1:1¹ ^The good news of salvation began with the first Messianic promise in Gen. 3:15. What began with Yōḥanan is the announcement that the Mĕssiah would be coming after him. That he actually was going to arrive was the good news for Yisra’ēl.
1:2† ^Mal. 3:1.
1:3† ^Isa. 40:3.
2:24† ^The basic charge was made on more than one occasion, as the disciples were in the habit of doing this. However, Yĕshūa̒’s answer probably was given on just one occasion, and most definitely it was the second first Sabbath (see Luke 6:1), which is the first sabbath after Passover.
3:2¹ ^All the Greek texts (except Codex Bezae) add the word αὐτόν,
The English translations neglect the plural in Mark 1:21; Mark 2:23, 24; 3:2, 4; 4:31; Mat. 12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12; 28:1 2x; Luke 4:31; 6:2; 13:10; 24:1; John 20:1, 19. Where we expect a singular, one occurs, such as in the 2nd use of Mat. 12:5; Mat. 12:8; Mat. 24:20; Mark 2:27; Mark 2:28; Mark 16:1; Luke 6:1; Luke 6:5; Luke 6:6; Luke 13:14; Luke 13:16; Luke 14:1; Luke 23:54; 23:56; John 5:9, 10. There is only one extant text I am aware of that appears to use a plural where a singular is expected, i.e. Mat. 12:11. But the oldest mss evicence for this plural is codex Siniaticus, AD 325-360, which is 275-310 years after Matthew.
The evangelists do not always quote Yĕshūa̒ the same way. In some texts, they have him saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbaths,” (Mat. 12:10), and others, “it is lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm” (Luke 6:9). What I suppose here is that the issue came up multiple times, and so Yĕshūa̒ used the same argument multiple times, with the variations seen. And then the evangelists put together a summary of the arguments, each one using different details. So what on the surface appears to be interchangeable is not. In fact, other elements in the quotes are different. Are these also interchangeable?
Conclusion: Sabbaths in the plural means Sabbaths in the plural, and the singular use has singular meaning. Note: σαββατα (borrowed from Aramaic שׁבתא) AND ημερα των σαββατων are special cases. The later phrase means “day of the Sabbaths” and the plural is still meaningful.
4:12† ^See Isa. 6:9-10. Those who have been intellectually dishonest with Scripture will misinterpret the parables, and be blinded. If the truth were always told plainly, then the wicked would rebel with force and make it impossible for anyone who does have ears to hear. A parable is good for a mixed audience of wheat and tares.
4:24† ^I ponder on this my opinion. There are people who go round judging things incorrect or wrong in a condemnatory spirit, and in anger. The condemnatory spirit is just as wrong as the persons being judged for incorrect faith or practice. But what goes around will come around. Someone else is going to condemn the condemner for not measuring up.
4:25‡ ^This was one of Yĕshūa̒’s frequent sayings. The verb ἔχω does not just mean to have something in a passive sense. It also includes the idea of holding onto something. Delitzsch completely missed the point with שֶׁיֶּשׁ־לוֹ and שֶׁאֵין־לוֹ. A proper Hebrew verb to express the right idea is אָהַז. Whover is intellectually honest with the truth, to him more will be given, and whoever does not hold to it, because he is dishonest with himself and what he already knows, even what truth he has, he will be deprived of.
5:7† ^Or, “Sŏn, the Almĭghty One, the Most High One;” (υἱὲ τοῦ θΥ τοῦ ὑψίστου). The genitive can be regarded as a gentive of apposition, i.e. “a son [who is] the Almighty, [who is] the Most High” (See Wallace, pg. 95). Also Wallace’s example, “εἰς τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς” (Eph. 4:9), “into the lower parts, [which is] the earth.” Also, “in Matt 2:22 we read ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Γαλιλαίας. The translation might either be “he departed for the regions [of Israel], namely, Galilee” or, “he departed for the regions that constitute Galilee.” (pg. 99-100). Also the phrase “εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός” (Phil. 2:11) is “to the glory of God, [who is] Father,” or “God the Father,” and not *“God of the father.” It may be stated that υἱὲ τοῦ θΥ is ambiguous, “Son of the Almighty,” or “Son [who is] the Almighty,” and I would say the first idea is already implied in the second case, but that the first case in English does not make the point that would be evident in Greek or Hebrew. Therefore, it is better to translate according to the latter case.
5:39† ^From Yĕshūa̒’s perspective the child was only asleep, because she had only died the first death, and not the second death. Sleep implies the possibility of waking up.
6:50† ^“Take courage! I AM!† Do not be afraid.” I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι) only occurs in absolute usage in Greek when used of or by Yăhwēh. See below. Furthermore, the absolute, I AM only translates passages in the LXX where Yăhwēh is represented as speaking. See below. Here are the translations that get it right; Jubilee Bible 2000; Amplified Bible. Besides this one, the other translations are all in error!
See John 13:19. It is not completely clear if he said אֶהְיֶה or אֲנִי־הוּא. Readers of I AM in English or Greek, Ἐγώ εἰμι, at first sight think it refers to I AM in Exodus 3:14 (אהיה). But this is incorrect as I AM is a mistranslation there of the Hiphil אֲהַיֶּה, which means “I make become,” or “I create.” See Exodus 3:14 remarks. And it also occurs with a predicate there: “I make become what I make become.” The absolute use of Ἐγώ εἰμι occurs in a number of other passages referring only to the Almĭghty. See below. The Hebrew behind this is אֲנִי־הוּא A̕ni̱ Hū’, “I AM HE,” which only means “I AM HE (Yăhwēh).” But the Greek has explained it with Ἐγώ εἰμι, which is an absolute use, “I AM” without a predicate. The Greek phrase is unique to divine usage, and was chosen to point to the absolute sense of the words, which is apparent in the Hebrew usages of A̕ni̱ Hū’. If the translation were put, “I am he,” then the sense would be lost on most English readers, or if put ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτὸς lost on Greek speakers. The reference is to Yăhwēh. The translation, “I am he” is too likely to be misinterpreted “I am the messiah,” and the translation “I am He,” depends on a written text, and the reader might dismiss the capital He as an opinion. I AM makes the point in English best, but in Hebrew it is more likely that he said אֲנִי־הוּא, which may be translated, “I AM” since the pronoun is sometimes used for the verb “to be.” See Deut. 32:29, “I, I AM HE, and there is no Almighty with Me” (אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי). Also Isa. 43:25, “I, I AM HE wiping out your transgressions for My sake, and your sins I will not remember” (אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי הוּא מֹחֶה פְשָׁעֶיךָ לְמַעֲנִי וְחַטֹּאתֶיךָ לֹא אֶזְכֹּר). See other references under John 13:19. Isa. 52:6, “Therefore, My people will know My name in that day, that I am He, the one speaking. Behold, it is Me” (אֲנִי־הוּא, LXX: ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτὸς). Isa. 43:13, “I AM HE, and none from my hand is delivering!” (אֲנִי הוּא וְאֵין מִיָּדִי מַצִּיל).
In Isa 48:5, “ἐγώ εἰμι” stands for “אֲנִי יַהוֶה,” I am Yăhwēh. And a very important point is made about “ἐγώ εἰμι” by scholars, and this is that this absolute use of “I AM” appears nowhere in Greek outside the LXX and NT. In fact, “I AM” is considered meaningless without a predicate. See
Catrin Williams also states, “In the Hebrew Scriptures the expression אֲנִי הוּא is primarily encountered in statements pronounced by Yahweh. Indeed, all examples of אֲנִי הוּא in its bipartite form are found in divine declarations” (pg. 15).
There is an interesting connection between הוּא, the Aramaic/Hebrew verb הַוַה and a differently spelled Aramaic form of the same verb: הֲוָא.
It should be noted again that the translators did not choose ἐγώ εἰμι in Greek as an exact translation of A̕ni̱ Hū’, but to in fact point us to the absolute meaning of the phrase in Hebrew, and the context in which it is used, which are exclusively divine. And again, it has to be emphasized that ἐγώ εἰμι does not occur in ordinary Greek in this absolute sense.
All these “I AM” passages are correctly reproduced “I AM” in English, but we should not regard them as standing for the exact Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. The words are a terse explanation of what must be more carefully understood in the contexts of the passages. In other words, to translate literally in these cases is to convey and incorrect sense. The incorrect sense is, “I he,” or “I am he,” which would imply that the usage in the original text was ordinary. It is anything but ordinary, and therefore, we have to stick with “I AM” which is literal to the Greek, but not to the underlying Hebrew, except in its exclusive reference to Yăhwēh,
6:52† ^The miracle of the loaves was an act of creation by the one who is A’ni̱ Hū’, i.e. Yăhwēh. See Exodus 3:14.
7:2† ^The text says κοιναῖς χερσίν, “common hands.” The word κοιναῖς is not used in the LXX (Septuagint) regarding any commandment having to do with unclean things or things regarded as unclean to eat. The word means “shared,” or having something “in common.” The word is not even used in the LXX in terms of something that defiles so as to make one ritually unclean.
The Pharisees had turned the ritual purity into a constant requirement. They wanted the people to maintain a state of ritual purity as much as possible. For example, for seven days of her period, and seven days after it, a wife is required to sleep in a separate bed, and not to touch her husband, so that he can maintain a state of ritual purity. The scripture only requires that a man not have relations for the seven days of the period. It does not require a man to not touch his wife at all. But the Pharisees added to the law the requirement to maintain a state of ritual purity as much as possible. Therefore, they turned being ritually unclean at any time when it was avoidable via following their rules into a sin. Thus it became a sin to shake hands with a woman who was on her period. According to Scripture, if you shook hands with a woman during her period, you became ritually unclean. But it wasn’t a sin. It was only a sin if you failed to do the proper cleansing procedure before going into the courts of the Temple or before participating in eating a sacrificial offering.
Since avoidable ritual uncleanness was treated as a sin, then any avoidable act which could or might make one ritually impure was regarded as communicating defilement to the person, i.e. to their conscience or heart. The word “common” or “shared” was used to stand for the communicability of defilement. It was not just the body that became ritually impure (or the digestive tract for a time), but the whole person, including their heart and conscience. This is because impurity was regarded as being communicated to the soul.
The Pharisees had a long list of things and acts that were regarded as “common,” i.e. having the ability to communicate defilement to the person. For example, if someone did not wash their hands, then they declared the hands “common,” and anyone who ate with them made himself common. By prohibiting the eating with unwashed hands, they made eating with unwashed hands a sin. The truth is that the hands may be perfectly clean if they are not washed before every meal. They only possibly might be unclean. Washing them is a prudent exercise, but neglecting to do so is not a sin. Possible defilement is not transferred to the heart. If it was a sin, then defilement would be transferred to the heart. All sin, when known about, defiles the conscience.
There is a contradiction in the Pharisees rules. If the hands truly had contacted ritual impurity, then the whole body would be ritually unclean, and the person would need a bath, and be unclean until nightfall. The person would still be eating with ritually unclean hands if he washed them, and then ate a meal after he washed them! The person is not required to take a bath though unless he needs to be in a ritually pure state. It would not be a sin to neglect the bath until ritual purity was required to keep some other commandment, such as eating the Passover lamb, or paying a desired visit to the Temple courts during a Shabbat worship service.
The Pharisees were engaging in redefinition of terms when it came to ritual impurity. They redefined uncleanness to be a state that was communicated to the heart if the person did not follow their rules. The use of the word “common” was an extension of ritual impurity to objects and things not ordinarily, or by nature unclean. Unwashed hands fell into this category. But since not following their rule was a sin, the impurity was regarded as transferred to the heart if one did so. So whether the word “common” or “unclean” is used, there is really no difference in terms of the argument in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. The problem was the Pharisees redefinition according to their mandatory rules.
Yĕshūa̒ says that eating with unwashed hands does not defile the heart, pointing out that any defilement does not enter into the heart, but is eliminated. This is really just a clever way of saying that any potential ritual impurity is not a sin, because only sin defiles the heart. It is also a way of saying the ritual impurity is ordinary, and that one should not concern themselves about it except in those exceptional cases where ritual impurity is required.
What comes out of the heart defiles the conscience. Thus if the intention to eat things deemed unclean to eat comes out of the heart, then the act is a sin, and spiritually defiles the person. But to be otherwise unclean does not spiritually defile the person, because such states are either natural or practically unavoidable.
The rules of the Pharisees were practical measures for Levites who were on duty and had to maintain a state of ritual purity. But for all the people, violation of such rules was not sin.
7:3† ^Judea (Yehūdah) was a different province than Galilee. The term Yehūdi̱m is geographic here because most of Yeshua’s disciples paid no attention to these southern rules.
7:5† ^
7:7† ^Isa. 29:13.
7:10† ^Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9.
7:15‡ ^The oldest manuscripts omit vs. 16.
7:18† ^οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, “not is able to defile him.” The Greek word here for “defile” is κοινῶσαι, which means “to make common,” that is ordinary. If something is holy, then to make it common means to make it unholy. The sons of Yisra’ēl are supposed to be holy. So “to make them common” would be to make them unholy. So defile is the correct sense. Yĕshūa̒ is rebutting the redefinition of the term by the Pharisees, who regarded violation of their rules as sin. And sin defiles the heart. See note on 7:2.
The touching of a dead unclean animal makes a person ritually unclean. Thus touching ham meat makes a person ritually unclean because he is touching part of the body of a dead unclean animal. Only eating the ham meat would be a sin. The Pharisees made being ritually unclean a sin. But according to Torah, it is only a sin if it is taken into the Sanctuary. By making it a sin, they implied that it defiled the heart, and so they wanted the men of Yisra’ēl to maintain ritual purity at all times. The Pharisees reasoning is based on the assumption that ritual impurity also defiles the heart. But this assumption is false. Only evil intentions of the heart defile the heart. Knowingly eating something unclean against the law does defile the heart, because the act of disobedience proceeds from the heart. But all other forms of uncleanness, accidental or natural, do not defile the heart. And in this later category, Yĕshūa̒ included unwashed hands. Unwashed hands might be ritually unclean, but to eat with them does not defile the heart, which is to say, it is not a sin. This is because Scripture does not regard ritual impurity as sin. It is only sin if a sacrifice is consumed or one goes into the Sanctuary.
7:18-19‡ ^Do you not understand that any which goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, cleansing all foods.‡ This is a physical illustration as to why eating with unwashed hands is not a sin. The Scripture does not define it as a sin, because the body itself cleanses anything that unwashed hands might convey, and therefore Scripture makes no ruling on it. The Pharisees taught a doctrine that defilement is transferred from one object another. For example, if clean food contacts something unclean, then it is defiled. Such food was called “common” or “defiled,” even though it was kosher. They extended this doctrine so far as that the mere association of clean food with anything unclean made it common, such as being prepared by a non-Jew. The same philosophy was applied to unwashed hands. Unwashed hands, they taught, defiled the one who ate with them. According to the Torah, unwashed hands might make one ritually impure, in which case, one should not enter the holy courts of the Sanctuary, but unwashed hands do not make the person’s heart impure, and generally are not a sin, except where they might be in the Sanctuary. Ritual impurity in general does not make the heart common or defiled, unless there is an intent to commit a sin by it. Yet that is exactly what the transference doctrine of impurity supposed. Impurity is transferred in some cases, but the Pharisees went too far in implying it was transferred to the heart. To sin by ritual impurity, first requires one to be ritually impure, and then to enter a place or perform an act which is prohibited when ritually impure.
Unwashed hands, or even unwitting consumption of something really unclean does not itself defile a person, meaning his heart, or conscience. It cannot just be by itself, but has to be combined with intent to be unclean so as to commit a sin by it. In that case it defiles the heart. Then Mĕssiah points out that most unwitting stuff that enters the body with ordinary food is naturally cleansed away by the body, and does not actually enter the body’s systems.
Mark 7:19 is a witness to the lawless stubbornness of traditional translators, and the sheer incompetence of others. The Greek runs thus, “καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα”, and means “cleansing all the foods.” In vs. 18 the words “any which” (πᾶν τὸ) refer not to unclean food, which someone would unlawfully eat, but to any dirt on clean food from incomplete washing of produce or unwashed hands. So what is cleansed away is the dirt that comes into the body’s digestive system along with the food.
The king James translation had the matter right, “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?” The phrase, “purging all meats” is included in Yĕshūa̒’s own words as the KJV ends with a ? mark after “meats.” But the modern translators have set about transforming those words, redacting them into an editorial remark, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” First they separated the phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα from Yĕshūa̒’s statement, turning it into an editorial remark by Mark. And the logic of how noting the function of the elimination system declares unclean food clean is ridiculous. If Mark had meant to interpret Yĕshūa̒’s words in such a way, we would have to say he is nuts.
Having cut the words off from Yĕshūa̒’s words, they have a fragment, “cleansing all the foods,” which could still be interpreted that the elimination system removes the dirt from clean food. This obviously is not enough to nullify the laws of clean foods in the Torah. So they have to add words that are not in the original texts, “Thus he declared.” These words are completely fabricated. A total fraud. Then they had to rearrange the words “cleansing all the foods,” since “Thus he declared cleansing all the foods” is bad grammar, so that cleaning is turned into an adjective “clean”, and is not the participle verb as the original has it, “cleansing.” That’s how they end up with “Thus he declared all foods clean.” The only words left which they have not contaminated with mistranslation are “all foods.”
So let us now survey who the fallen are. ASV, “This he said, making all meats clean;” AMP, “Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law];” CEB, “By saying this, Jesus declared that no food could contaminate a person in God’s sight;” CEV, “By saying this, Jesus meant that all foods were fit to eat.” (Note: that several translators put Jesus into the text also, trying to make it personally clear that the law is abolished). DLNT, ERV, ESV, ESVUK, EXB, GW, GNT, HCSB, ICB, LEB, TLB, MSG, MOUNCE (Here in a so called interlinear, Mounce has added the words, “Thus he declared,” and rendered the participle as an adjective, “clean;”) NOG, “By saying this, Yeshua declared all foods acceptable” (You really can’t make this up); NABRE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE, VOICE, WEB, GWN, NAB, NJB, and last but not least the CJB by David Stern, “Thus he declared all foods ritually clean,” which is “supposed” to be a Messianic Version. Stern has added an extra word, “ritually.”
Translations acquitted of error: KJV, BRG, DARBY, DRA, GNV, ISV, JUB, AKJV, MEV, NKJV, OJB (Orthdox Jewish Bible, yea for them!), WYC, YLT, ETH Peshitta, LEW Peshitta, MGI Peshitta, MRD Peshitta, Tyndale.
uncertain verdict: PHILLIPS, “and passes out of the body altogether, so that all food is clean enough”; WE.
7:31¹ ^Decapolis.
7:34† ^
8:31† ^And he began to teach them that the Sŏn of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.†
Month: I AVIV, AD 34 4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN MAR 10 │New Moon │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │16-0-1 │17-1-2 │
│ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │ │
│ │ │ │ A1 │ A2 │ A3 │ │
│ │ │ │ 1 CD │ 2 CD │ 3 CD |
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│18-1-3 │19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-2-9 │
│ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│25-2-10 │26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ APR 8 │
A1 = after 1 day = ██╫██
A2 = after 2 days = ▒▒▒▒▒
A3 = after 3 days = █████
(Each night is after the corresponding day)
1 CD = 1 calendar day = ~~~~~██╫██
2 CD = 2nd calendar day = ▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
3 CD = 3rd calendar day = ~~~~~█████
“On the third day” comprehends a 24 hour calendar day from daybreak to daybreak. “After three days” comprehends a day as dawn to dusk, and after each day is after sunset. The Hebrew sense however, is less awkward, “at the end of three days,” or “at the bound of three days,” and this makes sense because Yĕshūa̒ rose just before dawn at the end of the third calendar day.
The strict use of the term μετὰ “after” is shown in Hos. 6:2, in which after two calendar days is explained to be on the third day. Also, Gen. 8:6 “after forty days” (μετὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας) is on the 41st day. The chronology of 1Sam. 30:12-17 shows that “three days and three nights” extends to the night after the third day. Thus “on the third day,” would be the third day and night, yet if someone says after three days, then it means the third night after the literal day. “After” (μετα) so many days in all the biblical examples except two or three means at the end or termination point of so many days, viz. LXX: Gen. 8:6; Num. 13:25; 30:16; Hos. 6:2; NT: Mat. 17:1; 26:2; Mark 9:2; 14:1; Acts 28:13. Certain examples outside of Scripture (e.g. Josephus and certain Latin texts; cf. Acts 20:6 notes) suggest that μετα τρεις ημερας could mean “with three days,” i.e. time simultaneous to the third day, rather than “next to” (=after). If that sense were to be applied, then like the other third day texts a calendar day beginning and ending at dawn is meant. That the resurrection was in the night after the third day is made clear by Matthew 12:40 (cf. Jonah 1:17; 1Sam 30:12; Luke 11:29), and also by the expiration of the third day noted in Luke 24:21.
From a Hebrew point of view, the translation is מִקְצֵה שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים, miqtsēh shelōshet yami̱m, “at the limit of three days.” Usually the far limit is meant in Hebrew, but there are a few exceptions, wherein the translation “end of” is incorrect (Deut. 31:10; Jer. 34:14; 2Kings 18:10). To contain three days and three nights (Mat. 12:40; 1Sam. 30:12; Jonah 1:17) the far limit would be meant. The Greek μετὰ for מִקְצֵה always understood the sense as the far limit, even making mistakes in Deut. 31:10 (μετὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη), as the English texts error also, “at the end of.” The Greek can be stretched so far as to say “with three days” if it is meant that the stated event at the
If we think about this in little bits, we can understand the use of μετα. If someone says, “I will come with one day,” he does not normally mean he will come the same day he is speaking. In Greek idiom, he means he will come after one day. He means that one day must be completed, and then he will come. So usually the Greek idiom is the same as saying “after one day” in English.
9:2† ^After six working days. See Ex. 24:16. See Luke 9:28.
9:31‡ ^or, “Αt the end of three days” (Hebrew sense). See 8:31. This text is a model case where the scribes changed “after three days” to “on the third day.” The texts agreeing with after three days are: א B C* D L Δ Ψ 529. 892. 2427.
Phillip Comfort notes: “The WH NU reading [after three days] has the best documentary support and is the more difficult reading—especially since it says that Jesus would rise from the dead after three days when Jesus’ actual entombment lasted only from Friday evening to Sunday morning. Thus, it is easier to say that he arose ‘on the third day.’ This was likely the motivation behind the variant [the third day], unless it was a harmonization to Matt 17:23, a parallel passage.” See Mark 9:31,
9:44‡ ^Vs. 44 and 46 may not be genuine, but see vs. 48.
9:48‡ ^The passage does not teach eternal conscious torment. The worm eats the dead bodies, so the worm has worm consciousness. But the dead are dead. The first is not quenched, but it can go out on its own when the fuel has run out.
9:50‡ ^The wickedness in the world will be purified by a destruction of fire, but the righteous will be purified by the salt of faithfulness to Yăhwēh’s commandments, and by the salt of the sanctifying power of the Rūaḥ. Salt purifies, and so his commandments sanctify. The righteous are living sacrifices to the Almĭghty, and they are salted, crucifying the flesh, and living for Yĕshūa̒ and his kingdom. See Romans. 12:1-2.
10:8† ^Gen. 2:24.
10:12‡ ^The adultery is committed upon remarriage because there was no legal ‘certificate of divorce’. See Mat. 5:32; 19:3. Sending away does not mean a proper divorce. It only amounts to a separation in which one spouse dismisses the other. With Jewish marriages, this is a common way of ending the marriage, i.e. without a proper divorce, often leaving women in limbo and without the ability to remarry, because their husband will not grant them a divorce, and the Rabbis will not compel a certificate from the man. A similar problem exists with the Church of Rome, which often will not annul a marriage so that there can be a divorce. In such cases, the spouses often end up remarrying anyway and thus are committing legal adultery.
10:17¹ ^Supplied from Matthew 19:16.
10:18² ^Supplied from Matthew 19:17.
10:34† ^See 8:31 and 9:31. This text is also a case of scribes being caught in the act of changing after three days to on the third day. Aland-27 concurs with after: א B C D L Δ Ψ 579. 892. 2427.
10:52† ^
11:9† ^Psa. 118:26.
11:17† ^Isa. 56:7.
11:22† ^ἔχετε πίστιν θΥ; hold unto the reliability of the Almĭghty. See Joshua 10:12-14.
4:26† ^This consists of two things. Firstly hope that someone will repent and ask for forgiveness, even when your opponent appears to be intellectually dishonest. Pity them, but never past the point of upholding justice for others when you have to make a choice. Secondly when they ask, then forgive them (cf. Luke 17:3).
12:11† ^Psa. 118:22-23.
12:26† ^Exodus 3:6.
12:27† ^
12:30† ^Deut. 6:4-5.
12:31† ^Lev. 19:18.
12:36‡ ^Psa. 110:1.
13:6† ^That this is not one of the I AM sayings can be determined from Matthew 24:5. The oldest texts of Mark 13:6 go back to 01 02 03 (א, A, B), But other mss add “the Messiah” according to Tischendorf in BW 8.0. Clark states, “The Christ, is added by eight MSS., Coptic, Armenian, Saxon, and four of the Itala.” There have been quite a few Messianic claimants that have claimed to be I AM also, and these were mostly not Jewish.
13:26‡ ^Dan. 7:13-14.
13:30† ^Amēn I say to you, this family clan will not pass away while all these things take place.† The verse is reassurance that Yisra’ēl will not pass away even though a calamity ten times greater than the fall of Yerūshalayim in 587 B.C. was going to take place.
After reading many commentaries, and seeing they were confused, clueless, or only had a half answer, I had to ask A̕dōnai̱ for the answer. Afterward I found my way to Lange’s Commentary, where I picked up some promising leads and what amounted to a right answer, but an incomplete answer. And that I will now outline with my completion of it.
Between the deportation of Yehūdah in 597 BC and the final destruction of the First Temple in 587 BC, this prophecy came to Yirmeyahū:
23 Then was the word of Yăhwēh unto Yirmeyahū, saying, 24 “Have you not seen what this people have made to be said, saying, ‘The two families which Yăhwēh had chosen, among them, then, he will reject them.’ And my people they will despise from being again† a nation before their faces. 25 Thus has said Yăhwēh, if my covenant is not by day and night, prescribed statutes of the heavens and earth, then I will not have established 26 also the seed of Ya‘aqōv̱ and Daυid my servant. I will reject, from taking from its seed, those ruling over the seed of A̕v̱raham, Yitsḥaq, and Ya‘aqōv̱, because I will return their captivity, and I will have made to be mercy upon them (Jer. 33:23-26).
Yĕshūa̒ must have been thinking in terms of these very verses in view of the coming destruction. Vs. 30 runs parallel to Jer. 33:24, and vs. 31 runs parallel to Jer. 33:25. His oath as to the preservation of the seed of A̕v̱raham as a nation in his sight is as sure as his word governing the celestial clock-work of the heavens. So he says in vs. 31, “Heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will not pass away.” The reason that the commentators have not completely connected the dots is that they think Yăhwēh finished with the historic nation of Yisra’ēl in AD 70 and AD 135., and therefore, they have completely missed out on the reassurance of this text.
I should point out that the verses quoted above (Jer. 33:23-26) where omitted from the LXX (Septuagint) along with Jer. 33:14-22. The omission is relevant because the text is material to the interpretation the “generation” passage in Matthew and Mark. See end of this section for more on the omission.
We obtain a huge clue to the meaning of γενεὰ (family clan vs. generation) in Jer. 8:3, “Death will have been chosen above life by all the remnant that is remaining from this evil family clan in all the places they are left, where I have made them banished, utters Yăhwēh of Hosts.” Now here the words τῆς γενεᾶς ἐκείνης in the LXX stand parallel to הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, and it is evident the the LXX translator has represented הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה, “family clan” with γενεᾶς in the Greek text.
For the rest here I simply cite Lange’s Commentary on Mt. 24:34:
Matthew 24:34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away—1. Jerome: The human race.52 2. Calovius: The Jewish nation,53 3. Maldonatus: The creation. 4. De Wette, Meyer: That present generation. Luther: “All will begin to take place now in this time, while ye live:” that is, ye will survive the beginning of these events. So Starke, Lisco, Gerlach. But Christ here speaks of the end of the world. 5. The body of My disciples, the generation of believers. So Origen, Chrysostom, and others, also Paulus. Meyer raises here his usual protest against doctrinal prejudice involved; but what doctrinal interest could Paulus, the rationalist, have in this interpretation? This generation means the generation of those who know and discern these signs. Since the words of Matthew 24:33, “So likewise ye” etc., could not have their literal fulfilment in the disciples themselves, the Lord extends the ὑμεῖς of Matthew 24:33 by the ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη Matthew 24:34. But that He would have the word so understood, is proved by the declaration of Matthew 24:35, “My words shall not pass away.” The words referred to are here the living words concerning these last things and they do not pass away, only when and because they find in every γενεά of believers those who continuously carry on those words.—Not pass away.—This cannot mean, “not remain unfulfilled” (de Wette). That is self-understood, especially as “heaven and earth” had just been spoken of. The Lord here expresses His assurance that His words will remain eternal words in a perpetual Church—in a Church, also, disposed to look for and hasten unto the fulfilment of His words concerning the “last things.”
[I add the note of Alford: “As this is one of the points on which the rationalizing interpreters (de Wette, etc.) lay most stress to shew that the prophecy has failed, it may be well to shew that γενεά has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people. See Jer. 8:3 in LXX.; compare Matthew 23:36 with Matthew 24:35, ἐφονεύσατε … but this generation did not slay Zacharias—so that the whole people are addressed: see also Matthew 12:45, in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense (see note there): see also Luke 17:25; Matt. 17:17; Luke 16:8, where γενεά is predicated both of the υἱοὶ τουα αἰῶνος τούτου and the υἱοὶ τοῦ φετός Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15. In all these places, γενεά=γένος or nearly so; having it is true a more pregnant meaning, implying that the character of one generation stamps itself upon the race, as here in this verse also.—This meaning of γενεά is fully conceded by Dorner; ‘omnes reor concessuros, vocem γ si earn vertas œtas, multas easque plane insuperabiles ciere difficultates, contextum vero et orationis progressum flagitare significationem gentis, nempe Judæorum.’ (Stier, 2:302.) The continued use of παρέρχομα ι in Matthew 24:34, 35, should have saved the commentators from the blunder of imagining that the then living generation was meant, seeing that the prophecy is by the next verse carried on to the end of all things; and that, as matter of fact, the Apostles and ancient Christians did continue to expect the Lord’s coming, after thai generation had passed away. But, as Stier well remarks, ‘there are men foolish enough now to say, heaven and earth will never pass away, but the words of Christ pass away in course of time;—of this, however, we wait the proof.’ ii. 505.”—P. S.]
Matthew 24:34 and 35. Till all these things be fulfilled.—Schott, erroneously: “The destruction of Jerusalem.” Fritzsche: “The signs of the coming.” Better: Both the signs and the coming itself. The Scripture knows nothing, however, of an actual passing away of heaven and earth; only of a dissolution of the old condition of things in the transmutation of heaven and earth, 2 Pet. 3:7, 8.
When does Jer. 33:14-26 disappear from view? Enough of this passage appears in the Hebrew fragments 4QJerc (200 BC - AD 100) to conclude that the passage was present in the texts at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls (33:16-20 is attested, but the fragment cuts off after vs 20.) The other DSS fragments could have come from scrolls containing the passage. The passage, however, is missing from the LXX. There is no convincing evidence that this was because there were two Hebrew originals, a longer one, and a shorter one. Despite what Immanuel Tov says, I believe Shemaryahu Talmon is correct. And I suppose that Jer. 33:14-26 disappeared from the text when it was redacted by Christian scribes after AD 135, or perhaps a little before by Jewish Gnostics from Alexandria who rejected the Temple and Levitical Priesthood. After the political repression of Hadrian, contrary LXX texts were not to be found. For almost no amount of reinterpretation can deprive this text of its force for the future continuance of the line of David and the Levitical priests, or the nation of Israel. The text was quietly restored later in history after the anti-Levitical tradition was solidly in place.
13:30¹ ^μέχρις οὗ = עַד אֲשֶׁר, and means “onward which;” The English “until” implies a termination at the point reached. The Hebrew does not, but means “onward to,” or “onward to, and onward past;” really the only thing being noted is arrival at the time point mentioned, with no implication that the time point is an endpoint.
13:32‡ ^The words, “the Făther alone,” would be enough to show that the Sŏn did not know the whole plan of his return. The omission of the words, “nor the Sŏn” in a few mss. here, and a few more in Mat. 24:36 are surely theologically motivated to guard the later formulation of the doctrine of omniscience. Texts like Deut. 8:1-2 and Gen. 18:21 demonstrate that the Almĭghty does not have to know things yet undetermined, or pay attention to things that are. He has the power to know or not to know. Yet He always exercises enough power to achieve his ends without fail, and he knows as much as he desires to know (or needs to) to remain the Almĭghty.
The Almĭghty is able foresee all contingencies, and any which would derail his plan, he prevents, and any which do not affect the outcome of his plan, he allows, and since they cannot ruin his ultimate plan, he does not have to know which contingency will become reality. To know something will happen for sure is to know it is determined to happen without free will, or it is to know it will happen because he intends to make it happen, overruling free will along the way to his end if necessary. The Almĭghty of Scripture is not the god of determinism (fate), nor is he subject to the philosophy of determinism (fate). This is the philosophy that all things are fated to turn out exactly one way, and it is derived from pagan philosophy. The view that Gŏd has determined all things, good and evil, forces him to be morally responsible for evil, and acquits sinners of any choice in the matter. But such a god does not exist, and those who think such a one does have an idolatrous philosophy of Gŏd. And by this you can know if they really have faith in the idol of their heart: if they condemn the faithful, then they trust their idol. If they do not condemn the faithful, then they may not be judged as idolaters, and there is hope for them. They are just mistaken. Whoever forgives will be forgiven. Whoever shows no mercy will be shown no mercy.
14:1† ^See below A1-A2. After two days is equivalent to the third day. In the types the crucifixion is on the third day as well as the resurrection. The crucifixion was at the 14♦ and the resurrection on the Sabbath at ♦|.
Month: I AVIV, AD 34 4173 A.M. Sab. Cyc: 1. Jub. Cyc: 8 Cycle No: 85
Q1: 1.501 A Q2: -0.493 G LG: 102m W: 1.068' AL: 20.8 AV: 20.8
New Moon calculated for longitude: 35.17 and latitude 31.77
Location of calculations: Jerusalem Author: Daniel Gregg
I II III IV V VI VII
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
↑ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
AVIV/NISAN MAR 10 │New Moon │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 4 │ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 │ 9 │ 10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│ 11 │ 12 │ 13 │ 14♦ │ 15 │16-0-1 │17-1-2 │
│ │ │ │Passover │Passover │ Sheaf │ │
│ │ ** │ A1 │ A2 │ │ │ │
│ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 ♦│ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~██╫██▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~█████▀▀▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒
│18-1-3 │19-1-4 │20-1-5 │21-1-6 │22-1-7 │23-1-8 │24-2-9 │
│ │ │ │7thULB │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒~~~~~▒▒▒▒▒
│25-2-10 │26-2-11 │27-2-12 │28-2-13 │29-2-14 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
** = Mark 14:1.
A1 = after one day
A2 = after two days
14:3¹ ^And while he was in Bēi̱t-Hi̱ni̱ at the home of Shim‘ōn the ¹leper. Obviously he had been cleansed from his leprosy. Probably lepers were never called lepers after being healed, but Mark is writing a literary work, and the use of the term leper is a terse reminder that he was healed, and which of the many Shim‘ōns was meant. The term is retained to identify which Shim‘ōn was meant. It was the one who was cleansed from leprosy. Peshitta onlyists will sometimes argue that the word in Aramaic means “jar maker,” and urge on us that he could not have been a leper. In fact the Aramaic word גַּרְבָּא does mean “bottle,” but גַּרבָּא means “one affected with itch, itch” (cf. Jastrow). The latter corresponds with the Greek λεπροῦ, “leper.” The Peshitta only theory claims that a Greek was translating Aramaic, and made the wrong choice. But this theory is a lie since the Peshitta was translated from the Greek. Proof of its Greek source is stamped all over the Peshitta; for example, in vs. 4, דֵּין occurs as the literal translation of the Greek δέ.
14:12‡ ^Now the day before Unleavened Bread, (when they sacrificed the Passover), his disciples said to him, “Where do you desire going we should prepare that you may eat the Passover?
Mark (also Matthew and Luke) introduce a sunset reckoning for Nisan 14 here, which needs to be explained, as the ordinary reckoning was dawn to dawn. The explanation probably lies in the time for the final removal of the leaven, and that a double Seder was held in the dispersion, namely the 14th and 15th of Nisan that year, since Adar had 30 days. Therefore, the 14th was treated like the 15th in the dispersion. The dispersion, irrespective of the Biblical reckoning of days in Exodus was in the habit of calculating eight days of Passover on a sunset basis, having two annual Sabbaths at the start, and two annual Sabbaths at the end. Considering the intended audiences included non-Jews and Jews living abroad, I think the language is reflecting their point of view, and that the Jews in the land already understood the reckoning in Exodus.
14:14† ^
14:16† ^And the disciples went out, and came to the city, and found it just as he had told them, and they made ready the Passover.† This does not mean they sacrificed the Passover, because this would make the text contradict John 13:1; 19:14; 19:31; 19:42; Mat. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; Mat. 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 23:56-24:1; John 20:1, 19. The last supper was on the preparation day for the Passover, which is to say at the end of Nisan 13 after sunset.
The text does not say they sacrificed the Passover. It does not say they ate it either. It says they only prepared it. And preparing the Passover can begin as early as Nisan 10, the day they were told to take the lamb aside in Egypt. The command for the 10th day was a specific command for when they were in Egypt, like the putting of blood on the door posts. Afterward they took the lamb as late as Nisan 14 itself. Obtaining the lamb is the same as preparing the Passover. For the lamb itself was called the Passover. Even while still living, the lamb had to be gotten ready for its offering the next day. Even Yeshua was called the Lamb while he was living. See John 1:29, 36. And ‘before the feast of the Passover,’ Yeshua prepared himself for death the next day along with the lambs that pointed to him. The lamb was bought, inspected, washed, groomed and fed. They were supposed to keep it in perfect condition until the sacrifice.
It should be plainly obvious that they would not prepare the Passover on Nisan 15. For by that time it is too late to prepare the Passover. The Passover had to be offered in the same time frame as the second daily offering. And this time was from 1 to 5 pm. When the sun set at the end of Nisan 14, they were supposed to eat the Passover, not begin preparations for it. It was supposed to be already sacrificed. To begin preparations on Nisan 15 was to begin them after the appointed time for the sacrifice.
So they prepared the lamb and all the other arrangements, buying the necessary unleavened bread, or making it, and acquiring bitter herbs. This was all set before they ate that last pre-Passover supper. The next day they would take the lamb to the temple to be sacrificed along with a crowd of other worshipers. So the night between the 13th and 14th day was the same calendar day as that the lambs were sacrificed according to sunset reckoning, but it was still before the appointed time for the offering.
14:22† ^The text says “is my body,” but in Hebrew there is no word for
The Hebrew uses the 3rd person singular pronoun “it, he” for the notion of “is”: הוּא, hū’. It is really easy to pervert language when it is taken out of context. And the context of Passover is a parable. The lamb represents Mĕssiah. The bitter herbs represent the bitterness of slavery. Unleavened bread is called the bread of affliction because it represents suffering.
Watch out for these false doctrines. The Catholics teach that the bread turns into the literal body of Christ. The Lutherans teach that Christ is spiritually “present” in the bread in a special way that he is not spiritually present elsewhere. The bread and the juice at Passover represent Mĕssiah, and nothing more. For in Mĕssiah Yĕshua neither communion has any legal force nor missing it, but faithfulness working through love. Taking it saves no one, and missing it damns no one. It is not a sin to participate in a communion where all understand it as symbolical, but there are many other reasons not to participate even in that. I do not forbid it. Heed the Spĭrit. And do do this. Remember Yĕshūa̒ in your home at the Passover service.
14:24† ^Codex Bezae and Aland’s 27th omit the word new (καινῆς) on correct scientific principles of textual criticism. However, the sense is not changed, since the covenant Yĕshūa̒ speaks of is a renewal of the original covenant with Yisra’ēl, just as Deuteronomy is a renewal of the Si̱nai̱ covenant.
14:25‡ ^See also Luke 22:18. See Psalm 69:21 [22] and John 19:28. In this passage he says, “fruit of the vine” (τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου), which is from grapes. In Psa. 69:21 it says חֹמֶץ, ḥōmets, which is vinegar, the same as the LXX ὄξος, and John 19:29 (ὄξους), where Delitzsch has חֹמֶץ. See also Mark 15:36, Matthew 27:48, and Luke 23:36. Vinegar can be made from apples, palms, figs, fermented grain extract. So it was not the fruit of the vine that he drank. Some Vinegar is
Therefore, Yĕshūa̒ consumed a fermented product on the eve of Passover. This shows that the day was the preparation day for Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread had not yet begun. He also actually did refuse wine when it was offered (cf. Mark 15:23, οἶνον).
14:27† ^Zech. 13:7.
14:30† ^See notes on John. Mark refers to two cock crows. The first is the changing of the watch at 3 a.m., and the second was the crow of a real rooster at dawn.
14:62† ^Dan. 7:13.
15:23† ^See 14:25. He took the vinegar, but not the wine, because it was the fruit of the vine.
15:25† ^See John 19:14.
15:27† ^Manuscripts omit vs. 28, “And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And He was numbered with the lawless’” (Isa. 53:12).
15:32‡ ^One of the bandits repented of his insults later on and was saved. See Luke 23:40-43.
15:34‡ ^Most texts read: ελωι, but codex Bezae D, θ, 059.565
Only one word in Yĕshūa̒’s utterance is different from Psalm 22:1, and this is שְׁבַקְתַּנִי shev̱aqtani̱, which was current in Mishnaic Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew is the type of Hebrew they spoke in the first century. The word sounds similar to the Biblical Hebrew: עֲזַבְתָּנִי a‘zav̱tani̱. It does correspond to Aramaic, but it was borrowed into colloquial Hebrew at that time.
15:36† ^See 14:25 note.
15:38† ^And the veil of the temple was torn asunder in two from top to bottom.† This would be the outer veil which was visible from the crucifixion site (cf. vs. 39; Luke 23:45-48; Mat. 27:54), whereas the inner veil was not. Jerome cites the
There are those that regard the tearing of the veil as divine disapproval of the Temple service. They almost always imagine that the inner veil between the holy place and the most holy place was torn. But the tearing of the outer veil by the lintel coming down would imply that the doors fell flat also. Thus the Temple opened to show approval of Mĕssiah’s sacrifice. The door was not open enough for the Almĭghty, so he removed the veil and made the doors go flat to receive the offering of his Sŏn. Seen this way, there is no disapproval of the Temple, but only failure to open the doors and pull back the veil to allow “heaven” to see Mĕssiah being offered.
According to Josephus the veil was embroidered with a panorama of heaven (War 5.5.4 §§212-214). When Mark says the veil was “torn asunder” we are supposed to picture “the heavens being torn asunder” (Mark 1:10) and the Făther saying, “You are my beloved Sŏn, in you I am well-pleased.”
15:46† ^The linen sheet (σινδόνα) was a single piece of finely woven linen that they wrapped him in. After the annual Sabbath they returned and embalmed him with linen strips. The ability of Yōsēf to buy a linen shroud on the preparation day shows that it was Nisan 14.
16:1† ^The annual Shabbat was past (τοῦ σαββάτου), called הַשַּׁבָּת, ha-shabbat in Hebrew. The evangelist calls the annual holy day here, “the Sabbath,” and shows his agreement that Lev. 23:11, 15 should be interpreted to mean the annual Sabbath. They bought the spices after the Sabbath, and many want to see only that they “brought” the spices. The spices had to be bought on the weekday between the annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.
16:2‡ ^And very early on the first of the Shabbats, they arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun.‡ Or, first of the
Following the annual Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23:11, 15), the Scripture gives instructions to count seven weekly Sabbaths (שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת). See notes on Lev. 23:11-15.
At the rising of the sun: Codex Bezae along with some Latin texts (Aland: D c n q; not an exhaustive listing) reads the present participle ανατελλοντας and not the aroist participle. On the force of Codex Bezae alone we should go with the present participle. The text was clearly changed from “the sun rising,” to “the sun having risen,” to save the Friday-Sunday theory from contradiction. The difference is but one letter, an o replaced with an a. John 20:1 assures us that Miryam came to the tomb while it was still dark, and therefore the extent of the rising of the sun was merely the earliest dawn. This was Miryam HaMagdali̱t’s first visit to the tomb, because it is when they are asking the question about the stone (cf. Mark 16:3). In John 20:1, she sees the stone removed “while it was still dark.” It was therefore not past sunrise when they arrived. It was still dark. This observation puts the Friday-Sunday theory is a bind, because the third day is lacking, and it ends up with but two days and two nights.
Exodus 20:8: ἡμέραν τῶν σαββάτων = day of the Sabbaths.
Exodus 35:3: ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων = day of the Sabbaths
Leviticus 24:8: ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων = day of the Sabbaths
E.T.C. (many many more examples of the exact same phrase).
Genesis 1:5: ἡμέρα
Genesis 4:19: ὄνομα τῇ
The feminine cardinal number in Greek μιᾷ “one” is used in an ordinal sense, “first” due to Hebrew influence.
It is evident that when we put the ordinary phrase for the Sabbath day with the word first that we get, “the first day of the Sabbaths” (μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων). Now observe that the only difference between the mistranslation, “first day of the week,” and “first day of the Sabbaths,” is the substitution of the word “week” for the plural Greek word “Sabbaths.” When the word “Sabbaths” is restored to its proper place in the construction, the ordinary idiom for the Sabbath is plain and obvious.
The word for “Sabbaths” is σαββάτων. The lexical meaning of this word is always “Sabbath.” It is always translated Sabbath. The idiom “day of the Sabbaths” always means the Sabbath day. It never means a day from the Sabbath; it never means a day after the Sabbath, or any thing except the Sabbath day. It is the ordinary construction. When modified by the ordinary word for counting, “first” it becomes, “the first day of the Sabbaths.” Ordinary rules, ordinary grammar.
First of the Sabbaths only occurs in contexts immediately after the Passover. The reason for this is that the Law commanded Israel to count seven weekly Sabbaths after the Passover (see Lev 23:15). So the first Sabbath after Passover is the “first day of the Sabbaths.”
16:8‡ ^And they went out and fled from the tomb, because trembling and amazement had gripped them, and they said nothing to anyone, because they were in a state of awe. The book of Mark ends here, and it is plain why when the words are correctly translated. This is Mark’s usual style of shock and awe. The ending is abrupt, and they flee in amazement, at first speechless, as the truth grips them. But then more reflected thought takes hold, and they go and tell the others.
The longer ending of Mark, I do not believe, was part of his original composition. Let us hear some words of the commentators on this:
Meyer: “Now begins the apocryphal fragment of some other evangelical treatise (doubtless written very much in the way of epitome), which has been added as a conclusion of our Gospel. In it, first of all, the appearance related at John 20:14-18 is given in a meagre abstract, in which the remark, which in Mark’s connection was here wholly inappropriate (at the most its place would have been Mark 15:40), πὰρ ἧς ἐκβεβλ. ἑπτὰ δαιμ., is to be explained by the fact, that this casting out of demons was related in the writing to which the portion had originally belonged (comp. Luke 8:2).”
“As well πρώτῃ as the singular σαββάτου (comp. Luke 18:12) is surprising after Mark 16:2.”
“Mark 16:10. Foreign to Mark is here—(1) ἐκείνη, which never occurs (comp. Mark 4:11, Mark 7:15, Mark 12:4 f., Mark 14:21) in his Gospel so devoid of emphasis as in this case. As unemphatic stands κἀκεῖνοι in Mark 16:11, but not at ver 13, as also ἐκείνοις in Mark 16:13 and ἐκεῖνοι, at Mark 16:20 are emphatic. (2) πορευθεῖσα, which word Mark, often as he had occasion for it, never uses, while in this short section it occurs three times (Mark 16:12; Mark 16:15). Moreover, (3) the circumlocution τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, instead of τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (the latter does not occur at all in the section), is foreign to the Gospels. The μαθηταί in the more extended sense are meant, the apostles and the rest of the companions of Jesus; the apostles alone are designated at Mark 16:14 by οἱ ἕνδεκα as at Luke 24:9; Luke 24:33; Acts 2:14.”
“The fact that θεᾶσθαι apart from this section does not occur in Mark, forms, considering the frequency of the use of the word elsewhere, one of the signs of a strange hand.”
“ἀπιστεῖν does not occur in Mark except here and at Mark 16:16, but is altogether of rare occurrence in the N. T. (even in Luke only in chap. 24)”
“Mark 16:12-13. A meagre statement of the contents of Luke 24:13-35, yet provided with a traditional explanation (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ), and presenting a variation (οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν) which betrays as its source[184] not Luke himself, but a divergent tradition.”
“μετὰ ταῦτα: (after what was narrated in Mark 16:9-11) does not occur at all in Mark, often as he might have written it: it is an expression foreign to him. How long after, does not appear. According to Luke, it was still on the same day.”
Meyer comments on the following words, which to me seem to have the tinge of anti-Jewishness, as he deals with the ill-advised efforts of the Church Fathers to explain the text: “οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστ: not even them did they believe. A difference of the tradition from that of Luke 24:34, not a confusion with Luke 24:41, which belongs to the following appearance (in opposition to Schulthess, Fritzsche, de Wette). It is boundless arbitrariness of harmonizing to assume, as do Augustine, de consens. evang. iii. 25, Theophylact, and others, including Kuinoel, that under λέγοντας in Luke 24:34, and also under the unbelievers in the passage before us, we are to think only of some, and those different at the two places; while Calvin makes the distribution in such a manner, that they had doubted at first, but had afterwards believed! Bengel gives it conversely. According to Lange, too, they had been believing, but by the message of the disciples of Emmaus they were led into new doubt. Where does this appear? According to the text, they believed neither the Magdalene nor even the disciples of Emmaus. [184] De Wette wrongly thinks (following Storr, Kuinoel, and others) here and repeatedly, that an interpolator would not have allowed himself to extract so freely. Our author, in fact, wrote not as an interpolator of Mark (how unskilfully otherwise must he have gone to work!), but independently of Mark, for the purpose of completing whose Gospel, however, this fragment was subsequently used.”
“Mark 16:14. Ύστερον: not found elsewhere in Mark,
The narrative of this appearance confuses very different elements with one another. It is manifestly (see Mark 16:15) the appearance which according to Matthew 28:16 took place on the mountain in Galilee; but ἀνακειμένοις (
“Αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἝΝΔΕΚΑ:
The Expositor’s Bible supposes that the ending has been cobbled together with the help of the other three evangelists: “Mark 16:9-20 may be divided into three parts corresponding more or less to sections in John, Luke, and Matthew, and not improbably based on these; Mark 16:9-11, answering to John 20:14-18; John 20:12-14, answering to Luke 24:13-35; Luke 24:15-18, answering to Matthew 28:19. Mark 16:19-20 wind up with a brief reference to the ascension and the subsequent apostolic activity of the disciples.”