Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONTENTS OF NO. CVII.

Article

Page

I. THE CRUCIFIXION ON THURSDAY-NOT FRIDAY, 401

BY REV. J. K. ALDRICH, EAST BRIDGEWATER, MASS.

II. THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES,

430

BY S. R. ASBURY, RESIDENT LICENTIATE AT ANDOVER.

The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews:
Introduction,

The Priest and Sacrifice of the New Covenant, .

The Old Testament Worship, and the Advantages of
the New,.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

430

431

[ocr errors]

433

436

436

437

438

439

[ocr errors]

441

[ocr errors]

The Incarnate Logos and the Revelation of God in the
Old Covenant,

442

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

442

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

BY REV. EDWARD A. LAWRENCE, D.D., MARBLEHEAD, MASS.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

THE

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA.

ARTICLE I.

THE CRUCIFIXION ON THURSDAY - NOT FRIDAY.

BY REV. J. K. ALDRICH, EAST BRIDGEWATER, MASS.

Ir is generally believed that our Saviour was crucified on Friday, the fifteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan. A careful examination of the subject has confirmed us in the opinion that the established theory is incorrect. We believe he was crucified on Thursday, for these reasons: 1. If he was crucified on Friday, his body could not have lain three days and three nights in the grave, and, in all probability, he must have risen on the second, and not the third day, according to the scriptures. 2. If he was crucified on Friday, there is a plain discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists. 3. His crucifixion on Thursday, removes both these difficulties.

1. On the assumption that Christ was crucified on Friday, he lay in the grave but two nights and a part of three days, whereas it is said that he should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. xii. 40). The language here is specific, and it was uttered by the Saviour, who by reason of his divinity was omniscient. He foreknew the controversy that would arise in regard to the interval between his death and resurrection; that the term "three days and three nights" would be understood literally, and that if the period between his death and resurrection did not correspond VOL. XXVII. No. 107.-JULY, 1870. 51

it would produce scepticism and caviling among the enemies of the truth. Moreover, he was the living embodiment of the truth, and we believe that with reference to so important an event, he would not have used language which was evidently liable to mislead. When he said three days and three nights, the Jews, no doubt, understood him to mean precisely that which the language is naturally intended to convey. The efforts made by commentators to explain it differently are to get over a difficulty-square it to a particular theory. Their explanations are unnatural and forced.

Assuming that he was crucified on Friday, the common statement is, that "he was in the grave but two nights, and a part of three days," since the first day of the week was the day of his resurrection. In advocating this theory, they say: "This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had not been the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Saviour with being a false prophet, for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain therefore, that what was meant by the prediction was accomplished." No attempt is here made to prove that Christ was crucified on Friday. That which should have been proved, being taken for granted, is made the basis of the argument. The inference is, that there must be some way of reconciling the assertion with the assumed fact; that it must have been understood, according to the Jewish reckoning, to mean, not as it says, "three days and three nights," but two nights and a part of three days, or else "the Jews would have charged our Saviour with being a false prophet." A theory is set up, and the argument founded upon it. But the premise is wrong, and it leads to a false conclusion.

Again, it is said, that "It was a maxim among the Jews in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole"; and in proof of this we are referred to 2 Chron. x. 5, 12; Gen. xlii. 17, 18; Est. iv. 16, compared

with Est. v. 1. In 2 Chron. x. 5, Rehoboam said to the people of Israel: "Come again to me after three days," and in the twelfth verse, we read that "Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade, saying, 'Come to me on the third day.'' In Gen. xlii. 17 Joseph is represented as putting his brethren in prison, when they had come down into Egypt to buy corn. "And he put them altogether into ward three days." And in the eighteenth verse, "Joseph said to them, the third day, this do and live," and this, taken with the context, is proof that he then released them. In Est. iv. 16 Queen Esther desires that the Jews in Shushan, should "neither eat nor drink three days, night or day," and declares that she and her maidens would fast likewise, and so would she go in unto the king. And in the fifth chapter and first verse we learn that she did this on the third day. These are all the passages; and what do they prove? Only that the expressions "after three days," and "on the third day," are equivalent. So that when our Saviour taught his disciples, that "after three days he should rise again" (Mark viii. 31), and again, that "the third day" he should rise again (Mark x. 34), the passages are found to be in harmony, and by his resurrection on the third day his declaration was fulfilled. But it in no sense proves that the expression three nights, as used by our Saviour, is to be interpreted to mean but two.

It is said again, that "the term 'three days and three nights' is a round number according to the popular mode of Hebrew reckoning, although Christ lay only one day and two nights in the grave." It is claimed that if it be necessary to make good the three days and nights, it must be done by having recourse to the Jewish method of computing time, and that in the Jerusalem Talmud (cited by Lightfoot) it is said that a day and night together make a vuxenμepov, and that any part of such period is counted as the whole. But unfortunately for this argument, the expression is not vuxenμepov, as in 2 Cor. xi. 25, where Paul says, "a night and a day have I been in the deep,” but τρεῖς ἡμέρας and τρεῖς

« PreviousContinue »