Mark 16:9

[rstrats 3]

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 and similar versions translate 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 frequently use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: Quote a published author who has done that. - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?
 

Edited May 27, 2020 by rstrats

[Wilchbla 283]

Paul was bitten by a viper and survived.

It is a difficult passage because believers don't perform the things mentioned in it. Also, the part about being baptized. This is why I think the whole passage falls within the Acts 2 framework and has something to do with the nation of Israel. It may not seem important doctrine now but in THE FUTURE it will be. It's never safe to toss out any of the Bible.

[rstrats 3]

Wilchbla,

Thanks for the comment, but I'm afraid I don't see how it is responsive to my question.

[Wilchbla 283]

Sorry, I missed the question at the end. I don't quite understand what you are asking. You are asking for an author who supports a first day observance of the resurrection and uses this passage to support it?

[rstrats 3]

Wilchbla,

re: �You are asking for an author who supports a first day observance of the resurrection and uses this passage to support it?�

Not exactly. I�m looking for an author who uses the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change from Sabbath observance to the first day of the week, and quotes Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.

Edited August 10, 2011 by rstrats

[rstrats 3]

Anyone?

[John81 7,400]

I'm not sure what it is you are asking. All the Gospels record that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, it's not just Mark.

[rstrats 3]

John81,

re: "I'm not sure what it is you are asking."
　
I’m looking for a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.
　
　
re: "All the Gospels record that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, it's not just Mark."
　
I’m not aware of any scripture - other than Mark 16:9 - that say that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. What do you have in mind?

[John81 7,400]

Matthew 28:1
Luke 24:1
John 20:1

Mark 16:9 agrees with these accounts. There are other passages which touch upon this, such as those regarding Jesus being buried and rising after three days, etc.

While the wording may be a bit different, the meaning of the Gospel accounts are the same.

As for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, I believe it to be a part of Scripture.

[rstrats 3]

　
John81,
　
re: "Matthew 28:1 Luke 24:1 John 20:1"
　
Actually, those verses do not say when the resurrection actually occurred. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.
　
　
re: "Mark 16:9 agrees with these accounts."

Actually, it doesn’t. Mark 16:9 says nothing about the women coming to the tomb on the first of the week. It just doesn’t disagree with the Matthew, Luke and John verses you gave.
　
　
re: "There are other passages which touch upon this, such as those regarding Jesus being buried and rising after three days, etc."

The days involved would be dependent on when the crucifixion took place. Assumptions have to be made. If it had been on the 4^th day of the week, the resurrection could have been on the 7^th day.

　
re: "As for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, I believe it to be a part of Scripture."

Maybe and maybe not, but that’s an issue for another topic.

[dantheman2 10]

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 and similar versions translate it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: �Quote a published author who has done that.� - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

I would not have even thought to use Mark 16:9 to prove that we are to worship upon the 1st day of the week. I would use passages such as Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 to demonstrate that that is the fact.

[Deb2live4Christ 11]

Question....what is the question? Are you looking for an author to support Saturday worship in regards to Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ?

I know those verses were never mentioned, but there seems to be a deeper question behind the question...is there?

[rstrats 3]

dantheman2,

re: "I would not have even thought to use Mark 16:9 to prove that we are to worship upon the 1st day of the week."
　
That’s good because that is not what I asked. I asked for the use of Mark 16:9 to prove a first day resurrection, and not to prove first day observance.
　


re: "I would use passages such as Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 to demonstrate that that is the fact."
　
Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The breaking of bread mentioned (even if it were referring to the Lord’s Supper) had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.
　
As for 1 Corinthians 1-2, nothing in the verses indicate that Christians observed the first day of the week for their day of rest and worship. They merely say that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The Darby Translation reads: "On the first of the week let each of you put by at home, laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.". The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: "At home by himself." The Lamsa Translation reads: "Let each of you put aside and keep in his house". The Wemouth reads: "Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home". Ballantine’s Translation reads: "Let each of you lay up at home". The Syriac, on this passage reads: "Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home". And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: ".......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to". This verses say nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.

[farouk 16]

As I recall, the Scofield margin has ref. to the substantial manuscript evidence for the end of Mark 16.

(I'm still not quite sure of the original point of the question.)

[rstrats 3]

Deb2live4Christ,

re: "...what is the question?

OK, let me repeat it: "I’m looking for a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection."
　


re: "Are you looking for an author to support Saturday worship in regards to Exodus 20:8..."

No.
　
　
re: "I know those verses were never mentioned, but there seems to be a deeper question behind the question...is there?"

No, not so far as this topic is concerned.

[farouk 16]

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus corresponded with the feast of firstfruits. He is the absolute fulfilment of it. (1 Corinthians 15.20)

[rstrats 3]

farouk,
　
re: "The resurrection of the Lord Jesus corresponded with the feast of firstfruits."
　
But the only reference of the first day of the week with regard to Firstfruits is to say when it is to be waved/presented to the Lord. The Messiah did indeed became the antitype when He resurrected, but the "first day" requirement was only fulfilled when He presented himself to the Father. Nothing with regard to the actual timing of the resurrection can be definitively determined from what is said about Firstfruits.

[farouk 16]

farouk,
　
re: "The resurrection of the Lord Jesus corresponded with the feast of firstfruits."
　
But the only reference of the first day of the week with regard to Firstfruits is to say when it is to be waved/presented to the Lord. The Messiah did indeed became the antitype when He resurrected, but the "first day" requirement was only fulfilled when He presented himself to the Father. Nothing with regard to the actual timing of the resurrection can be definitively determined from what is said about Firstfruits.

What is your point?

[Deb2live4Christ 11]

For what reason are you looking? Are you doing some sort of research?

What saith the Scripture? Isn't that the most important as the human authors are subject to error where the Author of the Book of books the Word of God does not and we have the Spirit of the Author that leads us into truth sometimes even contrary to human authors...

[rstrats 3]

farouk,
　
re: "What is your point?"
　
That you can’t definitively place the resurrection on the first day by using first fruits.

[rstrats 3]

Deb2live4Christ,
　
re: "For what reason are you looking? "
　
I state the reason in the OP.

[farouk 16]

Deb2live4Christ,
　
re: "For what reason are you looking? "
　
I state the reason in the OP.

But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits, to which the day of resurrection corresponds, I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim.

[rstrats 3]

farouk,
　
re: "But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits..."

I didn’t do that. I agreed that the Messiah did became the antitype of first fruits when He resurrected. What I disagreed with was the use of first fruits to definitively place the day of the resurrection. The only requirement with regard to the first day was the waving of the sheaf before the Lord, which corresponds with the Messiah presenting Himself to the Father. This occurred sometime after the resurrection.
　
　
re: "... I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim."

My only apparent and actual aim as stated in the OP is to identify a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.

Edited August 11, 2011 by rstrats

[farouk 16]

farouk,
　
re: "But since you also set aside the matter of Christ embodying the Feast of Firstfruits..."

I didn’t do that. I agreed that the Messiah did became the antitype of first fruits when He resurrected. What I disagreed with was the use of first fruits to definitively place the day of the resurrection. The only requirement with regard to the first day was the waving of the sheaf before the Lord, which corresponds with the Messiah presenting Himself to the Father. This occurred sometime after the resurrection.
　
　
re: "... I'm not sure that your OP alone explains your apparent aim."

My only apparent and actual aim as stated in the OP is to identify a published author and a quote from that author that argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because - at least in part - due to a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection.

While clever politicians and lawyers issue what are sometimes known as non-denial denials, I guess yours would be described as a denying non-denial. Essentially you are saying that the timetable of the Lord's resurrection after the Cross has nothing to do with the timing of the Feast of Firstfruits, but instead, there are moral and spiritual lessons to it which, however, supposedly do not involve its timescale. Whereas the timing was indeed important: he is the 'firstfruits of them that slept'; others, too, rose from the dead after the Lord Jesus did; if their rising from the dead was supposedly not linked particularly to the the Lord Jesus being the 'firstfruits of them that slept', then what does this say about the Lord Jesus being the heir of all things and the believer's head and Lord?

[Invicta 1,555]

Actually, Mark 16:9 doesn't say he rose on the first day, it says: 9 ¶ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. That is He was risen, and early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary M.

It is quite plain from other scriptures that Jesus died on the Wednesday and was put in the tomb as the Sabbath (the high day) was beginning. He rose on the 7th/1st day just as the normal Sabbath was beginning, or dawning, three days and three nights later. Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Invicta

[rstrats 3]

farouk,

re: "...he is the 'firstfruits of them that slept'..."


At what point did the Messiah become the firstfruits?

[rstrats 3]

Invicta,
　
re: "Actually, Mark 16:9 doesn't say he rose on the first day..."
　
It does in the KJV which is the version I’m using for the purpose of this topic. You're referring to versions/translations that place the comma after "risen" such as the "The Centenary Translation", "The Sacred Scriptures-Bethel Edition", "The Contemporary English Version", "The Montgomery Translation", "The Expositors Greek Testament" and "God’s New Covenant-A New Testament Translation".

[Invicta 1,555]

Invicta,
　
re: "Actually, Mark 16:9 doesn't say he rose on the first day..."
　
It does in the KJV which is the version I’m using for the purpose of this topic. You're referring to versions/translations that place the comma after "risen" such as the "The Centenary Translation", "The Sacred Scriptures-Bethel Edition", "The Contemporary English Version", "The Montgomery Translation", "The Expositors Greek Testament" and "God’s New Covenant-A New Testament Translation".

No,

It was my understanding from the KJV.

[rstrats 3]

Invicta,
　
re: "He rose on the 7th/1st day..."

Huh?
　
　
re: "It is quite plain from other scriptures that Jesus died on the Wednesday..."
　
Luke 24:21 says that the first day of the week was the 3^rd day SINCE the things mentioned in verse 20 had been done. That would make the seventh day the 2nd day SINCE the last of the things (the crucifixion) were done which would make the sixth day the 1st day SINCE those things were done. This would make the fifth day the day that the last of the things mentioned in verse 20 were done. A Wednesday or
4^th day crucifixion would make the first day of the week the 4^th day SINCE and not the 3^rd day SINCE the things were done.
　
　
re: "No, It was my understanding from the KJV."
　
　
　
"And having risen on the first (day) of the week,..." With the comma placed after week in the KJV, verse 9 specifically says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.
　
　
　
　
　

[Invicta 1,555]

Invicta,
　
re: "He rose on the 7th/1st day..."

Huh?
　
　
re: "It is quite plain from other scriptures that Jesus died on the Wednesday..."
　
Luke 24:21 says that the first day of the week was the 3^rd day SINCE the things mentioned in verse 20 had been done. That would make the seventh day the 2nd day SINCE the last of the things (the crucifixion) were done which would make the sixth day the 1st day SINCE those things were done. This would make the fifth day the day that the last of the things mentioned in verse 20 were done. A Wednesday or
4^th day crucifixion would make the first day of the week the 4^th day SINCE and not the 3^rd day SINCE the things were done.
　
　
re: "No, It was my understanding from the KJV."
　
　
　
"And having risen on the first (day) of the week,..." With the comma placed after week in the KJV, verse 9 specifically says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.
　

How long was Jonah in the fish?

[rstrats 3]

Invicta,

re: "How long was Jonah in the fish?"

Jonah 1:17 says three days and three nights. Any particular reason for asking?


Also, what do you mean by "7th/1st day" in your post #25?

Edited August 12, 2011 by rstrats

[dantheman2 10]

dantheman2,

re: "I would not have even thought to use Mark 16:9 to prove that we are to worship upon the 1st day of the week."
　
That’s good because that is not what I asked. I asked for the use of Mark 16:9 to prove a first day resurrection, and not to prove first day observance.
　


re: "I would use passages such as Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2 to demonstrate that that is the fact."
　
Actually, as far as the Bible is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The breaking of bread mentioned (even if it were referring to the Lord’s Supper) had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.
　
As for 1 Corinthians 1-2, nothing in the verses indicate that Christians observed the first day of the week for their day of rest and worship. They merely say that everyone should "lay by him in store" on the first day of the week. The Darby Translation reads: "On the first of the week let each of you put by at home, laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come.". The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: "At home by himself." The Lamsa Translation reads: "Let each of you put aside and keep in his house". The Wemouth reads: "Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home". Ballantine’s Translation reads: "Let each of you lay up at home". The Syriac, on this passage reads: "Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home". And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: ".......let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to". This verses say nothing about going to church on the first day or even assembling together on the first day.

Actually, you should study Acts 20:7 in context. If you do, you will find that this was worship, it was the partaking of the Lord's Supper and thus is an example for us to follow today. Notice that Paul waited 7 whole days to gather and break bread. if this was simply a common meal as is the case in Acts 2:46, there would be no need to wait 7 days. Acts 2:42 is a better verse than is 2:46.

[dantheman2 10]

Actually, Mark 16:9 doesn't say he rose on the first day, it says: 9 ¶ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. That is He was risen, and early on the first day of the week he appeared to Mary M.

It is quite plain from other scriptures that Jesus died on the Wednesday and was put in the tomb as the Sabbath (the high day) was beginning. He rose on the 7th/1st day just as the normal Sabbath was beginning, or dawning, three days and three nights later. Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Don't think so. He arose upon the 1st day of the week.

[Invicta 1,555]

Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, and "so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

[rstrats 3]

dantheman2,

re: "Actually, you should study Acts 20:7 in context. If you do, you will find that this was worship, it was the partaking of the Lord's Supper..."
　
I’m sorry but I just don’t see where the context makes it absolutely necessary to interpret the verse as "partaking of the Lord’s Supper", much less as a recurring special day of the week for the purpose of rest and worship.
　
　
　
re: "Notice that Paul waited 7 whole days to gather and break bread.

Verse 6 doesn’t indicate that. It simply says: "...we stayed seven days." It doesn’t say that Paul might have left earlier, but he wanted to wait until the next 2^nd day of the week so that he could observe the Lord’s Supper with the disciples on the first day of the week. To say that it does is pure conjecture on your part. And anyway, it was the 2^nd day of the week when Paul "broke bread" (verse 11).
　
　
re: "Acts 2:42 is a better verse than is 2:46."

Again, it is pure conjecture that the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 is different from the "breaking bread" in verse 46.