This is the second in a series of posts discussing the theory that Jesus died on a Wednesday, instead of Friday, as has traditionally been held. The first post simply catalogued the various scriptures that have a bearing on the question.
The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.) It seems clear that (at least on the surface) there is a conflict between these four expressions. If indeed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" after his crucifixion, it is impossible that he spent "three days and three nights" in the tomb; conversely, if he did spend "three days and three nights" in the tomb, it would seem necessary that he rose on the fourth day, not the third. While "in three days" could be reasonably accommodated to either scheme, "after three days" would seem to support the idea of three full days and nights in the tomb.
As all parties in this debate are committed to the infallibility of the Word of God,1 all see the need to reconcile these disparate expressions with one another. The theory of a Wednesday crucifixion is an attempt to deal seriously with the expression, "Three days and three nights" in Matthew 12:40. Those who hold to that theory would tend to take the observance of "Good Friday" as a piece of church tradition that does not adequately reflect the Gospel record, and would generally tend to take defenses of a Friday crucifixion as resulting primarily from a desire to retain that tradition.
The weakness of a Wednesday crucifixion theory would be those scriptures that indicate that Jesus rose "on the third day." It may be argued that Jesus wasn't actually in the tomb until sundown Wednesday--i.e., Thursday, according to Jewish reckoning--and that he could have risen at any point Saturday night, so that from Thursday, Saturday is the "third day." However, this reconstruction involves using two separate calendars--a Jewish one for Wednesday evening, so Jesus can be regarded as being entombed on "Thursday," and a Roman/modern one for Saturday night, so he can be regarded as rising on "Saturday." Without further exegetical proof, this reconstruction is highly suspect on its face: time periods should be measured consistently. Moreover, such a reconstruction, even if tenable, wouldn't allow for the resurrection to be on the third day from Jesus' crucifixion, but rather from his burial; similarly, a "Saturday night" resurrection might be conceivable as on the third day from the burial, but later events on Easter Sunday would inescapably be on the fourth day, no matter how the time periods were reconstructed.
Those who hold to a Friday crucifixion must find some way to reconcile the expressions "after three days" and "three days and three nights" with their conviction that Jesus died on Friday and rose Sunday morning; such a scheme does not allow for a literal "three days and three nights" entombment of Jesus. The strong point in their argument is that a Friday crucifixion seems to make the best sense of the statement that Jesus rose "on the third day."
_______________
Note
1 For those who do not hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture, there is no point to harmonizing disparate accounts. They would probably say that different streams of tradition held to different crucifixion dates, or that the originators of those traditions had no interest in the question, and thus were not careful to keep their writings consistent. Therefore, the question only rises to importance for those who do believe in inerrancy (at least on this point).
Next up: Interpretation of the various passages discussed in part 1.
Technorati Tags: Easter, Good Friday, Friday, Wednesday Crucifixion, Crucifixion, Crucified, Jesus, Jesus Christ
The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.) It seems clear that (at least on the surface) there is a conflict between these four expressions. If indeed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" after his crucifixion, it is impossible that he spent "three days and three nights" in the tomb; conversely, if he did spend "three days and three nights" in the tomb, it would seem necessary that he rose on the fourth day, not the third. While "in three days" could be reasonably accommodated to either scheme, "after three days" would seem to support the idea of three full days and nights in the tomb.
As all parties in this debate are committed to the infallibility of the Word of God,1 all see the need to reconcile these disparate expressions with one another. The theory of a Wednesday crucifixion is an attempt to deal seriously with the expression, "Three days and three nights" in Matthew 12:40. Those who hold to that theory would tend to take the observance of "Good Friday" as a piece of church tradition that does not adequately reflect the Gospel record, and would generally tend to take defenses of a Friday crucifixion as resulting primarily from a desire to retain that tradition.
The weakness of a Wednesday crucifixion theory would be those scriptures that indicate that Jesus rose "on the third day." It may be argued that Jesus wasn't actually in the tomb until sundown Wednesday--i.e., Thursday, according to Jewish reckoning--and that he could have risen at any point Saturday night, so that from Thursday, Saturday is the "third day." However, this reconstruction involves using two separate calendars--a Jewish one for Wednesday evening, so Jesus can be regarded as being entombed on "Thursday," and a Roman/modern one for Saturday night, so he can be regarded as rising on "Saturday." Without further exegetical proof, this reconstruction is highly suspect on its face: time periods should be measured consistently. Moreover, such a reconstruction, even if tenable, wouldn't allow for the resurrection to be on the third day from Jesus' crucifixion, but rather from his burial; similarly, a "Saturday night" resurrection might be conceivable as on the third day from the burial, but later events on Easter Sunday would inescapably be on the fourth day, no matter how the time periods were reconstructed.
Those who hold to a Friday crucifixion must find some way to reconcile the expressions "after three days" and "three days and three nights" with their conviction that Jesus died on Friday and rose Sunday morning; such a scheme does not allow for a literal "three days and three nights" entombment of Jesus. The strong point in their argument is that a Friday crucifixion seems to make the best sense of the statement that Jesus rose "on the third day."
_______________
Note
1 For those who do not hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture, there is no point to harmonizing disparate accounts. They would probably say that different streams of tradition held to different crucifixion dates, or that the originators of those traditions had no interest in the question, and thus were not careful to keep their writings consistent. Therefore, the question only rises to importance for those who do believe in inerrancy (at least on this point).
Next up: Interpretation of the various passages discussed in part 1.
Technorati Tags: Easter, Good Friday, Friday, Wednesday Crucifixion, Crucifixion, Crucified, Jesus, Jesus Christ
Greetings Keith,
ReplyDeleteStated above,
The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.)
FYI. These four expressions used in Scripture can be "visually" seen together on the same "one" chronological timeline in the free "Twilight Report", downloadable from Paschal Lamb Ministries' website, each expression in harmony with one another, and also, each expression displayed with their own separate meaning, Please share with your friends.
The Gospel Truth - New Revelation For Our Time
In Christ's service,
David Behrens
Sola Gloria Dei!
Director Paschal Lamb Ministries
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
Hi David,
DeleteThanks for stopping by. You didn't leave a link for your website, so I'm happy to provide that here: http://paschallambministries.com/.
I did download the Twilight Report and checked it out. I'd like to suggest that you organize it into a single document rather than a collection of PDF files, and that you write it in such a way as to make obvious what the issues are regarding the passages in Exodus that you cite. It's not entirely clear to me what the problems are, especially since I don't believe the Gospels ever mention directly what day of the Jewish calendar the Last Supper took place on.
At any rate, looking at your diagrams, I take it that you believe that Jesus died on a Thursday, that the period of darkness during Jesus' crucifixion constituted a night, that the rest of that Thursday (as the world saw it) was considered from a divine perspective Friday, Friday then was really Saturday, and Saturday was the day Jesus rose (which would have been considered from a divine perspective Sunday). If I've misunderstood, I apologize.
I think the weakness of such a hypothesis lies in the fact that nowhere in the rest of the New Testament is anything ever made of this sequence of events. If this is so important, why wouldn't it be stressed in Acts and the Epistles?
I think that you may not have read the rest of my series on this topic. I discuss interpretive issues in the next post here: http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2007/04/on-theory-of-wednesday-crucifixion-3.html, and give my final summation here: http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2007/04/on-theory-of-wednesday-crucifixion-4.html.
To me, the final word is given in Luke 24:21. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus discuss with the risen Jesus (whom they do not yet recognize) the events of Jesus' crucifixion, and state that "this is the third day since all this took place." They're speaking later in the day, after Jesus' resurrection has become known, on "the first day of the week." If from their perspective it is now the "third day" from Jesus' crucifixion, then his crucifixion must have happened two days earlier, on Friday.
However, I think it's unimportant precisely when the chronology took place. The important thing is that we celebrate the fact of Jesus' death and resurrection, not the precise day of the week on which it happened.
Keith,
DeleteThanks for your reply, and suggestions on how to better organize the report. A Thursday Crucifixion is implied in the Holy Scriptures, from my perspective. I agree with you that a Wednesday Crucifixion is not implied in the Holy Scriptures from the other two links that you provided.
From my perspective, the Holy Thursday Crucifixion occurred in real time. When looking back at these events, from a historical perspective, this same twenty four hour period would then be construed as occurring on a Friday. In other words, the Jewish Friday today, sunset to sunset, would have been the Jewish Thursday, sunset to sunset, in Jesus' time. Our history is dependent on the afternoon perspective of the timeline I present. The date would have been corrected at the "new moon", but the day of the week would not have been corrected, since the Lord's Sabbath was observed every seven days, and they had to obey God's command to keep the Sabbath day holy.
You quote from the two disciples on the road to Emmaus as speaking to a stranger on "the first day of the week", the following, "this is the third day since all this took place." My understanding is in complete harmony with those words. Here is my reasoning:
I agree with you that the conversation took place on Sunday, the first day of the week. Logically then, if this conversation had taken place one day earlier, the disciples would have stated to this person, "this is the second day since all this took place." Again, logically, if this conversation had taken place yet another day earlier, the disciples would have stated to this unknown person, "this is the first day since all this took place." From my understanding then, if these two disciples were on the road to Emmaus on the day that Jesus was crucified, and had met this unknown person who had no idea of the events taking place on this day, they would have stated to him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have you not known the things which happened today?"
Keith,
DeleteThe main issue for all of the current understandings of Holy Week chronology, other than my own, can be found in the “Ground Zero–Synoptic Problem” pdf file, in the Twilight Report. It is clear from the picture, but I will try to make it clear here, in a few words.
15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. (Exodus 12:15) – Bible Gateway - (NKJV)
The English words, “the first day” are recorded twice in the same one verse. The entire Christian Church has correctly interpreted “the first day” in the latter part of the verse, as being the Jewish fifteenth calendar day by the Letter of the Law. (Leviticus 23:6,7; Numbers 28:17,18) The entire Christian Church has incorrectly interpreted “the first day”, earlier in this same verse, as being the Jewish fourteenth calendar day by the Letter of the Law. This is in clear violation of rational exegesis. The Jewish fifteenth calendar day of the first month will always be “the first day” of the Feast of Unleavened Bread by the Letter of the Law.
Since Jesus always obeyed all of His Father’s commands, Jesus would have removed the leaven on “the first day” of the Feast of Unleavened Bread by the Letter of the Law, on the Jewish fifteenth calendar day, and leaven would not have been found in the houses for seven days. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Galatians 4:4)
The Jewish fourteenth calendar day of the first month was never the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread by the Letter of the Law.
Hi David,
DeleteYou may note by the date stamp of the post that it's been several years since I wrote on this particular topic. It's not an ongoing concern of mine, and this is why: I think there's something fundamentally mistaken about focusing on the minutia of a passage of scripture or a reconstructed timeline or place or whatever, and making it more important than the Bible itself makes it.
For us, for our salvation, what matters is not the precise sequence and dating of events, but the fact that Jesus bore our punishment by dying for us and rose again to bring us newness of life. Questions of chronology might be interesting, but they can be divisive and distract us from the main message.
That was, in fact, why I wrote the original piece, although I'd probably go about it differently now. The underlying idea behind the Wednesday crucifixion argument is that "The whole church has gotten it wrong, and we've got it right!" I think that's a dangerous attitude.
So I could respond to your individual points, but the larger point is this: I want to focus on the grace of Christ, not the Letter of the Law. The Law kills. I can't possibly be justified by it, so why focus on it? Only God's Grace brings life, and life more abundantly.
Keith,
DeleteI agree with you that the Law kills, and that the focus of Holy Week should focus on God's Grace through Jesus' Holy and Precious Body and Blood, shed for us on the Cross. It is finished! One perfect Sacrifice for sins forever.
Thank you for being gracious in all of your comments.
The precise sequence and dating of Holy Week events was a gift of God that I received many years ago, and is to be shared with all of the members of the Body of Christ. I was called by God out of my engineering career, in order to accomplish the Lord's work (Twenty-one years so far on this project). To whom much is given, much will be required. I'm just the messenger in this regard, and from my perspective, I had no other choice but to say yes to the Lord. There is no selfish pride in this work, it was all prepared ahead of time for me to do in the Lord. That's why I've tried to be very careful in giving all the glory to God alone. If I did nothing with this gift, God would not have been pleased. Also, I believe that God wanted to show all Biblical perspectives, (those who believe the Bible is God's Holy Word), that they all have to come to the Cross of Jesus in order to see God's Perspective (beyn ha'arbayim"). Especially, the congregation of Israel. Jesus is God. There is only one Biblical faith, and one Body of Christ. Sectarianism is a sin. In this regard, the exact timing and sequence of the Holy Week chronology shows that everyone is wrong in their exegesis of (Exodus 12:15). Including myself, before I received this gift, as I also went along with everyone else in this wrong direction. All have sinned, and all come short of the Glory of God, including myself. (I was delivered by the Lord from a bondage to porn.) This understanding also shows to the Jewish people how the Blood of Jesus was, and still is, on them, and on their children forever. All of Israel is saved by the Blood of the Paschal Lamb of God. The Life is in the Blood. (Eternal Life)
If you don't hear of me teaching this, in this time and space, it will definitely be taught in heaven. Objective Truth never changes. Also, when one gets the "wake-up" call that I got from the Lord, it's unmistakeable. I believe that it is truly a miracle to "visually" see the Word of God, all come together in harmony, simply from understanding how one mid-afternoon sunset occurred on the day that Jesus was crucified, and how it also caused the miraculous 3 hour period of darkness.
God's continued Blessings to your ministry.
David Behrens
Sola Gloria Dei!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world