Mark 16:9

[rstrats]

• 

A poster on another board, 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, frequently 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?

[JB Horn]

• 

Gill uses Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 to make the Sunday Sabbath argument. I don't know anyone that uses Mark 16:9, John 20:1, or Luke 24:1. I'll look around and see if In can find one for you.

JB

[rstrats]

• 

JB Horn,

re: “I'll look around and see if In can find one for you.”


Thanks for responding and for your kind offer, but it really isn’t my intention for anyone to expend time and effort going out looking for what I asked about.  I am hoping that someone will already know of an author and a quote. 

[JB Horn]

• 

I was thinking that the Westminster Confession of Faith, uses the idea of of the day of Resurrection as the cause for the change without actually citing  Mark 16:9, John 20:1, or Luke 24:1.

[rstrats]

• 

 
JB Horn,

re: “I was thinking that the Westminster Confession of Faith, uses the idea of the day of Resurrection as the cause for the change without actually citing  Mark 16:9, John 20:1, or Luke 24:1.”



That would satisfy half of my request but I also need the Mark 16:9 reference to go along with it. 

Incidentally, John 20:1 and Luke 24:1 say nothing with regard to the actual day that the resurrection took place.

[rstrats]

• 

Anyone?

[macuser]

• 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible on Mark16:9

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week,.... Though the word "Jesus" is not in the text, it is rightly supplied; for of the rising of no other, can the words be understood; and so the Persic version supplies "Messiah", or "Christ"; that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, agrees with the accounts of all the evangelists, and is here expressly affirmed; the phrase, "the first day of the week", is so indeed placed, as that it may be thought to connected with the following words; as it is by some; fancying there would otherwise be a disagreement with Matthew 28:1, whereas there is none; See Gill on Matthew 28:1 though it is true also, that he did appear on that day to Mary Magdalene, it being the same day he rose from the dead. But the true reading and pointing are as here placed; and the phrase belongs to, and points out the day of Christ's rising from the dead; and which ambiguity is removed in the Syriac version, which renders it, "now early on the first day of the week he rose"; and so the Persic version, "the Messiah", or "Christ, therefore on the morning of the, first day, rose from the dead": and that he rose early on that day, is clear from the women, who set out at the end of the sabbath, when that was past and over; and got to the sepulchre by the time the day dawned; and one of them, while it was dark, and all of them by break of day, at least by sunrising, and he was then risen:

he appeared first to Mary Magdalene; in the habit of a gardener, for whom she took him at first; and this was at the sepulchre, where she staid after the disciples were gone. That she was the very first person that Christ showed himself to, after his resurrection, may be concluded from hence, and from the account the Evangelist John has given, John 20:14, nor is there any reason to think, that before this, he appeared to his mother, of which the evangelists are entirely silent. This was a very great favour, and an high honour that was bestowed upon her; and who had received large favours from him before:

out of whom he had cast seven devils, see Luke 8:2. And if she had been a very wicked person, as she is commonly thought to be, and very likely she had been, since Satan had such a power over her, as to lodge seven devils in her, it is an instance of abounding grace, that Christ should heap up favours on such an one; and she should be the first that he should appear to and converse with after his resurrection.

[rstrats]

• 

macuser,

I’m afraid I don’t see how your comments are responsive to the OP.  I wonder if you might explain why you think they are?

[macuser]

• 

Does anyone here know of one?

YES! Your answer is Gill.


More from Gill

Or of the sabbath [days], or "sabbaths"; meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; ...

This all goes back to his belief that Christ rose on the first day. Mark 16:9

I am not going to go through all of Gill's work to prove that point because I know you, and I know you have been shown this argument before. You say you are not SDA, then I ask you to take up the side of first day worshipers and make the case for me to believe you.

Ref, Gill's
From Book III, Chapter 8.
Of the Circumstances of Public Worship, as to Place and Time ...

[JB Horn]

• 

macuser,

I’m afraid I don’t see how your comments are responsive to the OP.  I wonder if you might explain why you think they are?

Isn't Gill using MK 16 to bring John 20:1 and Luke 24:1 into sink with first dat resurrection which is used  to justify the change in the Sabbath day?

JB

[rstrats]

• 

macuser,

I’m afraid I don’t see how your comments are responsive to the OP.  I wonder if you might explain why you think they do?


macuser,

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what your comments have to do with my request in the OP. 


re:   “You say you are not SDA, then I ask you to take up the side of first day worshipers and make the case for me to believe you.” 

Believe me with regard to what?

[rstrats]

• 

 Since it’s been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.

[rstrats]

• 

Since it has again been awhile, hopefully someone new looking in will know of an author.

[rstrats]

• 

Since it has once again been awhile, hopefully someone new looking in will know of an author.

[Hal]

• 

The beginning of the chapter has never been contested, I can't see your problem. And by the way you must have posted this thread 20 times in deferent forums including Amazon. Why would anyone use verse 9 when you have verse 2?

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.