A: In order to properly answer this question, we need to go back and review the biblical basis for a decision that the Worldwide Church of God made under Mr. Herbert Armstrong in 1974, involving divorce and remarriage. Prior to 1974, it had been the understanding of the Church that every marriage was bound in God’s eyes. This included civil marriages, whether or not the married couple “invited God into their lives,” and — arguably, it included even marriages of persons who didn’t even claim to believe in the God of the Bible. Mr. Armstrong explained our growth in Biblical knowledge regarding this point in a member letter, dated May 14, 1974:

“God has revealed HIS LAW OF MARRIAGE — His TRUTH about marriage — God’s PURPOSE in marriage, its sanctity, its PERMANENCY — to His Church. And we applied that truth to ALL marriages, ASSUMING that God entered into every marriage, EVEN THOUGH GOD HAD NOT ENTERED INTO THE LIVES OF THOSE we SUPPOSED He had bound… Unconverted people have never let GOD enter their lives. They live APART from God — CUT OFF from God — because sin cuts one off from contact with God (see Isa. 59:2). When they have never let God come into their lives — have been CUT OFF from contact with Him — could He enter into their MARRIAGE and BIND them?… The unconverted are BOUND by the state, but NOT DIRECTLY BY GOD! Their marriages are LEGAL. Their children are LEGITIMATE — in no sense bastards — but the children of the unconverted are not HOLY.”

Mr. Armstrong reiterated this understanding in the Pastor General’s Report, dated August 21, 1979: “Jesus gave fornication (prior to marriage) as the grounds for nullifying a marriage. This clearly was a form of fraud. When discovered (in nearly all cases) immediately after the marriage, it simply meant God, knowing of this ‘fraud,’ had actually not bound the marriage — and what followed therefore was actually an annulment, not a divorce. However this did not apply in cases of marriage by unconverted people. God never bound them anyway — they were bound by man’s law, and any divorce and/or remarriage would be according to man’s civil law. But the church would not apply this annulment if the couple had continued living together for a period of time. There could be other types of fraud — such as a marriage enforced at the point of a gun.”

The Church of the Eternal God, and its corporate affiliates, concur with and apply the Worldwide Church of God’s teaching, as set forth above. God created marriage. He married Adam and Eve. Christ later said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6). A marriage BOUND by God is for life (notice Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

When Adam and Eve sinned, God drove them out of the garden of Eden, and prevented their return whereby they could not eat from the tree of life and live forever (Genesis 3:22-24). Man was from that time forward CUT OFF from God. Man is, in general, still CUT OFF from God. Only those whom God specifically and individually calls out of this world find themselves in a different category. They respond to God’s call, and God DOES become a part of their lives. When THEY marry, they are making a covenant between themselves, AND with God, asking God to BIND their marriage. They WANT God to be a part of their lives, and they understand that their covenant is WITH God. If they divorce, they break their word and promise towards each other, AS WELL AS with God. (You may want to review our Q&A in Update #61, dated October 4, 2002, addressing the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:14.)

A minister of Christ will be happy to perform and officiate over a marriage of those who UNDERSTAND God’s Way of Life, and who want to obey God. Both marriage partners should already have been baptized. It would not be appropriate for a minister of Christ to perform a marriage of a “believer” and an “unbeliever.” The Bible CLEARLY states in 1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is BOUND by law [Paul is talking here about God’s law, and he is addressing a marriage that had been bound by God] as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, ONLY IN THE LORD.”

Most everyone agrees that Paul’s statement refers to a marriage between two Christians. Paul is CLEARLY stating here that a Christian is to marry only another Christian. The Ryrie Study Bible comments, “… only in the Lord, i.e., only to another Christian.” The Living Bible interprets the passage in this way, “The wife is part of her husband as long as he lives; if her husband dies, then she may marry again, but only if she marries a Christian.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, state: “… only in the Lord — Let her marry only a Christian (II Cor. 6:14).” The “New Bible Commentary: Revised,” points out, on p. 1062, “But only in the Lord, i.e., to another Christian; for she is a member of Christ’s body (cf. 6:15).”

Although it is generally understood that Paul requires of a Christian to marry only another Christian, some argue that Paul is just explaining a principle, or that it is just Paul’s opinion, which is not a binding commandment. They may say that marrying outside the Church may be ill-advised, but they claim there is no Scriptural basis to refuse to perform the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. Those who say this violate the clear Biblical COMMAND, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 7:39. To argue that Paul is just setting forth a principle is ludicrous. Paul says in verse 39, “She is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, ONLY IN THE LORD.” This is not just a principle that can be disregarded or neglected by the Church at whim — this is a clear and unequivocal COMMAND. To say that Paul was just uttering his personal opinion which can be disregarded or neglected by the Church at whim is equally ludicrous. With that rationale, we might as well tear out of the Bible whole pages of commandments set forth in Scripture, as they were communicated to us by God’s apostles, rather than by Jesus Christ directly. If we believe that Christ inspired the authors of the Bible to write down HIS WORD, then any argument that those words contain just personal opinions by those men is blatantly unbiblical.

Given the clear Biblical command only to marry “in the Lord,” the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates will not conduct or perform a marriage between a “believer” and an “unbeliever.”

In addition, given the clear Biblical teaching that God does not bind a marriage between two unbelievers, the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates will not conduct or perform a marriage between two unbelievers. You might want to read Judges 17:13, setting forth the example of Micah. Note the attitude Micah had in the midst of his idolatry, when he asked a Levite, perhaps a relative of Moses, to stay with him and to function as his priest: “Then Micah said, ‘Now I know that the LORD will prosper me, seeing I have a Levite as priest.'” We need to ask those who might want a minister of the Church of the Eternal God or of its corporate affiliates to perform their marriage, why they want them to do so. Is it because they want to live from now on lives which are pleasing to God, including the observance of all of God’s laws and statutes? If not, why do they want a minister of Christ to perform their marriage? If it is because of family approval or to just have a “nice wedding” with a “religious touch” to it, then this would not be sufficient reasons for a minister of Christ to perform such a marriage.

Worldly marriages are bound by the laws of the land. God’s ministry is not to wear the mantle of the justice of the peace. Jesus attended a wedding, but He did not officiate. Christ wants His ministry to administer matters within the Church — relating to those whom Christ calls out of this world. When the ministry of CEG and its affiliates perform a marriage, the following is stated during the ceremony: “Since marriage is a divine institution, and since we are asking God now to join you as husband and wife, it is fitting and right that each of you should faithfully promise before God to enter into the sacred marriage covenant according to the divinely-ordained conditions and laws enacted by God Almighty.” Later in the ceremony, the minister states, “Please now join your right hands and with the laying on of my hands, I will ask the Eternal God in prayer to unite you as husband and wife.”

As can be seen from the foregoing, it does not appear to be appropriate for a minister of Christ to say those words, and to ask God in prayer to “unite” an “unbelieving” couple as husband and wife, when we know that God does not bind such a marriage

A: Many Scriptures prohibit the charging of interest or usury in certain circumstances.

For example, Exodus 22:25 states, in the Authorized Version, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.”

The Hebrew word for “usury” is “neshek” or “neshech” and has the meaning of “biting” (Young’s Analytical Concordance). Its root word is “nashak” or “nashach.” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, under Nos. 5391 and 5392, gives the following explanation: “…to strike with a sting (as a serpent); fig. to oppress with interest on a loan.”

Soncino points out: “That which ‘bites’ (nashach) like a snake. The victim of a snake does not at first feel the bite, but soon the wound swells and spreads over the whole body; likewise it is with usury: at first the borrower does not feel its pinch, but little by little it grows until it amounts to a crushing sum. Do not impose usury on the borrower in consideration of an extended time limit for repayment.”

Commentaries disagree whether any kind of interest is prohibited, or just excessive interest (what we would call today “usury”). Also, depending on the understanding of the translator, the words “neshek” and “nashak” are rendered with “interest” or “usury,” respectively. While the Authorized Version translates “usury,” most other translations say “interest,” but not consistently so. Sometimes, they also say “usury.” In addition, the NIV translates “neshek” in Exodus 22:25 as “interest,” but states in a footnote, “Or excessive interest.”

In any event, the context of the prohibition is “exacting” or “demanding” interest or usury from a NEEDY or POOR Israelite. Although a few Scriptures, if read in an isolated way, may suggest that charging an Israelite with any kind of interest is prohibited under any circumstances, reading all the passages together shows that charging interest is only prohibited to a POOR or NEEDY Israelite.

We quoted Exodus 22:25, clearly involving a POOR Israelite. Note also Leviticus 25:35-37:

“If one of your brethren becomes POOR, and falls into POVERTY among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Take no usury [Hebr., “neshek”] or interest [Authorized Version: “increase”; Hebr. “tarbith” or “tarbuwth”; meaning “multiplication,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, No. 8636] from him… You shall not lend him your money for usury [Hebr., “neshek”], nor lend him your food at a profit” [Authorized Version: “for increase”, Hebr. “marbith” or “marbiyth”; i.e., “increase, abundance, multitude,” according to Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible; see also Strong’s, No. 4768]. This passage, too, only applies to a needy or poor Israelite.

A passage in Deuteronomy 23:19-20, if only read by itself, might give the impression that charging an Israelite interest is prohibited under any circumstances, even if the Israelite is not poor or needy. We read, in the Authorized Version, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”] to thy brother; usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of money, usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of victuals [or food], usury [Hebr., “neshek”] of any thing that is lent upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury [Hebr., “nashak”]…”

However, from the context with the other Scriptures already mentioned, and still to be mentioned, this prohibition only applies to a POOR Israelite. See, for example, what God says in Psalm 15:5 (Authorized Version): “He that putteth not out his money to usury [Hebr., “neshek”]…shall never be moved.”

Taking this Scripture out of context, without reading it together with other passages, one could conclude that one could never lend money out for interest (or usury), not even to foreigners. As we have seen, however, in other passages, charging foreigners interest is permitted.

WHY does the Bible permit charging interest to foreigners?

The ancient Israelites, not being a commercial people, were not accustomed to lending amongst themselves for the purpose of business, trade and commerce. “But the case was different with foreigners, who, engaged in trade and commerce, borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest on their loans” (Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1961, p. 159, commenting on Deuteronomy 23).

The New Bible Commentary agrees with this distinction, when it comments on Deuteronmy 23:19-20, as follows: “Loans to foreigners were usually of a commercial nature, and thus an interest charge could be levied without objection. When the loan was from a rich man to his poor neighbor, the imposition of interest violated the law of brotherly love.”

Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible also concurs. In its article, “Usury, Interest, Increase,” it states: “The loans here contemplated are therefore not advances required for trading capital, but for the relief of a poor ‘brother’ temporarily in distress, who would otherwise be compelled to sell himself as a slave.” In its article, “Trade and Commerce,” Hasting’s points out: “The Israelites seem to have become merchants only relatively late, and commercial dealings were for a long time in the hands of foreigners.”

Passages similar to Deuteronomy 23 and Psalm 15 can be found in Jeremiah 15:10 and Ezekiel 22:12 and must be read with all of the other Scriptures. Therefore, taking all the passages together, the Bible only prohibits to charge a brother interest, if that brother is poor or needy.

On the other hand, the spiritual intent of the Scriptures also clearly shows that no one should ever charge exorbitant amounts of interest or usury to anybody, including “foreigners.” This kind of greed is clearly condemned in the Bible. Further, the spiritual intent of those passages also prohibits to charge a poor and needy “foreigner” interest — that is, no interest should be charged to a poor “foreigner” when a loan is given to him to provide for his necessities. This means for us today, a true Christian should not charge any poor person interest for a charitable loan, whether or not the person is a Church member (Galatians 6:10).

Let’s review a few more Biblical passages regarding the prohibition to charge interest to an Israelite. Notice Proverbs 28:8 (Authorized Version): “He that by usury [Hebr., “neshek”] and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the POOR.” The context shows, that the lender exacted usury from a poor person, rather than showing mercy to the poor by not charging him interest.

In addition, note Ezekiel 18:8 (Authorized Version), “He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase…, he is just, he shall surely live.” Taken all by itself, this passage could cause misunderstanding. When we read on, the meaning becomes clear. It is stated in verses 14-17, “Now, lo, if he begat a son…that..hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, that hath taken off his hand from the POOR, that hath not received usury nor increase…, he shall not die…”

Another example can be found in Nehemiah 5:1-13. Verse 10 says specifically that the Jews should “leave off this usury.” The context is, that some Jews charged interest to other needy and poor Jews (vv. 2-5).

The New Testament confirms the understanding that charging interest under certain circumstances is not wrong.

In Matthew 25:27, Christ tells the unprofitable servant that he should have deposited the money with the bankers or “exchangers” (Authorized Version), so that the returning master would have received the money loaned to the servant “with usury” or “interest.” The Greek word here is “tokos,” and is defined by Young’s with “offspring” or “usury.” Strong’s writes, under No. 5110, “interest on money loaned (as a produce) — usury.” In the parallel passage in Luke 19:23, the word “tokos” is used again and translated as “usury” in the Authorized Version and as “interest” in most other renditions.

Without entering the debate whether the translation “usury” or “interest” is appropriate, we see, nevertheless, that Christ used, in this parable, the concept of gaining interest in an approving way. Since Christ spoke this parable to the Jews, some of the bankers or exchangers giving interest would have been Jewish. As commentaries, such as Rienecker, point out, at the time of Christ, many of the bankers were also Jewish “moneychangers” (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:14), as well as those who collected the temple tax (Matthew 17:24). So, in Christ’s mind, it would not have been a violation of Old Testament Scriptures to have Jewish bankers or “exchangers” grant Jews interest for loans. This is understandable, as the Jewish bankers were not “poor” or “destitute,” so that Jews loaning them their money were not prohibited to receive interest from them. This means that it is not Biblically prohibited that a Christian lender receives interest from a Christian borrower for a loan, as long as the loan was given as a business transaction.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary,” ed. 1966, page 1129, para. 1 and 2, captures this distinction well, when it states: “The Israelites not being a commercial people, money was not often loaned for the purpose of business, but rather to aid the struggling poor. This last is the only kind of usury forbidden in the law…The taking of usury in the sense of a reasonable rate of interest for the use of money employed in trade is different, and is nowhere forbidden; and is referred to in the New Testament as a perfectly understood and allowable practice.”

In an old (undated) document which had been published by the Worldwide Church of God, under Herbert W. Armstrong, on the issue of charging interest, the following conclusion was given, agreeing with the foregoing, “Based on all this information, the Church concludes that the prohibition on receiving interest applies to charitable loans, not to business investments in which the loan will be used to gain increase. When the loan is earning an increase, it is only fair that the lender receive a fair share of that increase as interest… The biblical instructions concerning usury… pertain to the poor and needy… True Christians should not charge the poor interest on a loan that is intended to provide necessities. However, a loan as a business deal — and this would include buying a home — is an entirely different matter.”

To summarize, the ancient Israelites were forbidden to charge interest to a poor Israelite. However, they were not forbidden to charge reasonable interest to a foreigner (as foreigners were usually receiving loans in a business context). They were also not forbidden to charge reasonable interest to another Israelite if the loan was not given to help a poor and needy brother, but as a business transaction, in a commercial context.

These same principles apply today regarding Church members. Judging from the spirit of the law, it would seem inappropriate for a converted Christian to charge a poor and needy person interest, whether or not the poor person is in the Church (Galatians 6:10). On the other hand, it would not be wrong for a converted Christian to charge another person or institution interest for a loan strictly given in a business context.

A: We are glad to. To understand all these passages in their proper context, we must realize that God has decided to call a few people during this day and age, to offer them salvation, while the overwhelming majority of mankind will be called at a later time — during the Millennium, and during the Second Resurrection and the Great White Throne Judgment period (Revelation 20:6, 11-12). Everyone will get his or her chance to respond to God, but everyone in his or her own order (compare 1 Corinthians 15:23). God has not preordained anyone to eternal death — those who are not called yet are not judged yet — they will be judged later, when their time of calling has come.

The quote from the New KJV commentary conveys a blatantly false concept. The authors simply do not seem to understand God’s character, nor God’s purpose for mankind. God most certainly does not hate anyone, “before having done any good or evil” (Romans 9:11). Rightly understood, God does not hate anyone at all, but He does hate the evil that a person commits.

In Romans 9:13, God explains that He CALLED Jacob, and that He did NOT CALL Esau at that time. We need to understand that God had decided to call or choose for salvation certain ones “before the foundation of the earth” (Ephesians 1:4). We don’t know exactly, and God does not reveal, on what basis He chooses and elects those, but we know that He does make such an election, as the Bible tells us so.

In calling Jacob, God loved him in a special way, by opening to his understanding His truth, and by ultimately granting him His Holy Spirit. God did not call Esau AT THAT TIME. He WILL call Esau and all of his descendants later — during the Second Resurrection and the Great White Throne Judgment period.

By comparison, God “loved” Jacob more than Esau. God’s “love” needs to be understood in light of God’s calling at that time — as God loves everybody with the same kind of love. “For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him [now or later, including during the Second Resurrection] should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God also made clear that once someone is called, he or she must REPENT, or else perish (Luke 13:3, 5).

In not calling someone to repentance and to the understanding of His truth, God “loves” such a person “less” by comparison — at that moment in time — but not forever. God knows that such a person, still cut off from Him, will engage in sinful ways, bringing about automatic penalties. When we read about Esau’s future devastation right prior to Christ’s return, we need to realize that this will happen during the Day of the Lord — when God begins to intervene in the affairs of this world. Then, God will directly pour out plagues on sinful and unrepentant mankind to show them that sin only brings about misery and pain, unless repented of. Again, all of these people WILL be resurrected to be given their first chance to accept God’s truth and to follow it — they are NOT condemned forever (except those few who HAD been called and chosen, and who HAD received the Holy Spirit, and who THEN fell away from God — compare Hebrew 6:4-6).

God’s statement that He loved Jacob and HATED Esau must be understood as saying that God loved Esau LESS BY COMPARISON. The New KJV commentary is wrong, when it rejects this Biblical understanding. We might also note that the Bible itself sometimes defines “hate” as “love less by comparison.”

In Luke 14:26 we read that Christ tells us, “‘If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.'” In the parallel passage, in Matthew 10:37, the word “hate” is defined as “love less by comparison.” We read, “‘He who loves his father or mother MORE than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter MORE than Me is not worthy of Me.'” In other words, we must love them LESS, by comparison, than Jesus Christ. We are to love the Father and the Son with all our heart and our strength and our mind (compare Matthew 22:37). God must always come first in our lives. At the same time, we are to LOVE — not hate — our neighbor AS ourselves (compare Matthew 22:39). We are not to hate our neighbor, including our own family. We are to love them LESS than God, though, by comparison.

When God said that He “hated” Esau, by loving him less than Jacob, He was talking about His decision to call Jacob, but not Esau, to salvation at that time. The time for Esau’s and his descendants’ salvation is still coming.

A: In Matthew 12:40 Christ makes the statement, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Authorized Version throughout). In John 2:19 He said, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” In John 2:21 it is noted: “But He spake of the Temple of His body.”
We will address in this section the following questions in relation to these verses:

1) Was Christ dead for exactly 72 hours?
2) Was Christ in the tomb for exactly 72 hours?
3) How can we reconcile these two Scriptures since they appear to be contradictory?
4) Was Christ not dead the whole time He was in the tomb?

In John 2:19, where Christ says, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” He is not speaking specifically of a time of exactly 72 hours counting from the time of His crucifixion. As we will review in this Q&A – by definition – the crucifixion occurred over several hours. It began about 9 am that Wednesday morning. Christ died about 3 pm that afternoon. He was placed into the tomb about 6 pm that evening. As Mr. Armstrong described this event in his booklet, “The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday” – Christ was “To be raised up in three days after being DESTROYED, or crucified AND buried…”

Christ, in making the statement in John 2:19 was addressing the very same issue He is discussing in Matthew 12:40, where He was specifically speaking of the only sign He would give these self-righteous Pharisees that He was the Messiah. In Matthew 12:40, Christ specifically states that He would be in the HEART OF THE EARTH for “three days and three nights” just as Jonah was in the BELLY OF THE BIG FISH, three days and three nights. That was the sign He gave to the Pharisees and the religious leaders – the only sign! (Please note that for His disciples — those who have ears to hear and eyes to see — Christ gave many signs that He was the Messiah, compare John 20:30-31).

In stating this in the manner He does, He is telling these doubters to observe what was about to happen. He would be in the ground, dead and buried, for the exact period of time of 72 hours. If He had not fulfilled that sign, He would have shown to the world He was NOT the Savior. Yet we are told by God’s angel, as recorded in Matthew 28:6, “He is not here; for He is risen AS HE SAID.”
Christ was placed on an upright stake on that Wednesday morning at the third hour (Mark 15:25), which was about 9 am. At about the sixth hour, 12 noon Wednesday, darkness covered the earth (Mark 15:33). At the ninth hour, 3 pm Wednesday, there was the expiring cry (Mark 15:34-37). At that point in time, Christ was dead. He would remain dead until the Father would call Him from the grave, just as Jonah was called from the belly of the great fish. The fish spewed Jonah from his grave of death in the fish’s belly – onto dry ground, i.e., back to life. Jonah was 72 hours in the fish’s belly, after he had been swallowed up. He did not stay in the fish’s belly for a longer period of time, before he was spewed onto dry land.

By analogy, a newly converted Christian, when he accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior, repents of his sins, is baptized into a watery grave, and being lifted straightway out of that grave, pictures this event of death, burial, and resurrection to a new life (Romans 6:5; Colossians 2:12). Compare these Scriptures with those relating to the resurrection of Lazarus (John 12:17), and to the resurrections to come (John 5:28-29, Revelation 20:13).

All these passages show that the dead are raised to life and leave the grave at the same time. They are not raised to life and still remain in the grave for a while, before they leave it.

We read (in Matthew 27:57-60) that Christ was buried in haste before sunset on Wednesday, the preparation day, about 6 pm (thus, before the high day, the first day of Unleavened Bread had begun). According to Jewish law in effect at that time, all dead bodies had to be buried before the beginning of a Sabbath or a high day. Therefore, Christ was laid in the tomb in time to meet that deadline.

Christ remained in the ground, dead, for a period of 72 hours from the time He was placed in the earth; and He arose from the dead on the third day, just prior to sunset. That would have been Saturday evening about 6 pm (Matthew 28:6). He was resurrected on the third day, “as He said,” — not 72 hours from the time He cried out from that stake and gave up the spirit; but 72 hours from the time He was placed in the tomb. He was literally dead 75 hours based on the Scriptural reckoning.

When the ladies came to the tomb “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week…” (Matthew 28:1), they found the stone door to the tomb rolled away. Christ was not there! He had already risen and the first day of the week was just about to dawn (Remember that the days — according to the Hebrew calendar — begin and end with sunset.). It is well to note here that the stone was rolled away by God’s angel so that the ladies could see that He was not there. Since He was now Spirit, there was no need to roll the stone away for His benefit. He came forth when the Father called Him, just as Jonah came forth from the belly of the fish and just as, at the time of the first resurrection of the saints, the Lord will shout, and the dead in Christ will rise. No one will need to open their graves for these “firstfruits” to come forth.