Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

A poster on another thread, 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 used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. 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, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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?

 

[rstrats]

Perhaps someone new looking on will know of an author.

 

[yaright]

A poster on another thread, 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 used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. 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, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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?

I won't enter into a discussion of first day or last day according to verses in the bible. Over hundreds of years the various christian religions who seem to 'speak with great authority' have become encumbered over the very point of their argument. It is because of the doctrines of these religions that the inflections of understanding this language on a very personal level has been over shadowed. Even after the witness of creation language (which the doctrines of men cannot see), the argument of doctrines will continue; And the personal understanding will remain hidden from those who trust in men more than to place their trust in the One who is sent to redeem....

When Israel had become slaves in Egypt, slaves in a land that held no eternal inheritance, slaves in a land of sin that held elements of creation as having (images of gods) dominion over men, rather than men having dominion over creation as commanded by the Living God;

When God called His people in Egypt (you) to come to Him, the ruler of the land of sin refused to release them. A sheep was slain and its blood was used to save God's people, and the meat was eaten in The Supper Of The Last Day in that land. Then God's people were shown how (following God) to cross over into The Dawning of a New Day in a land that held nothing of this world, but to learn to trust Him in all things.

When Jesus told His disciples to go to a house where The Last Supper was being prepared; that is the image of the last day in the ways of the world. When this was done by tradition and doctrines of men, immediately the real thing was about to take place; And is in this moment in time when the blood of The Lamb of God was shed to save all who would hear the calling of the Word of God and believe, even to this present day.

 

[rstrats]

yaright,

re: "I won't enter into a discussion of first day or last day according to verses in the bible. "


That's good because I'm only interested in what I asked for in the OP.

 

[yaright]

yaright,

re: "I won't enter into a discussion of first day or last day according to verses in the bible. "


That's good because I'm only interested in what I asked for in the OP.

What you've given witness to caused me to consider something; Thank you for your patience; I know it is not what you asked for...

 

[NickInCali]

A poster on another thread, 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 used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. 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, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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?

Historically Christians have referred to the fact of Christ's resurrection being on Sunday because it was called the "Lord's Day" by the earliest Christians, it is the "third day" counting from the crucifixion on Friday, and it is the day on which the earliest Christians began regularly worshipping. Mark 16 is certainly not an isolated text, so there's really no reason to go specifically seeking out its use as justification for worshipping on Sunday. If nothing else, even if it isn't original to the text of the Gospel, it demonstrates an extremely early Christian belief that is perfectly consistent (in regard to Sunday worship) with the rest of Scripture.

 

[rstrats]

NickInCali,

re: "Historically Christians have referred to the fact of Christ's resurrection being on Sunday because it was called the ‘Lord's Day’ by the earliest Christians..."

But not by any of the earliest Christians mentioned in scripture.
　


re: "...it is the ‘third day’ counting from the crucifixion on Friday..."

It is an assumption that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week. In fact, Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21 indicate that it couldn’t have taken place any earlier than the 5th day.
　


re: "...and it is the day on which the earliest Christians began regularly worshipping."

There is no definitive scripture that says that anyone worshiped on the first day of the week, much less that they did it on a regular basis.
　


re: "Mark 16 is certainly not an isolated text..."

But it is. Mark 16:9 is the only scripture (as translated in the KJV) that definitively says that the resurrection occurred on the first of the week.
　


Do you have any information with regard to an author as requested in the OP?

 

[NickInCali]

NickInCali,

re: "Historically Christians have referred to the fact of Christ's resurrection being on Sunday because it was called the ‘Lord's Day’ by the earliest Christians..."

But not by any of the earliest Christians mentioned in scripture.
　

This is simply inaccurate. The Apostle John refers to it as such in Revelation 1.

re: "...it is the ‘third day’ counting from the crucifixion on Friday..."

It is an assumption that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week. In fact, Matthew 12:40 and Luke 24:21 indicate that it couldn’t have taken place any earlier than the 5th day.

You appear to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom involved. See this link for a great explanation:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Jesus' "Three Days and Three Nights" in the Tomb: Is it a Biblical Contradiction?


re: "...and it is the day on which the earliest Christians began regularly worshipping."

There is no definitive scripture that says that anyone worshiped on the first day of the week, much less that they did it on a regular basis.

Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16 are certainly consistent with such ideas. You are correct that there is no explicit Scripture stating this practice was "regular," but of course many things are not explicit in the Bible that Christians accept. Doctrine develops over time. There is no reason to reject a belief or practice simply because it is not explicit in Scripture.

re: "Mark 16 is certainly not an isolated text..."

But it is. Mark 16:9 is the only scripture (as translated in the KJV) that definitively says that the resurrection occurred on the first of the week.

Again, the idea of Christ's resurrection being on Sunday is arrived at by examining multiple texts together. Even without the end of Mark 16, we would have plenty of Scriptural reasons for accepting it. The Marcan account of the resurrection, even without the possibly inauthentic ending, is perfectly consistent with the accounts of the other Gospels. Theres nothing in the ending that is inconsistent with the data about the resurrection accounts in the other Gospels.
　

Do you have any information with regard to an author as requested in the OP?

I don't, because no serious apologist defending worship on Sunday would just quote one verse and claim the case is closed. Again, the belief and practice were established in the first century and can be defended from a variety of Scriptural angles/

 

[WordGaurdian]

A poster on another thread, 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 used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. 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, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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?

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Luk 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Joh 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

There. Three published authors...

 

[rstrats]

WordGaurdian,

re: "Mat 28:1...Luk 24:1...Joh 20:1...There. Three published authors..."
　
I’m afraid I don’t see where those authors argue for a change of observance from the 7th day to the 1st day because of the idea of a 1st day resurrection. What do you have in mind?

Also, those verses don't say anything about the day that the resurrection actually took place.

 

[rstrats]

NickInCali,

re: "This is simply inaccurate. The Apostle John refers to it as such in Revelation 1."

I assume you’re referring to Revelation 1:10. I wonder if you might point out where John identifies "Lord’s Day" in that verse as the 1st day of the week?
　


re: "You appear to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom involved. "

As regards the Jewish practice of counting any part of a day as a whole day I would agree, but when "nights" is added to "days" to yield the phrase "3 days AND 3 nights" it normally refers to a measurement of a consecutive time period where "day" refers to the light portion of a 24 hour period and "night" refers to the dark portion of a 24 hour period. No one In the history of apologetics as far as I know has ever presented any historical documentation that the phrase " 3 days AND 3 nights" was a unique first century idiom of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek which could mean something different than what the phrase means in English - at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights. If you have such documentation, I would very much like to see it. Also, Luke 24:21 supports a Thursday or earlier crucifixion.
　


re: "There is no reason to reject a belief or practice simply because it is not explicit in Scripture."

And there is no reason to reject a commandment because the need for it’s continued observance is not explicitly repeated in the NT.
　


re: "Theres nothing in the ending [of Mark] that is inconsistent with the data about the resurrection accounts in the other Gospels."

Agreed, but it does present "data" that the others do not.

 

[WordGaurdian]

WordGaurdian,

re: "Mat 28:1...Luk 24:1...Joh 20:1...There. Three published authors..."
　
I’m afraid I don’t see where those authors argue for a change of observance from the 7th day to the 1st day because of the idea of a 1st day resurrection. What do you have in mind?

Also, those verses don't say anything about the day that the resurrection actually took place.

Just to clarify...

I merely stated that Mark 16:9 was also mentioned in the other Gospels that Jesus was resurrected on the first day. No other intention.

I am not quite sure what you are talking about. But what I can gather it is about the Sabbath, which we know is on the seventh. Hence the reason why the disciples gathered on the first day. Because they still upheld the Sabbath.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Also an additional reason why the disciples gathered on the first day, because it was the day that the Lord first appear to them.
Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

So it became tradition for Christian to come together on the First Day. (Go to church...if you will)
Yet by no means were the Sabbath taken away... in fact we can see Paul visited the synagogue still regularly.

Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

That being said...
Here is an interesting verse for you...
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

 

[NickInCali]

NickInCali,

re: "This is simply inaccurate. The Apostle John refers to it as such in Revelation 1."

I assume you’re referring to Revelation 1:10. I wonder if you might point out where John identifies "Lord’s Day" in that verse as the 1st day of the week?

It is quite well known, if one reads any of the Early Church Fathers, scholars of early Christianity, etc., that the Lord's Day was a reference to the first day of the week, distinguished from the Sabbath. You dispute this?
　


re: "You appear to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom involved. "

As regards the Jewish practice of counting any part of a day as a whole day I would agree, but when "nights" is added to "days" to yield the phrase "3 days AND 3 nights" it normally refers to a measurement of a consecutive time period where "day" refers to the light portion of a 24 hour period and "night" refers to the dark portion of a 24 hour period. No one In the history of apologetics as far as I know has ever presented any historical documentation that the phrase " 3 days AND 3 nights" was a unique first century idiom of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek which could mean something different than what the phrase means in English - at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights. If you have such documentation, I would very much like to see it.

Please do see the link I posted. It looks like it might not have posted properly, so I'm also happy to send it to you directly if you'd like.

Also, Luke 24:21 supports a Thursday or earlier crucifixion.

You'd have to explain how, it light of what has already been said. Sunday is the third day from Friday.
　

re: "There is no reason to reject a belief or practice simply because it is not explicit in Scripture."

And there is no reason to reject a commandment because the need for it’s continued observance is not explicitly repeated in the NT.
　

Good try. The difference is, observance of the Sabbath IS directly addressed by the Apostles in the New Testament. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 makes it quite clear what parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile converts were obliged to keep. Sabbath observance isn't one of them. St. Paul also addresses the issue and leaves it up to individual conscience.

re: "Theres nothing in the ending [of Mark] that is inconsistent with the data about the resurrection accounts in the other Gospels."

Agreed, but it does present "data" that the others do not.

So do all of them. Slight variations are expected among eyewitness testimonies. The point is, nothing in them CONTRADICTS anything in the others, including the dubious ending of Mark.

 

[rstrats]

InCali,

re: "It is quite well known, if one reads any of the Early Church Fathers, scholars of early Christianity, etc., that [they say] the Lord's Day was a reference to the first day of the week...You dispute this?"

Of course not. What I dispute is that it is scriptural.

　


re: "Please do see the link I posted."

I did and don’t see where it documents a first century usage of the phrase: "3 days and 3 nights" to mean anything other than at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights.
　
　

re: "You'd have to explain how...Sunday is the third day from Friday"

What would the first day from Friday be?
　
　


re: "The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 makes it quite clear what parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile converts were obliged to keep. Sabbath observance isn't one of them."

Nor are the commands to have no other Gods, or to not make graven images, or to not take the Lord’s name in vain, or to not honor one’s father and mother, or to not murder, or to not steal, or to not bear false witness, etc.
　
　


re: "Even without the end of Mark 16, we would have plenty of Scriptural reasons for accepting it."

But it would still be an assumption. Only Mark 16:9 in the KJV definitively places the resurrection on the first of the week.

 

[rstrats]

WordGaurdian,

re: "Just to clarify...I merely stated that Mark 16:9 was also mentioned in the other Gospels that Jesus was resurrected on the first day. No other intention."
　
And I merely stated that that is incorrect.
　
　
re: "I am not quite sure what you are talking about."

I say what in the OP.
　
　
　
re: "But what I can gather it is about the Sabbath..."

Actually, it’s about Mark 16:9.
　
　
　
re: "... the Sabbath, which we know is on the seventh. Hence the reason why the disciples gathered on the first day. Because they still upheld the Sabbath."

They gathered on the first day because the Sabbath is on the seventh day? I’m afraid I don’t follow your reasoning.
　
　


re: "Also an additional reason why the disciples gathered on the first day, because it was the day that the Lord first appear to them."

But He didn’t appear until after they had gathered together so that couldn’t have been the reason.
　
　

re: "Here is an interesting verse for you...Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"
　
Again, I’m afraid that I don’t see your point.

 

[TheAristocat]

A poster on another thread, 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 used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. 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, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, 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?

I'm pretty sure Jesus rose on Sunday, as that was the first day of the Jewish week and even is so in American culture (although it's popularly considered the weekend along with Saturday). Anyway, the whole 7th day-1st day argument has less to do with the resurrection of Jesus as it has to do with when Jesus' body was prepared and placed in the tomb. Some people think it was Friday night, but that can't be according to a 3-day argument. The day of rest the Jews were preparing for when they were preparing Jesus' body was probably not Saturday but something having to do with the end of one of the Feasts and a holy day of rest that coincidentally ocurred that year before the weekly Sabbath. That's the way I heard it explained, using the Bible. You'll have to forgive me if my explanation is a little lacking, but you can do the research.

Studying the Torah just makes the Bible so much more agreeable and easier to understand. Afterall it had a great influence on the culture of the time.

 

[TheAristocat]

Interestingly enough you might even be able to find the exact year on which Christ was crucified if that theory is true. Since the Jews used the lunar calendar things got a bit mixed up and feast days and holy days, chronologically speaking, didn't always fall at the same intervals from weekly days from year-to-year. One of their holy days ended up landing right before a weekly Sabbath that year I believe.

I think most people will agree that Christ was crucified anywhere from 30-33 AD, so it'd be relatively simple to figure out what year it was exactly. Anno Domini is a phrase that means "in the year of our Lord" but I've heard it was developed originally in honor of another king and adopted by Christians later, so 0 AD may have not been the exact year of Christ's birth. Just a thought. A lot of what I say needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless I provide exact reference material. I've learned a bit but also have forgotten exact details over the years.

Anyway, you are right. Sunday is not a holy day instituted by God, and I could care less about what human Christians have to say about it. I, personally, stick with Saturday, because anything closer to God's opinion is more reliable in my book. But if you want to worship on Sunday too, then I don't think God is going to object.

 

[NickInCali]

InCali,

re: "It is quite well known, if one reads any of the Early Church Fathers, scholars of early Christianity, etc., that the Lord's Day was a reference to the first day of the week...You dispute this?"

Of course not. What I dispute is that it is scriptural.

I just quoted you the Scripture. John refers to the day he had his vision as the Lord's Day, and you admit the Lord's Day was a reference in the early Church to the first day of the week. If you'd like to put forward an alternative explanation for us, and back it up, I'd love to read it.
　

I did and don’t see where it documents a first century usage of the phrase: "3 days and 3 nights" to mean anything other than at least parts of 3 days and at least parts of 3 nights

I'll quote the relevant portions:
"Three days and three nights" is simply Hebrew idiom. The phrase "one day and one night" meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, e.g., in 1 Sam 30:12-13 (cf. Gen 42:17-18)....

We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of His Resurrection was on a Sunday (e.g., Mk 16:1-2-,9, Mt 28:1, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1). And we know that "three days and three nights" (Mt 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with "after three days" ((Mk 8:31) and "on the third day" (Mt 16:21, 1 Cor 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on the third day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that He would be raised up in three days (not on the fourth day)."

What would the first day from Friday be?

That would be an odd way of phrasing it in this context. Friday is the first day, Saturday is the second day, Sunday is the third day. It's not rocket science.

Nor are the commands to have no other Gods, or to not make graven images, or to not take the Lord’s name in vain, or to not honor one’s father and mother, or to not murder, or to not steal, or to not bear false witness, etc.
　

But those things are commanded elsewhere by the Apostles, as they are basically part of natural law. And you completely ignored my reference to Paul's treatment of the subject. Christians are not obligated to worship on the Sabbath, plain and simple.

B

ut it would still be an assumption.

No, it would be a deduction from all the available data. Big difference.

I think your profile says you're not a Christian, but you certainly seem to be arguing like a Seventh-Day Adventist. Mind telling us your religious affiliation, if you have any, and why this topic seems so important to you?

 

[Laodicea]

Interestingly enough you might even be able to find the exact year on which Christ was crucified if that theory is true. Since the Jews used the lunar calendar things got a bit mixed up and feast days and holy days, chronologically speaking, didn't always fall at the same intervals from weekly days from year-to-year. One of their holy days ended up landing right before a weekly Sabbath that year I believe.

I think most people will agree that Christ was crucified anywhere from 30-33 AD, so it'd be relatively simple to figure out what year it was exactly. Anno Domini is a phrase that means "in the year of our Lord" but I've heard it was developed originally in honor of another king and adopted by Christians later, so 0 AD may have not been the exact year of Christ's birth. Just a thought. A lot of what I say needs to be taken with a grain of salt unless I provide exact reference material. I've learned a bit but also have forgotten exact details over the years.

Anyway, you are right. Sunday is not a holy day instituted by God, and I could care less about what human Christians have to say about it. I, personally, stick with Saturday, because anything closer to God's opinion is more reliable in my book. But if you want to worship on Sunday too, then I don't think God is going to object.

That is true Sun-Day is not a holy day the Lord's day in the Bible is the 7th Day
Revelation 1:10
(10) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Matthew 12:8
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

 

[TheAristocat]

That is true Sun-Day is not a holy day the Lord's day in the Bible is the 7th Day
Revelation 1:10
(10) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Matthew 12:8
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Revelation 1:10 is an interesting passage because of its useage of "Lord's day", but I'm at a loss as to how one can draw a conclusion for Sunday dedication or for Saturday preservation from that passage. No particular day of the week is mentioned. Can you elucidate?