ON WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK WAS CHRIST CRUCIFIED?
By M. C. W.
THE above question has come to us requesting an answer. It is by no means new; it has arisen perennially since the apostasy was fully established, and men have striven after a knowledge of matters not expressly revealed more than for an understanding of those things which pertain to our soul's eternal welfare. The general belief is that Christ was crucified on Friday. This is fully set forth and defended with much learning and ability by men eminent for scholarship. See, for instance, Smith's Bible Dictionary. Another claim made is that he was crucified on Thursday instead of Friday, and this claim is set forth with no little skill and ability. Neither of these will we at this time defend or rebut. Still another claim is made by some observers of the seventh day, as well as others, that Jesus was crucified Wednesday. In urging this claim they have three objects: (1) To show that Christ fulfilled the prophecy of Dan. 9:27, by being crucified in the midst of the week; (2) that thereby, and only so, is fulfilled the words of our Saviour in Matt. 12:40, concerning Jonah being in the stomach of the great fish; (3) that it is further proved that our Lord therefore rose on the Sabbath instead of the first day and by this means an additional argument is given for the Sabbath, and one of the great claims for first-day sacredness is removed. In reply to this claim and its objects we would say:— 1. Dan. 9:27 does not have reference to a literal week of days, but of years, as has been repeatedly and conclusively shown. There is no prediction or assertion of Divine Inspiration which declares that our Lord was to die in the middle of the literal week of days. 2. It is assumed that the words of our Saviour in Matt. 12:40 mean exactly three days of twenty-four hours each, or seventy-two hours. We do not know just how long Jonah was in the stomach of the whale. Day and night, or evening and morning, was a common mode of expressing simply the regular day. See Dan. 8:14, margin, and Genesis 1. The Jews did certainly count parts of days as full days. This is shown by Josephus and the Holy Writ. See Judges 14:17, where it is said that the wife of Samson wept before him seven days, but on the seventh day he told her what she desired. The seven days, therefore, did not include seven days of twenty-four hours each. The same thing is shown in our Saviour's prediction of his own death and resurrection. For instance, Mark 8:31 declares that 'after three days [Jesus would] rise again.' But Mark 9:31 says, 'He shall rise the third day.' We do not accuse the Scriptures of contradiction, but believe that Jesus used terms in both cases which had similar meanings. And so the Jews understood it. See Matt. 27:63, where the words of Mark 8:31, 'after three days,' are quoted, when Jesus said he would rise; but in the next verse they ask that the stone be made sure 'until the third day.' They understood these phrases as not being contradictory. See also the following, where the third day is used: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:6, 7. And the disciples say on that first day, hours after Jesus had risen, 'To-day [first day] is the third day since these things were done.' Luke 24:21. This shows that Matt. 12:40 does not necessarily mean seventy-two137hours, and that the third day was not the Sabbath but the first day. It is assumed that 'the heart of the earth' of Matt. 12:40 means the grave, although this is the only place where the term occurs. Why may it not mean the powers of earth? Jesus was not arrested for three and one-half years, because 'his hour had not yet come,' but when he was apprehended, he said, 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness.' Luke 22:53; John 12:27. The 'heart of the earth' may refer to the powers of earth, for such was Rome then. It is assumed that Christ ate the passover on the 14th of Nisan and was crucified the same day. But if Jesus ate the passover which was killed at the proper hour of the day, and he was crucified at the proper hour of the day, both the type and the antitype did not take place the same day. Again, he was not crucified on the day of the passover; for in the consultation among the Jews it was said that he should not be put to death 'on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people.' Matt. 26:4, 5; Mark 14:1, 2. It is assumed that a secular day and a yearly sabbath intervened between the day of the crucifixion and the weekly Sabbath. If we should admit the intervention of the yearly sabbath, there is no reason to assume the existence of the secular day. But the intervention of the yearly sabbath may be questioned. It is assumed that Christ rose on the Sabbath, because of the expression in Matt. 28:1, 'in the end of the Sabbath.' Robinson, the noted lexicographer, defines the word opse, here translated 'in the end,' as follows: 1. 'Absol, late, late evening.' Mark 11:19. Put for the evening watch. Mark 13:35. 2. With a genitive, 'on the end of, at the close of, after.' So the Diaglott, Anderson, Bloomfield, Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, and others, translate 'after the Sabbath.' In Matt. 28:1 it occurs 'with a genitive,' and therefore should be translated 'after.' Like all subjects not expressly revealed, much can be said on both sides. One not instructed in the word of truth could, if unbiased, be led to adopt almost any view of the question which a skillful manipulator of texts and arguments might present. But whichever of the two first theories may be correct, we are certain that the last is founded on mere assumption. And even though it could be made plausible, which we by no means admit, we would sincerely inquire of its advocates, Qui bono?—What good? What if Christ did rise on the first day of the week? what does it prove?—Simply nothing as regards a Sabbath, and every honest Bible student knows it. What likeness is there between the observation of a day as holy, and a rising from the dead on the dark part of a day, a time when most Sunday-keepers are sleeping? A man who keeps Sunday because Christ arose on that day, and who continues its observation after he was shown that the resurrection had nothing to do with the Sabbath, would not be convinced if it was shown that he did not rise on Sunday; for the non-rising on that day has as much to do with its being a holy day as the rising. Where God has not spoken, man may not assume to speak. What if he did or did not rise on the Sabbath? How does that affect an institution, a day set apart by three distinct and unchangeable acts on the part of the Almighty, and enforced by explicit and immutable law. He who will not accept the Sabbath of the Lord from plain, positive testimony of the word of God, will never truly accept it from any argument based on men's assumption, and supported by questionable proofs. He who will continue the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath after a candid investigation of what God has fully revealed, will not change his practice because of any such argument as may be presented on the day of his crucifixion or resurrection. The crucifixion and the resurrection are connected with the Sabbath only incidentally. They fulfilled the type of the passover and the offering of the wave sheaf, and these were yearly institutions, not weekly. They were not dependent on the Sabbath or week, and the Sabbath was wholly independent of them. It is founded on the immutable counsel of God; it will stand through all eternities to come, founded on God's eternal word.