Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn is used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

 

[Peter]

Christ's Body, the Church has always held that this passage, vss. 9-20, as being both canonical and inspired.

As far as basing a Sunday worship on this passage, I know of no books from an Orthodox perspective. We've been worshipping on Sunday since the time Mark wrote his gospel, so we didn't base our Sunday worship on it.

The Reader Peter

 

[rstrats]

Peter,

re: "As far as basing a Sunday worship on this passage, I know of no books from an Orthodox perspective. We've been worshiping on Sunday since the time Mark wrote his gospel, so we didn't base our Sunday worship on it."

If the resurrection plays no part in the Orthodox reason/s for first day observance, what does?

 

[Teke]

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.

 

[rstrats]

Anyone?

 

[OzSpen]

rstrats,

Mark 16:9 Does anyone know of a published author who has used Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection which in turn is used - at least in part - to justify the establishment of the first day of the week as a special day for rest and worship?

Why would you be seeking to establish the resurrection on the first day of the week by appealing to a verse that is controversial in its being in the canon of Scripture or not.

See:"Mark 16:9-20; Are these verses an interpolation? (or "apocryphal addition" as the church puts it.)?"

As that article points out, the two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark (the Sinaiticus ca. 370 and Vaticanus ca. 325), end at Mark 16:8.

Irenaeus, about 175-185, wrote: "Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God; Mark 16:19" (Against Heresies III.10.5).

The biggest issue is, "Is Mark 16:9-20 part of the canon or not?" Until that is resolved, what's the point of choosing an author who uses Mark 16:9 to support the resurrection on the first day of the week?

 

[rstrats]

OzSpen,
re: "The biggest issue is, ‘Is Mark 16:9-20 part of the canon or not?’ Until that is resolved, what's the point of choosing an author who uses Mark 16:9 to support the resurrection on the first day of the week?"
　
　
A poster on another forum, 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, hence my query.

 

[OzSpen]

rstrats,

You stated:

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, hence my query.

I don't understand your point of Mark 16:9 being the only evidence of Jesus' resurrection being on the first day of the week. What about these passages?

• Matt. 28:1, "toward the dawn of the first day of the week", Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw the appearance of Jesus;
• Mark 16:2, "And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb"
• Luke 24:1, "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb"
• John 20:1, "And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early"
• John 20:19-20, "on the evening of that day, the first day of the week . . . Jesus came and stood among them"

Are these references not adequate evidence for Jesus' resurrection on the first day of the week?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Jesus did resurrect on the first day of the week according to each one of the gospels. However, this is not any justification for another day of worship.

 

[rstrats]

OzSpen,

re: "Are these references not adequate evidence for Jesus' resurrection on the first day of the week?"

I’m afraid I don’t see where Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1 or John 20:19-20 say anything with regard to when the resurrection actually took place.

 

[OzSpen]

rstrats,

I’m afraid I don’t see where Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1 or John 20:19-20 say anything with regard to when the resurrection actually took place.

These people went looking for Jesus and the tomb that contained his body, on which day of the week? The first day of the week! On which day was Jesus found to be resurrected? The first day of the week.

While Mark 16:9 is not in the canon of Scripture, it does confirm that the early church's understanding was that "he rose early on the first day of the week". This is confirmed by the Scriptures I supplied. The resurrected Lord Jesus was found on the first day of the week. That shouldn't be too hard to deduce.

 

[rstrats]

OzSpen,

re: "The resurrected Lord Jesus was found on the first day of the week. That shouldn't be too hard to deduce."

Indeed it isn't. Those verses do indeed indicate that the resurrection had taken place by the first day. However, I wonder if you might point out where any of those verses say when the resurrection actually occurred? Which of those verses preclude it from having taken place sometime on the seventh day?

 

[GailMc]

Unless you are looking for some other day than Sunday on which to go to Church, does it really matter? I know there are denominations that have moved their day of worship back to Saturday and have their own apologetic for what they do. Why not look them up on the Net and ask them directly why they worship on Saturday rather than Sunday. Or were you looking to figure it out yourself? Go to the source.

I vaguely remember there being a discussion about the 8th day being important to the Jews as a special day and that one of the signs they were waiting for was a sort of miraculous lengthening of days and nights as a sign from God. It was mentioned in one of the classes I attended way back when, but I can't remember what it was all about. It supposedly occured when the veil in the Temple was torn in two and the earth quaked etc. and was pre-figured in the battle of Joshua I think when the sun miraculously stayed in the sky while they fought (see Joshua 10). Wish I could remember all that the sister who gave the talk talked about. She was very nice, but I've forgotten so much. Oh well.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[rstrats]

GailMc,



re: "Unless you are looking for some other day than Sunday on which to go to Church,..."

I’m not.
　

re: "... does it really matter?"

I’m not sure what you are referring to with the word "it".
　

re: " Why not look them up on the Net and ask them directly why they worship on Saturday rather than Sunday."

For the purpose of this topic, I am not concerned with that particular question. I am only looking for what I asked for in the OP.

 

[Heterodoxus]

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, hence my query.

You'll probably need to research a work like Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine to determine why the Second Synod of Macon came up with the notion of Sunday worship back in 585 CE. I haven't searched that work on the issue of first day as a day of rest, but maybe you'll find something that points to a practice or scripture from which that notion might have evolved.

Sorry I couldn't provide a link to Development, but I'm still new here and there's a taboo on posting links until I post many more messages.

 

[rstrats]

OzSpen,

You have a question directed to you in post #12.

 

[OzSpen]

rstats,

re: "The resurrected Lord Jesus was found on the first day of the week. That shouldn't be too hard to deduce."

Indeed it isn't. Those verses do indeed indicate that the resurrection had taken place by the first day. However, I wonder if you might point out where any of those verses say when the resurrection actually occurred? Which of those verses preclude it from having taken place sometime on the seventh day?

Paul wrote:

That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (I Cor. 15:4)

Which day was the third day?

 

[OzSpen]

rstats,

Here's a brief article from bible.org that addresses the questions surrounding the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
Were the three days and three nights that Jesus was in the grave a full 72 hours?

There has been a long standing debate over the meaning of Matthew 12:40, “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” In my opinion, the evidence supports the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon and was in the grave part of Friday (the day of preparation cf. Luke 23:54-55), all of Saturday (Luke 23:56), and part of Sunday, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). Some of the evidence for this is as follows: (1) To us, three days and three nights generally means 72 hours, but we must understand the Bible historically and culturally. For the Jewish mind, this could mean any part of the first day, all of the second day, and any part of the third day. This is obvious by comparing Esther 4:16 and 5:1. Esther mentioned fasting for three days and nights and said that she would then go into the king, which she did, but 5:1 tells us clearly that it was on the third day that she went into the king, not after three days or on the fourth. This simply illustrates the way the Jews reckoned time.

(2) Further, the statement “after three days” could mean to the Jewish mind “on the third day” since any part of that day was considered the third day (cf. Matt. 27:63-64). Note the statements, “after three days” and securing the tomb until the third day. More will be said on this below.

(3) But on the third day could not mean on the fourth day, i.e., after a full 72 hours. Compare Luke 24:1 with 24:21. We read that they arrived at the tomb “on the third day” and then in verse 21 it is stated that “it is the third day.” This would be impossible to say if Jesus had stayed in the tomb for a full 72 hours for it would then be the fourth day. His resurrection would have had to be after the third day and on the fourth.

(4) Also, “the day of preparation” (Luke 23:54) could only refer to Friday before the Sabbath since no work of any kind could be done on the Sabbath, the seventh day. On other Sabbaths, holy days, domestic work could be done like making fire and cooking. No special preparation was needed for those Sabbaths or holy days, but not so on “the High Sabbath.” We might also note that the “day of preparation,” the Greek paraskeue, means Friday in modern Greek. See Ex. 16:22-23. The point here is that Friday is the only day a preparation day was needed as a preparation for the Sabbath, our Saturday.

(5) In several passages (the majority, about 4-1) it is said Jesus would rise “on the third day.” If the resurrection occurred after a full 72 hours (3 days) it would have been on the fourth. Compare Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 24:7, 21, 46; 1 Cor. 15:4. See below also regarding the use of the dative case here.

(6) In my mind, comparing all that is said in Luke 23:54-24:1 and John 19:31, settles the issue because of the day of preparation, Friday, being needed to prepare for a special high day or high Sabbath along with the fact the women came to the tomb on Sunday morning which is described as the third day.

(7) Finally, the Jews who heard the Lord use the phrase “three days and three nights” in Matt. 12:40 did not seem to necessarily understand a full 72 hours. Compare their comment in Matt. 27:62-64.

62 Now on the next day (i.e., the High Sabbath, Saturday), which is the one after the preparation (i.e., Friday), the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ 64 “Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.”
​

Note, they said, “until the third day, not until the fourth.” Matthew could have used a Greek construction here which would have stressed through (duration) the third day, but using the preposition eo„s with the genitive, it basically meant “till or up to” and does not stress the idea of duration meaning “through.” The genitive case typically stresses during, at, or within a time range. Had the accusative been used alone or with a different preposition, it could have stressed extent or duration of time.

It is probably significant that “Every occurrence of the ‘the third day’ with reference to Jesus’ resurrection in the Gospels is put in the dat. (dative case) without an accompanying preposition” (Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, Zondervan, p. 156). The significance of this is that nouns used in the dative case like “the third day” express a point in time rather than duration of time. So it means, “at a point in time, on the third day.”​