Traditionally Hebrews counted any part of a day as a day. So, if Christ died on Friday prior to sundown, that counts as the first day. After sundown would count as the second day but the first night. The second day will continue until sundown Saturday. At that point the third day would begin and continue throughout Sunday; but that would only be the second night. The inescapable fact that we're faced with is that to get the third night, Christ had to be crucified on a Thursday, not a Friday. But is that possible? Is church tradition wrong? And if so, why? How did the error arise? This post, which spun off from another related thread, will attempt to answer those questions, plus a few others as well ... including what year did Jesus die?
According to the Gospels, on the day of Christ's death, he was crucified at 9 am and died at 3 pm (Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:34-37). Following his death, it would have taken time for Joseph and Nicodemus to go to Pilate and beg for his body, for Pilate to summon the centurion and question him while the two men waited, and then for Joseph and Nicodemus to assemble what they needed, return to the scene of the crucifixion and then take Christ body to the tomb. Therefore, it is highly likely that it was close to sundown (if not actual sundown) when they finally laid Jesus in that tomb and left. Jesus may have been dead since 3:00 p.m. but he was likely not in the grave until around 6:00 p.m. this is important because it was close to sunset which, according to the way the Hebrews counted days, was actually the start of the next day. So if the crucifixion were on a Friday (the 5th day of the week), and the sun was setting as Christ was placed in the tomb, he may not have been laid in the grave and it sealed until the Hebrew sixth day (our Saturday). If so, he was technically only in the grave for 2 days and two nights. If however, it was still daylight on Friday, that would have counted as the whole day (again the way Jews reckoned days) so he would at least have Jesus dead for 3 days. I would still be only two nights (Friday night and Saturday night).
Now let's look at a Thursday crucifixion, and then examine whether scripture gives us any likelihood that it in fact happened on that day.
Since we already demonstrated how a Friday crucifixion could give us 3 days for Christ to be in the grave, would a Thursday crucifixion not give us Christ being 4 days in the grave? (Again based on the way that Hebrews reckoned days.) Let's dive in.
Referring back to the earlier paragraph where I discussed how long it would have taken from Christ's death at 3:00 p.m. to all the events leading up to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea being able to arrive at the garden time with Christ's body, that same argument would hold true for a Thursday. Since the sun was setting, from a religious standpoint Friday had begun even though it was still Thursday evening. Therefore that first night (the start of Friday at sundown Thursday) took place without a day preceding it in our count.
So let's lay it out:
Night 1 - Sunset Thursday to sunrise Friday
Day 1 - Sunset Thursday to sunset Friday
Night 2 - Sunset Friday to sunrise Saturday
Day 2 - Sunset Friday to sunset Saturday
Night 3 - Sunset Saturday to sunrise Sunday
Day 3 - Sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday
Now (other than out of sheer tradition) opposition to a Thursday crucifixion is often made based on John 19:3 and Mark 15:42-43. Both passages make a similar reference to the preparation day for the Sabbath. Mark's verse reads: "Now it was already evening. Since it was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent Council member who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, boldly went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus." "See?" those who insist on a Friday crucifixion say. "Scripture says it was the preparation day for the Sabbath! And the Sabbath is Saturday; therefore the crucifixion took place on Friday." But they say that because they are ignorant of Jewish customs and Levitical law.
First of all, there is no preparation day for a regular Sabbath. Second, there is a preparation day for a feast day. And that feast day is treated as a special Sabbath. And, for the record, Passover itself is the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread that follows on the very next day.
As I said, in any week where there was a high holy day, that week would have two sabbaths in it-- the holy day being a special Sabbath, plus the regular Sabbath. So the Sabbath following the preparation day was not Saturday but another day: and, since the Bible tells us Christ was crucified on Passover, the following day would have been the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So we have Christ crucified on the Passover which is the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So far so good. But those could have been on any day of the week. And so if, for example, that feast had been on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday --in other words on any day other than Friday-- the disciples and women would have gone to the tomb the following day after the special Sabbath was over. But according to scripture, the week Christ was crucified they all waited until Sunday morning. Why? Because the day after the special Sabbath was a regular Sabbath.i%
So, this not only tells us that Christ had to be crucified on a Thursday, but it also tells us why it took until the first day of the week for the women and the disciples to go to the tomb. Religious observants kept them at home for 2 days. Now, technically they could have gone to the the tomb after sunset on the second day (Saturday evening) but it was dark so they had to wait until the morning of the third day, which was Sunday-- the first day of the week, which all four Gospels verify (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
Now all of this gives us even more information: it gives us the year when Christ was crucified! All we have to do is look for a Passover day on a Thursday and a Feast of Unleavened Bread on a Friday, in the vicinity of 29 to 33 AD. So, we need to go looking for a 14th of Nissan and a 15th of Nissan, for those are the days of the Jewish calendar that were given in Leviticus 23:5-7 for the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread respectively. And guess what? In the year 30 AD, 14th of Nissan fell on a Thursday and the 15th of Nissan fill on a Friday. Based on this knowledge, Christ was crucified in 30 AD. But wait, there's more. (I'm beginning to sound like a K-Tel commercial!)
We know from scripture that Jesus Christ was 33 years old when he was crucified. If he was crucified in 30 AD, it means that he had to be born roughly 3 BC. And who do you suppose was the Jewish king ruling Judea in 3 BC? The wicked Herod the Great who had the little boys in Bethlehem murdered in an attempt to kill the king he had learned had been born there. At that time, Joseph was warned by an angel to take the baby and Mary and go to Egypt until Herod died (Matthew 2:13-15). Herod died two years later, in 1 BC. And Joseph took his family and returned to Israel, specifically Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-23).
It all fits perfectly, except for one fly in the ointment. Remember that Caesar demanded a census, which is why Joseph and Mary wound up in Bethlehem? Well, most translations of the gospel of Luke render Luke 2:2 as saying the census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. But Quirinius was not named governor of Syria until 6 AD. We know however that he was in Syria a few years prior to that, in an undefined role. Some believe he was a duumvir, one of two lower level leaders. Regardless, based on his social and political status, he would have had an important function. And Luke does not say he was the governor of Syria. The literal Greek says he was leading or governing in Syria. It's not a noun describing his job, but an adjective describing a function. Quirinius was leading or governing in Syria. There is no evidence that says he wasn't, though admittedly there is no definite evidence saying he was. But there is evidence indicating he could have been. And 2,000 years after the event, that appears to be the best we can do ... unless some ancient document comes to light at some point.
Anyway, take from all that what you will. For me, I am satisfied that Jesus was most likely born in 3 BC and taken by his father to Egypt for 2 years until Herod died. Then in 1 BC, at the age of two, he was brought to Nazareth where he lived until he began his ministry at the age of 30 ... which would have been in 27 AD.
Regardless of whether I am correct or not, the fact remains that history has proven over and over and over that Christ came in the flesh, was born of a virgin, did many miracles to prove who He was, proclaimed God's word, did many miracles to prove who He was, was falsely convicted, crucified, buried for 3 days and three nights, and then raised up from the dead. Our faith is securely anchored on the rock of Truth.
According to the Gospels, on the day of Christ's death, he was crucified at 9 am and died at 3 pm (Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:34-37). Following his death, it would have taken time for Joseph and Nicodemus to go to Pilate and beg for his body, for Pilate to summon the centurion and question him while the two men waited, and then for Joseph and Nicodemus to assemble what they needed, return to the scene of the crucifixion and then take Christ body to the tomb. Therefore, it is highly likely that it was close to sundown (if not actual sundown) when they finally laid Jesus in that tomb and left. Jesus may have been dead since 3:00 p.m. but he was likely not in the grave until around 6:00 p.m. this is important because it was close to sunset which, according to the way the Hebrews counted days, was actually the start of the next day. So if the crucifixion were on a Friday (the 5th day of the week), and the sun was setting as Christ was placed in the tomb, he may not have been laid in the grave and it sealed until the Hebrew sixth day (our Saturday). If so, he was technically only in the grave for 2 days and two nights. If however, it was still daylight on Friday, that would have counted as the whole day (again the way Jews reckoned days) so he would at least have Jesus dead for 3 days. I would still be only two nights (Friday night and Saturday night).
Now let's look at a Thursday crucifixion, and then examine whether scripture gives us any likelihood that it in fact happened on that day.
Since we already demonstrated how a Friday crucifixion could give us 3 days for Christ to be in the grave, would a Thursday crucifixion not give us Christ being 4 days in the grave? (Again based on the way that Hebrews reckoned days.) Let's dive in.
Referring back to the earlier paragraph where I discussed how long it would have taken from Christ's death at 3:00 p.m. to all the events leading up to Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea being able to arrive at the garden time with Christ's body, that same argument would hold true for a Thursday. Since the sun was setting, from a religious standpoint Friday had begun even though it was still Thursday evening. Therefore that first night (the start of Friday at sundown Thursday) took place without a day preceding it in our count.
So let's lay it out:
Night 1 - Sunset Thursday to sunrise Friday
Day 1 - Sunset Thursday to sunset Friday
Night 2 - Sunset Friday to sunrise Saturday
Day 2 - Sunset Friday to sunset Saturday
Night 3 - Sunset Saturday to sunrise Sunday
Day 3 - Sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday
Now (other than out of sheer tradition) opposition to a Thursday crucifixion is often made based on John 19:3 and Mark 15:42-43. Both passages make a similar reference to the preparation day for the Sabbath. Mark's verse reads: "Now it was already evening. Since it was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent Council member who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, boldly went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus." "See?" those who insist on a Friday crucifixion say. "Scripture says it was the preparation day for the Sabbath! And the Sabbath is Saturday; therefore the crucifixion took place on Friday." But they say that because they are ignorant of Jewish customs and Levitical law.
First of all, there is no preparation day for a regular Sabbath. Second, there is a preparation day for a feast day. And that feast day is treated as a special Sabbath. And, for the record, Passover itself is the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread that follows on the very next day.
As I said, in any week where there was a high holy day, that week would have two sabbaths in it-- the holy day being a special Sabbath, plus the regular Sabbath. So the Sabbath following the preparation day was not Saturday but another day: and, since the Bible tells us Christ was crucified on Passover, the following day would have been the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So we have Christ crucified on the Passover which is the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So far so good. But those could have been on any day of the week. And so if, for example, that feast had been on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday --in other words on any day other than Friday-- the disciples and women would have gone to the tomb the following day after the special Sabbath was over. But according to scripture, the week Christ was crucified they all waited until Sunday morning. Why? Because the day after the special Sabbath was a regular Sabbath.i%
So, this not only tells us that Christ had to be crucified on a Thursday, but it also tells us why it took until the first day of the week for the women and the disciples to go to the tomb. Religious observants kept them at home for 2 days. Now, technically they could have gone to the the tomb after sunset on the second day (Saturday evening) but it was dark so they had to wait until the morning of the third day, which was Sunday-- the first day of the week, which all four Gospels verify (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
Now all of this gives us even more information: it gives us the year when Christ was crucified! All we have to do is look for a Passover day on a Thursday and a Feast of Unleavened Bread on a Friday, in the vicinity of 29 to 33 AD. So, we need to go looking for a 14th of Nissan and a 15th of Nissan, for those are the days of the Jewish calendar that were given in Leviticus 23:5-7 for the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread respectively. And guess what? In the year 30 AD, 14th of Nissan fell on a Thursday and the 15th of Nissan fill on a Friday. Based on this knowledge, Christ was crucified in 30 AD. But wait, there's more. (I'm beginning to sound like a K-Tel commercial!)
We know from scripture that Jesus Christ was 33 years old when he was crucified. If he was crucified in 30 AD, it means that he had to be born roughly 3 BC. And who do you suppose was the Jewish king ruling Judea in 3 BC? The wicked Herod the Great who had the little boys in Bethlehem murdered in an attempt to kill the king he had learned had been born there. At that time, Joseph was warned by an angel to take the baby and Mary and go to Egypt until Herod died (Matthew 2:13-15). Herod died two years later, in 1 BC. And Joseph took his family and returned to Israel, specifically Nazareth (Matthew 2:19-23).
It all fits perfectly, except for one fly in the ointment. Remember that Caesar demanded a census, which is why Joseph and Mary wound up in Bethlehem? Well, most translations of the gospel of Luke render Luke 2:2 as saying the census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. But Quirinius was not named governor of Syria until 6 AD. We know however that he was in Syria a few years prior to that, in an undefined role. Some believe he was a duumvir, one of two lower level leaders. Regardless, based on his social and political status, he would have had an important function. And Luke does not say he was the governor of Syria. The literal Greek says he was leading or governing in Syria. It's not a noun describing his job, but an adjective describing a function. Quirinius was leading or governing in Syria. There is no evidence that says he wasn't, though admittedly there is no definite evidence saying he was. But there is evidence indicating he could have been. And 2,000 years after the event, that appears to be the best we can do ... unless some ancient document comes to light at some point.
Anyway, take from all that what you will. For me, I am satisfied that Jesus was most likely born in 3 BC and taken by his father to Egypt for 2 years until Herod died. Then in 1 BC, at the age of two, he was brought to Nazareth where he lived until he began his ministry at the age of 30 ... which would have been in 27 AD.
Regardless of whether I am correct or not, the fact remains that history has proven over and over and over that Christ came in the flesh, was born of a virgin, did many miracles to prove who He was, proclaimed God's word, did many miracles to prove who He was, was falsely convicted, crucified, buried for 3 days and three nights, and then raised up from the dead. Our faith is securely anchored on the rock of Truth.
