I beg to differ. It is a fundamental rule that a singular word cannot be substituted for a plural word and vice versa. True, there are seven days in a week, but we do not say there are four week in a month. Likewise, in Matthew 28:1 the Greek word “Sabbaton” is a plural word as explained in the OP. But I’m glad you checked me out and finally admits its a plural word,
I didn't check you out. I have been aware of such for many a long year.
Notice that which you wrote above, there are "seven days in a week". In this, it is referring to seven of days that comprise a singular week, not "weeks".
Some have claimed, it is due to there being two shabats. I disagree, IMO it is merely a function of language.
You could read it such as:
Now late of seven the dawning toward
one of seven.
Now late of shavua` / shabat the dawning toward
one of [the] week.
Sabbaton is the genitive case, which is often the possessive. A noun in the genitive case qualifies another noun with regard to its "class" or "kind". It helps to limit the scope of another noun. In this case, it limits the scope with regard to the participle dawning.
The dawning, is the dative case, or the indirect object.
One is the accusative case, it is the direct object.
The second occurrence of sabbaton, is also the genitive case, which serves to qualify
one.
Mark 16:1 and of passing of the shabat ... gen. sing.
Mark 16:2 of the one of seven ... gen pl. they come upon the tomb, with "the tomb" being the accusative.
IOW: It's all Greek to me. My knowledge with regard to Greek is weak at best.
However, there is nothing mystical to be found here.
<snip>
but I do have a Strong’s Concordance.
Which hopefully, shall serve you well. However, before attempting to find anything mystical or redefine / reinterpret a thing, a little knowledge of the grammatical construct of a language is necessary.
People tend to read the Bible literally without regard to the fundamental principle God had set forth in 2Timothy 3:16-17 and 1Corinthians 2:14. These two principles were given so that we may understand the more difficult passages in the Bible, by comparing scriptures with scriptures, and spiritual things with spiritual!
But let us also remember, that anything "spiritual" that we may think we find, can not overthrow the pshat [plain and simple] reading of a text. Otherwise, we can make almost any text say almost anything. Something I have witnessed far too many attempt to do. Even to the point of rendering good for evil and evil for good. And no, I do not exaggerate, for I have witnessed as much from people using a Strong's Concordance. I am not saying that of you.
I am very familiar with the argument of Matthew 12:40 regarding the three days and three nights of Jesus in the tomb. Has anyone considered Jesus NEVER said He was going to be three days and three nights in the tomb rather, in the heart of the earth? These two terms are not synonymous, one has to be spiritually discerned. Jesus told the thief, ‘this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise’. So how can Jesus be in heaven and said to be in the tomb / in the heart of the earth at the same time? Please don’t say He is God so He is omnipresent.
Indeed. I also am aware of those things.
1Pe 3:19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison
Anther thing, those who argue for Matthew 12:40 equate their solution of the three days and three nights with the account of the Passover meal enacted in Exodus 12. They argue Jesus was crucified on Thursday which was equivalent to Nissan 14 when the Passover Lamb was killed.
I have seen and witnessed many variations of said argument above. Some are closer than others, some miss the mark entirely.
The crucifixion would have to have occurred upon a Wednesday. Thursday would have been the "high shabat" or the first day of Unleavened Bread. Friday, a regular ol' sixth day. Shabat, with the resurrection occurring somewhere near the end of the shabat. The tomb being found empty upon the "one of seven" or first [day] of [the] week.
You seem to know about feast days and agree with
@liafailrock. Is the above true? If it is then I have other statements and questions to ask how all this fits together.
Feel free to ask whatever you wish. I shall gladly answer to the best of my ability. If I don't know, or if I am speculating, I shall also say as much. Assuming of course, that I understood your original post and did not misunderstand the intent of what you are stating.
Be forewarned: I can be long winded.
In His love,
Richard