Warning From 1972. - BBC Till Death Do Us Part

"Ye Shall Die in Your Sins" This is one of many verses which exposes a modern error concerning the Atonement.

 There are some who teach that on the Cross Christ bore all the sins of all men. They insist that the entire question of sin was dealt with and settled at Calvary. They declare that the only thing which will now send any man to hell, is his rejection of Christ. But such teaching is entirely unscriptural. Christ bore all the sins of believers, but for the sins of unbelievers no atonement was made. And one of the many proofs of this is furnished by John 8:24: "Ye shall die in your sins" could never have been said if the Lord Jesus removed all sins from before God.

"Then said they unto Him, who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning" (8:25). We believe that this is given much more accurately in the R.V., especially the marginal rendering: "They said therefore unto Him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Altogether that which I also speak unto you." This was a remarkable utterance. The Pharisees had objected that Christ's witness of Himself was not true (v.13). The Lord replied that His witness was true, and He proved it by an appeal to the corroborative witness of the Father. Now they ask, "Who art thou?" And the incarnate Son of God answered, I am essentially and absolutely that which I have declared myself to be. I have spoken of "light": I am that light. I have spoken of "truth": I am that Truth. I am the very incarnation, personification, exemplification of them. Wondrous declaration is this! None but He could really say, I am Myself that of which I am speaking to you. The child of God may speak the truth, but he is not the Truth itself. A Christian may let his "light," shine but he is not the "Light" itself. But Christ was, and therein we perceive His uniqueness. As we read in 1 John 5:20, "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true," not "Him who taught the truth," but "Him that is true."

Page 443; A.W. Pink's Exposition of the Gospel of John.

No doubt the above will shatter the illusions of many who believe they have the 'freewill' to come to Christ. Notwithstanding the above, it is true that a person presented with the Gospel who rejects it, he or she is a Christ rejecter! (see John 12:48). For, it is only "My sheep" that will "hear My voice" John 10:27. That are His that were predestined to do so, His elect. The "tares" we read of in Matthew 13, 25, and 7:21-23 never rejected Christ, no they accepted Him on their own terms. Or perhaps, "inviting Him into their hearts" (as if that could be done!). The Gospel of Christ never was an invitation, but a commandment, for God "commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30. Nevertheless, "many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14.

Secker of Tewkesbury said it right; "Repentance, though it be the act of man, is but the gift of God." 

Work that one out with human logic if you can! Little wonder the apostle said, "His ways are past finding out!" Romans 11:33.

Luke 23:17

(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) Luke 23:17.

The time honoured Authorised Version (KJV1611) based on the Received Text (to the best of my knowledge) is the only translation that contains this verse without any footnote being required. If Luke's were the only Gospel that contained the account of Barabbas the context with verse 17 omitted would make no sense whatsoever. Without verse 17 it reads thus (verses 16-19):

I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Whyever ask for Barabbas to be released? What bearing has this man to do with the narrative? It is obvious that it can only be explained by the so-called 'missing' verse which informs us that it was a custom to release a prisoner at the feast time; one no doubt popular with the people.

The vast majority of all modern translations either have a footnote appended to Luke 23:17 with an explanation or ignore the verse altogether, as the popular ESV (English Standard Version) does.

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89.

The Literal Three Day and Three Night Gap in the Four Gospels

So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them. Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Matthew 27:66-28:1 (RV).

Matthew is obviously referring to the weekly sabbath in 28:1 and not the high sabbath on Wednesday 15th Nisan, therefore there must be three days and three nights (a full 72 hours) between Matthew 27:66 & 28:1.

And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where He was laid. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

Mark 15:47-16:1.

Mark obviously means sabbaths plural, for he couldn't have meant only the Sunday sabbath, else how could the women have obtained the spices in so short a window of opportunity? So there is a full three days and three nights between the two verses in regard to the high sabbath, but not the weekly sabbath, which was just ending, and at the crack of dawn the women hastened to the tomb with the spices they had previously prepared on the Preparation day.

And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments: And on the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared.

Luke 23:56-24:1 (RV).

Luke's narrative also has a clear three day and three night, 72 gap between the verses under consideration.

There then because of the Jews Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus. Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.

John 19:42-20:1 (RV).

Again, we can see a clear three day and three night, literal 72 hour gap between the entombment of Jesus very early on the Wednesday high sabbath (15th Nisan) and His rising very early on the first day of the week, Sunday.

The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) have the Lord's entombment, and rising from the tomb narratives, between the very end of their respective penultimate chapters and the beginning of their last chapters, whereas John has one extra chapter.

When the regular Saturday sabbath expired, on the very next day (Sunday), the two Mary's and Salome came to the tomb at the crack of dawn to anoint the Lord. There are exactly 72 hours from very late on the Preparation, the 14th/15th Nisan on Wednesday evening and very early on18th Nisan, Sunday morning. The Lord having been crucified "between the two evenings" (14th & 15th Nisan)** fulfilling the type perfectly as depicted in Exodus 12:6. In Luke 23:53-55, we read that the Lord's body was in the tomb very late on the Preparation, for we are told "the sabbath drew on", that is it was fast approaching. The women witnessed "how His body was laid." But there is a considerable difference between being in a tomb, and being entombed, So the question remains; at what point in time was the stone rolled into position? Would any venture to say this didn't happen even one second into the new day? Mark 16:9* certainly confirms His resurrection took place "early on the first day of the week." Those with a Judaizing tendency (therefore denying the plenary inspiration of Mark's long ending in the Received Text), tend to argue for a very late seventh day Saturday resurrection from the standpoint that the Jews, including their leaders (Chief priests and the Pharisees) would have rested according to the commandment (Luke 23:56), yet we find these hypocrites engaging with Pilate on their very own high day (John 19:31) about making the tomb sure with a guard! (Matthew 27:62-66). Such was the inveterate and implacable nature of Christ's enemies who chided His disciples for plucking a few ears of corn on the sabbath!

There are two sabbaths in the Gospel crucifixion, burial, and resurrection narratives; the high sabbath on the Thursday, and the weekly sabbath on the Saturday, and also a literal 24 hour "three day and three nights" entombment. The Scripture doesn't say if the two Mary's and Salome intended to anoint the Lord at His burial, but Matthew and Luke confirm their presence at the tomb when the stone was rolled in its place, so it is possible they may have done so (Matthew 27:61, Luke 23:55-56). I believe there is a three day (literal 72 hour) "gap" between Luke 23:56 and 24:1, as the context reads that "the sabbath" in verse 56 is not the seventh day sabbath. This is more obvious in John 19:42-20:1, as there is no mention at all of the weekly sabbath,  but not Mark 16:1-2, for Mark says "when the sabbath was past" (the Greek plural: sabbaths were past) the latter sabbath being the weekly sabbath, this is because if he meant only the high sabbath, when it had expired, it would bring us on to Monday 18th Nisan. Likewise, with Matthew 28:1(RV), it reads "late on the sabbath day as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"; the simple reading makes it clear that the sabbath referred to in this verse is the weekly sabbath (the AV omits day).

The three day and three night gap in the Gospel narratives mirror perfectly what the Lord proclaimed in Matthew 12:40; confirming a literal 72 hour entombment demolishing the apologetic very small part of Friday, whole of Saturday, and very small part of Sunday theory.

Many Reformed exegetes were at pains to explain the verses under consideration, Dr. Gill said of Mark 16:1 that they may have "came to anoint the sepulchre; His body being anointed before, and wound up by Joseph and Nicodemus." But Gill confesses "it seems most likely, that they came to anoint His body", just as Mark says! Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Matthews Henry and Poole, likewise had great difficulty with this, for they didn't see a three day gap in the Gospel narratives under consideration, as they believed in the Friday crucifixion. Notwithstanding, it is evident that the women intended to have His body anointed again as Luke 24:1 confirms, such was their love for Him.

Here in 2022, the night being far spent, we latter day Christians can be somewhat dumbstruck at the lack of faith in the Lord's resurrection by His disciples, and also the women who came to His tomb expecting to anoint a dead body! We may think to ourselves "why were you so dull of hearing? The Lord plainly said He would "after three days rise again." Mark 8:31. Nevertheless, when His glorious Holy Spirit came down after the Lord's ascension in Acts 2: they were but changed men.

If the aforesaid disciples and the women had the hindsight of the knowledge subsequently bequeathed to us in the ensuing centuries since passed, then they could be rightly charged with folly, but we can lay no such charge upon them.

*The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.

The above is taken from the margin in the 1881 Revised Version (Interlinear Bible).

16:9-20 OMITTED or bracketed in most Bibles (with variations). Although missing in the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts, it is found in almost every Greek manuscript which contains Mark's Gospel. In addition it is quoted by Church Fathers including Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second and third centuries (thus predating the two 'old' manuscripts, Vatican and Sinai).

The above is taken from A Textual Key to the New Testament, A list of Omissions and Changes. (Trinitarian Bible Society).

To those who would reject the "long ending" in Mark's Gospel in order to support the Saturday sabbath, I would ask, do you find anything else in the so-called long ending you disagree with? More than this, the whole tenor of the New Testament supports the Sunday resurrection.  Certainly Mark 16:9 is the only verse in the entire NT that says categorically "He was risen early on the first day of the week." But, as said elsewhere, I cannot believe for one single second that God would have let a spurious text remain in the Received Text down through the centuries, all the Martyrs, Reformers, and others believing on it. Mark was a very concise writer, whose Gospel was shorter by far than the other evangelists, yet some would shorten it further!

**Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even. Exodus 12:5-6 (RV). 

In the Hebrew at even means between the two evenings. What two evenings? Clearly, this is between the two evenings the Lord Jesus was crucified, that is between the evening of 14th & 15th Nisan, fulfilling perfectly the Passover sacrifice in Exodus! The 14th Nisan was Wednesday, so the Great Sacrifice had to take place on the evening of this day, and before the next evening on 15th Nisan.

More Thoughts On Matthew 12:40

 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. Matthew 12:40.

No one would doubt that the crucifixion narrative was a fast moving event: that is the events leading up to it, and those immediately prior to His burial. He died ("gave up the ghost") at the "ninth hour", and if we assume it took three hours (more likely; a while longer) for Joseph of Arimathea to dialogue with Pilate, and have His body taken down from the cross, and "wrapped in a clean linen cloth", then finally securing the "sepulchre" with a "great stone" (all these actions being doubtless reverently performed), then this would put His entombment "in the heart of the earth" well past the  twelfth hour, that is on Thursday morning, and His resurrection (at the crack of dawn) on Sunday morning. 

But, "the heart of the earth" signifies something altogether different than a tomb above the ground.

There has been much debate as to whether man is a bipartite or tripartite being; many theories being postulated for both views. To paraphrase A.W. Pink, "it is not easy to discern the spirit from the soul." Are they both the same? The principal Scripture for advancing the tripartite view is 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." This verse appears to make a clear distinction between the "spirit and soul", and indeed Hebrews 4:12 teaches that the 'two' entities are so close that they are to be compared with the proximity "of the joints and marrow"! These latter two joined so close together that you would need a surgeon's scalpel to "divide them asunder"! Little wonder the last quoted Scripture drives home the fact that God's Word "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Ecclesiastes 3:21, and 12:7 only speak of "the spirit of man", and "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." 

I say this to illustrate the 'difference' between the spirit, soul, and body in regard to our Lord's sojourn "in the heart of the earth." The phrase "in the heart of the earth" suggests a place far down deep below;  far lower down than what Jonas experienced "in the whale's belly", for the Earth's ocean floors are high above "the heart of the earth". Jonas only went as low as "the bottom of the mountains." Jonah 2:6.

The body of the Lord Jesus was entombed above the earth in a "sepulchre" Matthew 27:60, so it is evident that His body did not go down to "the heart of the earth", but His Spirit/Soul did, as confirmed by 1 Peter 3:19, Ephesians 4:8-9: At what point in time did the Lord's Spirit/Soul depart down to "the heart of the earth"? Surely, it must have been at the precise moment He "gave up the ghost." Mark 15:37? that is instantaneously. In contradistinction, His body obviously tarried a considerable time afterward before being interred in the sepulchre through the efforts of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60). Therefore, when we try to determine the precise time the Lord Jesus spent "in the heart of the earth", we can only do so with regard to His Spirit/Soul, not His body. The moment when His Spirit/Soul was reunited with His body was again an instantaneous event, as was their departure. But at this instantaneous moment He was still entombed, awaiting an angel to roll away the stone. How we can determine that period of time is impossible! But doubtless it wasn't very long.

"Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it." Matthew 28:2; an event which no believer would deny happened in a "twinkling of an eye" as it were! unlike the process that led to the interring of His dead body.

Having established that the crucifixion took place late on Wednesday evening (ninth hour) then the first night of the "three nights" that His Spirit/Soul went down to Hades/Sheol was obviously Wednesday, but this wasn't the case for His body. 

His bodily resurrection (being released from the tomb) happened at the very dawning of the new day (Sunday) as recorded in Mark 16:9. Regarding the so-called "long ending" in Mark's Gospel, I cannot for one second believe that God in Christ would have allowed any spurious text to remain in the Received Text down through the centuries if it were not inspired by His Holy Spirit (Psalm 119:89). Also, let us not forget that when "the day of Pentecost was fully come" Acts 2:1 was on Sunday, the first day of the week when the Gospel would be sent forth to the nations. This was now the Christian sabbath, or rather the "Lord's Day", that is His resurrection day, the eighth day. On this day His disciples would now meet to "break bread" on the first day of the week, the old order had now passed away, the New Testament (a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Hebrews 8:6) has now replaced the old, including the observation of the now defunct Jewish sabbath (observed only by unbelieving Jews!) which the modern day Judaizers would have us observe, and be under bondage to! Read the third chapter of Galatians. Furthermore, Acts 20:7 very clearly says in no uncertain terms that "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..." This means there was now a new sabbath! The new sabbath or rather "Lord's day" has long been observed in our land, continued through the balmy days of the puritans/Reformed Christianity. Sunday is now being questioned by some through the efforts of the Judaizers (who it would seem hate anything to do with the glorious Reformation). Again, the apostle clearly confirms the Pentecostal directive in 1 Corinthians 16:2, where the context teaches that the New Testament saints now observed the eighth day; that is the Lord's Day (Sunday), so-called because He was resurrected "upon the first day of the week."

Having previously established that the crucifixion took place late on Wednesday evening (ninth hour), the question is; to what evening do we accredit the first night of our Lord's sojourn "in the heart of the earth"? We have established that "the heart of the earth" cannot be the sepulchre which is above the earth, and that the precise moment He "gave up the ghost" (Ninth hour) was quite some time before His body was interred: so we must be very careful when trying to calculate the exact period our Lord sojourned down below; therefore how do we determine His "three days and three nights" sojourn? between His bodily death on the cross and bodily resurrection from the tomb? or between His physical bodily burial and resurrection? Most assume the Lord's internment in "the heart of the earth" only to refer to the period His body spent in the sepulchre, but clearly that is not the case, for if it were true, the Sunday resurrection would be plain and easy to prove, if we allow at least three hours from the cross to the grave.

Regarding the Lord's Spirit/Soul, the "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" must necessarily be calculated from the "ninth hour", that is three hours before the new day-our Thursday. The biblical Jewish day was divided into four parts, and the Lord said "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" John 11:9, meaning daylight hours: For at the Passover season, daylight and nighttime hours are approximately twelve hours apiece. So, in my estimation 72 hours from when our Lord "gave up the ghost" on the ninth hour on the Wednesday crucifixion would take us precisely to the ninth hour on our Saturday evening (the Jewish sabbath) the precise time of His Spiritual/Soul resurrection, but His physical body didn't rise until precisely three hours later, early on the first of the first day, that is our Sunday, when the angel "rolled away the stone". Does this mean that He rose on the fourth day? No, but nevertheless, the Lord said "after three days I will rise again." Matthew 27:63, Mark 8:31 (my emphasis). There is  absolutely no mention in the Gospels anywhere of a fourth day in regards to His resurrection. Matthew 28:1 definitely posits "an angel of the Lord" coming at the very dawning of the new day to open the sepulchre. But, why? Obviously this was the way God ordained it! I ask "why" because surely the Lord had the power in Himself to roll the stone away from the door without any angelic assistance? The contiguity of the sabbath expiration and the Sunday resurrection is as close as "the joints and marrow". Previously I wrote that the "three days and three nights" (or the literal 72 hours) in the tomb should be calculated from the moment "He gave up the ghost" whilst still on the cross, but then His physical body rose from the grave after the sabbath, for Matthew 28:1 clearly states that the two Mary's were approaching the sepulchre "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week".

The conclusion of the matter is that the Lord did indeed spend three full nights, and therefore three full days in the heart of the earth, as He said He would, according to Matthew 12:40. However, it is noteworthy that it is only Mark that says "after three days" the Lord will "rise again." Mark 8:31, 10:34 RV (emphasis mine). The other synoptic Gospel writers all say that He will "be raised again the third day." Matthew 16:21,17:23,20:19, Luke 9:22,18:33,24:7. The unbelieving tongue, however, quoted Mark's words; "after three days I will rise again." Matthew 27:63. The non synoptic Gospel writer, John 2:19 recorded His resurrection in relation to the true Temple (His body), yet the unbelieving Jews castigated Him for speaking the Truth!

The Three Literal Days in the Heart of the Earth and the Lord's Day (Sunday) Resurrection

This is a subject that I confess I hadn't studied in any great depth before, as much as more so-called 'important' topics in God's Book, beginning (as none would dispute!) with salvation. It is enough to know (and believe!) that "He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Corinthians 15:4; be these partial or full days. There are biblical arguments for "both sides of the fence" as it were, but as for me, I am now fully persuaded that our Lord and Saviour spent a full literal three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, as Matthew 12:40 avers.

If you would refer to my last post on this subject, I copied this from a book I purchased (for the miserly sum of 10p!) last month from a charity shop on the Western Isles where I live. I read it once, then twice, then thrice, checked out all the Bible verses quoted therein, and copied it letter and word by my fingertips on this ere blog to make sure I had fully understood its import before posting it. I hand sketched the crude diagram on my last post so to graphically understand it, not just for my own benefit, but for any whom God would send to this blog of mine.

Notwithstanding the above, regarding "The Lord's Day" (the first day of the week, or now the eighth or Resurrection Day), the Christian Sabbath is now on the day we call by the (pagan) name Sunday. There are many who would have us falsely believe that it was Constantine in AD 321 who instituted the Sunday Sabbath, when all this man did (for his own ends...) was institute what was plainly written in the Scriptures. The written word plainly declares that:

Upon the first day of the week (pagan Sunday!) when the disciples came together to break bread... Acts 20:7.

Upon the first day of the week (pagan Sunday!) let every one of you lay by him in store...1 Corinthians 16:2.

Did these Christian Jews dishonour the Jewish Sabbath day? Or Is the resurrected Lord; the Son of man Lord of the sabbath day or no? And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Mark 2:27-28. Today, the unbelieving (religious) Jews continue to observe the seventh (non resurrection-day) Saturday sabbath, confused Messianic Jews do the same; so what day is the Christian sabbath? 

John wrote I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, Revelation 1:10. What day? His resurrection day.

Mark wrote Now when Jesus was risen early the first day (Sunday) of the week.. Mark 16:9.

The so-called long ending in Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) in the Authorized Version (Textus Receptus, the Received Text) has been removed (or bracketed with variations) from many modern Bible versions. Although missing in the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts, it is found in almost every Greek manuscript which contains Mark's Gospel. In addition it is quoted by Church Fathers including Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second and third centuries (thus predating the two 'old' manuscripts, Vatican and Sinai).

Gentile Christians have long honoured the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath, traditionally, and rightly so.

Was Jesus Really Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth?

Was Jesus Really Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth?

Lifted from pages 33-39 of FALSE VIEWS BY MODERN MAN by Ian R.K. Paisley.

MATTHEW 27:62

The A.V. reads:-

"Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate."

The T.E.V.* reads:-

"On the next day-that is, the day following Friday - the chief priests and the Pharisees met with Pilate."

Once again the Romish error that Christ was put to death on Friday is written into the text. This, of course, is without any textual warrant whatsoever.

The following statement from the able pen of the late Dr. R.A. Torrey should be studied in this connection:-

WAS JESUS REALLY THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH?

By Dr. R.A. Torrey.

Matthew, in the twelfth chapter of his Gospel and the fortieth verse, reports Jesus as saying: "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale ("sea monster", R.V. margin), so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." According to the commonly accepted tradition of the Church, Jesus was crucified on Friday, dying at 3 p.m., or somewhere between 3 p.m. and sundown, and was raised from the dead very early in the morning of the following Sunday. Many readers of the Bible are puzzled to know how the interval between late Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning can be figured out to be three days and three nights. It seems rather to be two nights, one day and a very small portion of another day.

The solution of this apparent difficulty proposed by many commentators is that "a day and a night" is simply another way of saying "a day", and that the ancient Jews reckoned a fraction of a day as a whole day, so they say there was a part of Friday (or a very small part), or a day and a night; all of Saturday, another day, or a day and a night; part of Sunday (a very small part), another day, or a day and a night.

There are many persons whom this solution does not altogether satisfy, and the writer is free to confess it does not satisfy him at all. It seems to him to be a makeshift, and a very weak makeshift.

Is there any solution that is altogether satisfactory?

There is.

First Fact.

The first fact to be noticed in the proper solution is that the Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Friday. It is said that Jesus was crucified on "the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42). As the Jewish weekly sabbath came on Saturday, beginning at sunset the evening before, the conclusion is naturally drawn that as Jesus was crucified the day before the sabbath He must have been crucified on Friday. But it is a well-known fact, to which the Bible bears abundant testimony, that the Jews had other sabbaths beside the weekly sabbath which fell on Saturday. The first day of the Passover week, no matter upon what day of the week it came, was always a sabbath (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). The question therefore arises whether the Sabbath that followed Christ's crucifixion was the weekly sabbath (Saturday) or the Passover sabbath, falling on the 15th of Nisan, which came that year on Thursday. Now the Bible does not leave us to speculate in regard to which sabbath is meant in this instance, for John tells us in so many words, in John 19:14, that the day on which Jesus was tried and crucified was "the preparation of the Passover" (R.V.), that is, it was not the day before the weekly sabbath (Friday), but it was the day before the Passover sabbath, which came that year on Thursday. That is to say, the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified was

Wednesday.

John makes this as clear as day.

The Gospel of John was written later than the other Gospels, and scholars have for a long time noticed that in various places there was an evident intention to correct false impressions one might get from reading the other Gospels. One of these false impressions was that Jesus eat the Passover with His disciples at the regular time of the Passover. To correct this false impression John clearly states that He eat it the evening before, and that He Himself died on the cross at the very moment the Passover lambs were being slain "between the two evenings" on the 14th Nisan (Exodus 12:6, Hebrew and R.V. margin). God's real Pascal Lamb, Jesus, of whom all other Pascal lambs offered through the centuries were only types, was therefore slain at the very time appointed of God.

Everything about the Passover lamb was

Fulfilled in Jesus

(1) He was a lamb without blemish and without spot (Exodus 12:5). (2) He was chosen on the 10th day of Nisan (Exodus 12:3), for it was on the tenth day of the month, the preceding Saturday, that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made, since they came from Jericho to Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1-that would be six days before Thursday, which would be Friday),and it was on the next day that the entry into Jerusalem was made (John 12:12 and following verses) that is, on Saturday, the 10th Nisan. It was also on this same day that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:6-16; Mark 14:3-11). As it was after the supper in the house of Simon the leper, and as the super occurred late on Friday, that is after sunset, or early on Saturday, after the super would necessarily be on the 10th Nisan. This being the price set on Him by the chief priests, it was the buying or taking to them of a lamb which according to law must occur on the 10th Nisan. Furthermore, they put the exact value on the lamb that Old Testament prophecy predicted (Matthew 26:15, compare Zechariah 11:12). (3) Not a bone of Him was broken when He was killed (John 19:36, compare Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). (4) And He was killed on the 14th Nisan between the evenings, just before the beginning of the 15th Nisan at sundown (Exodus 12:6, R.V. margin).

If we take just exactly what the Bible says, viz., that Jesus was slain before the Passover sabbath, the type is marvellously fulfilled in every detail, but if we accept the traditional theory that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the type fails on many points.

Traditional View

Furthermore, if we accept the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday and ate the Passover on the regular day of the Passover, then the journey from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred six days before the Passover (John 12:1) would fall on a Saturday, that is, the Jewish sabbath. Such a journey would be contrary to the Jewish law. Of course it was impossible for Jesus to take such a journey on the Jewish sabbath. In reality His triumphal entry into Jerusalem was on the Jewish sabbath, Saturday. This was altogether possible for the Bible elsewhere tells us that Bethany was a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12; compare Luke 24:50).

Furthermore, it has been figured out by the astronomers that in the year 30 A.D., which is the commonly accepted year of the crucifixion of our Lord, the Passover was kept on Thursday, April 6th, the moon being full that day. The chronologists who have supposed that the crucifixion took place on Friday have been greatly perplexed by this fact that in the year30 A.D., the Passover occurred on Thursday. One writer in seeking a solution to the difficulty suggests that the crucifixion may have been in the year 33 A.D., for although the full moon was on a Thursday that year also, yet as it was within two and a half hours of Friday, he thinks that perhaps the Jews may have kept it that day. But when we accept exactly what the Bible says, namely, that Jesus was not crucified on the Passover day but on "the preparation of the Passover", and that He was to be three days and three nights in the grave, and as "the preparation of the Passover" that year would be Wednesday and His resurrection early on the first day of the week, this allows exactly three days and three nights in the grave.

To sum it all up,

Jesus Died about Sunset on Wednesday.

Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of the week (Saturday at sunset), He arose again from the grave. When the women visited the tomb just before dawn next morning, they found the grave already empty. So we are not driven to any such makeshift as that any small portion of the day is reckoned as a whole day and night, but we find that the statement of Jesus was literally true. Three days and three nights His body was dead and lay in the sepulcher. While His body lay dead, He Himself being quickened in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18) went into the heart of the earth and preached unto the spirits which were in prison (1 Peter 3:19). 

This supposed difficulty solves itself, as do so many other difficulties in the Bible as meaning exactly what it says.

It is sometimes objected against the view here advanced that the two on the way to Emmaus early on the first day of the week (that is, Sunday) said to Jesus in speaking of the crucifixion and events accompanying it: "Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:21), and it is said that if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done. But the answer is very simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset on Wednesday. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and "the third day since" Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the theory. On the other hand, if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made "the third day since" these things were done.

There are

Many Passages in Scripture

that support the theory advanced above and make it necessary to believe that Jesus died late on Wednesday. Some of them are as follows: "For as Jonah 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" (Matthew 12:40). "This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days" (Matthew 26:61). Thou that destroyest  the temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself" (Matthew 27:40). "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again" (Matthew 27:63). "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be killed and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31). "They shall kill Him, and when He is killed, after three days He shall rise again" (Mark 9:13, R.V.). "They shall scourge Him, and shall kill Him, and after three days He shall rise again" (Mark 10:34, R.V.). "Destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark 14:58, R.V.). "Ah, Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself" (Mark 15:29). "Besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done." (Luke 24:21). "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt Thou raise it up in three days? But He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said" (John 2:19-22).

There is absolutely nothing in favour of Friday crucifixion, but everything in the Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming discrepancies in the Gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to understand that Jesus died on Wednesday and not on Friday.

The T,E.V.* is however, prepared to write into the New Testament the Good Friday Romish tradition, although by so doing it makes the Testament to contradict its own plain statements.

Again, no wonder Cardinal Cushing, a leading Roman Catholic prelate in the U.S.A., is on record as saying that his "expert consultants did not seek a single change in the text of the T.E.V.* before approving it for Catholic use".

Moreover, the Cardinal, as R.C. Archbishop of Boston, gave the T.E.V.* his official approval and had his imprimatur inserted therein.

*The T.E.V. (Todays English Version) was renamed the Good News Bible in 2001.