Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

 

[biggandyy]

This is a lengthy treatment but I think it goes to answer many of the questions about the Sabbath-Change controversy, it's history, origins, and results.

http://www.sabbathfellowship.org/biblestudies/erwingane/biblestudy_gane_sabbathchng.htm

 

[rstrats]

Thanks for the link, but I'm afraid I don't see where the St. Helena Seventh-day Adventist Church argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day.

 

[Adstar]

The Sabbath has never changed. It has always been from Friday sunset to saturday sunset.

If people want to gather together in a place called a church every Sunday then thats up to them. But they should never calim it is the Sabbath that is going against the Word of God.


As for the Scripture in question:

Mark 16
16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[sup]2 [/sup]And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[sup]3 [/sup]And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[sup]4 [/sup]And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
[sup]5 [/sup]And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
[sup]6 [/sup]And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
[sup]7 [/sup]But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
[sup]8 [/sup]And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
[sup]9 [/sup]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.


Now this scripture states that when they went there on the morning of the first day of the week they discovered the stone rolled away, This is not stating that Jesus was raised on the morning of the first day of the week it is stating that they discovered that he was raised from the dead on the morning of the first day of the week.

Now verse 9 is stating that Jesus WAS RISEN early on the first day of the week. This is not stating when Jesus rose from the dead It is stateing that He Was Risen Already.

Jesus was raised from the dead at the end of the Sabbath as the first day was about to start.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[veteran]

I see no conflict at all.


Mark 16:1-2
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
(KJV)

The sabbath ended on Saturday at sunset. They had to wait until it ended, otherwise they'd been in violation of the laws for the sabbath then. Very early in the morning of the first day of the week means Sunday morning (which Sunday began at the previous sunset). The fact that it says "early in the morning" means near dawn Sunday morning.



Mark 16:9
9 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.
(KJV)

That "early the first day of the week" means sometime prior to dawn Sunday morning. It could have been at any time past Saturday sunset to just prior to dawn the next morning (which was Sunday, the first day of the week).

No conflict there at all.

 

[rstrats]

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

 

[Rex]

Proverbs 6:2 to 6 (NIV)
~ If you have been trapped by what you said, ensnared by the words of your mouth, then do this, my son, to free yourself, since you have fallen into your neighbor’s hands: Go and humble yourself; press your plea with your neighbor! Allow no sleep to your eyes, no slumber to your eyelids. Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the snare of the fowler.

 

[Axehead]

Wasn't the Jewish calendar lost for a time? I thought I read about that. So, no one knows if Friday today is Friday 2,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_years_(Jewish_calendar)

 

[rstrats]

Axehead,

re: "Wasn't the Jewish calendar lost for a time? I thought I read about that. So, no one knows if Friday today is Friday 2,000 years ago. (http://en.wikipedia....ewish_calendar)"


The link is referring to years and not the continuity of the days of the week. The "Catholic Encyclopedia", Vol. 3, p. 740, article ‘Chronology’ says: "It is to be noted that in the Christian period, the order of days in the week has never been interrupted."

If you have documentation that shows that the seven day cycle has been interrupted at some point between now and the first century I would very much like to see it.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi rstrats,

it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

There are many times in the OT that a Sabbath did not fall on a Saturday. That this should arise with Passover is obvious, since it had to be celebrated on a certain date, rather than a certain day of the week.

As veteran explained, day does not begin with dawn, but dusk. Gen 1:5. The other difference to western thinking, is that in Hebrew thought, a part can be reckoned as the whole. Thus, an 'hour' also includes the whole day, and a 'taste' includes the whole (drink). Hebrews 2:9.

To rise early on the Sunday morning, Passover needed to be on the Wednesday, (middle of the week), and, Jesus needed to have been both crucified and buried before dusk on the Thursday; because Friday was to be devoted for preparing for a special Sabbath on Saturday. Here's a modern list: http://judaism.about.../prep_steps.htm


In this case, Jesus being buried late in a 'day', would still be counted as a whole day for the purpose of it fulfilling His own prophecy - to be in the 'heart of the earth' for 'three days and three nights', Matthew 12:40.

Thurs 'day', Thurs 'night', Fri 'day', Fri 'night', Sat 'day', Sat 'night', Sun before dawn - RESURRECTION !!!



Btw, I don't understand what difference 'a published author' would make, since we go by scripture, don't we?

 

[neophyte]

Hi rstrats,



There are many times in the OT that a Sabbath did not fall on a Saturday. That this should arise with Passover is obvious, since it had to be celebrated on a certain date, rather than a certain day of the week.

As veteran explained, day does not begin with dawn, but dusk. Gen 1:5. The other difference to western thinking, is that in Hebrew thought, a part can be reckoned as the whole. Thus, an 'hour' also includes the whole day, and a 'taste' includes the whole (drink). Hebrews 2:9.

To rise early on the Sunday morning, Passover needed to be on the Wednesday, (middle of the week), and, Jesus needed to have been both crucified and buried before dusk on the Thursday; because Friday was to be devoted for preparing for a special Sabbath on Saturday. Here's a modern list: http://judaism.about.../prep_steps.htm


In this case, Jesus being buried late in a 'day', would still be counted as a whole day for the purpose of it fulfilling His own prophecy - to be in the 'heart of the earth' for 'three days and three nights', Matthew 12:40.

Thurs 'day', Thurs 'night', Fri 'day', Fri 'night', Sat 'day', Sat 'night', Sun before dawn - RESURRECTION !!!



Btw, I don't understand what difference 'a published author' would make, since we go by scripture, don't we?

The obligation to set aside time for worship is part of the natural law that is binding on everyone. Not all of the laws found in the Old Testament are part of the natural law, and those which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday—were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians are not bound by them. Since Jesus was resurrected from the dead on Sunday, it makes sense for Christians to set aside Sunday for worship. The earliest Christians did this, and Catholics continue to do so still today.

 

[rstrats]

Since it has again been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

 

[Selene]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

Just because the Gospel of Mark was the only one that stated the day of Christ's resurrection does not mean that Mark is in error. The Holy Bible is the word of God and contains no error.

 

[rstrats]

Selene,

re: "Just because the Gospel of Mark was the only one that stated the day of Christ's resurrection does not mean that Mark is in error."


Where did I suggest that he is?

 

[Selene]

Selene,

re: "Just because the Gospel of Mark was the only one that stated the day of Christ's resurrection does not mean that Mark is in error."


Where did I suggest that he is?

Because you were asking for another published author.

 

[rstrats]

Selene,

re: "Because you were asking for another published author."


And why am I looking for an author?

 

[Selene]

Selene,

re: "Because you were asking for another published author."


And why am I looking for an author?

So, if someone does find an author, you can get back to the other poster and point it out to him.

 

[rstrats]

Selene,

re: "So, if someone does find an author, you can get back to the other poster and point it out to him."


OK, good. So do you know of a published author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because of the idea of a first day resurrectioin and who supports a first day resurrection with Mark 16:9.?

Also, I thought that your post #13 was implying that I was saying that Mark is in error. Was I incorrect in thinking that?

 

[Selene]

Selene,

re: "So, if someone does find an author, you can get back to the other poster and point it out to him."


OK, good. So do you know of a published author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because of the idea of a first day resurrectioin and who supports a first day resurrection with Mark 16:9.?

Also, I thought that your post #13 was implying that I was saying that Mark is in error. Was I incorrect in thinking that?

You were incorrect in thinking that you are implying that the Gospel of Mark was in error. All you need to do is tell the poster that Mark is the only one who said that Christ rose on Sunday, and the rest of the Apostles also believe that He rose on Sunday. There is no reason why they should not believe otherwise. Also, the Lord's resurrection signified a new day.....which is what brought about the change from the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. The Sabbath was linked to the Old Creation. Christ's resurrection brought about a New Creation. So, gone is the Old and the New has come (See 2 Corinthians 5:17).

 

[rstrats]

Selene,

re: "...and the rest of the Apostles also believe that He rose on Sunday."


If by Sunday, you mean the first day of the week, I'm not aware of any scripture that says that the apostles believed that the resurrection occurred on the first day. What do you have in mind?