THE CRUCIFIXION IN SYNC
by Jeremy Chance Springfield
4/1/2025
The death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua is the central story of the New Testament. Everything orbits those pivotal moments. Chronicled in those nexus events are the means for Jews and Gentiles to ascend before the Holy One by attaching to the austere merit of the Messiah.
Beginning with the dramatic meal with his students, Yeshua’s world became a whirlwind of tragedy and triumph that has captivated the hearts and minds of myriads over two millennia to this very day.
Beginning with the dramatic meal with his students, Yeshua’s world became a whirlwind of tragedy and triumph that has captivated the hearts and minds of myriads over two millennia to this very day.
It is thus ironic that with these truths comes uncertainties as to how it all happened.
Two major questions burden the matter:
Two major questions burden the matter:
The uncertainty surrounding these matters has made some conclude the texts are inevitably conflicting in their portraits. This study is quite lengthy, but it will endeavor to offer instead an innovative treatment of these two factors to synchronize the accounts.
The reader is asked to set aside preconceived ideas and be willing to consider details afresh as evidences are presented from linguistics and Semitic idioms that will provide a seamless story of Yeshua’s astonishing messianic accomplishment.
The first question to clarify is the timing of Yeshua’s death. Properly understanding this primes everything for rightly answering the second question.
All four Gospels agree Passover was the season of Yeshua’s death, and by noting a few factors it can be shown exactly when His death occurred during that time.
Matthew 26:17 presents a detail in the Aramaic of the Peshitta text that is extrapolated upon in the other Gospels.
The reader is asked to set aside preconceived ideas and be willing to consider details afresh as evidences are presented from linguistics and Semitic idioms that will provide a seamless story of Yeshua’s astonishing messianic accomplishment.
The first question to clarify is the timing of Yeshua’s death. Properly understanding this primes everything for rightly answering the second question.
All four Gospels agree Passover was the season of Yeshua’s death, and by noting a few factors it can be shown exactly when His death occurred during that time.
Matthew 26:17 presents a detail in the Aramaic of the Peshitta text that is extrapolated upon in the other Gospels.
|
Yet, on the day prior to Patire, his students drew near unto Yeshua, and they said to him, “Where do you desire that we prepare for you to consume the Petzcha?” |
The date was the day before PATIRE, which is Aramaic for “Unleavened Bread.”
The festival of PATIRE begins at sunset on PETZCHA—the Aramaic pronunciation for the Hebrew term PESACH “Passover.”
|
|
The festival of Unleavened Bread begins at sunset on Nisan 14, making it technically at the transition-point of the 15th of Nisan. The day of Passover itself--Nisan 14—is the day Matthew speaks of where Yeshua ate with his students.
This is because Numbers 9:2-3 says the Passover sacrifice occurs at a certain time.
|
2 And the sons of Yisra’el shall perform the Pesach at its appointed time. |
|
3 On the fourteenth day of this month, between the evenings, you shall perform it at its appointed time, according to all its statutes and according to all its rulings you shall perform it.
The Torah’s meaning is affirmed also in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Pesachim 1:8.
It cannot be killed earlier or later—only at the appointed time. Passover lambs were historically slain in the Temple by direction of the priests, and this they did on Nisan 14 at a specific time, as the Mishnah, Pesachim 5:1, explains.
This aligns with Mark 14:12, which gives additional information to support it.
|
And on the day prior to Patire, in which the Yihudaye sacrifice the Petzcha, his students said to him, “Where do you desire that we shall go to prepare for you to eat the Petzcha?” |
Mark has the extra detail that the day before PATIRE is when the Passover lamb is sacrificed. This is also seen in Luke 22:7, who words it differently.
|
And the day of Patire was nigh, in which it was the custom to slaughter the Petzcha. |
|
The Aramaic term here of WAMATI “and was nigh” is usually rendered “and arrived,” but it has the sense of “on the verge of,” which gives a more nuanced intent to the context. The meaning intended is the festival of PATIRE was on the verge of occurring, beginning at sunset, rather than that it had already begun.
Knowing this, we can appreciate further what Yeshua said in Luke 22:15.
Knowing this, we can appreciate further what Yeshua said in Luke 22:15.
|
And he said to them, “I have certainly desired that I eat this Petzcha with you before I suffer.” |
Yeshua’s words contain the information to identify the timing: he wanted to “eat this Petzcha” with them. This references the Passover lamb. The only way for him to have that lamb was for it to be the 14th of Nisan when they were allowed to be killed properly in the Temple.
After this meal Yeshua was arrested and tried in the night, and in the morning was handed over for crucifixion. These details firmly place the day of Yeshua’s death as the 15th of Nisan—the first special Sabbath day of Unleavened Bread.
After this meal Yeshua was arrested and tried in the night, and in the morning was handed over for crucifixion. These details firmly place the day of Yeshua’s death as the 15th of Nisan—the first special Sabbath day of Unleavened Bread.
The three synoptic Gospels present this information in harmony. It is when the Gospel of John is factored into the events that apparent discrepancies arise as problematic to the whole account. The study will now address those details in his Gospel to present how the accounts are synchronized without conflict.
The important factor to grasp is that the way the evangelist used terms has given cause for many to conclude there are irreconcilable problems. Once the nuances are recognized, everything will fall into place without discord.
Consider the implications of John 13:26-30 from the Peshitta’s Aramaic text.
The important factor to grasp is that the way the evangelist used terms has given cause for many to conclude there are irreconcilable problems. Once the nuances are recognized, everything will fall into place without discord.
Consider the implications of John 13:26-30 from the Peshitta’s Aramaic text.
|
26 Yeshua replied and said to him, “He to whom I give the dipped bread [is the traitor].” And Yeshua dipped the bread and gave to Yihuda, son of Shemun Skaryuta.
27 And after the bread, then Satana entered into him, and Yeshua said to him, “The thing that you do, you must do with haste!” 28 Yet this no man understood from those reclined—what he spoke to him, 29 for the men supposed on account that the money-bag was with Yihuda that he had commanded him to buy a thing needed for the festival, or to give a thing to the poor ones. 30 Yet, Yihuda, he took the bread at the son of an hour and went out. Yet, it had become night while he had went forth. |
|
A notable difference exists in the Aramaic of 13:30 when compared to the traditional Greek readings. The usual Greek manuscript reads as such:
|
Having received then the morsel, he immediately went forth. And it was night.
|
A problem exists if the information in the Greek is taken as original: the disciples assumed Judas left to possibly buy something, yet the Greek says it was already nighttime when he left, so that their assumption meant he was breaking the Torah prohibition against buying on the special Sabbath day.
Only by preferring the Peshitta is the timeline free of Judas breaking the special Sabbath day. Rather, leaving to make a hasty purchase or give to the poor would be plausible, as the Aramaic says night fell at some point after he had left. He would have still had some time to do those things, which would have justified the reasoning of the other students, despite them not understanding the true purpose of his sudden departure.
Moving forward in the timeline of events, John’s Gospel also has an element that bears upon how the evangelist relates information. In John 19:14 Pilate presents Yeshua to the crowds, and the Peshitta provides an insightful detail.
Only by preferring the Peshitta is the timeline free of Judas breaking the special Sabbath day. Rather, leaving to make a hasty purchase or give to the poor would be plausible, as the Aramaic says night fell at some point after he had left. He would have still had some time to do those things, which would have justified the reasoning of the other students, despite them not understanding the true purpose of his sudden departure.
Moving forward in the timeline of events, John’s Gospel also has an element that bears upon how the evangelist relates information. In John 19:14 Pilate presents Yeshua to the crowds, and the Peshitta provides an insightful detail.
|
And it was the eve of the Petzcha, and it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Yihudaye, “See! your king!” |
|
This reading differs from the traditional Greek versions, which read instead as:
|
And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold! your king!”
|
The point of departure between them is in the Aramaic term ARUBTA “eve” and the Greek term PARASKEUEE “preparation.” The Greek is generic in meaning, but the Aramaic is quite specific, for ARUBTA is not used only to mean any “eve,” but is a common term throughout the culture for the sixth day before the weekly Sabbath—what modern English knows as Friday. With the Aramaic text reading “eve of the Petzcha,” it is really saying “Friday of the Passover [season].”
|
|
This is also seen in the Aramaic in Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; and Luke 23:54—where each passage has information corroborating the time-frame as being the day before the Sabbath.
Additionally, the way John refers to the time is significant. He says this occurred about the “sixth hour.” This shows he was using the language to refer not to the Jewish count of hours in daytime, where the sixth hour would be nearing noon in modern reckoning, but instead, was counting from the Roman method, which begins at midnight, placing this at 6am. This is understood because Mark 15:25 has him on the cross at the 3rd hour—where the Jewish 3rd hour equals 9am in the Roman reckoning, since the rabbinic numbering recognizes 12 hours in a day [affirmed by Yeshua in John 11:9 and the Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zarah 3b].
The verse is thus best rendered from the Aramaic as saying:
And it was the eve [of the Sabbath] of the Petzcha [festival], and it was about the sixth hour [according to the Roman reckoning]. And he said to the Yihudaye, “See! your king!”
The Aramaic ARUBTA, therefore, refers to the sixth day itself--Friday—and along with his almost immediate switching of a frame of reference to Roman time, shows his Gospel needs to be carefully assessed concerning the details he has included to make sure it is properly interpreted.
Understanding these two details shows John’s usage of vocabulary was adaptive to the specific point he was making. In effort to emphasize this unusual method John was employing in his writing, consider the reality that whenever his Gospel has a term that the text defines as "Hebrew," the given word is always actually Aramaic. Provided are the examples of such occurrences of using the language in a different what than expected.
Additionally, the way John refers to the time is significant. He says this occurred about the “sixth hour.” This shows he was using the language to refer not to the Jewish count of hours in daytime, where the sixth hour would be nearing noon in modern reckoning, but instead, was counting from the Roman method, which begins at midnight, placing this at 6am. This is understood because Mark 15:25 has him on the cross at the 3rd hour—where the Jewish 3rd hour equals 9am in the Roman reckoning, since the rabbinic numbering recognizes 12 hours in a day [affirmed by Yeshua in John 11:9 and the Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zarah 3b].
The verse is thus best rendered from the Aramaic as saying:
And it was the eve [of the Sabbath] of the Petzcha [festival], and it was about the sixth hour [according to the Roman reckoning]. And he said to the Yihudaye, “See! your king!”
The Aramaic ARUBTA, therefore, refers to the sixth day itself--Friday—and along with his almost immediate switching of a frame of reference to Roman time, shows his Gospel needs to be carefully assessed concerning the details he has included to make sure it is properly interpreted.
Understanding these two details shows John’s usage of vocabulary was adaptive to the specific point he was making. In effort to emphasize this unusual method John was employing in his writing, consider the reality that whenever his Gospel has a term that the text defines as "Hebrew," the given word is always actually Aramaic. Provided are the examples of such occurrences of using the language in a different what than expected.
This feature is a signal that cannot be ignored: John's usage of terms is not always straightforward. He is prone to utilizing the language in unexpected ways for the modern reader, and if this reality is not admitted and considered as his Gospel is read, it is highly possible that erroneous conclusions will inevitably mislead us as we seek to understand the portrait he is presenting of the events chronicled in the timeline of Yeshua's death, burial, and resurrection.
This timeline as presented thus far is verified by the Jewish sentiment asserted in John 19:31, which reveals the day of the crucifixion.
This timeline as presented thus far is verified by the Jewish sentiment asserted in John 19:31, which reveals the day of the crucifixion.
|
Yet, the Yihudaye, on account that it was the eve [of the Sabbath], they said not to overnight these bodies upon their crosses, on account that the Sabbath was looming—for that day was a high day of the Sabbath—and they sought from Pilatos that he should break the shin-bones of those crucified, and should lower them. |
|
The text says it was “the eve,” which is the ARUBTA term used previously—meaning John clearly stated it was Friday. Not only was the weekly Sabbath nearing, but that very day itself was “a high day of the Sabbath”—meaning the day on which the crucifixion occurred was the special first day of Unleavened Bread.
A small detail that is entirely worth clarifying concerning the timing appears in Mark 15:46, where Joseph of Arimathea provides for the care of Yeshua’s corpse.
|
And Yasef had bought linen cloth, and lowered him, and had wrapped him in it, and had set him in the grave that had been hewn in rock, and he had rolled a stone upon the door of the grave. |
This was happening on the first special sabbath day of Unleavened Bread, and therefore, purchasing was not possible. The phrase WAZBAN “had bought” is presented in the Aramaic in a tense signifying it was a previous act he had done—that is, he had bought this burial cloth prior to the Passover events that ended Yeshua’s life. This preemptive purchase stemmed from his status mentioned a few verses before in Mark 15:43 and expounded upon in Luke 23:50-51.
|
50 Yet, one fellow, whose name was Yasef—a councilman from Ramtha, a city of Yihud—was a good and righteous fellow. 51 This [one] had not agreed to their desire and to their affair, and he was waiting for the Kingdom of the Deity. |
|
The Aramaic says Joseph of Arimathea was a BULETEE “a councilman.”
While the actual text does not specify what type of "councilman" Joseph was, this word is the Aramaic form of a Greek term that is used in other Jewish texts like the Talmud Yerushalmi, Peah 1:1, to refer to council-members of the Sanhedrin.
The passage also says Joseph of Arimathea did not agree “to their desire and to their affair.” It was the Sanhedrin who had met and enacted the plan to have Yeshua executed so the Romans would not punish the nation for insurrection, as recorded in John 11:47-53.
The passage also says Joseph of Arimathea did not agree “to their desire and to their affair.” It was the Sanhedrin who had met and enacted the plan to have Yeshua executed so the Romans would not punish the nation for insurrection, as recorded in John 11:47-53.
|
47 And the highest of the priests and the Prishe congregated, and they said, “What shall we do, for this man performs many signs!
48 And if we leave him as such, all men will trust in him, and the Rumaye, coming, shall take our country and our people!” 49 Yet, one from them, whose name was Qayafa, was the Highest of Priests that year, and he said to them, “You do not know a thing, 50 and neither do you reason that it is profitable for us that one man shall die for the people, and not all the people should perish!” 51 Yet, this from the desire of his soul he did not say, but on account that he was the Highest of Priests that year he prophesied that Yeshua was prepared to die for the people, 52 and not only for the people, but even that the sons of the Deity who were scattered should be congregated unto one! 53 And from that day they reasoned that they should murder him. |
According to the timeline of John 11:55 and 12:1, this conspiratorial meeting likely occurred just over a week before Yeshua was indeed executed. While he would have been present for this, it is unlikely Joseph was part of the actual plot where Judas was paid beforehand to betray Yeshua [see: Matthew 26:14-16]. Knowing that he was, however, part of the Sanhedrin who had met to decide how to handle Yeshua, it explains why Joseph had prepared preemptively for the burial wrappings, and why his council-member in the Sanhedrin—Nicodemus [see: John 7:45-52]—had ready a huge weight of burial spices to apply to Yeshua’s corpse [see: John 19:39].
This also explains why the women who followed Yeshua did not have enough burial spices at hand [see: Luke 23:56], but had to wait until the sun had went down after the weekly Sabbath to purchase the remainder of what they wanted to provide [see: Mark 16:1]. Joseph and Nicodemus were prepared before the first day of Unleavened Bread and the weekly Sabbath due to their involvement in the Sanhedrin and their fear that something might happen to Yeshua during the festival.
These details reveal that the texts all align and no not conflict with the timeline and the restrictions of the special Sabbath day of Unleavened Bread when they are approached from an understanding of Judaism and the clarifications of the Aramaic language of the Peshitta.
That Yeshua died on a Friday is meaningful in another way. Death occurring on a Friday is viewed to have its own significance in Judaism. This is explained in Sha’ar HaGilgulim, chapter 23, section 7.
That Yeshua died on a Friday is meaningful in another way. Death occurring on a Friday is viewed to have its own significance in Judaism. This is explained in Sha’ar HaGilgulim, chapter 23, section 7.
This commentary is based on the specific wording found in Genesis 1:31, where the Hebrew phrase YOM HASHISHI “day of the sixth” occurs.
Of all the days in the creation week, it is exceptional in how the text presents it.
The term “the sixth” does not need to be presented as HASHISHI “the sixth,” but can just as simply be rendered SHISHI “six,” like is seen in Genesis 30:19.
The oddity of “day of the sixth” is due to its direct proximity to the Sabbath day, which Genesis 2:2-3 thrice calls YOM HASHEVI’I “the day of the seventh.”
This form HASHEVI’I “the seventh” is the only way it is used in Hebrew Scripture, and so the use of YOM HASHISHI “day of the sixth” links it to the special nature of the Sabbath day.
The Hebrew letter Heh is the linguistic feature yielding uniqueness and serves grammatically as the emphatic article “the.”
The Hebrew letter Heh is the linguistic feature yielding uniqueness and serves grammatically as the emphatic article “the.”
It also has the numeric value of 5, and its connection to the “the seventh day” hints to the five rules of the Sabbath day, which the Mishneh Torah lists as:
The letter Heh, with a value of 5 and link to the sixth day—upon which man was made—has added insight in regard to when the Creator fashioned Adam, as seen in Vayikra Rabbah 29:1.
Adam’s form took shape on the 5th hour of the sixth day. This hints to the idea that the spiritual power of the seventh-day Sabbath retroactively extends to the fifth hour of the sixth day—the hour the Creator’s image was first was seen.
Intriguingly, the Proto-Hebrew glyphs constituting the ancient forms of the Hebrew alphabet have the letter Heh depicted as a human being in crude stick-figure form, as the photo from a stone in the Negev desert shows with a petroglyph of the Divine Name Yah.
The letter’s link to man is compelling. When applied to the timing of Yeshua’s death around the 9th hour on Friday, it means he would have been exempt from the torment of the grave. This appears to be what Psalm 16:10 alludes to.
|
For shall you not abandon my soul to Sheol; You have not appointed Your kind one to see corruption.
|
|
This passage was applied to the Messiah, as seen in Acts 2:27, 31; and 13:35, showing that the Messiah will not experience the torment of the grave that leads to corruption of the body.
A final detail needs addressing when clarifying the timing of Yeshua’s death. This requires revisiting the early morning trial of Yeshua in John 18:28.
A final detail needs addressing when clarifying the timing of Yeshua’s death. This requires revisiting the early morning trial of Yeshua in John 18:28.
|
Yet, they brought Yeshua from before Qayafa to the Pretarin, and it was early morning. And they would not enter the Pretarin, that they not become polluted until they ate the Petzcha. |
The priests brought Yeshua to Pilate but refused to enter the Gentile premises, fearing becoming ritually unfit to eat the Passover.
This seems problematic for the timeline of events because the text states it was “early morning” after the Passover sacrifice had been eaten, yet the priests are concerned about not being able to eat the Passover if they became unclean.
This seems problematic for the timeline of events because the text states it was “early morning” after the Passover sacrifice had been eaten, yet the priests are concerned about not being able to eat the Passover if they became unclean.
The issue is serious. Notice the passage says that it was “early morning” when this occurred. The Aramaic term used by John is TZAFRA.
This term is significant in how it connects to the Torah’s prohibition from Exodus 34:25.
|
You shall not slaughter with leaven the blood of My sacrifice. And neither shall overnight to morning the sacrifice of the feast of the Pesach.
|
|
The link of John’s term for “early morning” is found in that overwhelmingly, the Aramaic Targums—Onkelos, Pseudo Yonatan, and Neofiti, as well as the Fragmentary Targums of the Vatican, and additionally the Aramaic of the Peshitta of the Torah—all translated the Torah's Hebrew term BOKER “morning” in this passage with the term TZAFRA “early morning.” This shows us that the time-frame presented in John 18:28 of “early morning” meant that there is no possible way the priests could be concerned with not being able to eat the Passover lamb if they became unclean—because the time had already passed for the Passover lamb to be eaten, and it was now forbidden to consume anything that was left of the sacrifice.
The reality of this problematic situation is further clarified by the assertion recorded in the text of the Mishnah, Pesachim 10:9.
The idea that eating a Passover lamb after midnight makes the hands unclean is another way to say that it has passed its acceptable time for being consumed, and doing so afterwards renders the act as not a legitimate Passover lamb. The lamb must therefore be eaten prior to midnight. This detail directly affects John 18:28 and the concern about becoming unclean and not being able to eat the Passover. Since it was already early morning, their ability to eat it had already ceased.
What is going on here?
The answer involves how John was using words to present the information he felt was important for the reader to understand. As it was shown before that he utilized terms differently without signaling a change, he does the same here.
He uses the term Passover in a way other than the Gospels have up to now. They use Passover to refer to 1). the sacrificial lamb [see: Mark 14:12], or 2). the feast day [see: Matthew 26:2], or 3). the festival of Unleavened Bread [see: Luke 22:1].
In this sole passage, John uses the term in its only remaining acceptable usage according to Hebrew Scripture and the historical witness of Jewish interpretation, as seen in the Talmud Bavli, Zevachim 99b.
The answer involves how John was using words to present the information he felt was important for the reader to understand. As it was shown before that he utilized terms differently without signaling a change, he does the same here.
He uses the term Passover in a way other than the Gospels have up to now. They use Passover to refer to 1). the sacrificial lamb [see: Mark 14:12], or 2). the feast day [see: Matthew 26:2], or 3). the festival of Unleavened Bread [see: Luke 22:1].
In this sole passage, John uses the term in its only remaining acceptable usage according to Hebrew Scripture and the historical witness of Jewish interpretation, as seen in the Talmud Bavli, Zevachim 99b.
In addition to how the Gospels use the term Passover, it can also refer to a special peace offering brought during Unleavened Bread that is itself called Passover.
Although not something widely taught about, this different allowance of meaning for the term Passover is actually found in the Torah in Deuteronomy 16:2.
Although not something widely taught about, this different allowance of meaning for the term Passover is actually found in the Torah in Deuteronomy 16:2.
|
And you shall sacrifice [the] Pesach to YHWH your Deity [from the] flock and herd in [the] place which YHWH shall choose to have His name dwell there.
|
|
The Hebrew says the Passover can come from TZON UVAKAR “flock and herd.”
The term BAKAR “herd” is used repeatedly in the Hebrew for groups of cattle, or even a single calf in the form BEN BAKAR.
The intent of the Torah is not that the Passover animal be either be a lamb or a calf, but as Exodus 12:3-5 states, only a male lamb is used for that sacrifice.
|
3 “You must speak to all the congregation of Yisra’el, to say: In the tenth of this month, then they shall take for themselves a man a lamb, according to the house of [their] fathers—a lamb for a house.
|
4 And if the house be too small for the lamb, then he and his neighbor who is near shall take unto his house by the number of persons: a man according to his eating you shall make count concerning the lamb.
5 A lamb unblemished, a male, the son of a year. You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats.”
5 A lamb unblemished, a male, the son of a year. You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats.”
Rather, Deuteronomy 16:2 is calling the additional peace offerings presented during the festival of Unleavened Bread by the title of Passover.
2nd Chronicles 35:1-17 has an example of such usage occurring in Hebrew Scripture, and most directly in the wording of 35:9.
2nd Chronicles 35:1-17 has an example of such usage occurring in Hebrew Scripture, and most directly in the wording of 35:9.
|
And Konanyahu, and Shemayahu and Nethan’eil—his brothers—and Chashavyahu and Ye’i’eil and Yozavad, chief of the Levi’im, they gave to the Levi’im for Pesachs five thousand [lambs or goats], and five hundred cattle.
|
|
Five-hundred cattle were given for Passovers in addition to five-thousand lambs or goats. This only make sense as the term Passovers being used to refer to festival-offerings for Passover, and not the special sacrifice itself.
The Mishnah, in Pesachim 6:3, details when this offering can be brought with a Passover lamb.
The Mishnah, in Pesachim 6:3, details when this offering can be brought with a Passover lamb.
This clarifies a festival-offering for Passover can only be brought along with the Passover lamb itself if 1). it is on a weekday, or if 2). the person is pure, or if 3). the required lamb itself is not enough to feed the attendants. In this case, the text says the priests who refused to enter the praetorium met at least two of the three factors to have been in possession of a festival-offering: 1). it was a weekday, and 2). they were ritually pure.
Understanding this nuance of meaning, it becomes apparent John was again using the language in a different way to present the information he felt necessary to preserve. By correctly interpreting how he used the language and terms within it, it is seen that John's Gospel account of the timing of Yeshua’s death is actually completely synchronized with the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
With this information established, focus can now turn to the timeline of Yeshua’s entombment. All four Gospels agree he arose on the first day of the week [see: Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; and John 20:1].
Knowing this, it means Yeshua died and was entombed on Friday, was dead all day on the Sabbath, and then arose overnight on Sunday. Here is where contention may exist as to timing. It is important to assess the Gospel information to make sure the timing aligns with the above reckoning of a Friday death and a Sunday resurrection.
Knowing this, it means Yeshua died and was entombed on Friday, was dead all day on the Sabbath, and then arose overnight on Sunday. Here is where contention may exist as to timing. It is important to assess the Gospel information to make sure the timing aligns with the above reckoning of a Friday death and a Sunday resurrection.
First, it is vital to note that in fourteen passages it says Yeshua would rise “on the third day” or “in three days.” Those places are: Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:19; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:58; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7; 24:46; John 2:19; Acts 10:40; 1st Corinthians 15:3-4., and are shared as follows.
|
And from then Yeshua began to show his students that it was prepared that he should go to Urishlem, and suffer much from the elders, and from the chief priests, and the scribes, and should be executed, and should rise the third day.
~ Matthew 16:21 |
|
22 When they had returned into G’lila, Yeshua said to them, “It is prepared that the Son of Man shall be delivered into the hands of the sons of man,
23 and they shall execute him, and the third day he shall rise.” And it was very grievous to them. ~ Matthew 17:22-23 |
|
|
And they shall deliver him to the peoples, and they shall mock him, and they shall scourge him, and they shall crucify him. And on the third day he shall rise.
~ Matthew 20:19 |
|
And he began to teach them that it was prepared that the Son of Man should suffer much, and that he be rejected by the elders, and by the chief priests, and by the scribes, and be executed, and on the third day, should rise.
~ Mark 8:31 |
|
|
For he taught his students and said to them that the Son of Man would be delivered into the hands of men, and they would execute him, and when that he was killed, on the third day he should rise.
~ Mark 9:31 |
|
33 See! we ascend to Urishlem! And the Son of Man shall be delivered to the chief priests, and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the peoples,
34 and they shall mock him, and they shall scourge him, and shall spit in his face, and shall execute him. And on the third day he shall rise. ~ Mark 10:33-34 |
|
|
‘We heard him—that he said, “I shall remove this Temple that was made with hands, and in three days I shall build another that is not made with hands!”’
~ Mark 14:58 |
|
And he said to them that it was prepared that he—the Son of Man—should suffer much, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and they should execute him, and the third day he should rise.
~ Luke 9:22 |
|
|
32 For he shall be delivered to the peoples, and they shall mock him, and they shall spit in his face,
33 and they shall scourge him, and shall torment him, and shall execute him. And the third day he shall rise. ~ Luke 18:33 |
|
…and he had said, ‘It is prepared that he—the Son of Man—shall be delivered into the hands of the man of sins, and he shall be crucified, and in three days he shall rise.’
~ Luke 24:7 |
|
|
And he said to them that “It is thus written, and thus was righteous, that the Messiah should suffer, and that he should rise from the house of the dead in three days.
~ Luke 24:46 |
|
Yeshua replied, and said to them, “You must destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it.”
~ John 2:19 |
|
|
…and him the Deity raised up on the third day and appointed that he be seen with open eye. ~ Acts 10:40 |
|
3 For I delivered to you from the beginning according [to] the thing that I received: that the Messiah died for the presence of our sins, as it is written,
4 and that he was buried, and he rose the third of the days, as that it is written. ~ 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 |
|
In contrast to all these mentions of the time-frame of Yeshua being entombed in the grave, a detail that is found in Matthew 12:39-40 has been cause for the understanding that Yeshua’s entombment lasted for a longer duration of time.
|
39 Yet, he replied and said to them, “A wicked and adulterous generation requests the sign, and the sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Yonan the prophet.
|
40 For as Yonan—who was in the belly of the fish the three days and the three nights—thus shall be the Son of Man in the heart of the earth the three days and the three nights.”
This statement seems to imply a time-span of seventy-two hours for Yeshua’s entombment—three days and nights in the grave. If this perspective is true it presents a problem for the explanations in the first part of this study showing Yeshua ate the Passover meal and was executed on the 15th of Nisan.
Also, it cannot be ignored that it is in contrast to every other passage about the length of time until his resurrection. Since the above list of verses repeatedly say he would rise “in three days” or “on the third day,” the claim that “three days and three nights” would pass in their entirety seemingly contradicts that established timeline. It is especially problematic since Yeshua was dead for a longer period of time than he was actually entombed, and so to rise from the grave “in three days” or “on the third day” means he could in no way have been in the tomb for “three days and three nights” if it is understood in its fullest span of time. It is simply impossible to reconcile if taken as a literal length of time.
The series of events of a seventy-two-hour period is typically presented as occurring something like is shown in the included chart.
Also, it cannot be ignored that it is in contrast to every other passage about the length of time until his resurrection. Since the above list of verses repeatedly say he would rise “in three days” or “on the third day,” the claim that “three days and three nights” would pass in their entirety seemingly contradicts that established timeline. It is especially problematic since Yeshua was dead for a longer period of time than he was actually entombed, and so to rise from the grave “in three days” or “on the third day” means he could in no way have been in the tomb for “three days and three nights” if it is understood in its fullest span of time. It is simply impossible to reconcile if taken as a literal length of time.
The series of events of a seventy-two-hour period is typically presented as occurring something like is shown in the included chart.
To understand how to resolve this to fit the narrower span of time the synoptic Gospels otherwise present, it is vital to consider two other passages where Yeshua’s words factor into the statement recorded in Matthew 12 above. The first is Luke 11:29-30, which is the parallel version of Matthew’s account above, as the surrounding context reveals it was the same event that both recorded.
|
29 And when the congregants were congregated, he began to speak: “This wicked generation requests a sign, and the sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Yonan the prophet.
30 For as Yonan was the sign to the Ninwaye, thus even the Son of Man is for this generation.” |
|
This record omits the detail Matthew included of being entombed “three days and the three nights.” This omission helps to clarify Matthew’s passage.
The clarification of what is meant to be focused-upon is emphasized later in his ministry, when he mentions this sign for the second time. Matthew 16:4 records that second mention, and notice what is included and what is omitted.
The clarification of what is meant to be focused-upon is emphasized later in his ministry, when he mentions this sign for the second time. Matthew 16:4 records that second mention, and notice what is included and what is omitted.
|
“A wicked and adulterous generation requests the sign, and the sign is not given to it, except the sign of Yonan the prophet.” And he departed them, and left.
|
Yeshua speaks of a sign in general but offers no insight about it. The result is Matthew 12 includes a time-frame for it, Luke 11 omits the time-frame, and Matthew 16 omits any detail about it. Additionally, these latter two passages do not mention the detail of where Yeshua would be: "the heart of the earth" is omitted.
This puts into question Yeshua’s actual intent with originally including those details but then omitting them later. What was he attempting to convey?
I suggest the sign is not meant as regarding a specific time, but rather, is about the unique situation of Yeshua—who would be vanquished from this world yet return to the people—just as Jonah was swallowed up by the fish yet returned again to men.
This puts into question Yeshua’s actual intent with originally including those details but then omitting them later. What was he attempting to convey?
I suggest the sign is not meant as regarding a specific time, but rather, is about the unique situation of Yeshua—who would be vanquished from this world yet return to the people—just as Jonah was swallowed up by the fish yet returned again to men.
In this factor also is the likely meaning of Yeshua’s phrase “in the heart of the earth.” While it is not a phrase found in Hebrew Scripture, it is based on the interpretation of a phrase that is in the holy text, as is mentioned in Be’er Mayim Chaim.
This passage is quoting from Isaiah 40:2, and based on a phrase found in it—DAVRU AL-LEIV YERUSHALA’IM—the commentator is interpreting the Hebrew passage literally.
Reading it in a literal sense results in: “You must speak unto [the] heart—Yerushala’im…” Be’er Mayim Chaim asserts that Jerusalem is “the heart of the earth”—it is the most important, vital part of the land of Israel. Yeshua’s usage of the phrase would appear to predate that passage's later interpretation of the prophet Isaiah’s words. He would be “in Jerusalem”—that is, inside the very ground of Jerusalem's environs, just as the prophet Jonah was inside the innards of the fish. From there he would return to the world of man in a miraculous manner.
This interpretation of Yeshua’s curious phrase, while maintaining a Jewish intent, also aligns perfectly with his words recorded in Luke 13:33, which are a response to the news that his life was in danger of the wrath of Herod.
|
“Nevertheless, it is proper for me today and tomorrow to act, and the day afterwards I shall go, on account that it is not possible that a prophet should perish outside of Urishlem.” |
Apart from these aspects, the only consistent detail in the three passages is that a sign would be given that is directly connected to Jonah. The secondary detail does involve a factor of time, but the question is how are we supposed to understand that detail? The Jewish interpretation of that detail is worth presenting, for it bears strikingly upon the topic at hand, as seen in the Zohar, Vayakhel 199b.
The quote provides an important commentary on the time-frame mentioned by Yeshua—it is not significant as a seventy-two-hour period, but instead, as a signal that the dead will be raised—which is the context Yeshua spoke about!
This interpretation of the time-frame in Jonah is also corroborated in the text of Esther Rabbah 9:2, quoting from Jonah 2:1 and Hosea 6:2.
This interpretation of the time-frame in Jonah is also corroborated in the text of Esther Rabbah 9:2, quoting from Jonah 2:1 and Hosea 6:2.
This agreement between usages cannot be ignored. The overarching purpose of the sign is therefore to prove that a man was going to rise from the dead.
Since the phrase is indeed time-specific in nature, it is important that it not be dismissed solely for its implied meaning in Judaism. Rather, let us consider how the phrase was used elsewhere in Scripture, and we shall see that it is not exactly meant to encompass a seventy-two-hour span of time at all!
Consider the witness of Esther 4:16 and the words of the Queen to Mordecai.
Since the phrase is indeed time-specific in nature, it is important that it not be dismissed solely for its implied meaning in Judaism. Rather, let us consider how the phrase was used elsewhere in Scripture, and we shall see that it is not exactly meant to encompass a seventy-two-hour span of time at all!
Consider the witness of Esther 4:16 and the words of the Queen to Mordecai.
|
You must go! You must gather all the Yehudim who are found in Shushan, and you must fast for me—and neither shall you eat, and neither shall you drink three days – night and day! Even I and my maidens shall fast thusly. And then I shall go unto the king, which is not according to law, and when I am lost, I am lost.
|
|
Esther establishes a fast among the Jewish people lasting three days and nights—a seventy-two-hour time-span, being the same phrasing of time as in the book of Jonah.
However, consider now Esther 5:1, which is the very next passage in the book.
|
And it came to be on the third day, Esther was clothed [with] her royal [clothes], and she stood in the courtyard of the house of the king, opposite the king’s house. And the king sat upon the throne of his kingdom in the royal house, against the door of the house.
|
|
Surprisingly, Esther went to the king on the third day of fasting! She did not wait to go until the third night. Did she flout her own rule, or were her words regarding the timing of the fast meant in an idiomatic sense? It seems the phrase “night and day” implies just an “at all” intention instead of a specific span of time.
Thankfully, another passage exists supporting the idiomatic usage of how timespans are used in Hebrew and Aramaic. 2nd Chronicles 10:5 & 12 mentions a situation involving the passing of a certain amount of time.
Thankfully, another passage exists supporting the idiomatic usage of how timespans are used in Hebrew and Aramaic. 2nd Chronicles 10:5 & 12 mentions a situation involving the passing of a certain amount of time.
|
5 And he said to them, “After three days, then you must return unto me.” And the people went away.
… 12 And Yaravam and all the people came unto Rechav’am on the third day, as that the king spoken, and had said, “You must return unto me on the third day.” |
The decree was to meet “After three days,” but the next verse says they arrived “on the third day.” The text explains it was in accord to what Rehoboam had decreed by clarifying that “after three days” really meant “on the third day.”
The only logical conclusion is that the idea of “after three days” does not mean after all the hours of those days had come and gone, but rather, only after the third day had arrived. No other way to interpret the fulfillment of this phraseology exists than that explanation.
This idiomatic way of speaking aligns exactly with the account of Yeshua’s suffering in Matthew 27:62-64.
The only logical conclusion is that the idea of “after three days” does not mean after all the hours of those days had come and gone, but rather, only after the third day had arrived. No other way to interpret the fulfillment of this phraseology exists than that explanation.
This idiomatic way of speaking aligns exactly with the account of Yeshua’s suffering in Matthew 27:62-64.
|
62 Yet, the next day that was after the eve [of Sabbath], the chief priests and the Prishe congregated, and went unto Pilatos,
63 and they were saying to him, “Our master! We recall that he who deceived had said when he was alive that ‘After three days I shall rise.’ 64 You must command, therefore, that they be attentive at the tomb until the third of the days, lest his students shall come and steal him in the night, and they tell the people that he rose from the house of the dead, and the latter deception be worse than the prior.” |
|
This phraseology is identical to 2nd Chronicles. They claim Yeshua would rise “after three days,” but then clarify to keep watch only “until the third of the days.” This shows the phrase was intended in an idiomatic way to signify a span of three days.
Furthermore, although the typical view of the phrase “three days and three nights” assumes a full seventy-two-hour time-span, that is not necessarily how the text intends it. This is because a qualifier is attached to the phrase in Jewish texts in order to convey precisely seventy-two hours, as the Mishneh Torah explains.
The phrase SHELOSH YAMIM LAYLAH V’YOM “three days—night and day” has appended to it the qualifier RETZUFIM “uninterrupted.”
This same qualifier is found in the text of Daat Zekenim.
A distinction is again made using RETZUFIM “uninterrupted,” which basically could be translated also as “successive.” This clarification of an uninterrupted timespan using RETZUFIM is recurring phraseology found throughout Jewish works, showing that the term is used to distinguish a successive amount of time from a phrase that is not actually intending a successive amount of time.
From these things, it is overwhelmingly obvious how Yeshua meant the phrase “three days and three nights”: beyond the strictly literal meaning and instead as an idiom meaning “three days.” This accords with Esther 4 & 5, where she understood it likewise: the third day completed the time without a third night.
This is important to acknowledge, for a very standardized rule about reckoning time is understood in Judaism, and found throughout the Talmudic literature, but seen simply in this phrase from the Talmud Yerushalmi, Pesachim 4:8.
From these things, it is overwhelmingly obvious how Yeshua meant the phrase “three days and three nights”: beyond the strictly literal meaning and instead as an idiom meaning “three days.” This accords with Esther 4 & 5, where she understood it likewise: the third day completed the time without a third night.
This is important to acknowledge, for a very standardized rule about reckoning time is understood in Judaism, and found throughout the Talmudic literature, but seen simply in this phrase from the Talmud Yerushalmi, Pesachim 4:8.
This clarification is derived from the passages in Scripture above where that is the only logical conclusion that can be reached. It is vital for it to be stated so the reader can accurately count how timespans are presented in the holy texts. For the current topic of the death and entombment of Yeshua, this information applies directly to correctly numbering the amount of time he was deceased.
With all of this information as to how the phrase “three days and three nights” can be interpreted, it would yet be insufficient to omit addressing the presence of the linguistic factor of the “three nights” that was chosen to be uttered by Yeshua. It cannot be ignored or disregarded as insignificant even if the phrase as a whole is interpreted in a more idiomatic way in Judaism. While the interpretation of the phrase as intending “seventy-two hours” does not work, the phrase’s inclusion of “and three nights” can still even in that form be reconciled with the events presented in the Gospels. This harmonization is found due to a detail encountered in Matthew 27:45 about what happened while Yeshua was on the cross.
|
Yet, from the sixth of [the] hours darkness was over all the earth until the ninth of [the] hours. |
It was in this special period of darkness that Matthew 27:46-51 reveals the truly darkest point of history.
|
46 And towards the ninth of [the] hours, Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and said, “Deity! Deity! For what have You abandoned me?”
47 Yet, men from those who stood there, when they heard, they said, “This [one] has called for Iliya!” 48 And in that hour one from among them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it [with] vinegar, and set it on a reed, and gave a drink to him. 49 Yet, the remainder, they said, “You must abandon him! We shall see if Iliya comes to rescue him!” 50 Yet, Yeshua, he again cried out in a loud voice, and released his spirit. 51 And at once the face of the veil of the Temple split in two from top unto bottom, and the earth trembled, and stones split. |
|
Darkness fell upon the land, Yeshua cried out in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic words that alluded to Psalm 22:1, a fusion which his listeners misunderstood and assumed instead he called for Elijah the prophet, continuing their mockery of his plight until his death came and the earth suffered the consequence of the murder of a truly righteous man.
This event is chronicled also in Luke 23:44-46, which helps to clarify the details of the timing of exactly what was happening in Matthew’s account.
This event is chronicled also in Luke 23:44-46, which helps to clarify the details of the timing of exactly what was happening in Matthew’s account.
|
44 Yet, now it was about the sixth of [the] hours, and darkness was over all the earth until the ninth of [the] hours.
45 And the sun darkened, and the face of the veil of the Temple split through its middle, 46 And Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and said, “My Father! into Your hands I place my spirit!” This he said, and was delivered up. |
When taken together, the resulting scenario is that Yeshua died during the three-hour span of darkness that suddenly descended over the land. Both Matthew and Luke record that the darkness lasted until the ninth hour, but both also include that it was nearly the ninth hour when Yeshua died on the cross.
This series of events holds in it a unique factor that ultimately must be traced back to the words of Genesis 1:4-5 to truly appreciate.
This series of events holds in it a unique factor that ultimately must be traced back to the words of Genesis 1:4-5 to truly appreciate.
|
4 And [the] Deity saw the light, that it was good. And [the] Deity separated between the light and between the darkness.
|
|
5 And [the] Deity called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And it came to be evening, and it came to be morning—day one.
From this information a truth is understood: a period of light is called “day,” and a period of darkness is called “night.” This aligns with the previous examples shared from Scripture and the conclusion from the Talmud that a portion of a day is reckoned as all of it. Based on this, what occurred surrounding the crucifixion can be viewed as a single series of events that simultaneously fulfilled two different timelines depending on the perspective of the viewer, which harmonizes the “three days and three nights” phrase Yeshua chose to include with all the other mentions of him being dead only for “three days.”
The simultaneous dual timeline works like this:
TIMELINE A:
Since a portion of a day is technically reckoned as a whole day, it can be legitimately stated that Yeshua died on the afternoon of a Friday (TECHNICAL DAY 1), was dead during the night and day of Saturday (TECHNICAL DAY 2), and arose after the sun had set near the early morning hours as it began to dawn [see: Matthew 28:1], meaning it was actually Sunday (TECHNICAL DAY 3).
TIMELINE B:
Since a period of darkness is called “night,” then NIGHT 1 could have been said to have began when the surprise afternoon darkness fell from the 6th to 9th hours on Friday, near the end of which Yeshua died. DAY 1 then began when the darkness lifted for the remainder of time left on Friday before the weekly Sabbath arrived at sundown. NIGHT 2 began when the sun set, and the weekly Sabbath arrived. DAY 2 began when the sun rose on the weekly Sabbath day of Saturday. NIGHT 3 began when the Sabbath departed at sunset. DAY 3 began when the sun was dawning on Sunday and Yeshua arose.
The simultaneous dual timeline works like this:
TIMELINE A:
Since a portion of a day is technically reckoned as a whole day, it can be legitimately stated that Yeshua died on the afternoon of a Friday (TECHNICAL DAY 1), was dead during the night and day of Saturday (TECHNICAL DAY 2), and arose after the sun had set near the early morning hours as it began to dawn [see: Matthew 28:1], meaning it was actually Sunday (TECHNICAL DAY 3).
TIMELINE B:
Since a period of darkness is called “night,” then NIGHT 1 could have been said to have began when the surprise afternoon darkness fell from the 6th to 9th hours on Friday, near the end of which Yeshua died. DAY 1 then began when the darkness lifted for the remainder of time left on Friday before the weekly Sabbath arrived at sundown. NIGHT 2 began when the sun set, and the weekly Sabbath arrived. DAY 2 began when the sun rose on the weekly Sabbath day of Saturday. NIGHT 3 began when the Sabbath departed at sunset. DAY 3 began when the sun was dawning on Sunday and Yeshua arose.
It is important to mention that this way of interpreting the information, while allowing for three days and three nights to be legitimately represented in the time-span, still does not allow for a count of seventy-two hours (three 24-hour periods) to fit into the details. What it does is provide a way for all the information presented in the Gospels about the duration of Yeshua’s period of death to sync up in complete harmony.
When these matters are all factored together, all the pieces of the puzzle of the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua suddenly fall into place. No discord exists between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John when the passages are read in their Semitic originals and all details are accounted for. Although it requires carefully assessing the Jewish culture, the nuances of linguistics, and the spectrum of how terms are used, a reconciliation of all the uncertainties that otherwise plague our understanding of the Gospel accounts can be obtained when we endeavor to find a legitimate synchronization of the crucifixion events.
All study contents Copyright Jeremy Chance Springfield, except for graphics and images, which are Copyright their respective creators.