Discussing Luke's Gospel (Part 1 of 1)

The Burial of Jesus (Luke 23:50-56)

Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; John 19 :38-42.

All four gospels mention at this stage, for the first time, Joseph of Arimathea. Luke says he was a counsellor, that is, a member of the Sanhedrin, and Mark (15:43) calls him an honorable counsellor, that is, one of the more important members. Matthew says he was rich (27:57), and John says he was a secret disciple of Jesus (19:38).

At the trial of Jesus the witnesses against him were exposed, by their contradictions, as false (Mark 14:56). Did Joseph try to ensure that Jesus had a fair trial? Public opinion made him hide his allegiance to Jesus (John 12:42-43). Now he has the courage to declare publicly his support for the rejected Messiah.

Did he still believe in Jesus? Did he expect or hope for a resurrection? Or did he merely desire to see Jesus decently buried instead of thrown into Gehenna?

Notice how this man humbled himself :

  1. He, a rich and powerful Jew, begged Pilate, a despised Roman, for the body of a man executed as a criminal.
  2. He personally (though perhaps assisted by servants) took down the body of Jesus from the cross and prepared it for burial. This would have been a nasty business. Think of the nails to be extracted.
  3. He gave up the tomb, which he had prepared for himself, for a crucified man accounted a criminal to be buried in it. Only a rich man would have had such a tomb.
  4. By handling a dead body Joseph made himself unclean. If the Passover was to be celebrated that evening he would be unable to keep it.

This is how the matter would have been regarded by his colleagues. Surely Joseph more than made up for his earlier faults by these courageous deeds.

The tomb was very close to Golgotha (John 19:41) which was very useful because there were only three hours between the death of Jesus and the beginning of the Sabbath.

The burial of Jesus in the tomb of the rich Joseph is said (though not in the gospels) to have fulfilled Isaiah 53:9. In fact, in the A.V. Isaiah seems to prophesy the opposite of what really happened. The N.E.B. and Moffatt provide another slant. Has any reader a solution to this problem?

Is there any significance in the fact that it was a new tomb? Here are some points about this :

  1. It is said that without the presence of other bodies in a state of corruption, the body of Jesus would not corrupt so quickly.
  2. How unpleasant and inappropriate it would have been for Jesus to have awoken surrounded by the remains of corpses.
  3. Psalm 16:10 was fulfilled very literally.
  4. No-one could produce any other remains from the tomb and say they were those of Jesus.
  5. No-one could say the resurrection of Jesus was a parallel to 2 Kings 13:21.
  6. Jesus was born from a virgin womb and rose again from an unused tomb. See also Luke 19:30, Numbers 19:2. Are there any other examples?

Verse 55 mentions that certain women watched what went on but did not do anything. No doubt they wished to see just where Jesus was buried so that they could come and anoint him later. Matthew 27:61 and Mark 15:47 state who they were.

Three Days and Nights in the Tomb1

No Scripture reference is given for this section for the simple reason that there is no passage in Luke which deals with this period. However, the problem of the chronology involved in the Last Supper, the death of Jesus and his resurrection raises its head at this juncture and must be dealt with, if only sketchily.

Some facts are clear. It was early Sunday morning when the women came to the tomb and found that Jesus had risen (Luke 24:1). He must have risen sometime during the night of Saturday/Sunday. It was 3.00 p.m. when Jesus uttered his last words and died (Matt. 27:46-50). Was it Wednesday, Thursday or Friday when this happened?

Jesus had said that he would be three days and three nights in the tomb (Matt. 12:40). According to Jewish reckoning, part of a day or part of a night would count as the whole. This statement rules out Friday therefore. Jesus also said that he would rise during the third day (Luke 9:22). This condition seems to rule out Wednesday as the day of his death, since the period from Wednesday afternoon to Saturday night/Sunday morning is too long. The conclusion from this, therefore, is that Jesus died on Thursday, because only Thursday satisfies both verses quoted. In addition it satisfies Luke 24:21. (Readers are invited to work these things out for themselves and to contact the writer if they think he is wrong.)

So far it seems straightforward and logical. However, if Jesus died on Wednesday there must have been a special Sabbath on Thursday; if he died on Thursday there must have been one on Friday. In this connection there are two arguments for a Wednesday date with a normal day on Friday sandwiched between two Sabbaths :

  1. Jesus died at 3.00 p.m. The Sabbath began at 6.00 p.m. Look at all four gospels and see what had to be done before Jesus was buried just before the Sabbath started. Could all of it have taken place in just under three hours? If Jesus died on Wednesday the problem is solved. He could have been put in the tomb on Wednesday and his body properly treated by Joseph and Nicodemus on Friday.
  2. Mark 16:1 seems to require a normal day between two Sabbaths. The “had” of the A.V. is not present in other translations whether paraphrases or strictly literal. These points can be answered, however. Whilst all the buying of articles would have to have taken place before the Sabbath started, some of the other things could have occurred after 6.00 p.m. The women of Mark 16:1 could have bought their spices after 6.00 p.m. on Saturday.

The evidence points to Jesus being in the tomb from Thursday to Sunday, therefore. The “Preparation” mentioned in Luke 23:54 was presumably the day of preparation for the Passover day which was also a special Sabbath.

Does it matter anyway what day Christ died? The writer has been asked twice in the last year if Christadelphians believe that Christ died on a Friday. In both cases the questioner thought that such a belief was a tradition of Orthodox Christianity and contrary to Scripture. Is this a belief of Christendom which we have for once failed to test against Scripture as much as we should?

  1. Readers are reminded that the question was dealt with in The Christadelphian in April, 1972, under the heading “The Third Day He Rose Again”, and in subsequent correspondence in May and June.

Responses

Reg Carr responded in The Testimony, Vol 43, No 2, February, 1973

  • In response to your invitation in November’s Testimony, may I put the following points to you for your consideration and perhaps also for your comments?

    • That there were two sabbaths in the crucifixion week is beyond doubt. As I am sure you are aware, ” sabbath” (AV) in Matthew 28:1 is plural in the original. This fact alone must relegate the Friday theory to the scrap-heap of Christian tradition, since no amount of ingenuity can squeeze in two sabbaths between Friday and Sunday.
    • With regard to Thursday, which you seem to prefer, you make the point that the spices of Mark 16:1 could have been bought after 6 p.m. on Saturday. That they were in fact bought after one of the sabbaths is clear from the text, as you yourself pointed out. But how do you explain Luke 23:56, where we are told that the spices were prepared before (one of) the sabbath(s)? Does not this throw us back to Wednesday, with a “normal” day (Friday) between the two sabbaths?
    • One of the objections you put forward against Wednesday (that it would have been more than 72 hours from late Wednesday afternoon to Saturday night) seems to assume that Christ rose on the first day of the week (i.e. after 6 p.m. on Saturday). Why must we assume this? If Christ was buried between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Wednesday, why could he not have risen between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday?finding some convincing arguments for your own view.

Tony Benson (Editor) responded in The Testimony, Vol 43, No 2, February, 1973

  • In reply to Brother Carr’s remarks :

    1. I began my study of the subject holding the same opinion as Brother Carr, that Jesus died on Wednesday. However, on investigating the matter more closely I came to the opinion that Thursday was more likely to be the day. Nevertheless, I accept that both views are possible, but agree with Brother Carr that Friday is definitely out.
    2. I do not think that Luke 23:56 and Mark 16:1 establish that there must have been two sabbaths with an ordinary day between. It is possible that Luke is referring to a rather hurried preparing of the body of Jesus for burial with spices before 6 p.m. on the day of crucifixion, and that Mark is referring to a further purchase of spices which were bought so that the body of Jesus could be more completely treated for burial. Alternatively, bearing in mind that at least five women visited the tomb on Sunday morning (Luke 24:10), one group could have prepared spices already possessed by them (Luke 23:56) and another group could have purchased some at the first available opportunity, which did not come until after two consecutive sabbath days (Mark 16:1).
    3. There are several reasons why Brother Carr’s suggestion that Jesus rose between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday is not acceptable to me :
      • Mark 16:9 reads, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week …”
      • The early church seems to have met regularly on a Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Surely this was because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday.
      • Matthew 28:1 says, “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre”. This cannot be referring to the dawn visit on Sunday morning which the other gospels describe because this did not occur “in the end of the sabbath”. What does it mean? Luke 23:54 explains, “And it was the day of the Preparation and the sabbath began to dawn” (RV margin). The same Greek word is used in both cases. In Luke it is clearly used figuratively to mean that a new day was about to start, in other words, it was nearly 6 p.m., because, of course, the Jewish day began at 6 p.m. Matthew must therefore be referring to the same thing. The visit recorded in Matthew 28:1 was therefore made between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday evening. It does not say that they did anything, only that they went to see the sepulchre. Evidently Jesus was still in the tomb at 6 p.m. on Saturday therefore.

    In view of this, I still think that the idea that Jesus was out in the tomb just before 6 p.m. on Thursday and rose sometime during the night of Saturday/Sunday best fits the facts of the case as recorded in Scripture.

Percy Lander responded in The Testimony, Vol 43, No 2, February, 1973

  • I was very interested in your article on page 419 of the current issue of The Testimony, especially your remarks regarding Joseph of Arimathea. Isaiah 53:9 certainly does present a problem. The verse in the AV seems to contradict itself, but I have always hitherto interpreted it in a rather loose sense. I have no doubt that the grave assigned him by the Jews would have been with the wicked, but that is rather different from the written word “He made his grave …”. I wonder if the NEB is correct in omitting “and with the rich in his death” and replacing it with “a burial-place among the refuse of mankind”, which is contrary to the fact of his being buried in a rich man’s tomb. I hope you will be able to publish any helpful comments you may receive from other readers.*

    As you will see from the letter in the June Christadelphian, I am a believer in the full “three days and nights” period.

    Jesus may have been buried very soon after 6 p.m. when according to Jewish custom our Thursday would have commenced. I presume that according to Jewish custom the Sabbath ended at 6 p.m. on what we call Saturday, and at the same moment the “first day of the week” would have begun. If Jesus was raised as he might well have been at this evening hour, the period of time he was in the grave would have been just right for the “three days and three nights”. I assume, of course, that Thursday would have been the special “high day” of John’s Gospel and Friday a day in which the women could have gone and bought the spices, etc., and found time to prepare them without trespassing on either of the two sabbath days. They were evidently at the tomb on the Sunday morning, probably about 6 a.m., and the words addressed to them by the angels seem to imply that Jesus had been awakened quite a time before. I think Jesus would have enjoyed the few hours at his disposal in communion with the Father before he again came into contact with either the women or his disciples.

Reg Carr responded in The Testimony, Vol 43, No 3, March, 1973

  • Thank you for your three additional objections to the Wednesday view. Could I just make rejoinders to them?

    • (a) Mark 16:9. The verse might equally well be translated (or punctuated), “Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared …”, or again, “Jesus being risen, early on the first day of the week he appeared …”. The Greek word translated “was risen” in the AV is a past participle used adverbially and referring to a single action in the past with a lasting effect. Naturally, Jesus was in a risen state when he appeared to Mary early on the first day of the week (sometime after sunrise on Sunday morning; Mark 16:2). I certainly do not think the verse can be used to prove that the resurrection actually took place on Sunday (i.e. sometime after 6 p.m. Saturday).
    • (b) The Breaking of Bread. I realise that it is rather generally taken for granted that the Breaking of Bread is held on a Sunday because Jesus is thought to have risen then, but I cannot myself see why this assumption should be made. If the Breaking of Bread was intended by the early Church to be held on a specially significant day of the crucifixion week, would it not have made more sense to hold it on the day of Christ’s death (“ye do show the Lord’s death”) rather than of his resurrection? Or even on the day he actually instituted the feast (i.e. our Tuesday night—or Wednesday if you prefer)? Or, if it was intended to commemorate something which had actually happened on the Sunday (which I doubt), wasn’t that the day when he appeared to his disciples for the first time after his resurrection? and wasn’t it also the day that he was made known to the Emmaus disciples in the breaking of bread?

    Does the fact that we, like the first century disciples, commemorate the Lord’s death on the first day of the week prove that Jesus rose from the dead after 6 p.m. on the Saturday sabbath? Or was it rather originally held on the first day of the week because this came immediately after the Jewish sabbath (which many first century Christians evidently continued to keep), when perhaps they would all be free on the Saturday evening before they went back to work after the sabbath? And would the Breaking of Bread not be regarded, as we regard it also, as the best possible way to start a new week?

    Do we need to read into the actual day on which we hold the memorial service what Christendom at large has read into it?

    • (c) Matthew 28:1. The visit of Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” to the tomb as recorded in Matthew 28:1 is admittedly a difficulty in fixing the exact chronology of the resurrection (particularly when set against John 20:1), but I fail to see why this should be evidence against the possibility of Jesus being raised prior to 6 p.m. on Saturday. If, as you suggest, we ought to regard this as a visit which took place late on the Saturday sabbath, they were not necessarily there until 6 p.m., and Christ could still have risen after they had left, and before the sabbath ended. (I accept that Luke 23:54 uses the Greek “epiphosko” figuratively, though I am not happy about inserting a time lapse of about 12 hours between verses 1 and 2 of Matthew 28 as you presumably must do with your interpretation of verse 1. The whole chapter reads like a continuous narrative, and the women are mentioned again in verse 5, referring the reader back, without any apparent break, to verse 1.)

    Your reply to my objection about the purchasing and preparation of the spices is fair enough and still leaves your Thursday view a possibility. I agree with you, on reflection, that either Wednesday or Thursday would be feasible. In fact, the main reason I prefer to keep to the Wednesday view is the question of the three days and three nights, which, like Brother Lander, I just cannot accept as being anything less than 72 hours, since I do not believe the well-known Hebrew idiom has any bearing on the issue when both days and nights are so specifically mentioned.