3 days 3 nights --- refresher course!

GE:
As I have said above, “These” the women who according to “MARK 16 [1] … had bought sweet spices”, were NOT the “same women” as the women who, according to “LUKE 23 [56]”, “returned, and prepared spices and ointments; AND RESTED THE SABBATH DAY”. While the women were different women, the events were different events; and while the events were different, the places of the events were different places; and while the places and the events and the women were all different, the times of the events must have been different times. In EVERY respect, differing women, different actions, different places of action, and, different TIMES are GIVEN: mentioned; stated; confirmed.

Therefore, “How could these women prepare spices and rest the sabbath if they didnt buy spices till after the sabbath had past?” is a FALSE QUESTION! creating various anomalies where there had not been anomaly at all.

The two Marys obviously must have had “spices and sweet ointments” at their house(s) which they after they had attended the Burial, "went home" for, and "prepared". Then “After the Sabbath had gone through” (Mark) the THREE women – obviously for the sake of Salome who had NOT been at the Burial on Friday and who obviously would not have had “spices” available, and obviously could not have known about the Burial simply because she was not present at the Burial, went and “BOUGHT spices”.

Note the DIFFERENT actions that followed: On Friday “THE SABBATH APPROACHING” the TWO women prepared spices THEN RESTED or “BEGAN to rest the Sabbath” (Ingressive Aorist). And “AFTER THE SABBATH” --- by now having been “on the First Day of the week” --- the women didn’t start resting; they waited (and probably prepared Salome’s spices) “SO THAT WHEN THEY WOULD GO THEY MIGHT ANOINT HIS BODY”— which was AS SOON “as it was deepest darkness of morning” just after midnight, and “THEY CAME WITH THEIR SPICES PREPARED AND READY” Luke 24:1 to do just that!

So, certainly yes, “There had to be two sabbath days that week”; but they were not the Thursday and the Seventh Day; they were Friday and the Seventh Day— “SINCE it was The Preparation … and THAT DAY WAS GREAT DAY SABBATH of the passover…” when “the Jews besought Pilate”, and “Joseph after these things (of the Jews’ asking) asked Pilate that he might take away the body” of Jesus. John 19:31,38.

The way Chowmah offers his answer to the imagined dilemma, “There had to be two sabbath days that week” doesn’t help a bit but rather is carefully phrased to camouflage his own confusedness.

 

“There had to be two sabbath days that week”; but they were not the Thursday and the Seventh Day; they were Friday and the Seventh Day— “SINCE it was The Preparation … and THAT DAY WAS GREAT DAY SABBATH of the passover…” when “the Jews besought Pilate”, and “Joseph after these things (of the Jews’ asking) asked Pilate that he might take away the body” of Jesus. John 19:31,38.

And then WHAT FOLLOWED during “THAT NIGHT” and following daylight, was the proof of all proof that “THAT DAY … The Preparation”, was the passover’s ‘sabbath’. Because EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE, was done “according to the custom / ethics / law of the Jews TO BURY” THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE and “that which remained of … HIM”, the body of Jesus— Exodus 12 and 13, FROM Mark 15:42 Matthew 27:57 John 19:31,38 Lk23:50 UNTIL Luke 23:54 John 19:42 and three hours before Mark 16:1 and Matthew 27:62a! Let him who has understanding, understand! Let him only take care of what kind of ‘translation’ he uses.

 

All right, Chowmah, I'm sorry. That was 'me' again, ever ready to be critical of others. I have a HUGE weakness to overcome. I pray God to rid me of it. I do not want to die with it; but also know I must die with it so that God shall only in the resurrection of the flesh, resurrect a perfected 'me' through Christ. Thank God.

Please note a mistake I made above:

"UNTIL Luke 23:54 John 19:42 and three hours before Mark 16:1 and Matthew 27:62a!"

It should be:

"UNTIL Luke 23:54 John 19:42 and three hours before Mark 16:1 and fifteen before Matthew 27:62a!"

II meant the implication of the end of the Preparation in Mt27:62a, but "the next morning" is what is mentioned.

 

I really appreciate your friendly attitude, Chowmah.

If it comes to our treatment of God's Word, we must be faithful to the iota and tittle.

 

GE:


Mk.13:35 does not permit even the meaning of “in the evening” for opse. Opse consistently means nothing but “late” – also in this case. “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.)
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)
Whether opse has relevance to the night, the day, or both, it indicates the “late” part or time of the night, or, of the day, or, of the whole cycle. But it naturally excludes the morning “as it begins to dawn toward day” because that time of day can only be “early”, and never, “late”. Whether in terms of Hellenistic Greek, “late” Greek, or of any language or culture, the “morning” is the early time of day because of the inevitable implications of understanding time in relation to the earth’s rotation. If opse would have meant “after” the previous day (Sabbath, in Mt.28:1) at dawn on the following day (Sunday, in Mt.28:1), its meaning would have been “early”, which can not be substantiated with as much as one incidence of its use – not even at the hand of Philostratus. If Philostratus used opse with the meaning of “after”, he in no case intended to indicate “in the beginning” of a subsequent period or series with the term AND LEAST OF ALL intended to indicate THE BREAK OF DAY.

 

GE:

Yes, Dr Walter, and "mid afternoon or the ninth hour or three in the afternoon" is the EXACT time of the "afternoon", in fact, the "epi" or "very"-afternoon or, as you said, the "MID"-afternoon; the literally, "IN THE VERY BEING LIGHT SHINING" - 'EPEPHOHSKEN' "towards the Sabbath".

NOW! Where is Jesus' cross last heard of? Nine hours of "that day the Preparation plus the whole "NIGHT" of that day the Preparation INCLUDING its "evening" PLUS ANOTHER three hours from that "That Day" had had started retrospectively until "Christ was on the cross until at least mid afternoon or the ninth hour or three in the afternoon" ... when He HAD, DIED as it is WRITTEN!

 

GE:

No, Dr Walter! Untrue!
Luke 23:48-50, “And all the people that came together to that sight (where Jesus’ dead body was STILL hanging on the cross after that He had died exactly “mid afternoon or the ninth hour or three in the afternoon”) beholding the things that were done, like mad, RETURNED (home / to the city)— also all his acquaintance and the women who followed Him from Galilee and standing far in the outer circle (of the crowd that watched)”— “RETURNED / WENT BACK / AWAY / LEFT … the scene / that sight / spectacle / drama …

THEN suddenly / as out of nowhere …BEHOLD! there was Joseph…”

WHEN did Joseph appear in the course of events? When “the next day begins at 6pm.”! “Now EVENING ALREADY HAVING BEGUN” Mark 15:42 “Since it was The Preparation” John 19:31, and “After these things” (38) of the Jews recorded in John 19:31f, and the body of Jesus _STILL ON THE CROSS_ …that…

WAS WHEN the Sixth Day had had begun and Joseph only had begun to undertake to first obtain, then to prepare and eventually to lay the body in the tomb and “closed the sepulchre with a stone” and “left / departed” “MID AFTERNOON OR THE NINTH HOUR OR THREE IN THE AFTERNOON” and the women likewise. Luke 23:56a.

 

Please note, and my apologies, that
internet-functioning in SA is terrible and some posts take literally HOURS to finish.

GE:
Wrong: “Luke 23:54 says that the preparation "drew on" or was about to begin.”

Correct: Luke 23:54(56b), “And That Day was The Preparation and / while (‘kai’) the Sabbath (according to the (Fourth) Commandment) drew on / neared (‘epephosken’ Imperfect).”

“The SABBATH”, “was about to begin” IN THREE HOUR’S TIME, “at 6pm” because “the SABBATH”, was “The next day”.

‘Hence … he was buried … between…’ FROM “6pm.” on ‘Thursday’ AFTER 1)“evening having come already” UNTIL BEFORE “the ninth hour of the day before 6pm.” on 2)“That Day The Preparation”, 3)“which (was) the Fore-Sabbath” – ‘Friday’ – and Joseph 4)“mid-afternoon”, 5)“closed the door-stone on the grave and left”.
1)Mk15:42a 2)Lk23:54a 3)Mk15:42b 4)Lk23:54b 5)Mt27:60 respectively.

 

GE:

I'm not scared, wary or ashamed to CHALLENGE "the consensus of scholars" when I know I base what I say on the sure Word of God the Scriptures ALONE.

James Faucet and Brown Commentary talks about "an allusion"; I refer to Jesus’ DIRECT words— TO no “divisions into which the JEWS, divided the night”;

Albert Barnes haphazardly refers to "At even, or at midnight or, at etc.", saying absolutely NOTHING. "at even" is before sunset and even(ing); "at midnight" is before midnight halve the night later! And "or" means, 'no; something else'; and "etc" usually is ignotum per ignotius and pretext for ignorance.

A.T. Robertson - "The four watches of the night are named here: evening (oqe), midnight (mesonuktion), cock-crowing (alektorofwniav), morning (prw)" is clearly ambiguous and self-contradictory. The four watches are supposed to be "OF THE NIGHT"; but according to Robertson the watch FOLLOWS the start-of-the-watch indicator, so that 1)the "evening"-watch follows 'opse', "late" = first halve-a-night until, 2)the "midnight"-watch FOLLOWS after its start-of-the-watch indicator, “midnight”, ‘mesonuktion’ = second halve-a-night. The last watch therefore must be a DAYLIGHT-watch from its start-of-the-watch indicator “cock-crowing (alektorofwniav), morning (prw)”— ‘alektorophohnian’ and ‘proh-i’ being identified.

Whichever way, it’s confused.

 

Correction:
"‘alektorophohnian’"

must be ...
‘alektorophohnias’

 

GE:

Borrowing...

"I only insist that Jesus Himself, who was a true 1st century Jew, and not a time traveller from 16th century Marburg or Trent, framed and intended his utterances using conceptual furniture available to HIM in the upper room in AD 33. He meant to communicate to His disciples, in terms that would be comprehensible to them after His resurrection, if not over the table in the upper room. He did not present His disciples with locked doors that were waiting for Thomas Aquinas or Luther or Zwingli to provide the interpretative key."
Matt Colvin

 

GE:

Dear Dr Walter, If Robertson here is not contradicting himself, he elsewhere contradicts himself, namely, in his Grammar and Word Pictures, where he who is A.T. Robertson, defines (quite elaborately and specifically) 'opse' as the late part of a period of time, NOT its inception.

 

This subject is heading down too low, though it is of such great importance it supports the scaffolding for events and times of Jesus' accomplishment of our redemption...

So let's bring it up again.