Tag Archives: Good Friday

Stations of the Cross … in Jerusalem

Walking the fourteen Stations of the Cross is a traditional pilgrimage taken by many Christians for centuries, remembering the route that Jesus took towards the Crucifixion, on Good Friday. Those who participate in this devotional practice normally never have the opportunity to go to Jerusalem itself to do it, along the “Via Dolorosa.”

Though the route has been marked out in Jerusalem, in various ways, since the medieval period, we really do not for sure the exact path Jesus took. Nevertheless, walking the Stations of the Cross can still be a very meaningful, memorable experience.

The last few stations are in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Jesus’ Crucifixion, which makes this year, 2020, all the more weird, as the Church closed recently, due to the threat of COVID-19.  In other words, do not expect many people going down the Via Dolorosa today, on this year’s Good Friday (at least for Western Christians).

I do not know anything about Vic Stefanu, other than that he is a popular travel vlogger on YouTube.  But a few years ago, he walked the Via Dolorosa, in Jerusalem. This has helped me in my Good Friday meditation, to virtually walk the Via Dolorosa:

Was Jesus Really Crucified on Good Friday?

Plumb Line

I ran across the following comment not too long ago on an Internet forum: “The crucifixion of the Son of God as recorded in the Bible must have taken place on Wednesday, in order that THREE days and THREE nights or 72 hours be fulfilled. ‘Good Friday’ is just another untruth from romish delusion.”

These type of statements made by well-meaning people really puzzle me. It is important to try to unpack this as it demonstrates a major challenge in how some conservative Christians (thankfully not all) try to approach the Bible and apply what they read.

The first observation to make is the underlying concern that the traditional view in which Jesus was crucified on a Friday actually undermines the inerrancy of the Bible. In Matthew 12:40, we read that:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (ESV).

This is the “Sign of Jonah” that prophetically draws on a parallel between what the prophet Jonah experienced and the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Some critics of biblical inerrancy cite this as a case where there is an error in the Bible. If you take a literal approach to the concept of “day” as consisting of both “a day and a night,” then you run into a problem since you do not have three full sequences of “a day and a night” between Friday and Sunday, where you only have two nights involved. In response, some defenders of biblical inerrancy contend that Jesus must have been crucified earlier in the week, either on Thursday or on Wednesday, as the Internet commenter assumes (Here are a couple of attempts to make the Wednesday case I found on the Interwebs: #1 and #2).

Now, there are surely scholarly cases to be made for Thursday or Wednesday, instead of Friday, following on some of New Testament scholar Brant Pitre’s research on the date of the Last Supper (Pitre is Roman Catholic, by the way… this Sacred Page podcast interviews him about his research). Frankly, it does not matter to me what day Jesus was actually crucified. If it really mattered that much, the Holy Scripture would be a lot more clear about the subject. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to uphold the traditional view. The important thing is that Jesus was crucified for our sins and then was raised from the dead, no matter what the exact chronology.

I consulted the blog of our friend Andreas Köestenberger, professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, as he had co-written a book last year on The Final Days of Jesus. Following a basic Scriptural principle that we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, Köestenberger notes that in Luke 24:7 that Jesus is to be crucified and then rise “on the third day,” which fits in perfectly with the traditional “Good Friday” thesis.

So, does this create a contradiction that undermines the inerrancy of the Bible? Köestenberger answers this difficulty by noting that the “a day and a night” reference to a “day” is actually an idiomatic expression. In other words, “a day and a night” could mean any part of a single day. If you accept such a biblical idiom, then you do not need to insert a third night in between the crucifixion and the resurrection. Otherwise, you have created for yourself another problem for your view of biblical inerrancy since you still have to deal with Jesus rising “on the third day” according to Luke 24:7, not after the third day according to the Wednesday theory. Read professor Köestenberger’s full and very probable explanation here.

A rough parallel to the use of such an idiom can be found in English. I am very much a night owl and so sometimes I do not get to bed until just after midnight. Sometimes my wife will ask me a question that late at night, and I might say, “I will talk to you about it tomorrow, OK?” Now, did I just commit an error and lie to my wife? After all, technically speaking, it is after midnight, and we are already into “tomorrow.” No, my use of “tomorrow” is simply another way of saying that I need to get a good night sleep before I try to answer her question. That is all. To try to read any more into that is just being persnickety.

My second observation and my biggest gripe with the Internet comment is how this person applies this “truth” that Jesus was not crucified on Good Friday. For the commenter, the “Good Friday Myth” is just another example of “romish delusion,” which is just another way of saying that Roman Catholicism is at the root of this error. Furthermore, it implies that anyone who goes along with “Good Friday” is guilty of perpetuating the “delusion” of Roman Catholicism.

This really is not the place to go into questions regarding Roman Catholicism. My objection is that the Internet commenter has taken a particular position on a controversial issue and applied it as part of wide-ranging polemic against an entire system of belief that is at odds with theirs without sufficient warrant. Right off of the bat, there are big problems with this. First, the “Good Friday” tradition extends back much further than “Roman Catholicism” into the early history of the church. The Eastern Orthodox community that goes back into those early years as well also celebrates “Good Friday,” and they do not accept papal authority. Secondly, the implication is that any Protestant who follows the practice of celebrating “Good Friday” is merely swallowing Roman Catholic “papist” practice and belief uncritically. The sixteenth century leaders of the magisterial Reformation would probably take issue with such a sweeping accusation.

If someone takes the position that the crucifixion happened on a Wednesday or Thursday, then there can surely be no harm in doing so in principle. However, I would argue that such a conviction may also indicate that there is another agenda going on that tears at the fabric of the unity of the evangelical church. If someone is wondering why the topic of “biblical inerrancy” comes under such needless scorn, one need not look any further than the misguided attempts of some who wish to deconstruct the “Good Friday Myth.” How you present your argument is just as important as what the argument really is.

Additional Resources:

Ralph Woodrow, a Southern California evangelist, at one time embraced the idea that “Good Friday” was merely a product of the so-called pagan roots associated with Roman Catholicism, opting for the Wednesday view instead. However, after further reflection, Woodrow changed his view and has since adopted the traditional “Good Friday” view of when the crucifixion happened. Woodrow is an interesting figure in that he wrote Babylon Mystery Religion in 1966, a stridently anti-Catholic book based on the pseudo-scholarship of Alexander Hislop, introduced here on Veracity. However, in 1997, Woodrow, who is still an evangelical Christian, published a different book, The Babylonian Connection?, that publicly refuted his earlier work when he learned that Alexander Hislop was not really a reliable historian. It takes great courage for a man to write one book and then publicly come out later and say that he was wrong. In this essay, Woodrow argues that the heart of the earth in Matthew 12:40 is actually a symbolic reference to the city of Jerusalem, and it is not necessarily a reference only to the time period of Jesus’ death. If Woodrow is correct, then this further negates the need to contend for the Wednesday crucifixion view in that it is quite clear that Jesus faced his greatest trial and humiliation for three days and three nights in the city of Jerusalem, starting on Thursday with Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and ending on Sunday morning!

The Subtraction of Easter

The Final Days of Jesus

The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence

Every year at this time (Holy Week) there is a dramatic increase in documentaries about the ‘real’ Jesus and the meaning of Easter.

To believers, it is difficult to fully appreciate the depth of God’s love for us—his fallen creatures—that in his redemptive plan he allowed himself to be tortured on our behalf.  However we accept that Jesus’ crucifixion was an historical event, and that his resurrection from death is the cornerstone of our faith (as the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15).

To skeptics, it’s difficult or impossible to believe.

But there are those in between that have no particular biases (or at least are willing to investigate the claims of Christianity objectively).  They are interested in figuring it out—essentially adding up the evidence before making up their own mind.  Undoubtedly this can be a great pathway to a strong faith.  Ask Lee Strobel.  Ask Hugh Ross.  Ask Josh McDowell.

In prior posts, we looked at what happened when and where on Good Friday, and the importance of the Resurrection.  But what I most want to share today is an example of getting to the Resurrection by subtraction.

Shimon Gibson is an esteemed archaeologist, arguably one of the foremost authorities on the archaeology of Jerusalem.  In his book, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence, Dr. Gibson documents his interpretation of the archaeology of Holy Week.  Theologically his title is a bit provocative, but he does a good job relating the environment and settings.

I read Dr. Gibson’s book more than six months ago, but what really sticks with me is what one of his colleagues wrote about the book in a blog post.  Dr. James Tabor praised the book for its scholarship stating,

“There is no doubt in my mind that the rich contents of this wonderful and engaging book will make it a standard in the field of Christian origins. It is an indispensable handbook for the scholar, and a thrilling investigative read for the non-specialist wanting to know more of those last critical days of Jesus.”

But Dr. Tabor also wrote in the same post,

“I find Gibson’s closing lines of his last chapter, “Who Moved the Stone,” somewhat counterproductive in terms of what we might be able to responsibly say as historians. He writes: “The reality is that there is no historical explanation for the empty tomb, other than if we adopt a theological one, i.e., the resurrection. I leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind.” I have to disagree here. Though I freely admit our sources might never allow us to definitely state what happened that Easter weekend, I think by definition the explanation “God took Jesus bodily to heaven,” is not one that historians can responsibly entertain, as historians.”

“The reality is that there is no historical explanation for the empty tomb, other than if we adopt a theological one, i.e., the resurrection. I leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind.”  There are a lot of theologians who make just that point as the bottom line for belief in Jesus Christ and the Resurrection—the tomb is empty.

Dr. Gibson concluded his book immediately after making the empty-tomb statement with this statement,

“Some readers might think it is presumptuous of me, an archaeologist, to write about the character, achievements, and goals of such an important figure as Jesus.  After all, billions of people across the planet worship him as Christ the Saviour, and the Son of God.  But my views are expressed here honestly based on an analysis of archaeological and historical data available to me; I have no personal or religious axe to grind, one way or another, and I definitely have no wish to offend anyone, even though some of the things I say may be radical and controversial.”

Thank you Dr. Gibson for your honest lesson in subtraction.

Once you do your own subtraction and come to the realization that the Resurrection really is an historical event, then the evidence does demand a verdict.  What was that all about?  Who is that all aboutTruth is a person and the tomb is empty.  Happy Easter!

Trial of Jesus Before Pilate

The Gospel accounts of Easter and the trial of Jesus before Pilate have considerable agreement, and some interestingly unique statements.  While all four accounts agree on the essential details of what happened early in the morning of Good Friday, April 3rd, 33 CE, only Luke records that Jesus was interrogated by Herod Antipas (see Luke’s Sources).  Only John—writing long after the three synoptic Gospel writers—adds the detail of the name of the location in Jerusalem where the trial took place (Gabbatha).  And in writing that one word, John left a great clue for modern archaeologists to find the location of the trial.

There is so much to be gleaned about the veracity of the Gospel accounts from reading about the trial of Jesus.  The accounts are not identical.  But they are not inconsistent.  An argument could be made that if this material was contrived, all four accounts would be more homogeneous in the narrative details.

Archaeologist Dr. Shimon Gibson (mentioned in an earlier post) conducted a dig of the Gabbatha site in Jerusalem, and reached some conclusions that even his critics concede are probably correct, rewickering the traditional Via Dolorosa (“Way of Suffering”) in the process.  This type of work, and online resources, can help us see the Bible in context.

Among all that occurred at His trial, Jesus mocked Pontius Pilate—the judge who had the power to set Him free—with sarcasm.  I don’t know why that detail is so important, but somehow it just is.  Consider the painting below, which may be one of the most correctly detailed paintings of Jesus ever crafted.

If you research the work of Dr. Gibson, be careful—there are high-profile misrepresentations of his work, as he himself is quick to point out.  Unfortunately there are those who seem to be motivated more by the need to entertain than a desire to get the facts right.  This topic keeps coming up, and we will address it in forthcoming posts.


%d bloggers like this: