Friday Crucifixion Followup

Introduction

In my previous post on this topic, I gave ample proof from the Scripture that Jesus was in fact crucified on a Friday, and that to use the sign of the prophet Jonah to say otherwise introduces irreconcilable contradictions.

After posting it, I linked to it on a few discussion threads online. Some good points were raised in objection, which although I addressed them in those places I thought it might be prudent to include in this followup post, so as to gather them together in one place. Additionally, I have included below at least one observation that I forgot to include anywhere else.

Finally, as a housekeeping note: rather than do additional posts when/if new followup information becomes available, I will simply edit this one.

Regarding the polemical nature of the previous post

One of the readers imagined that because I chose to use mildly polemic language, I was engaging in either Ad Hominem or else an Appeal to Authority (other than Scripture, that is — specifically, Tradition).

However, a careful reader will notice that while I do sprinkle polemic throughout the Introductions and various Conclusions, it (intentionally) forms no part of the actual arguments presented, nor of the logic given to reach those conclusions. Those are founded precisely and only on Scripture.

Having thus clarified the matter, let us proceed to the argumentative observations.

Regarding the timing of the Lord's arrival to Bethany

An astute observer pointed out that John tells us that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover. This is found in John 12:1.

Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper…

He argued from this for a Friday Passover, which would have put the day before the Passover on Thursday, along with the Crucifixion.

The thinking is: Saturday arrival in Bethany = 6 days before. Ergo:

Counting forward from Saturday as P-6

S	S	M	T	W	Th	F
6	5	4	3	2	1	Passover
Arrival at Bethany	1	2	3	4	5	6

This is actually accurate, as far as counting the days goes. However, the objection arises from a misinterpretation of the phrase the day before the Passover, in which it is assumed that the Passover would be comprised from that Friday as a whole, and the Day of Preparation would be the Thursday only. However, Jewish days begin at sunset. Thus we note that Passover did in fact begin on a Friday, but in the evening; the day itself was the Day of Preparation, and had begun the evening prior (i.e. Thursday evening). It is therefore not a stretch of language to refer to Saturday as six days before the Passover, while also having the Lord's crucifixion occur on that same Friday. This observation from John 12:1 fails to disprove a Friday crucifixion.

Regarding the length of the journey to Bethany

One interlocutor tried to place the Lord's arrival in Bethany on a Friday (thus making six days from then to be Wednesday or Thursday, depending on counting method). His reasoning was that the journey from Ephraim to Bethany is greater than was allowed for Jews on the Sabbath day, and thus the journey must have concluded before the Sabbath, such that Jesus spent the Sabbath itself in the house of Mary and Martha.

However, it is sufficient to note that the Scripture does not say, Then Jesus six days before the passover traveled from Ephraim to Bethany.

Rather, it says, Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany. That is, it only mentions His arrival, not the whole journey. Regarding the whole journey, we are told in another Gospel (Luke 13:33) that it was comprised of at least three days, or possibly more. The final leg, culminating in John's note about His arrival, could easily have been within the confines of the sabbath day's journey.

Furthermore, there is evidence showing the opposite: that that day was in fact Saturday, because it says, and they made him a supper. This would be, of course, in the evening. And the next day, it says, He entered into Jerusalem on a donkey. Now the whole world accepts that this Triumphal Entry happened on a Sunday, called Palm Sunday after the palms that the people cut and threw down, together with their coats.

If He arrived in Bethany on Friday, however, then it would rather be Palm Saturday, would it not? seeing as it was the next day. But as this is an argument from Tradition (the whole world accepts), I leave it more as an observation than an argument per se.

Regarding the supposed double sabbath

This brings us to the final argumentation we encountered, in which it was posited that the week of the Crucifixion included two (or more) Sabbath days — one the normal Sabbath, namely, Saturday, and one the Passover itself, which these assert took place Thursday evening to Friday evening that year. Some even go beyond this and posit three sabbaths, with Passover going from Wednesday evening to Thursday evening.

They attempted to cause this to stand on two legs: 1) Scripture and 2) information gathered extra-biblically from the Christ-denying Jews, and choosing some assumptions based on that information in order to get things to fit.

Two things adhere against this, of which I'm not sure which is worse:

1. They claim to follow only the Scripture, and yet their arguments require non-Scriptural information.

   If only Scripture is to be used as they claim, they cannot bring their conclusions safely to harbor. Thus they manifestly choose as their guides the blind and Christ-hating Jews whose faces are veiled and cannot see that the Scriptures speak of Christ. They throw their lot in with that wicked and adulterous generation, and make them to be their authorities and teachers in interpretation!

2. Any such calculations nevertheless introduce the same contradiction exposed in the previous post to which this is a followup.

   We ought not give short shrift; rather let us examine the Scriptures they bring forward. We will find that we agree wholeheartedly in the bulk of the argument. We will, however, also show precisely where they leap away into mad reliance on the false Jews of the synagogue of Satan.

• What according to the Law constitutes a Sabbath

  The Ten Commandments give the definition of a Sabbath, and the reason for it:

  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

  (Exodus 20:8–11 KJV, emph. mine)

• That there is a Sabbath every week, on the 7^th Day

  This is established in the commandment above, and also in the list of Holy Convocations required in the passage below. This is what we refer to in the previous article and this one as the normal Sabbath.

• That the Mosaic Law calls for additional Sabbaths in addition to each 7^th Day

  Leviticus 23 lays out the Law of the Lord Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts. (v2) The first one listed is, of course, the ″normal″ one.

  Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

  (v3)

• That Passover is one such

  Immediately following the command regarding the 7^th Day, the Passover itself is given:

  These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.

  (vss. 4, 5)

• That the feast of Unleavened Bread, which follows immediately, is another

  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

  (vss. 6, 7)

• That the Scriptures do not in fact specify what a high day is, but only hint at it

  There are only two occurrences of the phrase high day in the Scriptures. The first, Genesis 29:7, does not carry a relevant meaning, referring rather to the middle of the day, where high refers to the position of the sun, not the quality or importance of the day.

  The second occurrence of this phrase in Scripture is the instance that we would like to define; it cannot stand as its own definition.

  However, while the phrase itself is not defined directly, the concept is described by St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans.

  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.

  (14:5)

  A day that is esteemed above another could reasonably be considered higher than the other. Therefore it would not be inaccurate to describe such a day as high.

  So the Scripture seems to indicate that a high day is one that is esteemed above others.

• That nevertheless at least one day that week was such, and is called a Sabbath

  The second instance of the term high day in Scripture is John 19:31, which reads:

  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

  From this we gather two things:

  1. that the time of the crucifixion was during the day called the preparation, and
  2. that the day to follow (beginning in the evening of the same day) was a) a sabbath day, and b) a high day.

     As noted above, we are not given a definition of what high day means. However, the context seems to indicate that it refers to one of the special sabbaths listed in Leviticus 23, particularly the Passover.

     I do not find it unreasonable to assume that John says what he says because that Sabbath was the Passover.

  3. That, however, the Scripture does not explicitly place it before the 7^th Day

     Nevertheless, even though we accept (for how could we fight against Scripture?) that that sabbath day was in fact a high day, it is not yet proven that it was a different actual day than the 7^th. The two sabbaths could easily be overlapping. The phrase that sabbath day was an high day could just as easily mean that normal 7^th-day sabbath day was also a high day as it could mean that sabbath was not the normal 7^th-day sabbath, but another: one of the high days.

     Those who would set out to prove a non-Friday crucifixion adduce this verse in support, but only by forcing it to mean only the latter interpretation, to the exclusion of the first. This choice is simply not indicated nor necessitated by the text itself, and represents an exact example of eisegesis, or reading into the text what one wants it to say, rather than limiting oneself to what the text actually does say.

  4. That neither does the Scripture contain a grammatical plurality showing more than one Sabbath in the week of the Passion

     They observe that another time marker is found in Matthew 28:1, which places the discovery of the Resurrection

     In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week…

     They note that while most (all?) English translations have a singular the sabbath there, the Greek actually has the word for sabbaths as found in the plural form. This would seem, they say, to indicate more than one day involved in the sabbath, such that He would have been in the tomb for two full sabbath days or more, instead of just the one.

     However, a closer examination of the Greek reveals the hastiness of this assumption. It reads:

     ᾿Οψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων…

     That is, literally and following their translational scheme regarding σαββάτων:

     But after sabbaths, lightening into the first [of] sabbaths…

     This of course, makes little sense. Clearly the translators into English understood correctly that σαββάτων refers to the week. So a slightly less literal translation might read:

     But after the week, lightening toward the first of the week…

     This is still awkward, but at least it's understandable and consistent. Removing the awkwardness, and accounting for the fact that the Sabbath is the last day of the week, we arrive at:

     After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning…

     We see then that the supposed plurality of the word σαββάτων is not quantitative but collective, indicating the whole week, and cannot be seen to indicate multiple sabbath days in the week then ending.

Intermission

Thus far in their so-called proofs — which we have seen are not proofs at all! — these Friday-fighters have endeavored to convince us that they have the fire, when in fact it is merely that they are blowing smoke and hot air.

In a future edit, we will at this point begin to examine what kind of mind sees things such, and whether that is the mind of Christ, or the blindness of those who deny Him — indeed, who crucified Him! And we will see what is the fulfillment of the Law and the Psalms and the Prophets, and what is not.