text:
Robert L. GRAY, Warden, Wisconsin State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Gary A. Geboy, pro se.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for respondent-appellee.
Before KILEY, FAIRCHILD and SPRECHER, Circuit Judges.
Gary Geboy, then seventeen years of age, was arrested on December 9, 1967, and charged with injury by conduct regardless of life and indecent behavior with a child in violation of Wis.Stat. Ann. Secs. 940.23 and 944.11(2). Six days later, on December 14, 1967, Judge John A. Decker, Circuit Judge sitting in the County Court, Children's Division, Milwaukee County, signed an order to show cause why Geboy should not be tried in criminal court rather than the children's division of Milwaukee County Court. Hearing was set for the next day, December 15, 1967, at 9:00 A. M.
Appearances at the hearing on the following day were entered by a probation officer, an assistant district attorney, a "voluntary defender," Geboy and his parents.1 Mr. Coyne, the voluntary defender, had apparently never seen Geboy, his parents, or the defendant's record prior to this hearing.
"I consider that such a refusal disregards the rights of Gary to be placed in an institution where he can get treatment, and where he can be protected against his own lack of control, self-discipline, and from his own aberrations. I consider that such conduct also on the part of the institution, refuses on its part to discharge its duties to society to protect society against Gary's lack of self-discipline, control, and aberrations.
"So we are faced here with a Hobson's choice of keeping him in the detention center which is little more than a prison when the boy needs mental treatment and we dare not send him to the mental institution for fear that they will not give him treatment and will inflict him on society. So, if the Court waives jurisdiction over him, he will be turned over to the criminal court where it is true, the jail facilities may be less pleasant than the detention facilities, here, but at the same time he will immediately have appointed for him a lawyer who I am sure will immediately request an inquiry into his mental illness, which is virtually res judicata, and I am sure what the answer will be. He can then be committed to an institution where his best interests will be served rather than the Milwaukee County Hospital for Mental Diseases."
At the conclusion of this statement, the voluntary defender responded, "right." A brief recess was then held so that Mr. Coyne, the defender, could read the police and other reports and talk to the boy's parents. Following the recess, Coyne explained to the court that he had told Mr. and Mrs. Geboy the procedure upon waiver of jurisdiction, the hospitalization procedures and the treatment petitioner would receive and concluded that the parents agreed with him that jurisdiction should be waived.
The proceedings continued with the judge asking Geboy whether he had had a chance to talk to the defender. Geboy's response was "a little." Judge Decker asked both the boy and his parents whether they understood that the purpose of the proceeding was to determine whether Geboy should be "handled" in the criminal court rather than children's court and that the goal was to see that Geboy got whatever medical attention he needed. All answered affirmatively.
The judge again stated his opinion that "the refusal of the hospital to maintain Gary in custody raises some question about his rights to number one to treatment," and that if Gary was not put in an institution there might ultimately come a time when he would be subjected to criminal penalties. He then asked the boy's father whether he fully understood the purpose of the proceeding. Mr. Geboy responded, "Yes, put him in a hospital, I assume." The judge stated that that was the hoped for result, that he could not guarantee the result, but that "the record here is virtually conclusive on the subject."
Certain formalities in the procedure were thereafter concluded and the defendant and his parents, through the defender, voluntarily waived jurisdiction of the children's court. Geboy was found to be mentally competent to stand trial in criminal court and was convicted on both counts. He received a ten year sentence for injury by conduct regardless of life and a consecutive eight year sentence for indecent behavior with a child. Geboy was committed to the Wisconsin State Prison at Waupun. Following the denial of a petition for habeas corpus by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Judge Tehan denied petitioner relief on June 13, 1972.2 This appeal followed.
"Notice, to comply with due process requirements, must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded, and it must 'set forth the alleged misconduct with particularity'." Id. at 33, 87 S.Ct. at 1446.
In this case waiver proved to be very costly to the accused. Instead of a maximum period of detention of approximately four years, at which time petitioner would have reached the age of twenty-one, he was convicted of two felony charges and given an eighteen year sentence in the state penitentiary. Rather than the psychiatric help and counselling which were the hoped for result of the waiver proceedings, and which formed the basis for the voluntary waiver by petitioner and his parents, he has received only four days psychiatric hospitalization.
The state nevertheless argues that petitioner waived any defect in notice by failing to move for a continuance and insists that additional time for preparation was unnecessary because a voluntary defender was present at the hearing, had all of the diagnostic and other pertinent reports before him, and made an intelligent choice to chance the outcome of an incompetency hearing in the criminal court. We find several difficulties in accepting this argument, arising from the fact that counsel was not appointed prior to the time the hearing was to begin and the further fact that the record leaves us with grave doubts as to the adequacy with which the voluntary defender represented petitioner's interests.
We agree with other courts which have considered the question, that Kent v. United States, supra, and In re Gault, supra, when considered together, require that a juvenile be provided with counsel at the hearing on waiver of jurisdiction.4 Powell v. Hocker, supra, 453 F.2d at 654; United States ex rel. Turner v. Rundle, supra, 438 F.2d at 842 (by implication); Kemplen v. Maryland, supra, 428 F.2d at 175; Miller v. Quatsoe, supra, 332 F.Supp. at 1272-1273; Crow v. Coiner, supra, 323 F.Supp. at 558.
In this case, counsel was present at the waiver hearing. However, since appointment was not made in advance, counsel had no time to either confer with petitioner or his parents, to explore possible alternatives to waiver which might prove more beneficial to petitioner, or to check the accuracy of the juvenile judge's reasons for desiring a waiver of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that the duty to assign counsel "is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 71, 53 S.Ct. 55, 65, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). That Court has also emphasized that the right to representation by counsel "is not a grudging gesture to a ritualistic requirement." Kent v. United States, supra, 383 U.S. at 561, 86 S.Ct. at 1057. We are also instructed that not every tardy appointment of counsel requires reversal. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 54, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). Each case must, therefore, be decided on its own facts, and the courts must determine whether prejudice to the defendant has resulted after an inquiry "into the ability, experience and zeal with which counsel acted, both at the trial and in preparation." Moore v. United States, 432 F.2d 730, 735 (3d Cir. 1970) (en banc).
Several courts have held that appointment of counsel on the day of the juvenile waiver hearing does not comport with the requirements of due process. Kemplen v. Maryland, supra, 428 F.2d at 175; Miller v. Quatsoe, supra, 332 F. Supp. at 1275; Crow v. Coiner, supra, 323 F.Supp. at 558-559. Judge Reynolds, in the Miller case, supra, noted many of the considerations which indicate that added time for preparation may be even more essential in a case involving a juvenile than in the case of the average adult offender, including "the need to investigate an entire life, to devise a plan for a useful future," and the inability to rely on the immature judgment of the juvenile client. 332 F. Supp. at 1275.
In this case, the problems inherent in belated appointments of counsel may well have been compounded by the representation given by the voluntary counsel at the waiver hearing. The state's argument that petitioner waived any defect in notice is predicated on the assumption that petitioner and his parents, through counsel, failed to ask for a continuance in the case in order to explore alternatives,5 and that they understandingly made a decision which could have the result which in fact occurred. Nowhere in the record is there any indication, other than the juvenile judge's indirect statement that he could not guarantee the result, that the possible consequences of a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction were explained to petitioner and his parents. The scanty evidence in the record before us, however, indicates that very possibly petitioner and his parents may have been totally misled.
When asked if he understood the purpose of the waiver hearing, petitioner's father responded with the statement that he thought the purpose was to put his son in a hospital. This statement was made after the recess, which is the only time voluntary counsel spoke with petitioner and his parents, and which is the only time the possible consequences of a waiver of jurisdiction could have been explained to them. While it is conceivable, and in most cases would simply be presumed, that petitioner's counsel did give Geboy and his parents a full explanation during this period, counsel's obvious predisposition to agree to a voluntary waiver, shown in his spontaneous affirmative response to the juvenile judge's initial statement of his anticipated action in the case, given before he had ever talked to either petitioner or his parents and before he had examined any of the records, makes us doubt whether counsel did in fact consider and explain all the possible consequences. Counsel's own statement of what he told the Geboys during the recess is ambiguous. Upon resumption of the hearing, the defender stated that he had explained to petitioner's parents the procedure upon waiver of jurisdiction, "what the hospitalization procedures would be and the treatment Gary would be given, and they agreed with me that I feel that jurisdiction should be waived."
A case somewhat similar to this was presented to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Haziel v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 404 F.2d 1275 (1968). In that case, the petitioner's court-appointed attorney, apparently without consultation with the defendant or his parents, sent a letter to the juvenile court stating that he had no objection to a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that the juvenile could not be bound by his counsel's statement unless it were found that the juvenile and his mother participated fully and intelligently in the decision not to demand a waiver hearing. The court compared the situation of the critically important waiver hearing to that of a defendant who states his desire to plead guilty to an offense. In such a case, Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the court address the defendant personally and determine "that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea."
The Haziel court also emphasized the proper role of counsel in a waiver hearing, noting that "[t]he child's advocate should search for a plan, or perhaps a range of plans, which may persuade the court that the welfare of the child and the safety of the community can be served without waiver." It appears almost certain that the court-appointed attorney in this case did not perceive his role in these terms. On the contrary, the record indicates that he devoted his entire efforts to obtaining the agreement of petitioner and his parents with the recommendation of the juvenile judge.
It is possible that after full investigation the voluntary defender, Geboy and his parents would all have decided that a waiver of jurisdiction was truly in the best interests of the juvenile. We think, however, that the combined effect of the late appointment of counsel and his notable lack of zeal in attempting to even consider other alternatives, particularly where the possible consequences of a waiver were so serious and where there is no reason to believe that psychiatric aid would not have been equally available in the juvenile system,6 create a question of fact as to whether petitioner and his parents knowingly and intelligently waived the defect in notice of the juvenile hearing, and consequently, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The Supreme Court, in Kent v. United States, supra, held that the proper remedy in a case such as this, where the petitioner has passed the age of twenty-one, is to remand the case to the district court for a hearing de novo on waiver. At this hearing,7 the testimony of petitioner, his parents and the voluntary defender will all be relevant on the issue of whether petitioner understandingly waived the defects in procedure and the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. If the court finds that a valid waiver did not take place, it will have to make its own determination on the question of whether, if the petitioner had not consented to a waiver of jurisdiction, and a contested waiver hearing comporting with due process requirements had taken place, a transfer to the adult courts would have been an appropriate disposition.8 If it is found that the waiver of jurisdiction by the juvenile court was inappropriate, Geboy's conviction must be vacated and the information dismissed. See Kemplen v. Maryland, supra; Brown v. Cox, 467 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir. 1972).
"The right to representation by counsel is not a formality. It is not a grudging gesture to a ritualistic requirement. It is of the essence of justice. Appointment of counsel without affording an opportunity for hearing in a 'critically important' decision is tantamount to denial of counsel." Id. at 561, 86 S.Ct. at 1057.
"The child 'requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him'. Just as in Kent v. United States, supra, at 383 U.S. 561-562, 86 S.Ct. 1057-1058, we indicated our agreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the assistance of counsel is essential for purposes of waiver proceedings, so we hold now that it is equally essential for the determination of delinquency, . . ." Id. at 36, 87 S.Ct. at 1448.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
In the resurrection of Christ, God, is God’s Witness, and His Glorified Christ, and His Holy Spirit. What happened in the Resurrection in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea in the Person of Christ in the body of his flesh laid in it in death, happened in the innermost Sanctuary and Most Holy of the Holiness and Glory of the full Fellowship of the Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit— happened at the Right Hand and on the Throne of the Presence and Majesty of God in heavenly realms.
“The night of the first day of the week had worn slowly away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come. Christ was still a prisoner in His narrow tomb. ... and behold, there was a great earthquake ...”. p 90 §1.
“Christ was still a prisoner in His narrow tomb.” We have paid attention to Jesus’ supposed “rest in the tomb” already. Just strange kind of ‘rest’ this was, I thought to point out!
“The night of the first day of the week had worn ... away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come. ... and behold, there was a great earthquake ...”. Point in time: Resurrection-time … asserted without one word of Scripture for support!
“This chapter is based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15”, reads the sub-heading. I just thought, Why, is verse 1 omitted? Is it perhaps because Mrs White was unable to quote it verbatim? I’ll repeat this in bold: Is, or was it perhaps, because Mrs White or / and the publishers was / were unable to quote Matthew 28:1 verbatim?!
I am unable to answer on Mrs White’s or the publishers’ behalf. All I can say is, “The night of the first day of the week had worn slowly away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak, had come”, is a very far cry from ….
Matthew, 28:1, “In the Sabbath, dawn towards the First Day of the week”! “The night of the first day of the week ... worn away. The darkest hour, just before daybreak ...”, is halfway through, the First Day of the week, morning! “In the Sabbath, dawn towards the First Day of the week”, is, literally as well as idiomatically, “In the Sabbath, afternoon towards the First Day of the week”!
The English word ‘dawn’, has acquired the ‘idiomatic’ meaning of early morning. Yet the application in Matthew 28:1-4 demands the word’s original by no means archaic meaning, both ‘literally’ and ‘idiomatically’, as the English Dictionary will explain (I have Collins here), the last part of the first of two periods before the second. See for yourself!
published stand or ‘thesis’ on the literal Greek, “In Sabbath’s-day’s fullness, while-being-light-having-inclined, towards / before the First Day” (‘Opse de Sabbahtohn, tehi epifohskousehi, eis Mian Sabbaton’), means “mid-afternoon of the Sabbath”— absolutely literally by no means not idiomatically as well, as the etymology of the word amply proved.
You may tell me what audacity to think anyone will challenge such a silly ‘thesis’? If a man hasn’t got an answer against you, he answers in one or all three of the following ways: First, the most common way (– because of the most common ailment of human nature, fear –), he’ll answer you with courtesy— Hy sal jou heuning om die bek smeer tot jy siek is van die soet! Tell the man how intelligent he is, how noble his cause, what great job he has done, how high the standard – anything but give him the impression you are not interested, or not capable to answer him, or too fearful and comfortable to go against the status quo of your own clique or clan. Next, just as common, don’t give an answer, or try to give an answer; just ignore him, forget it— guaranteed the most effective way to get rid of the sot. Never attempt to give him a straight denial and tell him how stupid he is! That will be gas on his Weber! Last, but not least, pretend you’re interested, look serious, ask him to explain, use the time up, keep him on the line, make him think he is convincing you. Meantime behind your eye sockets, work out your monthly budget, think of your next trip overseas, whatever. Give the man a taste of the pleasure to have an audience. It will be your last hear of or from him. There’s another strategy, Let him sweat the small stuff. Rub it under his nose when he spells ‘stalward’, or mistypes ‘testomonies’, when he writes ‘Armenianism’, when he confuses Arius for Arminius, or Arminius for Pelagius, or when he says Seventh Day Adventists started in 1844, and so on. Another help— Confuse! Highjack his subject; divert his enthusiasm, create rabbit trails, divide his attention, and so on. But none as good as compliment, disregard and pretend; flatter, forget, and feign. Vlei, vergeet, vertoon. But you see, Detract! It works! Let’s get back to the subject!
Mrs White get her garbled, “night ... worn away ... darkest hour, just before daybreak”, from? Not from Scripture, but from juggling the concepts in the Synoptists like marbles of the colours of the rainbow, praying they might with much shaking arrange in the sequence of the rainbow.
But where, o where, is Matthew 28, verses 5 to 10? How is it possible these verses could be left out while dealing with, “The Lord is risen”? How was the Good News originally broken; who broke the news; when was it made known; and where? Because each of these vital questions, in so many words, is nowhere else answered in the New Testament, but in Matthew 28:5! In fact, yes, nowhere else! I mean now, as far as circumstantial evidence is concerned. Not those truths that it in factual fact of actual act was God who raised Christ. We cannot now be engaged by those ‘higher’ aspects of Truth. Like I said in our first discussion, here we are engaged with factual acts of actual facts – with the ‘literal’ things; the earthly things that accompanied the resurrection of Christ, like time, locality, people.
It is no wonder then – as we shall see – having kept these text out of sight so as to keep them out of mind, Mrs White completely got lost with regard to the actual facts of the factual acts with regard to the Crucifixion. (Just wait a bit, we’ll get there!) The reason? That she disregards verses 5 to 10 of Matthew 28, and consequently is unable to answer any of the questions of How the Good News was broken; Who broke the news; When it was made known; and Where it was made known. See you there!
In the meantime, one thing is for sure, Mrs White (or was it the editors) was careful in selecting her Scriptures (for her)! It proves – it does not just ‘indicate’ or ‘allude’ or whichever smart word for ‘prove’ – it proves she as well as the editors understood perfectly well, the real meaning of, ‘opse de Sabbahtohn, tehi epifohsk-ousehi, eis Mian Sabbaton’— with, or without academic background in the Greek language! They are inexcusable, and they prove themselves, inexcusable. They knew Matthew 28:1 is irreconcilable with what Mrs White wrote and believed! They knew, just like translators of newer ‘Translations’ know, Matthew 28:1 is irreconcilable with the idea Jesus rose on Sunday morning. But the ‘translators’, have the knife by the handle, and they could chop and change the text for us unfortunate mortals – or so they think, until this day.
It should be clear, what I have said, I say to all, not only to Mrs White; not only to the Seventh Day Adventists; but to Christianity in general, who refuse to accept or acknowledge the King James Version and Revised Standard Version are right, that Matthew 28:1 states that Christ rose from the grave, “In the Sabbath”, “On the Sabbath”, and “towards” the First Day – before it; not on the First Day.
What have I done with the text?
(I did something with it; I did nothing to it.) I took the ‘explanation’ / ‘answer’, out of its literal, written position, and put it where it contextually – for nearer focus on the Resurrection –, applies. The angel ‘explained to / answered, the women’— what happened, how it happened, and where and when it happened. Matthew wrote his exordium or preamble to his Resurrection-anecdote, in between the angels’ ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’ of the Resurrection, and his injunction— “the angel told the women, Go tell!”— The Proclamation of the Resurrection-Gospel. Matthew put the angel’s ‘answer’ and ‘command’, together, and centrally, in between Victory and Mission; in between Fountain and stream; in between Announcement and Pronouncement. The word ‘answered’, refers to ‘first, above’— the Resurrection; the word ‘told’, refers to ‘further, down’— “Go tell ….”.
But both words, “explaining” and “told” – one expression, ‘apokritheis ... eipen’, ‘answering ... said’, reach from left, and, from right; it holds together, ‘the above’, and, ‘what follows’; unifies inseparable, verses 1-4, and, verses 5-8; relates, what happened on the day before, “On the Sabbath”, and, what happened on this day of, ‘answer and command’-‘apokritheis ... eipen’.
we know, this is how Jesus’ resurrection happened— how, where, and when; this is our source. The ‘explanation’ is placed as prescript to both the Resurrection, and, the Command to Go! The Resurrection is God’s perfecting all His works— is God, having entered into His Rest. The Command is the angel’s, handing over the Message to the first missionaries.
Commission. Without Resurrection, no Mission. Matthew’s reader should know who is the source and who the informant of all knowledge – the knowledge of this the all encompassing and saving Truth of Christian Faith, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is not man, of man, by man, but for man and to man, from God, through his chosen ‘sentinel’, “the angel to the women … to the disciples” ... “into all the world”.
Now this is what Matthew meant how you shall know unto the salvation of your souls— “Answered and explained the angel to the women …”. “God raised Christ from the dead …”. “No one can see God and live.” Mrs White has all the way been cheating, teaching strange doctrine— the doctrine and commandments of men.
(1) Who first came to know of Jesus’ resurrection, the soldiers or the women? Mrs White says the soldiers; Matthew says “The angel explained to the women and told them …”!
(2) When became it known first that Jesus rose from the dead? Mrs White says, when He rose – as Jesus came out of the tomb – the guard saw Him; Matthew takes for granted the plain fact nobody, knew of or saw Jesus’ resurrection. He does not say, but one should infer, the angel, next morning, told / answered / informed / explained to the women about what had happened on the day before, “In Sabbath’s fullness, mid-afternoon tending towards the First Day of the week” .
(3) How was the news first made known? Mrs White says the soldiers, by seeing and hearing themselves, were first to know; Matthew says, the women were “informed / told”, by the angel who “explained” the resurrection to them.
(4) Whom did Jesus first appear to? Mrs White wrote, He was first ‘seen’ - “looked upon / beheld” by the “brave soldiers” of the “Roman guard”; Mark wrote, 16:9, “He, the Risen, first to Mary Magdalene appeared.” See also John 20:11 further.
The women were the first ‘sentinels’ of the Resurrection; and, they were the first ‘sentinels’ of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The ‘gospel’ that not in the first and in the last, in part and in whole, in essentials and essence, is the Gospel of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in the flesh of his glorified body, is a strange gospel, and its sentinels messengers of antichrist.
Mark well ... The Proclamation of the Gospel starts nowhere else than “… from the grave”. “They (the women) departed quickly from the sepulchre”. The Salvation in Jesus Christ begins, with and in his resurrection, proceeds “from the dead” (which is Life), and is proclaimed, beginning at, “from the grave”; not by infidels, but by believers. “They (the women) departed, quickly, from the sepulchre”. It starts and ends with and in, Life— with “quickly”. “Come quickly Lord Jesus!”— Jesus Christ, “Life Giving Spirit”.
“At the resurrection they saw the brightness of the angels illuminate the night”, p 91 §3, yet the brightness of them all together, could not knock out the guard! Yes, the soldiers remain conscious and after, remembered every detail God hid for all men else, even for his Elect. The guard look the angel in the face; they “see him removing the stone as he would a pebble”. The guard in fact watch the greatest work the exceeding greatness of the power of God has worked in his eternal existing, the act of God’s final rest, God’s rest in the resurrection of Christ from the dead …. Yet they live? are not even become unconscious?! They stagger not, nor lurch or reel— but live and tell!? God must have made the angels, it seems, a little lower than man?
To me there is something sinister about Mrs White.
The guard even at seeing Christ rise from the dead, ‘fainted’ not.
Only and at the very last, “At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour, the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men”— opening line of paragraph 5, p 91, 6 lines from the bottom, at the end of these two pages (90-91) We have found all these false statements on just two pages— where, Mrs White, describes ... Jesus’ resurrection! Meanwhile, Matthew, in these words – first, before anything else –, wrote, “When suddenly the angel of the Lord descended ... and came ... and for fear of him —this servant-angel— the keepers / soldiers / guard ... became as dead”— a rational sequence, at once with, the angel’s descent.
....”— page 91, paragraph four. Fifth paragraph, page 91, “At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men. When the heavenly train was hidden from their view, they (the guard) arose to their feet ... and made their way to the gate of the garden ...”.
like Matthew does at first with the appearance of the angel before he had opened the grave and before the Resurrection had occurred, but after Jesus’ resurrection and while after He had come out of the grave, in order to instead of the Father, make the angel the caller from the dead of Jesus! Premeditated— it is the only possibility!
Mrs White implies the guard at no stage was truly unconscious, and never and far from “were like dead men”, belying her insertion of Matthew’s phrase— The guard kept ‘looking’ on, conscious eye-witnesses, of every Mystery of the Resurrection! So “The soldiers told all, just as they had seen it ... they bore testimony to the resurrection of Christ ... the truth. With painful utterance they said, It was the Son of God who was crucified; we have heard an angel proclaim Him as the Majesty of heaven, the King of glory.” I, with painful utterance, must declare, Which every word of Mrs E.G. White’s is surmising; which every word of hers, is feigning; which every word, is treachery — which every word is, “a lying report”!
“The guard saw”, or, the women were told?
The Gospel ‘from’ the grave on, ‘goes’, is ‘taken’, ‘into all the world’, not by the Roman guard, but by the disciples – the women, without them having seen the resurrection. Because “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Ro10:17. “Whom, having not seen, ye love, in Whom – though now you see Him not yet in Him believing – ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” 1Pt1:17.
I have re-written this ‘study’, I cannot recall how many times. At the very first attempt, I made this observation, ‘To me there is something sinister about Mrs White. Each time I rewrote my study, different things I have not before noticed, forced itself to my attention — things I never thought possible Mrs White or anyone on this earth able to imagine. Every time of review and doing over, I was more reluctant to accept the truth of my new findings. All seemed so unreal— so sinister! But with the many unavoidable conclusions come together in the larger picture of Mrs White’s teaching on the Resurrection-event, everything in the smaller, became clearer; very clear and focussed— to my utter disbelief. What I have found, is what you hear today. It is amazing; it is alarming and frightening. But what you are going to read, is Mrs E.G. White’s ‘Inspiration’ and ‘Testimony’, precisely uncovered for what it really is: blasphemy!
Mrs White has the guard remaining conscious and fully aware throughout Jesus’ resurrection, in order to become the witnesses and ‘sentinels’ of his resurrection— as were Christ’s resurrection not the throne of the immediate presence and act of the Almighty Father (in whose Presence no mortal can come, and live, because this Mortal is putting on Immortality!).
“Mrs White, the servant of the Lord”— as she is called by the Seventh Day Adventists – only at this point in time and against Matthew the publican and servant of the state – declares, “At sight of the angels and the glorified Saviour the Roman guard had fainted and become as dead men”.
see the worm of corruption that “pervert(s) the Gospel of Christ.” Galatians 1:7. It is the teaching, the Father at no point when Christ was raised, was present with Him; that Christ rose without the Father being ‘there’; that He rose not at hearing the Voice and Word of His Father from Himself! But this sophistry is “another Gospel that is not another Gospel”, but an abomination which blasphemes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Power of God, the Height of whose Glory is the Triumph of His Christ who was “raised in the Glory of the Father”.
Christ. This if you believe you are a Christian, and if you do not believe, you are a cult of the devil. The Father was with Christ and in Christ, before Him and behind Him and beside Him, under Him and over Him, “When He”, God— the Father, “raised Christ”, God—the Son, “from the dead”, Ephesians 1:20.
“When He raised Him from the dead.” Gl1:1.
“Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father.” Romans 6:4.
“The God of peace that from the dead brought again our Lord Jesus Christ.” Hb13:20.
“The God of peace that from the dead brought again our Lord Jesus Christ”. “Peace from God the Father”, Ro1:7, 1Cor1:3, 2Cor1:2, Gl1:3, Ef1:2, Phil1:2.
“The God of peace that from the dead brought again our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples.” Jn20:17-18.
did run to bring his disciples word.
“They (the women) departed quickly, from the sepulchre”.
Who raised Christ from the dead?
“The soldiers see him (the angel) removing the stone ... and hear, him, cry, Son of God, come forth; thy Father calls Thee. They see Jesus come forth ….” “... based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15”! Based on the Word of God; based on what the soldiers had seen; based on ‘Inspiration’, based on ‘the Spirit of Prophecy’, the angel, called Jesus. Jesus was called by the angel to go to the Father ... after having been “taken up into heaven”, Acts 1:11, not when He rose from the dead!
‘John 20:17 and Hebrews 8:4’, say the same devout Seventh Day Adventist, ‘tell us why Mrs White declares it was the angel who ‘called’ Jesus to “come forth”, that is, to ‘come out’ of the grave. ‘Come out’, your Father is not here; He is not in there with you, He calls you through me, his messenger, ‘angel’. Mrs White is a word-artist; her canvas does not show the Father, not because “Thou shalt make no image” of Him, but because He is far away, ‘in heaven’, ‘in the sanctuary in heaven’ – that’s why He sent me, his angel, to ‘call’ you!
Who raised Lazarus from the dead? How, with which Words and with which Voice? — “(Jesus) cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth! And he that was dead came forth.” Jn11:43/44.
“He (Christ) slept in the tomb, and on the morning of the resurrection, He said, I am not yet ascended to, My Father.” p 67 §3.
The Father wasn’t present when Jesus was raised from the dead, is her whole point. Jesus made no atonement on earth, He was not Priest of God on earth, He first had to ‘go to heaven’ (From where the Father sent the angel to go and ‘call’ Christ from the grave.) where the Father waited for Him ‘in the first ‘room’ of the ‘sanctuary in heaven’, and there, where and when He would be with the Father, there will He ‘make atonement’ for the sins of the whole world. Mrs White will not have, the Father, raising Christ from the dead! More than enough is it to know – to have discovered in fact – the basis of all Mrs White’s draconic dogma, consists in the alleged absence of the Father in the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. Not I, but Mrs White, argues from absence, from her concocted absence of the Father in the resurrection of Christ. According to Mrs White the implication is the Father also did not descend to Christ. If the Father was not there, then whose voice cried the word, ‘Come forth!’? With justification, who, does Mrs White say, raised Christ from the dead? In this place, by logical implication as well as by written word?
The Call of the Caller from the dead, is Call obeyed, is Call answered, is Call returned— returned by Him who has the Power over death and grave.
“I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto Thee, into thine holy temple. I will offer unto Thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that I vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.” (2:7,9) Christ “by the glory of the Father” was raised from the dead.
The obedience, the answer, the return, the Call of the Called from the dead is by the Power of Him who calls from the dead and grave. “According that God was able to raise Him up, even from the dead; from whence also He received Him in (Truth).” Hb11:19. (Of Christ even more than of Isaac.) “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: This commandment, have I received from my Father.” John 10:17-18.
Jesus obeyed the Father’s Call when He laid down his life. “I came to do thy Will, o God!” Jesus obeyed the Father’s Call when He took up his life again. No man took from Christ his life— not man or angel; no man called Christ from the grave— not man or angel. The Cry of Life, the Voice of the Father was it, which it had to be, that called Jesus Christ both to lay down his life and to take up his life again.
The Call, the Cry, the Voice, is the Father’s, or Christ died not for sin, nor rose from the grave for righteousness.
This is antichrist that says Christ came not into death in the flesh, but feigned; this is antichrist that says Christ came not from death in the flesh, but came in the minds of man. This is antichrist that denies the Power of God the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit to call the Son of God from the grave of the dead.
If it had been one or two, even three, literal, factual mistakes or doubtful instances, Mrs White still might have been regarded honest, ordinary and well meaning. Just one instance of wrong or doubtful ‘testimony’ though, seeing her Church and she insist she is ‘Inspiration’, ‘the Spirit of prophecy’, ‘the Lord’s servant’, etc., should prove her a false prophet. But, with every page bristling with mistakes and falseties ... one should ask oneself, what is it I’m wasting my time on? But there are honest people out there, who are deceived. (1) And more, there is a Truth of the Word, mutilated. (2) I have a duty, may only one other than myself in this big world read .... (3) There is the Sabbath of the LORD your God, the Lord’s Day, at the mercy of the Seventh Day Adventists (4).
A man who is not sure of himself, resorts to aggression. In physical combat the losing man more and more relies on defence, because his body— by the reality of his humanness, forces him. In ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ warfare, the loser more and more relies on attack, by the surrealism of his arrogance and temerity. With her every next statement Mrs White becomes more aggressive and more assertive.
On which day, did God raise Christ up?
If not on any one day of God’s creating, the resurrection of His Christ happened, to no day in or of the times and seasons of God’s creating or appointment, give it meaning! But in that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed happened on the one day of God’s creating, appointment and Promise, therefore, to it— to that day, the event of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, gave meaning! Not the event of Jesus’ stay in the tomb gives meaning – not what Seventh Day Adventists and Mrs White call, Jesus’ “rest at last” – but the event of his resurrection — what Protestant Christians understand is Jesus’ ‘last’ and ultimate ‘rest’ – what they, view as the finishing of all the ‘works’, of God!
Now, ‘concerning the which day’ did ‘God, thus, speak’? ‘In sundry times in time past’, like, as well as and exceedingly better ‘in these last days’? By his Son Whom He hath appointed’? “Hath appointed Heir of all things, by Whom He hath made also the worlds? “Who, being the Brightness of His Glory, and the express Image of His Person, Who, upholding all things by the word of His Power, when He by Himself had purged our sins, sat down at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High … as He hath obtained a more excellent Name”, the Name of Christ and Lord by virtue of Triumph, Feat and Victory over death and grave in Resurrection from the dead? ‘Concerning which day’ did ‘God, thus, speak’ of “His Own Rest”? Of which day did God speak, “For God thus concerning the Seventh Day spake: And God the Seventh Day from all His works, rested!”? Which ‘Seventh Day’ did God thus speak of? Of the day, God thus concerning “all His work which God created and made”, “spoke and it was” – no other than the ‘creation-Sabbath’— the Sabbath Day of the Fourth Commandment— the Seventh Day concerning the which God, in, through, and by Jesus Christ, in, through, and by, the raising of Him from the dead in deed and act of the finishing of his work ... His work of redemption, “rested”!
It is not for us to find out that day; it is for God who knew his own times and days before, and who had made them known after, through and in and by Jesus Christ, through and in and by resurrection from the dead! So no one doesn’t know. The whole world knows and long since knew, and acknowledged, yet won’t accept for the purpose and end of worship of the Lord of the Lord’s Day, least, the Seventh Day Adventists and Mrs White. First to reject are they; and first to replace with own innovation, are they. And with what more horrible substitute than theirs, Jesus’ ‘rest in the tomb’?
Nobody living in that day, alive, received an inkling of knowledge of the actual facts of the event of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and grave. Matthew had just given the full explanation from the mouth of the angel to the women in 28:1-4; what would he have needed the guard for as witness to the Resurrection? ‘Angel to the women’, is the key to understanding the Resurrection as well as the Mission.
The guard – from the nature and force of the appearance of the angel like lightning –, were unable even to have discerned the angel. One struck unconscious by lightning does not remember as much as having been struck. He until or after he has come by will not know or remember anything within, of, or from, that moment, or anything after it ... until he wakes up again. Only from consciousness on, will he know and remember. To divide between moment of consciousness and moment of unconsciousness is impossible.
that they were stationed and that the grave was sealed. 28:61f.
“Then suddenly ….” No having seen of the angel even, its appearance having been “like lightning”. 28:1b.
“The watch came and announced ….” 28:11.
priests no explanation, recorded no detail other than he did.
(Just mentioning facts, the White-way— The guard had left from the grave “when the heavenly train was hidden from their view”. p 91 §5. The guard were the first observers of the resurrection; up to this point in time “when the heavenly train was hidden from the (guard’s) view”. One cannot make out from Mrs White’s writing if the Saviour was part of the train, and it’s impossible to understand whether she meant the train was hidden as the result of the guard’s fainting, or was hidden through having ascended back to heaven again. But these are of no importance, actually, except, If the Saviour then had gone up to the Father, what then about Mrs White’s arguments He hadn’t gone up until ‘ascension day’?
Who let the dogs out? Watch who runs for holes under fences!
Mrs White, “(The soldiers) made their way to Pilate, but their report (of the Resurrection, acc. to her) had been carried to the Jewish authorities, and the chief priests and the rulers sent for them (the Roman guard) to be brought first into their presence.” p 92 §1.
Who initiated the ‘meeting’? Matthew, “Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed to the chief priests”, Annas and Caiaphas.
Rather than a visit they were called to, this is a ‘visit’ from the guard, ominous and austere— a visiting as it were from the messengers from the grave ... ‘hell’! and nowhere to hide, or, escape.
“Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed to / imposed upon the chief priests everything (they knew) that happened (at, or rather to, the grave). And when they (the chief priests) had called the elders to the meeting too, and they (priests and elders), had consulted with one another (not with the guard), they paid the soldiers much money.” Matthew 28:11-12.
“Here the priests overreached themselves. How could the soldiers say that the disciples had stolen the body while they slept? If they were asleep, how could they know? And if the disciples had been proved guilty of stealing Christ’s body, would not the priests have been the first to condemn them (the guard)? Or if the sentinels had slept at the tomb, would not the priests have been foremost in accusing them to Pilate? The soldiers were horrified at the thought of bringing upon themselves the charge of sleeping at their post. This was an offence punishable with death. Should they bear false witness, deceiving the people, and placing their own lives in peril? Had they not kept their weary watch with sleepless vigilance? How could they stand the trial, even for the sake of money, if they perjured themselves?
In order to silence the testimony they feared, the priests promised to secure the safety of the guard, saying that Pilate would not desire to have such a report circulated any more than they did. The Roman soldiers sold their integrity to the Jews for money. They came in before the priests burdened with a most startling message of truth; they went out with the burden of money, and on their tongues, a lying report which had been framed for them by the priests.” p 92 §3, 4.
Mrs White and Seventh Day Adventists sell their integrity for a dogma that from the first has brought upon them nothing but shame, but which they to this day cherish with blinding passion.
The guard were fools. But they were not stupid fools; they were foolish fools. And yes, the “lying report” was not from the guard to the priests and elders. The soldiers never told the priests they were “sleeping at their post”. They were never asked to answer ‘Yes’, or, ‘No’, on such a question. The priests, never asked the soldiers to say they were “sleeping at their post”. That to suggest, is Mrs White’s own ‘lying report’.
Matthew witnesses the soldiers did not sleep; therefore, they never told anything of the kind. They had nothing of the kind to confess. They didn’t tell, they didn’t confess; not because it would be suicidal, but because they did not sleep. That they accepted bribe was for greed. The guard realised there would come nothing of the priests threats in any case. History proved them right; nothing ever came of the Jews’ incriminations; into the bargain they lost their money.
That the guard must (please) say that they slept, was the suggestion the priests made to the guard, that is further corrupted by Mrs White to, that they (1), must admit (To tell a lie is not the same thing as to admit a truth.) ... (2), that they on duty slept! The Jews did not bluntly put it to the guard like that.
The Jews were masters of the art of subterfuge and whether or not the guard understood, makes no difference. We know what we know what Matthew knew the guard knew, and that’s all, and because from Matthew and not from White, is enough.
The idea that the guard slept, came from the priests— not, to put the blame on the guard for the missing body of Jesus, or to put the blame on the disciples, but as a poor consolation for themselves. The idea Jesus was risen, killed them! Their proposal was their last feeble denial of the Man of Nazareth, that He was not the Son of God, come in the flesh, and now, come again from the dead in the flesh; come in glorified body of the Man of Nazareth by resurrection from the dead. This, the Jews knew, was the truth— the Truth they with reason-consuming hate, feared; the Truth they with reason-consuming fear, hated. The Jews knew very well nobody’s ever going to worry about or ask after the crucified or their doom. The opened tomb and missing body for them meant Life after death ... hell for them.
That’s why Matthew virtually interweaves the two anecdotes, the story of the Risen Jesus appearing to the women, and the Sadducees’ last resistance against Life after death, swept away.
But even the priests were unable to think that the guard slept on duty; it would not have helped in any case! The priests had no axe to grind with the guard? Nor with the disciples, for that matter. Their anguish was incurable ... ‘After death’ was their death’s dread, whatever the guard or disciples did!
“All the things that were done”, which, as far as the soldiers knew, was, nothing! If the soldiers were afraid – which I cannot see anywhere – they still should have thought, Our mutual loyalty to Caesar; we may have to report to the governor. If we lie, our witness will soon contradict. So stick to the bare facts, fellows! Which bare facts and true report in Matthew 28:11b-15, contain purely result, results which in this case, are clearly implied but nothing more than implied. This the guard were sure of, they knew, their mutual loyalty. They were Roman soldiers; they had their honour; they had their duty; they were under oath with their protector the Caesar and Roman law; they had nothing to fear in all the world as long as they stuck to and lived by the rule of the ruler!
What makes the Jews think the governor will believe their – of all people their, story, they slept?
Matthew would not leave out to mention, ‘on duty / at post’, had the Jews used the words because his report is precise! And the Jews would not leave out to mention, ‘on duty / at post’, had the guard been guilty of it – what an opportunity wasted! Too big a White lie! A little white lie maybe, the temerity of perhaps, will do the trick, “Please say — if, you know, you are asked about the gone body — if you are asked, say, the disciples stole the body away, after, while we took a nap, will you?” The priests (discerning sneering, thinking, Don’t let us overplay our hand now!), Here’s a small money for you – O, it’s not that large, it’s nothing between friends, you know!
The very fact the priests proposed a purely circumstantial, ‘possible’, solution – however fickle – implies the guard reported no more than just circumstantial, observable, possible, ‘reality’-facts— because factual and actual. The implications of which could be but one of two non-circumstantial, non-observable, and supposed-only thoughts, reasoned-out possibilities, both actually ‘impossibilities’: Either Jesus rose from the dead, or, the body was stolen. And if the body had not been stolen, there could only be one possible impossibility left, that Jesus rose again! Which would become, and which in fact became, apparent to the Jews’ eternal shame. But at this stage they did not yet know! For Jesus not only rose from the dead and from the grave again, but He also appeared to many after— proving the story “until this day commonly among the Jews reported” a ‘lying report’.
The Jews’ ‘lying report’ was meant to rule out the possibility both undeniable and improvable, that Jesus was alive. So, not the guard or the Jews actually knew, that Jesus then was risen!
That is why Matthew recorded, “Now when they (the women) were going ... (to) go tell (his) brethren (that He really appeared to them), ... some of the guard came into the city and shewed unto the chief priests.” “Now when (or ‘as’) they were going …”. The women went, and the guard came, simultaneously; the guard without knowledge of the risen Christ, the women with the knowledge!
But Mrs White, directly contradicting Matthew, enunciates, the guard both witnessed and reported the resurrection. To her also, belongs the ‘lying report’ the guard, to save their own skin because they knew, had to tell “If asked”, that they, the only witnesses, must please lie, and instead of the truth which they knew, must tell the lie they did not know, and “Say, his disciples, while we were sleeping, came and stole the body away.” The guard, because they “saw” Jesus rise, must now stop the spreading of the truth and deny their knowing. For having accepted the Jew’s bribe, they must tell yet another lie of having slept while the disciples came and stole the body away! And to this second ‘lying report’, Mrs White added her postscript, that the guard admitted they slept “at their post”. That’s what Mrs White teaches.
Matthew teaches only the truth of the middle ‘lying report’ here referred, “If asked, say, his disciples, while we were sleeping, came and stole him away.” It’s still a ‘lying report’, but it is not Matthew’s or the guard’s – it belongs to the Jews.
But the guard could not be blackmailed if they knew not of the resurrection. Now, the tables are turned, and the Jews, are the incriminated; the guard now can blackmail the priests! Guard: You must have stolen the body! Priests: No, we did not. But let us come to an agreement here; let’s compromise. We give you large money, and you say if asked his disciples came by night while we slept and stole him away. Both parties thus agreed to incriminate the innocent disciples rather than accept most obvious probability, that He rose from the dead. And they all lived happily ever after. “So they took the money, and did as they were requested: and this explanation of the whole matter has been commonly rumoured among the Jews until this day. No believer or non-Jew ever has fallen for it. It bluffed the Jews and the Jews only.
Pilate washed his hands – he distanced himself from the whole affair of Jesus’ crucifixion. He from then on, couldn’t care less!
seal the grave your way!” Have it anyway your way, just don’t bother me again, I don’t care about your petty issues!
Who, on earth, would believe or mind noise from the Jews a fourth time — The guard slept? On duty? Ha! Arrest the pests!
The guard then, of their unconscious unconsciousness recovered— their unconscious unconsciousness they never so much as became aware of, or that they unofficially had gone off duty for for a while — recovered, Observe: One, Open grave; Two, Empty grave – no body; Three, Sunset already?! ... Think: One, Opened grave, Plus, two, Emptied grave – no body, Plus, three, Sunset ... = ?
Caucus! Deliberate, ponder, remember, think, calculate ... ... Anyone’s idea?— Nobody? Nothing? ... except— except, yes, them Jews! But wait! Twelve o clock our watch will end; we mustn’t show ourselves before then, or it’ll complicate things further!
So, sunrise: Went they, to go get those grave-robber priests, who else? Enter they the city, “Bursting in finding the (two) high priests (together)”, ‘We came to tell you, the grave is open and the body gone! You hear? You understand— you!?’ The guard threaten the Jews, with, and for, reason; enough reason to have told the priests, You are going to the cells, now!
priests …” The guard “shewed / announced” (‘apehngeilan’)— The guard “forced in on / imposed upon / impunged”, the priests. The guard ‘coming, ‘telling the priests’, ‘come’ nor ‘tell’ to cringe, but to avenge.
Now who are the confident, who the fearless, who the over-towering? — and Who, the timid, who, at wit’s end, who, the terrified, the desperately conniving? The guard?, No! the priests! Were the guard terrified at the prospect of having to answer for sleeping on duty? What!? From “all the things that had happened”, from Matthew’s Text? No! the ones who come up with that idea clearly are they who get panicky— who would “pay large money”! The guard bribed the Jews? No! the Jews bribed the guard! Who had guilty conscience? The Jews were the ones eaten by fear. Jesus was the unjustly condemned victim of Jewish hypochondria!
Did the guard sleep, off duty or on duty?
Neither is ever mentioned a question or fact, except in apologetics. Both ‘possibilities’ purely are supposed ... in apologetics! But what is supposed yes, but nevertheless supposed, is sure, are the actual facts, (1) That the guard were the aggressive and fearless, the intimidating and demanding; and (2) that the priests and elders were the timid and intimidated, the fearful and threatened.
That the guard must tell, “If asked”, that they slept, was not the groping of the guard for the only tree branch overhanging the flooding river that swept them with. That the guard must tell, “If asked”, that they slept, is the only lifeline without anchorage the Jews cast across the turbulent stream to drown themselves with. Because now it no longer is a question of ‘What if ...’ with regard to the guard; but of, ‘While it is so that ...’, with regard to the priests and rulers.
The guard did not go to the priests ‘for help’. (That’s an illusion.) The priests did not send for the guard to sort things out with them (That’s a White lie); The priests expected no visit from the guard. That was their darkest dream come real.
What brought the guard to the home of the high priest? The guard’s imposing upon the priests was pure aggression of frustrated duty – the law’s avenging with absolutely no ulterior motive, but, perhaps, blackmailing.
asked”— say the priests, to save face, “If asked”— the very motive that made the Jews ask Pilate to have the body they, had had crucified, removed again, “If asked, please say you slept”? That is the request, the last straw clutched at, the lying, dying arrogance of the shamefaced. The guard realised the Jews’ embarrassment, and capitalised on their predicament.
The priests nevertheless never suggested, ‘Say, we slept on duty’; that would be stupidity far exceeding even the foolishness of the priests and elders. To ‘Say, we slept on duty’ would be condemningly self-implicating for the guard. Insinuated the priests such a thing, the guard might have killed them there and then!
:::: What was the guard’s lie then, for they did lie? Their lie was their agreeing to and accepting the bribe, their agreeing and accepting to lie with the Jews— to shift the Jews’ illusion of implication off from them, onto the disciples. :::: The guard went in to the Jewish priests, arrogant but innocent; they came out from them, corrupted liars. They went in with confidence; they must have left in fear. They scored a few bucks from the deal though, at a price which Mrs White well describes, “they sold their integrity to the Jews for money”. An unblemished integrity had theirs been until now. God saw; “He will laugh at the trial of (his) Innocent!” Ps9:23. “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the LORD shall have them in derision.” Ps2:4.
reason of the guard and corrupted their morals. Money blinds the reason of all men. The priests had no morals left to corrupt— they “gave large money”.
soldiers slept ‘at their post’— would the guard? The guard not before the priests or governor, or before any of ‘the people’, admitted they slept ‘at their post’! Not then or until today. That’s the Jews’ ultimatum to the guard that Mrs White conjured up. The guard having slept at their post— on duty, is not suggested or hinted at in Matthew 28:11b-15. It’s a chimera of apologetic’s.
“Here the priests overreached themselves. How could the soldiers say that the disciples had stolen the body while they slept?” ... “If they were asleep, how could they know?” ... of the resurrection?
Matthew says the soldiers told everything that happened— everything that happened before the disciples – allegedly – would “come at night”. The guard told only the truth— that they were conscious of; the wisest truth that made the high priests panic like deserted puppies. But who ever said the guard knew? The one who asks the question says they knew— Mrs White. So she must already have assumed they knew, before she asked.
Nothing else, nothing more. The guard knew nothing; mentioned nothing, and so Matthew mentions not a thing— not so much as suggests, a thing! The guard knew nothing; so says Matthew, despite ‘Inspiration’ better informs us. Mrs White has it that the guard knew everything because they had seen everything and had heard everything that happened with Jesus while He rose from the dead and while He went out of the grave. Lucky SDAs, Mrs White paid attention to so much detail! Unfortunately we cannot find her facts in any Gospel. (“The trouble with us, Seventh Day Adventists”, a pioneer Adventist in South Africa once told me — I knew him well), the trouble with us is, we know too much!” His exact words. Reckon!
“If the disciples had been proved guilty of stealing Christ’s body, would not the priests have been the first to condemn them”?
‘Proven’, guilty? By what evidence? Evidence the priests had? Evidence the guard had? Evidence the disciples had? ‘Evidence’, no one has ever produced?
‘Guilty’? ‘Guilty’ of ‘stealing Christ’s body’? Which had never been proven was stolen? For the ‘stealing’ of which, nobody has filed complaint ever? ‘Guilty’ by what system of Law, ‘Roman Law’?
Nevertheless, had this farcical funk be taken seriously, “If the disciples had been proved guilty of stealing Christ’s body, would not the priests have been the first to condemn them”? What fool would deny? Which Jew— which high priest of the Jews would not take hold of the ‘evidence’ to prove their case Jesus never rose from the dead? Stupidest question ever asked, “If the disciples had been proved guilty of stealing Christ’s body, would not the priests have been the first to condemn them?”!
Matthew says, actually, “This saying is commonly reported – among the Jews – until this day” (15), and no one has ever been taken to task, no Jew, no Roman, no man, for that! The guard told the truth to the priests, it’s as simple as that; they lied not. I don’t think they ever after found it necessary to lie to anybody about having slept— after duty or on duty! It’s the Jews who stood ashamed. It’s among the Jews the story had become popular; not among the Romans or the Greeks.
Sure they would! But the evidence or witness of the priests – if they had any –, would be no better than ‘circumstantial’— they weren’t ‘there’, when, it happened; they did not see, as, it happened; so what could their ‘lying report’ have helped? The fact the priests never accused the guard to Pilate, proves the issue neither was that the guard slept, on duty, ‘at their post’, or off, after, duty. It proves, ‘sleep’, at no stage whatsoever, had been a factor in the issue. It is impossible to be so naïve to reckon the priests – any promises of them regardless – would not have accused the guard to Pilate, had they slept! Whether the guard slept or not is never an issue; the priests were the ones who for their worries and obviously false promises, never slept. So what’s the point arguing? Only the Jews were implicated, and showed themselves the troubled in conscience about something incomparably greater than cheating a guard.
the Jews – between the priests and the elders, and they – the Jews, in fear born from guilty conscience, “gave large money unto the soldiers”. (A guilty conscience brought about by two things, first the fact they had an innocent man crucified. But not so much that, but, being priests, they knew the Scriptures – they knew all the Scriptures by heart! The Scriptures scared them to death. The Scriptures they knew so well, foretells this Man Jesus whom they have crucified – in fulfilment of the very Scriptures. Who’s afraid here? The guard? If the guard feared, they, may have tried to bribe the Jews! They more probably would have been on the run though, by now, and would not have been here still.
The Roman guard “came, and showed the high priests”. They came to them; they went after them. The guard had no concern the body was gone, but the Jews were horrified at the thought of a risen Jesus! Hear, you terrified louts! ‘Please, men of the governor’s guard, we beg you, don’t let this become known under our people! We beseech you, take this money, only keep things quiet! Tell if you’re asked, his disciples came by night and stole him while we slept? Please?’ Who is pleading, here? The guard?
nature, tested and controlled by many a person of experience. The guard did not fall for it. Matthew with his ‘guard episode’, proved the priests’ guilt. He does not try to prove the Resurrection; Matthew already believed when he wrote his gospel.
Of course it’s not only Mrs White who chased after traditional rabbit-trails; all Christianity did, like myself with regard to this guard-story for many years.
Jesus, but most, they feared His Resurrection! The guard feared none.
is the contortion of Mrs White’s. The guard did not go to Pilate (as Mrs White, not Matthew, claims), because they feared him. The governor was the one the guard had no reason to fear; he was ‘on their side’, as good as they were ‘on his side’. The guard went straight for those who feared them, the governor’s deputy ... the priests!
Slept the guard, it wouldn’t mean a thing that they should have feared! The very fact Matthew not in any way contain the idea of the guard having slept “at their post”, ‘on duty’, shows who the real fearing party was; not the guard, but the priests who conceived the idea! But just as much as Matthew not in any way contain the idea of the guard having slept “at their post”, ‘on duty’, just as much – or as little – does Matthew contain the idea or does Matthew hint at the idea that it was the guard, who feared! Yes, in fact! Where does Matthew say, or how does he intimate the guard, feared, because they slept, because they slept on duty? He does nothing of the kind.
information for ‘resurrection-apologetics’. That is what Matthew informs us about and gives us insight into. It has clear meaning for ‘resurrection apologetics’. It means, Jesus as He foretold, rose from the dead!
However then, why would Pilate have been angered by the fact the body was gone? Not the words or the idea can be said are that of Matthew. The Jews feared God (in a negative way). They pretended they were not afraid of Pilate. ‘Pilate’s my buddy, I’ll sort things out for you my mates.’ Have I heard that in my life before? The betraying sham of the insecure pretentious. A fellow once was unable to honour his purchase of my house. When I claimed it back, he adamantly tried to persuade me I could buy ‘his house’ again, for such and such a bargain! This man Matthew, he knew human nature! Anyway …. Pilate wouldn’t have cared less. He officially “gave the body”, to Joseph, and Joseph could do with it whatever he liked, and had all the right to change graves even if he so wished. Pilate could not have cared less! It was the Jews, from the beginning, who were so afraid they did not know what to do, John 19:31.
Why centuries of clumsy apologetics the guard had to stand in for the Jews’ predicament?
Here is something else ever and anon overseen. The Jews did not say, Tell, the disciples came by night and stole ‘the body’; they said, “and stole Him”! The Jews believed, they were absolutely sure, Jesus lived, and just as much as they were convinced, feared they. Now one understands their fear! But the guard during the whole of the affair of the meeting, or before, or after, never, showed fear. Tradition mesmerises, obfuscates, blinds, causes mental-block. Tradition is strong!
So it’s not only Mrs White and the Seventh Day Adventists who in actual fact do not have a clue what they’re talking; it has been all of us. Some ‘saints’ of two millennia ago, started the rumour, and we have all forgotten to go read the Scriptures; we all ignored the fact, God has His Word.
The Gospel, is not the belief of ‘an open tomb’ or of ‘an empty tomb’. Unbelievers believe ‘an open tomb’ ... ‘an empty tomb’. First they desired Him crucified; now they want Him vanished. For an open or opened tomb, an empty or emptied tomb, a stolen or a missing body, is not what Christian Faith believes in or is about, but what Roman soldiers and Jewish high priests believed in. The message of an open and empty tomb is feared and loathed as coming from hell; in its demure the ungodly unite against the Gospel of Christ and the Christ of the Gospel. Antichrist makes an idol of the empty tomb of the same grandeur as its images of a crucified and dead Christ. The latter they hang on their necks; the former on the altar of their hearts. There is no power in the crucifix as there is but emptiness in the open tomb.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed vis a vis the message of an open and emptied tomb. The Gospel is the Faith of the Risen Christ, of Jesus whom God the Father raised from the dead. The Gospel is the Light of the Power of God that overcame darkness and death, and is believed in unto eternal life. We see Jesus, the Glorified and living Christ, no empty tomb before our eye of faith.
May God keep us on the narrow road, narrow though it be, and steep; but straight and upwards, unto that day we shall see Him face to face, and shall rejoice.

matches: §1 §3 §3 §5 §1 §3