1 In the end of the sabbath [upon the first day of the week Lk 24:1], as it began to dawn [very early in the morning Lk 24:1; when it was yet dark Jn 20:1] toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others [ and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were Lk 24:10], with them.

And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. Lk 24: 1,2.

...they entered the sepulchre -- doubtless with lit lamps, for it was "yet dark."

Shortly after the soldiers left the garden, just before sunrise, a party of a very different character arrived -- a party of timid, defenceless women, who were apparently unaware that the grave had been in military charge. These were the two Marys and Salome and the other women who had followed the Lord out of Galilee. The several accounts of their proceedings at the sepulchre appear on a rough comparison to be inconsistent with one another, but a careful sifting of the details yield a connected and harmonious narrative

...they were coming before daylight, as the best time to carry out their purpose undisturbed

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59

It is alleged, on the authority of this passage, that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead before the close of the Sabbath, and not on the first day of the week. But how, it will be asked, does this harmonise with the phrase, "as it began to dawn"? This, it is suggested, should be rendered, "as it began to approach."

But there does not appear to be sufficient reason for making this alteration. The original word is επιφωσκουση, from ῾επ͵ι, towards, and φως, light. Its primitive meaning, therefore, is towards the light, which is equivalent to "began to dawn." Oψε, translated, "in the end," only occurs in two other passages in the New Testament-Mark 11:19., 13:35-where it is rendered "even," i.e., evening.

In no other case is it used for "the end." It may be translated evening or after. The choice must be determined by the facts of the case or the context. In this instance, the phrase, towards down, shows that the word after must be chosen, for the Sabbath ended about twelve hours before dawn. This conclusion is further warranted by the parallel passages in the narratives of the other Evangelists. Mark says,

"very early in the morning, the first (day) of the week, they came into the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"-ch. 16:2.

Luke says,

"Now upon the first (day) of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre."-ch. 24: 1.

And John says,

"The first (day) of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre" ch. 20: 1.

Thus Mark, Luke, and John all agree in fixing the visit to the sepulchre early in the morning of the first day of the week. The only difference is, that Mark says "at the rising of the sun," whereas John says "when it was yet dark." Putting these two statements together, we can easily perceive that it was just about, or immediately preceding, the dawn.

And this is precisely what Matthew says. In the face of such overwhelming testimony as this, it is impossible to assert that the resurrection of Jesus took place on the seventh day. Therefore the grounds on which this event is commemorated on the first day of the week are sound and scriptural, and the practice is not based upon a Papal tradition.

Bro J. J. Andrew.

The Christadelphian, July 1872

6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

How sweet is the calm of the bright and tranquil morning that comes after a night of tempest and suffering. Glorious to Christ must have been the morning of his resurrection.

For years he had contemplated the prospect of his suffering with burden of mind.

"How am I straitened till it be accomplished!"

This was the exclamation that admits us to a knowledge of the trouble it caused him (Luke xii. 50). How terrible his sufferings were, we have seen. Now they were all past. On the morning of the third day, he awoke all healed and strengthened, and stepped forth from the temporary imprisonment of Joseph's tomb, to be

"anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows."

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59 

7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Then they went out into the garden and stood in a perplexity what to do. While so engaged, Mary Magdalen -- apparently the warmest-hearted and most impulsive in her feelings concerning Christ -- darted away to the city to communicate to Peter and John the fact that the body of Christ had been removed from the sepulchre.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59

8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

...one of those errands that give wings to the feet...probably with much excitement and breathlessness of speech, that the Lord, whose death they were lamenting inconsolably, was risen

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59

11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

The soldiers who had been placed on guard over the sepulchre came into the city on "the morrow after the Sabbath" with a panic-struck report. Their watch had been disturbed early in the morning in a violent and extraordinary manner. They had been frightened out of their wits, and expelled from the garden.

First, an earthquake had terrified them, and then a brilliant visitor, in whose presence they were paralysed, had burst in upon them, and overpowered them. What happened besides they did not know, except that the same visitor had pushed aside a great stone that closed the entrance of the tomb, and broken the careful official seals into a thousand fragments, and sent the soldiers out of the place in a state of helpless fear.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59

13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

The soldiers protested it was no ordinary thing that had happened, and that there had in fact been an irresistible interposition of some kind, and that the truth must be told if they were to save their heads; for it was death to a Roman soldier to be found derelict in duty.

The chief priests contended that whatever it was, it must have been a stratagem of the disciples to get hold of the body, and that the soldiers must support this view; any uncertainty in their report must lead to the most disastrous consequences among the people. It would be impossible to prevent the idea of Christ's resurrection getting into vogue if the soldiers gave an ambiguous account of their repulse from the sepulchre.

The idea of fishermen overpowering armed soldiers seemed absurd, besides being hurtful to the pride of the soldiers; so they must say the disciples stole the body while they slept. They really must; "and look here, we will make it worth your while." And forth came the lucre in glittering and persuasive amount.

Cabala - Jewish mysticism

... great miracles were said to have been done by those who understood the science. We believed that remarkable effects might be produced mesmerically, which might be attributed to the potency of certain cabalistic terms; and we judged by his reference to it that he supposed the miracles of Jesus were after the same sort.

But this could not be admitted; for God would not have raised a mere conjuror to life, and have attested the truth of his disciples' testimony, which declared the resurrection of their master from the dead.

Of the resurrection of Jesus there can be no doubt. The rapid conversion of thousands to the belief of it, in the face of persecution, is proof of the conclusiveness and potency of the testimony.

Men who a few days before had clamored for his death now changed their ground, and avowed their belief that God had raised him from the dead. Not only so, but they were seized with the most disinterested liberality, and sold all they had and gave the proceeds of the sales to the poor and destitute who believed the truth in common with themselves.

The conviction that God had raised up Jesus from the dead flew like lightning through the world; and in 280 years the influence of the doctrine taught in his name changed the constitution of the Roman government, and diverted the current of human affairs into new, broader, and deeper channels.

And to all this, what have the Israelites to object? They have not an inkling of credible testimony to prove that Jesus was in the tomb on the fourth day. They can only say with some of their ancestors that

"his disciples came and stole him away while the soldiers slept."

But the testimony on which this report rests is so worthless that it would be scouted out of the court of the Inquisition itself. Who were the witnesses of the theft? The sleeping, the deeply sleeping, soldiers! But how could they testify to what was going on while they were asleep? And yet this was the best account the enemies of Jesus could give of the fact that he was not in the tomb on the fourth day!

The thing is incredible, that the timid and dispirited disciples of a dead man should unwall the sepulchre and steal him away in the midst of a Roman guard set especially to prevent it. It is incredible that they should even wish to encumber themselves with the body after it was respectably deposited in a rich man's tomb.

It is incredible that they should seek to deceive others by the report of his resurrection without a motive. It is incredible that the whole Roman guard should be asleep at their post; and not being asleep, it was impossible for the disciples to abstract the body from the tomb.

It is therefore more difficult for a candid, intelligent, and reasoning man to give in his verdict against Jesus, than to admit in full his resurrection from the dead by the power of God.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

The soldiers hesitated about the "sleeping," because it would be death under the Roman law to have it reported that they slept on duty. The chief priests, with nods and winks, told them to keep themselves easy on that point; they had influence enough with the governor to secure them against all consequences.

And so, seeing the way clear all round, the soldiers took the money, and faithfully carried out their part of the bargain -- from which moment, the absurd report has been in circulation among the Jews to the present day.

O chief priests, most lies are lame. Yours cannot walk the honest roadside at all. If the soldiers were asleep, how did they know the disciples stole the body? If they awoke in time to discover them in the act, were they not in time to chase and capture men carrying a corpse? And what did dispirited fisher men want with a corpse? Why should they be anxious to say the corpse came to life if they knew it didn't?

Why should they wish people to believe in a resurrection, which, on your story, they knew had never taken place? and why should we believe your story and not theirs? Were not ye the murderers of Christ? And if ye could be murderers, could ye not be liars also? Were not the disciples, on the contrary, his lovers? And did they not preach that men should repent of lying and all wicked works? And did they not show their own repentance by publishing their own faults (Peter's denial of Christ, to wit)in their public writings?

And is it not the fact that as ye imprisoned and killed Christ, so ye imprisoned and killed some of them? and is it not the fact that, notwithstanding this, they adhered to their statements which brought them no gain? Is it not the fact that they shewed themselves men of truth, and that all who came under their influence, turned from wicked works to serve the living God and to wait for His Son from Heaven?

Why should we believe your story on such bad authority and so inconsistent with the facts, and reject their account, which is the account of many eye-witnesses, and which is so entirely in harmony with the whole character and teachings of Christ, and the whole work of the God of Israel on the earth?

Nazareth Revisited Ch 59

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

It might be the previously absent four that doubted. Their doubt was not unnatural in their only partial illumination and consequent inability to understand as yet all that had happened. The record of their doubt is a weighty fact. It is a proof of the veracity of the record, for why should the fact of some having doubted be recorded except that it was true?

And being true, what explanation is there of the fact that the doubt afterwards disappeared except that the after occurrences were of a character to dispel all doubt? Which they truly were when we consider their nature.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 60

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The Formula of Baptism

No construction we may put upon the action of the apostles must be allowed to displace the instructions of Christ under which they acted: He told them (Matt. 28:19) to baptise believers in (εις into)

"the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

What Christ told the apostles to do, no believers will deny the apostles did. We are not furnished with the form of words employed by them in the act of immersing those who believed. This is a matter of little importance. It is the understanding of what is being done and not the sound that issues from the lips of any performer in the matter, that determines the character of the act.

The spoken words should, of course, be in harmony with that understanding. That understanding is expressed in the formula prescribed by Jesus in the words quoted, which is the formula in use among his brethren, and it is expressed in the form to which J. B. calls attention when that form is understood.

"The name of the Lord Jesus"

is the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for who is the Lord Jesus? The Father manifested in the Son by the Holy Spirit. He is therefore the impersonation of the formula which he prescribed.

But why should he prescribe in the baptismal formula the elements of the mystery of godliness, instead of the simple person in which the mystery was revealed? Because that in all things, the Father might be glorified. The formula keeps the relation of things in view which might otherwise be lost sight of.

"The Son can do nothing of himself except as the Father empowers him" John 5:19

If the person of the Lord Jesus merely were expressed, the Father's supremacy might in time be hid from view. In the days of his flesh, Jesus repudiated a compliment leading to this. When saluted as "Good Master" (which he was) by one who only saw in him a wonderful man after the flesh, he said,

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God."

We may be sure that this zeal for the name of the Father continues, and that we do well to help him (so far as it is permitted puny mortals in such a matter) to hold high the honour of the Father's name by immersing believers

"into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The Christadelphian, Nov 1872

No construction we may put upon the action of the apostles afterwards, must be allowed to displace the instructions of Christ under which they acted: He told them to baptise believers in (into)

"the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

What Christ told the apostles to do, no believer will deny the apostles did. We are not furnished with the form of words employed by them in the act of immersing those who believed. This is a matter of little importance. It is the understanding of what is being done and not the sound that issues from the lips of any performer in the matter, that determines the character of the act.

The spoken words should, of course, be in harmony with that understanding. That understanding is expressed in the formula prescribed by Jesus in the words quoted, which is the formula in use among his brethren.

... "The name of the Lord Jesus" is the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for who is the Lord Jesus? The Father manifested in the Son by the Holy Spirit. He is therefore the impersonation of the formula which he prescribed.

But why should he prescribe in the baptismal formula the elements of the mystery of godliness, instead of the simple person in which the mystery was revealed? Because that in all things, the Father might be glorified. The formula keeps the relation of things in view which might otherwise be lost sight of. The Son can do nothing of himself except as the Father empowers him (John 5:19).

If the person of the Lord Jesus merely were expressed, the Father's supremacy might in time be hid from view. In the days of his flesh, Jesus repudiated a compliment leading to this. When saluted as "Good Master" (which he was) by one who only saw in him a wonderful man after the flesh, he said

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God."

We may be sure that this zeal for the name of the Father continues, and that we do well to help him (so far as it is permitted puny mortals in such a matter) to hold high the honour of the Father's name by immersing believers

"into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

The Christadelphian, July 1898

The formula used at Baptism

W. C. B. G.—"There is an agitation, a question concerning the formula used at Baptism. Some say it is of popish origin, a superstition handed down through the priests. Believing the formula to be of divine origin, I believe the use of it is indispensable. . . those who believe the Gospel preached by the apostles should be

"baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) . . .

but to be led into the water and immersed without a word being said, and at the same time believing the formula to be of popish origin, and not having the name of the Lord named over them—I think such to be an error of a serious character, which should be resisted with firm hands.

No compromise with such heresies; we should soon be back in the darkness of the apostacy, and the world would soon need another Dr. Thomas to bring the truth to light again."

Exactly so. When Jesus sent forth his apostles to teach all nations, and to baptise such as believed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; he likewise enjoined upon them the necessity, of teaching those of whom they made disciples, to observe all things that he had commanded them (Matt. 28:20). This is sufficient for our guidance.

It is a formula that presents us with the essence of the scheme which centres in Christ in three sentences—the Father manifested in the Son by the Holy Spirit. It is appropriate to the introduction of a new-born into the family of God that the name of Christ should thus be called upon the baptised in a way that recognises in the Son, the manifestation of the eternal God in human nature—a manifestation that baffles equally Trinitarian, Unitarian, and Jew after the flesh to understand.

The Christadelphian, Sept 1888

"The Memorial Name, exhibited in Moses' writings, is not simply a word of four letters, given to an abstraction, as men give names to their children: But a name memorial of a future manifestation of the Eternal Spirit: which manifestation will not be of One, through One only: but of One in and through ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands: that the Name covers them all; and consequently, the thousands of thousands are but One Yahweh". In Eureka, it is thus stated:...

Sis Lasius - Yahweh Elohim...

1. Belief, built on the testimony of the Prophets and apostles concerning the Christ: confession that Jesus of Nazareth is that Christ, the Son of the living God; and immersion into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for repentance

and remission, are part and parcel of, and necessary to, the ordinance of purification for sin, styled by Paul, the One Baptism.

2. That mere immersion is not Baptism: but that a man can not be aqueously baptized, without being immersed in water.

5. That the Deity having placed His name in His institutions, all communicable blessings flow through those institutions, of which Christian baptism is one. . . .

18.That "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," is equivalent to "the Name of Jesus Christ;" and expresses "the great mystery of godliness," the Deity manifested in flesh: that this manifestation was first an individual unity, and then a multitudinous unity, in flesh and blood nature; that the individual divine unity was "justified by spirit" when Jesus was glorified; and that the multitudinous unity, consisting of all saints, will be made like him when he shall appear in power.

Hence, when this consummation shall be complete, "THE NAME" will be the Eternal Father by spirit manifested in a multitude of immortals, whom no man can number. The scriptural designation of this DIVINE UNITY is Yahweh echad -- the ONE WHO SHALL BE.

19. That this name exists in Two States -- the present and the future which states are separated by the resurrection. In the present state, the Name is apocalyptically symbolized by "the Sealed," "the Golden Altar," "the Holy City trampled," "the Woman and the remnant of her seed;" and in the future state, by "the Four Living ones full of eyes," and "the four and twenty elders;" by the Rainbowed Angel; by the Nave; by the 144,000 on Mount Zion; by harpists and singers; by the Lamb's wife arrayed in white; by the armies in the heaven; and by the Great City, the Holy Jerusalem, as a Bride adorned for her husband

20. That the Gospel is glad tidings, inviting men and women to become constituents of this Divine Name, and therefore Heirs of the world with Abraham, on condition of believing the truth as it is in Jesus, being immersed and walking in newness of life‭

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Why should not his name be mentioned alone? Because he was not alone. He was the Father manifested among men by the Spirit for their salvation, that the glory might be to the name of Yah—the Creator and Upholder.

The single mention of the Son would have tended to conceal the great truth which Jesus constantly proclaimed—that of himself he was nothing: that the Father within him was the Doer and the Speaker; and that by the Spirit proceeding from the Father, was this great marvel achieved through the Son among men.

The significance of the formula—"Father, Son and Holy Spirit"—is, therefore, doctrinal. The use of it tends to keep in view the great fact that there is but one God — one Redeemer; and that Jesus is not another, but the Eternal One in manifestation, accomplishing the great work of salvation by his Eternal Spirit, operative through the seed of David according to the flesh.

The name of Jesus is, therefore, the Father's name, placed in a man by the Spirit. This is the name of salvation, than which, there is none other given among men. Baptism is the act of induction into it, and, therefore, a baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the early ages, when many winds of false doctrine were raised by Scripture wresters, a three-fold immersion was deduced from this form of words, and practised by many. Some in our day are reviving the absurd, unmeaning and unscriptural practice—trine-immersionists, who talk of "one baptism in three immersions."

They might just as well talk of "one immersion in three immersions." The precedents of a benighted ecclesiastical antiquity are miserable ground on which to rest our faith and practice. One baptism, which is equivalent to one immersion, was the simple, sensible, apostolic practice from which wise men will not depart.

The Christadelphian, May 1874

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you [the disciples] alway, even unto the end of the world [Aion - Mosaic age]. Amen.

...the English version of Matt. 28:20, is not a correct transcript of the original, idou ego meth' humon eimipasas tas humeras, heos tes sun teleias tou aiovos

"Behold, I am with you all the days, until the end of the age."

Eureka 13.13.

He promised to be with the apostles during all these days until the end. And the promise was amply fulfilled,

"the Lord co-working and confirming the word through the signs following after"-

(Mark 16:20.) He told them when "the end" should be, in these words, namely,

"this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the habitable for a witness to all the nations; and then shall come the end" -(Matt. 24:14.)

In Matt. 28:20, world also occurs in the sense of the Abrahamo-Mosaic aion. "Behold," said Jesus to the apostles, "I am with you all the days, until the end of the aion"-ἓώς της συντελειας του αιὼνος. This was true; and after the aion vanished, we hear no more of the apostles, with the exception of the apostle John, who tarried till Jesus came to him in Patmos; after which he disappeared from authentic history.-(Jno. 21:23; Rev. 1:9, 12, 13.)

The professors of Gentile theology interpret the text in Matthew, of "the end of the world," in the largest sense; that is, until the time shall come to burn up the earth and all upon it! Hence these clerical gentlemen pretend that Jesus is with them as "the successors of the apostles," who are "called and sent of God" to preach the gospel to every creature for the salvation of souls!

But this notion is an element of that "strong delusion God has sent upon them, that they should believe a lie unto condemnation;" because they believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness.-(2 Thess, 2:10-12.)

They neither preach the gospel, nor do they know what it is; and are, therefore, not even in doctrinal succession, much less in official succession, to the apostles. The apostles would be ashamed of such workmen; and Jesus would scorn to co-work with them, seeing that they make the word of his Father of none effect by their traditions.

A BIBLE DICTIONARY - Bro THOMAS

The Christadelphian, Aug 1872

The end of all things hath approached—Peter.

Another place where "world" is very improperly used for Aion, is in Matt. 28:20, where Jesus is made to say to his Apostles,

"Lo, I am with you alway, unto to the end of the world."

But he did not say this. What he said was, "Behold, I am with you all the days until the ending of the Aion," or Mosaic Course of Time. But the interpretation imposed upon these words is worse than the translation itself.

The clergy argue, that as the Apostles could not live to the end of the world, which is not yet come, and is, doubtless, many ages remote; he must have meant that he would be with their "successors" to the end of time, whenever that should be; and that, as they claim to be "the Successors of the Apostles," (an assumption wholly devoid of any proof) Jesus promised, and certainly is, and ever will be, with all popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, ministers, elders, pastors, circuit riders, and local preachers, of all the names and denominations of, what they most absurdly term, "Christendom!"

But this clerical assumption is mere Satanism. The Lord Jesus has nothing to do with the clergy of all sects but to repudiate and punish them as blasphemers, at his appearing in his kingdom.

His promise was made and fulfilled to the Apostles. He was with them all the last days until the ending of the Mosaic Aion.

John saw that ending consummated; but with the exception of him, there is no reliable testimony of any of the rest having been spared to witness the destruction of the City and Temple. The Jewish power had numbered them with the dead.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Aug 1859