Mark 16:9

[Laodicea]

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?

The Bible mentions only one day as the day of the Lord
Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This tells us that six days are for man while the 7th is God's
Leviticus 23:3
(3) Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Deuteronomy 5:14
(14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

You will notice that the sabbath is never called the sabbath of the Jews but, always the Sabbath of the Lord it is His Day no other day in the Bible is called the Lord's day

 

[TheAristocat]

The Bible mentions only one day as the day of the Lord
Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This tells us that six days are for man while the 7th is God's
Leviticus 23:3
(3) Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Deuteronomy 5:14
(14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

You will notice that the sabbath is never called the sabbath of the Jews but, always the Sabbath of the Lord it is His Day no other day in the Bible is called the Lord's day

Ah, I see then. I wonder if that is what is really meant in Revelation 1:10. It seems the most logical explanation anyway.

 

[shroom2]

Ah, I see then. I wonder if that is what is really meant in Revelation 1:10. It seems the most logical explanation anyway.

I believe the "Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is not referring to a day of the week, but the "Day of the Lord". ie: the end times.

 

[NickInCali]

Ah, I see then. I wonder if that is what is really meant in Revelation 1:10. It seems the most logical explanation anyway.

It's just odd that, if you're right, no early Christians got the memo. They referred uniformly to "the Lord's Day" as distinct from the Sabbath.

 

[TheAristocat]

It's just odd that, if you're right, no early Christians got the memo. They referred uniformly to "the Lord's Day" as distinct from the Sabbath.

Can't speak to that. I have relatives who are Russian Orthodox Christians, and they've given me evidence for early Christians observing Sunday worship. And that's cool. Never ran into an instance in which the earliest Christians such as Paul referred to Sunday as the Lord's Day. This could be one of those instances, but I think if we just assume that then we'd be looking at the past with modern preconceptions.

 

[rstrats]

NickInCali,

re: "I just quoted you the Scripture. John refers to the day he had his vision as the Lord's Day..."

But he doesn’t identify it as the first day of the week. Since it has been mentioned that John’s vision is about the events of the end times (Isaiah 2:6-22) it makes more sense that that is what the phrase is referring to.
　
　
　
re: "...and you admit the Lord's Day was a reference in the early Church to the first day of the week."

Yes, this is the meaning post scriptural men decided to attribute to the phase in order to give support for their desire to change observance from the seventh day to the first day.




re: "If you'd like to put forward an alternative explanation for us, and back it up, I'd love to read it."

Isaiah 2:6-22.
　
　


re: "I'll quote the relevant portions:’Three days and three nights’ is simply Hebrew idiom."

Saying so doesn’t make it so. Your reference didn’t document 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: "The phrase ‘one day and one night’ meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated."

Again, no documentation has been shown that supports this idea.
　
　
　
re: " We see this, e.g., in 1 Sam 30:12-13..."

I see nothing here that precludes at least parts of 3 nighttimes and at least parts of 3 daytimes.
　
　
　
re: "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."
　
But that is the way that you phrased it in your post #13: "Sunday is the third day from Friday."
If Sunday is the third day from a certain day, then Saturday is the second day from a certain day, and Friday is the first day from a certain day, which makes Thursday the certain day.
　
　
re: "...you completely ignored my reference to Paul's treatment of the subject."

If you’re referring to your comment tacked on to the end of your Acts 15 discussion, I’m afraid I don’t see where Paul says what you seem to be suggesting.
　
　


re: "Mind telling us your religious affiliation..."

I do not currently have one.
　
　


re: "...and why this topic seems so important to you?>

I give the reason for this topic in the OP.

 

[TheAristocat]

re: "Mind telling us your religious affiliation..."

I do not currently have one.

Ah, I did not know that. Anyway, did you check out the deal with the feast day as it relates to the "third day" prophecy? If Jesus was buried from Friday night till Sunday morning this would at most be:

friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

2 nights and 2 mornings. But if he was placed into the tomb on Thursday night due to a feast day of rest, then this would be:

thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

3 nights and 3 mornings. And you can pretty much bet they'd want to get Jesus in the tomb before nightfall on the day of preparation for this special Sabbath before the weekly Sabbath.

 

[shroom2]

Ah, I did not know that. Anyway, did you check out the deal with the feast day as it relates to the "third day" prophecy? If Jesus was buried from Friday night till Sunday morning this would at most be:

friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

2 nights and 2 mornings. But if he was placed into the tomb on Thursday night due to a feast day of rest, then this would be:

thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

3 nights and 3 mornings. And you can pretty much bet they'd want to get Jesus in the tomb before nightfall on the day of preparation for this special Sabbath before the weekly Sabbath.

Christ was crucified on Wednesday, laid in the tomb before sunset, and arose around sunset on Saturday. Three days and three nights. Between Saturday sunset and Sunday morning is when he witnessed to the imprisoned spirits.

More info here:

Truth Or Tradition - Last week [7 days] of Jesus Christ's life. Detailed biblical chronology, events

 

[TheAristocat]

Christ was crucified on Wednesday, laid in the tomb before sunset, and arose around sunset on Saturday. Three days and three nights. Between Saturday sunset and Sunday morning is when he witnessed to the imprisoned spirits.

More info here:

Truth Or Tradition - Last week [7 days] of Jesus Christ's life. Detailed biblical chronology, events

I see what you're saying.

wednesday night
thursday morning
thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning

This makes 3 nights and 3 mornings, and he would be raised during Saturday night which is considered the beginning of Sunday in Jewish reckoning of days. If it were:

thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

then he would have to be raised after the morning of sunday and that might run into the night of sunday which would make his resurrection no longer in the daytime on the first day but on the second day of the week since Jewish days began at sunset. Anyway, I think the passage is open enough to interpret it either way, because resurrecting after sunday morning does not imply resurrecting during the night but resurrecting during the day at noon. But perhaps that theory is contradictory to when the women approached the tomb and found it empty. Interesting point. I'll check it out more.

Perhaps a study of when that particular feast day occurred during the week would also help.

 

[TheAristocat]

I see what you're saying.

wednesday night
thursday morning
thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning

This makes 3 nights and 3 mornings, and he would be raised during Saturday night which is considered the beginning of Sunday in Jewish reckoning of days. If it were:

thursday night
friday morning
friday night
saturday morning
saturday night
sunday morning

then he would have to be raised after the morning of sunday and that might run into the night of sunday which would make his resurrection no longer in the daytime on the first day but on the second day of the week since Jewish days began at sunset. Anyway, I think the passage is open enough to interpret it either way, because resurrecting after sunday morning does not imply resurrecting during the night but resurrecting during the day at noon. But perhaps that theory is contradictory to when the women approached the tomb and found it empty. Interesting point. I'll check it out more.

Perhaps a study of when that particular feast day occurred during the week would also help.

Just remembered. Mark 16:9 says Christ rose on Sunday - the first day of the week. Saturday was the Jewish seventh day of the week. So saying he was raised at noon or even in the afternoon on the seventh day doesn't agree with Mark 16:9 saying he was raised on the first day. This would at least have to be during Saturday night that he was raised. So I think if you say he was raised Saturday night you'd have a strong case. This would still be the beginning of the first day of the week, Jesus would have had three days and three nights in the tomb, and he'd be resurrected early enough to meet the women coming to his tomb on Sunday morning.

So, yeah, just checked.

Wednesday night is the day of preparation before Nisan 15th which is Thursday and is the special Sabbath of rest. Then comes Thursday morning, Thursday night, Friday morning, Friday night, Saturday morning and you have Christ resurrecting at the beginning of Saturday night which is actually considered the first day of the week. Then the women come to the tomb early in the morning on Sunday. They see it's already empty. Also, I never considered the requirement of him being raised on the third day as literally meaning daylight, so I see no problem with him rising on a day during the evening (especially since morning and evening are differentiated here from day). Problem solved. Case closed. Good stuff.

 

[TheAristocat]

Just remembered. Mark 16:9 says Christ rose on Sunday - the first day of the week. Saturday was the Jewish seventh day of the week. So saying he was raised at noon or even in the afternoon on the seventh day doesn't agree with Mark 16:9 saying he was raised on the first day. This would at least have to be during Saturday night that he was raised. So I think if you say he was raised Saturday night you'd have a strong case. This would still be the beginning of the first day of the week, Jesus would have had three days and three nights in the tomb, and he'd be resurrected early enough to meet the women coming to his tomb on Sunday morning.

So, yeah, just checked.

Wednesday night is the day of preparation before Nisan 15th which is Thursday and is the special Sabbath of rest. Then comes Thursday morning, Thursday night, Friday morning, Friday night, Saturday morning and you have Christ resurrecting at the beginning of Saturday night which is actually considered the first day of the week. Then the women come to the tomb early in the morning on Sunday. They see it's already empty. Also, I never considered the requirement of him being raised on the third day as literally meaning daylight, so I see no problem with him rising on a day during the evening (especially since morning and evening are differentiated here from day). Problem solved. Case closed. Good stuff.

One small snippet I forgot to mention:

3 days and 3 nights:
Wednesday night - first day night
Thursday morning - first day morning
Thursday night - second day night
Friday morning - second day morning
Friday night - third day night
Saturday morning - third day morning

resurrection day:
Saturday night (first day of week) - fourth day night

So this seems to contradict other passages in the New Testament that say he was raised on the third day, because if this chronology is true then he would be raised on the fourth day. Also if we go by my previous chronology:

3 days and 3 nights:
Thursday night - first day night
Friday morning - first day morning
Friday night - second day night
Saturday morning - second day morning
Saturday night - third day night
Sunday morning - third day morning

resurrection day:
Sunday afternoon (first day of week) - third day afternoon

So if we go by your chronology for the resurrection then Jesus is raised on the fourth day, in keeping with what the Bible says elsewhere about it (unless you wanted to say that Saturday night was still considered the third day instead of the beginning of a fourth day). And if we go by my chronology then Jesus would not have been risen from the tomb as early as the women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning... unless we say that it was just parts of nights and parts of mornings. Your thoughts?

 

[TheAristocat]

One small snippet I forgot to mention:

3 days and 3 nights:
Wednesday night - first day night
Thursday morning - first day morning
Thursday night - second day night
Friday morning - second day morning
Friday night - third day night
Saturday morning - third day morning

resurrection day:
Saturday night (first day of week) - fourth day night

So this seems to contradict other passages in the New Testament that say he was raised on the third day, because if this chronology is true then he would be raised on the fourth day. Also if we go by my previous chronology:

3 days and 3 nights:
Thursday night - first day night
Friday morning - first day morning
Friday night - second day night
Saturday morning - second day morning
Saturday night - third day night
Sunday morning - third day morning

resurrection day:
Sunday afternoon (first day of week) - third day afternoon

So if we go by your chronology for the resurrection then Jesus is raised on the fourth day, in keeping with what the Bible says elsewhere about it (unless you wanted to say that Saturday night was still considered the third day instead of the beginning of a fourth day). And if we go by my chronology then Jesus would not have been risen from the tomb as early as the women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning... unless we say that it was just parts of nights and parts of mornings. Your thoughts?

Ok. I just read an interesting article about the way the Jews reckoned time, and there were two reckonings for days. There was the sunset to sunset method of reckoning the passage of a day and then there was the sunrise to sunrise method of reckoning a day. And both have been used in the Bible. So if we use both methods of reckoning days (since the different people who wrote the Gospels could have had different methods of reckoning the days) we'd end up with the following scheme:

3 days and 3 nights:
Wednesday night - first night
Thursday morning - first morning/day 1
Thursday night - second night
Friday morning - second morning/day 2
Friday night - third night
Saturday morning - third morning/day 3


resurrection day:
Saturday night (first day of week) - still considered as part of day 3 because day 4 has not yet dawned

Here's the source: The Day of the Resurrection

 

[TheAristocat]

I think if Christ were buried on the beginning of a morning instead of the beginning of a night then the days would be much more distinct from one-another and not open to interpretation to two different methods of reckoning days that were already in the Bible. But as is the case one can say the fourth day had not yet dawned even if the third day was over in one sense but still present in another sense.

 

[NickInCali]

But he doesn’t identify it as the first day of the week. Since it has been mentioned that John’s vision is about the events of the end times (Isaiah 2:6-22) it makes more sense that that is what the phrase is referring to.

　
No, it really doesn't. While John's visions are ABOUT the end times, yes, what is said in Rev. 1:10 is that John was in the Spirit ON the Lord's Day. Unless you would like to claim that everything mentioned in that passage of Isaiah was actually happening around John as he had his vsion, you're really stretching that application.
　

Yes, this is the meaning post scriptural men decided to attribute to the phase in order to give support for their desire to change observance from the seventh day to the first day.

I'm curious, why do you suppose they'd want to change it?

Isaiah 2:6-22.

　
As mentioned above, yor appeal to "the day of the LORD" as being the same as "the Lord's Day" in Rev. 1 has obvious problems. 　

Saying so doesn’t make it so. Your reference didn’t document 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.

　
You say this while completely ignoring all the proof texts the citation mentioned, lol. Unless you believe the Bible contradicts itself (do you?) then "three days and three nights" has to mean the same thing as "on the third day" and "after three days" and "in three days," which are also descriptions of when Christ rose. 　

Again, no documentation has been shown that supports this idea.

When you don't actually interact with the argument being made, I can see why the case would be so cut and dry for you. *shrug*　
　
　
re: " We see this, e.g., in 1 Sam 30:12-13..."

I see nothing here that precludes at least parts of 3 nighttimes and at least parts of 3 daytimes.

　
The beginning of the chapter indicates that the events happened on "the third day" since David had begun his trek back to the land of the Philistines. So his eating there, after victory, doesn't necessitate a third night to have transpired, for example. Two nights had gone by, and these things happened, "on the third DAY."

The irony is that even you, here, and making the phrase non-literal, by inserting "part of" in front of days and nights. Yet there's no reason to do so. I suppose I'm going to have to dig up some Biblical scholars for you on this. 　
　
re: "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."

But that is the way that you phrased it in your post #13: "Sunday is the third day from Friday."

Yes, but I didn't say the "first day from" whenever, because the "from" is unnecessary. The first day is the first day. Again, this isn't that complicated.

If Sunday is the third day from a certain day, then Saturday is the second day from a certain day, and Friday is the first day from a certain day, which makes Thursday the certain day.

Again, this is simply inaccurate. Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, which is by definition, Friday:

"Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath," Mark 15:42　
　

If you’re referring to your comment tacked on to the end of your Acts 15 discussion, I’m afraid I don’t see where Paul says what you seem to be suggesting

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. Romans 14:5-6, cf. Colossians 2:16-17

　

I do not currently have one.

　
OK, so do you believe in God? Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe the Bible is inspired Scripture? How about the Trinity? Generally atheists wouldn't be that interested in this topic. 　

 

[TheAristocat]

"Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath," Mark 15:42

The Sabbath here isn't necessarily a weekly Sabbath. See Leviticus 23:32. There was also a Sabbath Year. See Leviticus 25:4.

Leviticus 23:32 It [shall be] unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth [day] of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Leviticus 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

So the Sabbath that is meant could have been a day of rest - of which were many instituted throughout the year.

 

[NickInCali]

The Sabbath here isn't necessarily a weekly Sabbath. See Leviticus 23:32. There was also a Sabbath Year. See Leviticus 25:4.

Leviticus 23:32 It [shall be] unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth [day] of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Leviticus 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

So the Sabbath that is meant could have been a day of rest - of which were many instituted throughout the year.

It's pretty obvious from the context that the day after the Sabbath there in Mark is the first day of the week. (see 16:1-2; cf. Matt. 28:1). Trying to appeal to some "other" Sabbath than the usual one seems like quite a stretch to avoid the obvious in the passage.

 

[shroom2]

The Sabbath here isn't necessarily a weekly Sabbath. See Leviticus 23:32. There was also a Sabbath Year. See Leviticus 25:4.

Leviticus 23:32 It [shall be] unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth [day] of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Leviticus 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

So the Sabbath that is meant could have been a day of rest - of which were many instituted throughout the year.

I believe you are correct. That Sabbath was not the normal weekly Sabbath.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

There is no way to get "three days and three nights" between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

 

[Laodicea]

I believe you are correct. That Sabbath was not the normal weekly Sabbath.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

There is no way to get "three days and three nights" between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

3 days and 3 nights began on thursday night when Jesus was taken.

 

[NickInCali]

I believe you are correct. That Sabbath was not the normal weekly Sabbath.

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

The reason it was a "high" Sabbath was because it was Passover (Jn. 19:14), not Yom Kippur as suggested by Aristocat's citation of Lev. 23. This doesn't preclude it from being the seventh day of the week, though. High Sabbath is still the Sabbath.

There is no way to get "three days and three nights" between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Not when you take it literally, you're right.

 

[TheAristocat]

It's pretty obvious from the context that the day after the Sabbath there in Mark is the first day of the week. (see 16:1-2; cf. Matt. 28:1). Trying to appeal to some "other" Sabbath than the usual one seems like quite a stretch to avoid the obvious in the passage.

Yes, I had come to a similar conclusion, though not entirely the same. If Thursday was the day of preparation and Friday was the high Sabbath and Saturday was the Sabbath, then they'd still come to the tomb on Sunday on the first day of the week. It wouldn't make much sense for the women to not go to the tomb on Friday if Thursday were the high Sabbath and it was finished.


So I think a Wednesday day of preparation doesn't seem as logical as Thursday. And a Friday day of preparation doesn't seem as logical as a Thursday day of preparation because Christ would not be in the tomb for even parts of 3 days and 3 nights then (there would be only friday night, saturday night, and saturday day, sunday day). While the Wednesday stance seems strange, the Friday stance is just plain contradictory to a concept that differentiates between night and day and includes three parts for each. The Thursday stance is the only thing that seems workable to me as that would at least allow Christ to be in the tomb for three dark portions of a day and three light portions of a day while rising on the third light portion which ends up being the first of the week.


Moreover Genesis 42:17-18 shows us that perhaps an incomplete third day can be included in three days. And there is a distinction between day and night in Mark 16:9, so day is the light portion of the day and night is the dark portion of the day and if Christ rose on Sunday then he would have spent two complete light portions of the day in the tomb and a partial third. He would have also spent three dark portions of the day in the tomb. And if a third partial light portion of the day can be included as another day, then we have three days.


Genesis 42:17-18 And he put them all in custody for three days. On the third day, Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God:


Day = light portion of a day
Night = dark portion of a day


3 days and 3 nights:
Thursday night - first dark portion
Friday morning/day - first light portion
Friday night - second dark portion
Saturday morning/day - second light portion
Saturday night - third dark portion
Sunday morning - third light portion

resurrection:

Sunday morning - some unspecified time in the early morning which can possibly be considered as the third light portion or the "third day" while still being "the First [Day] of the Week". See Mark 16:9. The Greek does not use "the First Day of the Week" but instead "the First of the Week".