When Was Christ Actually Crucified?

Some Say the Bible Clearly Shows it was... Thursday?!    

     Some years ago, during Holy Week, I was listening to a Non-Catholic Christian radio show talking about Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection.  A caller called in and questioned the hosts' Biblical literacy.  The caller stated that Christ said he would be in the tomb "three days and three nights" using the story of Jonah to make the point (Mt 12:40, Lk 11:29).  Since Christ Resurrected on the 1st day of the Jewish week - the day we now call Sunday - this would mean, the called instructed, that Christ was actually Crucified on Thursday.  The caller then stated that it was the errant Catholic Church, for some unknown and unstated reason, who tried to fool everyone into thinking Christ was crucified on Friday.  The hosts, who are no defenders of Catholicism, denied the caller's claim and reiterated that Christ was crucified on Friday, but never used any Scripture to back the rebuttal.  The called rebuked them for believing a "tradition of men" and hung up.

     In the years since, I have learned that this is a growing opinion among "Bible Alone" Christians.  In just doing an internet search on "sign of Jonah three days three nights" the third link down was an article about Christ "actually" being crucified on Thursday.  I did not read the article to find out if they took a swipe at the Catholic Church or not.

     How do we, as main stream Christians and Catholics, defend the fact that Christ was crucified on Friday in light of Scripture saying he would be in the tomb "three days and three nights?"  Catholics hold that Scripture is "inerrant" that is, with out error (See Dei Verbum).  How do we reconcile the two?

Boy Did I Just Shoot Myself in the Foot!

     There are actually several ways: one is the unanimous voice of the earliest Christians (Who you going to believe: a person who learned from someone who was there or a person who is 2,000 years and 10,000 miles removed relying on their own personal interpretation?) However, the way we'll focus on here is the phrase "three days and three nights."

     As I eluded to in the previous parenthetical, today we are 2,000 years and 10,000 (give or take) miles removed from the context in which Scripture was written and understood.  We miss things on every page of Scripture because we were not raised Jewish, nor in a Middle Eastern country, nor in the 1st Century.  As a quick example, when told the story of the Prodigal Son, a Middle Eastern audience was most struck that the father would "run" to his son.  To run is beneath the dignity of the father of a family.  It would bring embarrassment to him.  In a sense, then, a small part of the story is showing how God is willing to be embarrassed in order to show how much He loves us and welcomes us back into relationship with Him.

    More to the point, the phrase "three days and three nights" in the Jewish culture did not mean a strict, literal 72 hours; it is a figure of speech; an idiom.  It meant any parts of three days.  We see this in at least one other place in Scripture in the book of Esther.  Esther asks the Jews to fast for her for "three days and nights" before she sees the king (Ester 4:16).  Yet it is "on the third day" that she goes to see the king (Ester 5:1; 15:1).

     To the 1st Century Jewish understanding, if I were to say "in three days" I'm going to do something, the day I say that is considered day #1 even if it were 10 mins to midnight (or sunset in the Jewish custom of when days end / begin); the following day would be day #2 and at any point on the day after that it would be considered "the third day."

     Would anyone in modern America be concerned for my safety if I exclaimed "Boy did I just shoot myself in the foot!"  Would anyone call an ambulance for a gunshot wound?  No.  Neither would any 1st Century Jew think it strange to call the time between Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and Resurrection on Sunday "three days;" or the full expression "three days and three nights."

 

Take it to Scripture

    

      If someone continues to insist on a strict, literal interpretation of Christ's expression of "three days and three nights" then they have a problem.  Else where Christ says he rose "on the third day" (Lk 24:46) not after the third night; he also states he would rise "in three days" (Jn 2:19-21).  Both of these, if taken in the strict, modern, American, literalist view point would contradict with "three days and three nights" if taken literally.  There are also the verses that state that Jesus was placed in the tomb just before the start of the Sabbath (which is sunset), then the women rested on the Sabbath (the last day of the Jewish week), then at dawn on the first day of the Jewish week they returned and found the tomb empty.  (Mk 15:42, 16:1-2; Lk 23:54 - 24:1)  Again, taken strictly literal these verses would contradict Christ's statement of "three days and three nights." We could multiply examples  Testaments.

      The Catholic view is to take everything to Scripture - the ENTIRE Scripture, not just one or two verses we've been told about - as interpreted by those Christ left behind to teach us (Lk 10:16; Mt 28:18ff).  In Catholicism we're taught to read Scripture in four different ways, the first one being literal, however, 'literal' means reading the words in light of literary genre and the culture in which it was written.  We have no problem rectifying all of these verses.  Remembering that "three days and three nights" (and it's short-cut way of saying it: "three days") is an idiom referring to any part of three days.

    So given the literary genre, culture and words of Scripture we see all these phrases pointing to Christ was crucified and died on Good Friday; was placed in the Tomb before the Sabbath began in the evening (1 day); was in the Tomb all of Holy Saturday or the Sabbath (2 day); then Rose before dawn "on the Third Day", Sunday, the 1st Day of the Jewish week (3rd day).  Hence the sign of Jonah is fulfilled.