Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

Finally, after three years and scores of replies to my inquiry on a number of forums, someone has come up with an author. Thank you John Goddard.

[John Goddard]

Finally, after three years and scores of replies to my inquiry on a number of forums, someone has come up with an author. Thank you John Goddard.

Sure no problem.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I repeat, you are taking too many liberties, reading into what is a 'given' for any intelligent Christian to entertain to his thinking, presumptively accusing those who would honor Christ of hurting Him. You are wrong.

I'm sorry that you feel that you must falsely accuse of presumption, and unintelligence, those who just tell you the clear truth of God's Word on this subject. I hope that others may, nonetheless, benefit from what I've said. It is not I who accuse the heretical Judaizers, like Seventh-Day Adventists; it is the Word of God.

Shouldn't His word supersede all legalities people like to read into things? In Christ there is liberty.

So are we free to murder? To steal? You are either a hypocrite - criticizing others for saying that the New Testament prohibits some forms of behaviour, whilst teaching that it prohibits other forms; or you are an antinomian, which is a heresy.

In this immoral day and age, anyone who tries to stand for God's Word and for holiness, will be called a "legalist". Absolutely guaranteed.

He was also clear not to confuse what he was saying:

Matthew 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He came not to abolish Torah but to practice it perfectly as an example for us.

Firstly, I agree that Jesus practiced the Torah perfectly, this was part of his fulfillment of it, prior to its abolition.

Secondly, you misinterpret verse 19. The phrase "these least commandments" refers to Jesus' own commandments in the Sermon itself, and not to the Mosaic Law. For those who want a detailed argument to this effect, see Robert Banks, Jesus and the law in the synoptic tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975, pages 222-223.

I've already addressed verse 18. Robert Banks discusses this also. Your interpretation of this passage is wrong.

Now there is a valid debate as to whether or not new Gentile converts are bound to all Torah

No, there isn't. Anyone who keeps the Law, is under the curse of the Law, and cuts themselves off from Christ. It took the early church some time to realize this (e.g. Peter was still keeping the food laws until Acts 10). God granted one generation (until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD) for them to make the transition. After that, a Law-keeping Jewish Christian Church cannot be found historically, but only various heretical sects like the Ebionites.

God gave the Jewish Christians one generation to abandon the Law, and if they did not, then he cut them off from Christ, and history testifies to this fact. The same thing will happen with so-called "Messianic Judaism" - either they will come out from the Law, or they will be cut off from Christ. You cannot serve two masters, and you cannot have a foot in both camps. Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

I find it interesting, and very telling, that no-one is willing to directly address the many scriptures, of which I have cited 4 but there are many more, which directly state that the Mosaic Law is abolished. I suspect they have no answers on this.

[John Goddard]

Firstly, I agree that Jesus practiced the Torah perfectly, this was part of his fulfillment of it, prior to its abolition.

Secondly, you misinterpret verse 19. The phrase "these least commandments" refers to Jesus' own commandments in the Sermon itself, and not to the Mosaic Law. For those who want a detailed argument to this effect, see Robert Banks, Jesus and the law in the synoptic tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975, pages 222-223.

I've already addressed verse 18. Robert Banks discusses this also. Your interpretation of this passage is wrong.

I think the context is set with all Torah of Moses here, since of course Jesus would not likely be destroying his own commands:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

So that when he says next...

Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

...He is talking about all the Law of Moses. So what Jesus gives is Oral Torah explaining how to observe Written Torah. Essentially, in all ways you observe Written Torah, make sure you always love God and each other.

No, there isn't. Anyone who keeps the Law, is under the curse of the Law, and cuts themselves off from Christ.

Not exactly. Paul addresses the mistake of Jews, or Gentiles who intend to convert, thinking that observing Torah is what primarily saves. It doesn't. What saves is accepting Jesus as the king and judge who can show you mercy when you sin. But in no way does he ever tell Jews to abandon Torah, or Gentiles never to convert fully to be Jews, as long as they do it for the right reasons. Examples:

1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised

So if someone would be cut off from Christ for circumcision, why would he say "let him not become uncircumcised"?

So yes Paul was against Judaizers like Peter who added to Gentile burdens. But Paul never told Jews to abandon Torah, and neither did Jesus per Matthew 5:19.

[Ormly]

He didn't say that the Sabbath was made for man and now it's no good. What he said was he is the Lord of the Sabbath and those who do good for others, like healing, or eating some corn to give you energy to go on to heal someone, does good on the Sabbath, in the eyes of God. He was qualified to interpret what was allowed and what was not (melachot).

Who is implying, "it is no good"? All Sabbaths are good if my observing them edifies me which ever day or all days, I choose.

[rstrats]

Rupert Pupkin,

re: “The Feast of Firstfruits was celebrated on Sunday (Lev. 23:11). Therefore, Jesus rose on the Sunday.”

The only reference of the first day of the week with regard to Firstfruits is to say when it is to be waved/presented to the Lord. While the Messiah did indeed became the antitype when He resurrected, what scriptural reason do you have for thinking that the moment of resurrection met the first day waving of the sheaf requirement of First Fruits instead of later when He presented Himself to the Father?

[John Goddard]

Who is implying, "it is no good"? All Sabbaths are good if my observing them edifies me which ever day or all days, I choose.

If you choose your own different Sabbath day then you reject Fri-Sat Sabbath observed by Jews.

[rstrats]

Ormly,

re: “In the legal sense, I have no argument with that. The seventh day is my day as well. However, Jesus said this: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" Mark 2:27.”


Not quite sure of your point here. Are you saying that the Sabbath “was” made for man, but that it no longer is? That at some point the reason for the Sabbath being made for man disappeared and therefore the Sabbath - the specific day of rest for man - disappeared?


re: “ And then we have Paul saying this: ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days’ Colossians 2:16.”

Again, I’m not sure I understand your point. What do you think this passage means in light of verse 8 which seems to summarize the reason for Paul’s writing of chapter 2.


re: “And again in Romans Paul has this to say: ‘One person considers one day to be above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; and whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.’ Romans 14:8(HCSB)”

As for Romans 14, the subject of the chapter from start to finish has to do with what people eat. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people “weak in the faith” (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. This passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath.


re: “Therefore, ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.’ Galatians 5:1(KJV) “


Are you suggesting that “the yoke of bondage” is referring to the observance of the Sabbath?

[hedrick]

QUOTE=rstrats;2393102}re: “What are you considering to be the resurrection?”

The moment that the Messiah’s lifeless body became alive again.[/QUOTE]

I think this is a mistake. It's far from clear that his original body became alive again. That is never stated. I realize that arguments from silence are dangerous, but doesn't it seen odd that the Bible doesn't give us any account of that? The resurrection is a sufficiently key belief that it seems odd for it not to be described in the Bible.

What we see in the Bible is Jesus appearing to people in a body with somewhat different properties from his original one (the ability to appear and disappear). People who knew him well often didn't recognize him. He was clearly in a bodily form, and his body has similarities to his earthly body, but it is also distinct. It is more likely to be something new than his old body alive again.

The most explicit discussion is 1 Cor 15. Paul seems to describe the spiritual body as something separate. I don't think he would say that it's the original body having come alive again.

re: “Based on Luke 23:43,Jesus was in paradise on Friday.”

Luke 23:43 doesn’t identify the day.

huh? Jesus says it on the cross, and he says "today". Unless you're adopting an unusual chronology that's Friday.

As to the original question of when Jesus was raised, see Mat 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46, all of which say Jesus will be raised on the third day, and Acts 10:40 and 1 Cor 15:4, which say he was raised on the third day. I hope you are willing to identify being raised with the resurrection.

[hedrick]

a PS to the previous: we also see an empty tomb. But nothing is said about how it got to be empty. Personally I think it most probable that God took Jesus' body, probably shortly after his death, that he was with God, and that starting on the third day he began appearing to people in a transformed body.

[hedrick]

One interesting question: both Luke and John mention that the grave clothes were still in the grave. I'm not entirely sure what that means. But are we to imagine Jesus coming back to life, taking off the clothing and walking away naked? But where would he go? Matthew talks about the stone coming away, but Jesus doesn't step out. An angel descends, but Jesus later appears.

Combine with "today I will be with you in paradise" and the picture we get is Jesus going to be with his father on Friday, and then appearing starting on Sunday with a new type of body. The grave clothes suggest to me that Jesus' body simply dematerialized. You can certainly say that this happened at the same time that he received his spiritual body. There's nothing wrong with that suggestion. The passages I cited above would suggest that this would have been on Sunday, the "third day". But the description in Matthew, as well as consideration of what the "spiritual body" is, are inconsistent with any concept of Jesus' original body coming back to life in any direct sense. Jesus was not a zombie.

[John Goddard]

One interesting question: both Luke and John mention that the grave clothes were still in the grave. I'm not entirely sure what that means. But are we to imagine Jesus coming back to life, taking off the clothing and walking away naked?

It may be more that he was wrapped like a mummy and freed much of it so he could move and walk, not necessarily naked.

[rstrats]

hedrick,

re: “huh? Jesus says it on the cross, and he says ‘today’. Unless you're adopting an unusual chronology that's Friday.”

Without getting into a separate discussion about where the comma should be placed in Luke 23:43, I still don’t see where the verse says that “today” is referring to Friday. Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21 indicate that the crucifixion couldn’t have occurred any later than Thursday.


re: “As to the original question of when Jesus was raised, see Mat 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 24:46, all of which say Jesus will be raised on the third day, and Acts 10:40and 1 Cor 15:4,which say he was raised on the third day.”

Mark 8:31 and Matthew 27:63 say “after three days”. But regardless, none of those verses identify the specific day of resurrection. Only Mark 16:9 does. And for the purpose of the OP, I don’t see why the definition of the resurrection
is important.

re: “I hope you are willing to identify being raised with the resurrection.”

Your hope is realized.

[rstrats]

hedrick,

re: “But are we to imagine Jesus coming back to life, taking off the clothing and walking away naked?”

Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea took a page from the Egyptians and placed a set of cloths in the tomb for the afterlife. :>)

[Rupert Pupkin]

I think the context is set with all Torah of Moses here, since of course Jesus would not likely be destroying his own commands:

You still haven't got it. No-one is disputing that in verses 17-18 Jesus is speaking of the Mosaic Law (and the Prophets, i.e. the entire Old Testament; the Writings were not then an established category, so the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" was a way of referring to the entire OT canon). But when he refers to the smallest of these commandments in verse 19 (MIAN TWN ENTOLWN TOUTWN TWN ELAXISTWN), he is referring to his own teaching in the Sermon.

The logic here is straightforward. In the Sermon, especially from verse 21 onwards, Jesus is setting out commandments, on his own authority, that go well beyond, and arguably overturn, the Mosaic Law. In verses 17-20 he is providing a justification for this. The justification is that he in his person is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law and Prophets, and that the commandments he is setting out for the new era of the Kingdom of God, are authorized because he is this fulfillment. In verses 17-18 he states that the Law will not pass away until all is fulfilled, and asserts also that he came to fulfill. He then says, at the beginning of verse 19, therefore (OUN) anyone who dismisses any of his commandments, will be least in the new era.

You have simply misinterpreted the text. Furthermore, if verse 19 refers to the Mosaic Law, then his teaching here would contradict everything else in Matthew about the Kingdom of God, and flatly contradict Paul and the book of Hebrews. It would mean that Christians would have to keep the Mosaic Law, which is ridiculous.

Not exactly. Paul addresses the mistake of Jews, or Gentiles who intend to convert, thinking that observing Torah is what primarily saves. It doesn't. What saves is accepting Jesus as the king and judge who can show you mercy when you sin. But in no way does he ever tell Jews to abandon Torah, or Gentiles never to convert fully to be Jews, as long as they do it for the right reasons.

Wrong. Paul explicitly and repeatedly tells Jews that they must come out from under the Law. One has a choice: one can rely on keeping the Law for salvation, or one can trust in Christ. If you go under the Law, then you declare that you are relying on the Law to save, and come under the curse of the law. Note:

Gal 2:18-19 : For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God.

Here Paul calls those who would live under the Law "transgressors", and states that he has died to the Law.

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

This verse specifically refutes the claim that one can go back under the Law after salvation in Christ. You cannot be perfected by the Law, anymore than you can be saved by it.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

This is what happens if you go under the Law and obey it.

Gal. 3: 24-25 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

How explicit do you need it? Once you have come to Christ, you no longer need the tutor, the Law.

In chapter 4, Paul likens those still under the Law to children of the flesh, children of the bondwoman, Hagar.

Eph. 2:14-16 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Any person who claims to be a Christian, but who tries to live under the Law, in fact is attempting to reconstruct this wall of division between Jewish and Gentile believers, and is directly opposing the work of Christ.

Heb. 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

If there must of necessity be a change of the law with Christ, then what are so-called Christians doing, living under the old Law? Doing so is a denial that the Messiah has come, and therefore a denial that Jesus is the Messiah, and expresses the spirit of antichrist.

Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The Mosaic Law and covenant are obsolete. They are abolished. How plain do you want scripture to say it?

1 Corinthians 7:18Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised

So if someone would be cut off from Christ for circumcision, why would he say "let him not become uncircumcised"?

This is not carte blanche for people to continue in whatever form of life they were previously in prior to conversion. A prostitute cannot continue in prostitution on the basis of this verse. Neither can a Law-keeper continue in Law-keeping. They must come out from under the Law. It is remaining under the law that cuts them off from Christ. That a person remains ethnically Jewish, is not the problem, and is all that Paul is speaking to here. Paul makes this quite clear elsewhere, as shown above.

The only reference of the first day of the week with regard to Firstfruits is to say when it is to be waved/presented to the Lord. While the Messiah did indeed became the antitype when He resurrected, what scriptural reason do you have for thinking that the moment of resurrection met the first day waving of the sheaf requirement of First Fruits instead of later when He presented Himself to the Father?

The waving was the crucial moment of the celebration; it was when the reality of the coming harvest was declared. But there is further reason. The firstfruits involved a sheaf of grain, not just a single grain. Since each grain represents one individual body (see 1 Cor. 15:36-37, which is in the context of the firstfruits argument - verse 23), we might expect the resurrection antitype to include a handful of resurrected righteous people, in addition to Christ. And this is exactly what we find in Mt. 27:52-53. A small number of Old Testament saints were resurrected in their final glorified bodies together with Christ, in order to constitute the first sheaf of the harvest. Given how exactly God has followed the typology here, the resurrection had to be on a Sunday. There is no escaping it! NB: There is a grammatical issue in the Greek here, which means that it is not clear from the text whether they were resurrected when Christ died or when he was resurrected. However, the latter has to be the case, for reasons I will leave aside for the moment but can go into if anyone is interested.

Are you suggesting that “the yoke of bondage” is referring to the observance of the Sabbath?

Yes, it certainly does, along with any other Law-keeping. Keeping the Sabbath now directly expresses the spirit of antichrist. The Sabbath commandment is integrally bound up with the Mosaic Law, and cannot be separated from it.

I think this is a mistake. It's far from clear that his original body became alive again.

Along with other factors, some already mentioned, the following scripture puts paid to that claim:

John 20:24-28 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

If it wasn't the same body, then why did it have the same wounds? Did Christ just put them in to deceive Thomas?