indisputable.

So, the question arises, If Mary and the two men by this time were the only people who knew the grave was opened, how is it that ‘all the women’ named in Luke 24:10, the two Marys “and Joanna AND OTHERS” came to the tomb TOGETHER, Saturday night just after midnight “deep(est) morning ON THE First Day of the week”— apparently unperturbed by the opened tomb and rolled away door-stone?

ONLY IF Mary Magdalene had informed them before!

But it is written there, “THEY, came … bringing their spices which they had prepared, AND certain others with them”.

Who, were these women?! Clearly Luke distinguishes two GROUPS of women. Luke also uses the very basic Plural Verb; he uses no Pronoun, “they”. Therefore the simplest deduction points to the women mentioned nearest in context before, “the women who came with Him from Galilee”, 23:55, “came to the tomb” 24:1.

Who were they?

They were the women present when the grave was closed, obviously. But in his burial anecdote, Luke did not give their names. Mark and Matthew though, did give the names of TWO women at the Burial, Mary Magdalene, and “the other Mary”— Matthew 27:61, or “Mary of Joses”— Mark 15:47.

These two women from the Burial then, were also in the group who according to Luke came to the tomb. Luke confirms in verse 10, “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James”, the “James” in Mark 16:1, the “Joses” in Mark 15:47. Joanna could be Salome, perhaps? We don’t know, but it is not impossible Joanna had another name, “Salome”, by which name Mark mentions her in 16:1. Therefore “they” in Luke 24:1 were the THREE “women who came with Jesus from Galilee” – 23:55 – “where they served Him”.

Only TWO of these three, however, the two Marys, were AT THE BURIAL.

There “came to the tomb”, therefore, these three women, “…and others with them …”, says Luke. But we can’t say who the other women besides the three who accompanied Jesus from Galilee, were.

We followed Mary Magdalene from John 20:1 when she was the first to see the stone was rolled away from the tomb. And we saw her in Luke’s story, turn up just after midnight with the spices she had prepared on Friday afternoon after Joseph had closed the same door stone she had seen rolled away from the grave opening, accompanied by her two Galilean co-workers and still more other women. And we concluded from these two visits of Mary Magdalene to the tomb, that she must have told the other women of what she had seen, and had planned to do, despite all the uncertainties for them at that stage in events.

We concluded that Mary’s sight of the opened tomb set in motion all following events of the Saturday night, that from Peter and John, Mary Magdalene must first of all have told her closest friends, “the other Mary” and Salome maybe Joanna who came with her and Jesus from Galilee where they used to serve Him.

Mary Magdalene had all sorts of bad feelings and suspicions; but in her heart she believed Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, and she desired to salve him farewell. She and the Mary of James had had their spices and ointments prepared on Friday afternoon already. But now Salome also got involved, and she would also wish to pay her last respects. “Therefore the Sabbath Day being past” the three of them “bought sweet spices, SO THAT, WHEN they would come, they could anoint him.”

Their whole PURPOSE was to anoint Jesus’ body in the grave. Mark 16:1 leaves the prospect in suspense. Do we find the women anointing or prepared to anoint the body, in Mark’s story in verses 2 to 8? No! But we do read the women coming “to the tomb BRINGING THEIR SPICES WHICH THEY HAD PREPARED AND READY, WITH” in Luke’s account!

The women bought spices to anoint a body that wasn’t even there! They MIGHT have anointed Him but they had not; they could not. Using the Subjunctive, Mark in Mark 16:1 PRESUPPOSES a visit, the disappointment it was forbidding its mention!

Luke tells how bemused the women returned from that futile undertaking. Mark rather eludes it altogether, alluding to its relation to reality only by implication evoked by the Subjunctive Mood. Mark by using the Subjunctive in 16:1 actually skips the first visit at which the women discovered the tomb was empty, and only in his narrative in 16:2-8 – a follow-up visit – lets them ask questions and make conclusions, such as about the positioning of the stone and topography— all evidences of, but not the first visit itself.