When Tradition Doesn't Add Up (Easter)

I don't celebrate Easter. I never have.

That might come as a shock to a few people (though I'm not sure how). I actually don't celebrate any religious holidays.
I start out with that information because I want to make my position clear from the start. I come into this discussion as a person with no personal attachment to holidays. This does change my perspective, and I felt the need of providing that disclosure immediately.
Now, I certainly don't expect my action or inaction to mean much to anyone. Anything that a Christian does in relation to God should be understood clearly in the light of scripture and considered carefully based on scripture.

There are numerous reasons for why I don't celebrate Easter. Most of those reasons I will not go into in this particular post, because that would open up so many other points that it would become difficult to address them all.

I will, in brief, state that I oppose religious holidays because they all stem from Roman Catholic roots (if you want a short listing of quotes as to why that is a problem see this article), and are filled with "sanctified" Pagan practices that Rome adopted for the sake of attracting Pagan converts (for a further reasoning into this matter and a collection of quotes from various Christians from the past and the history of the rejection of religious holidays this post).

However, when dealing with Easter, the argumentation regarding why those things should be ignored and the holiday continued in practice frequently is that Easter is essential to focusing on the death and resurrection of Christ. So, in order to point out the flaw in that argument, this post will focus on one very significant aspect: the "traditional" timeline for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

This article has been updated since the original posting on 3/30/2018 due to several questions that were raised after the original posting and due to additional information being provided.

Most Christians view "Good Friday" as the day of the Crucifixion, based on centuries of tradition. The problem is that this tradition does not match up with what the Bible says.
You might say; but why does that really matter? It matters on several levels. It matters because it is part of a collection of elements built into Easter from its Catholic foundation that are counter-biblical. It also matters because it denies the truth of the Resurrection of Christ and destroys a very significant message of Jesus. That is not a small thing.

How long was Jesus supposed to be in the tomb after His death? Most Christians would be able to tell you that He stated he would be in the tomb for three days. This does matter.

Jesus stated repeatedly exactly how long he would be in the tomb: three days and three nights.
The Jews saw Him do many mighty miracles throughout His ministry, but they continuously demanded a sign from Him to prove He was sent by God. Here is one of those exchanges.

Matthew 12:38-40
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is not the only place that speaks of the sign of Jonas the prophet. Mt 16:4 and Lk 11:29 refer to the term as well, referencing the fact of Jonah's (transliterated from Hebrew to Greek to English as Jonas) time within the whale was three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17). This would be a well known fact to Jews.
Further, Jesus was recorded in Matthew 26:61, Mark 14:58, and John 2:19 telling the Jews that if they were to destroy the temple of His body, He would restore it in three days.
Finally, those Jews seeking to kill Him recalled these statements and threw them back at Him during his crucifixion (Mt 27:40 and Mk 15:29-30). They also specifically referenced His statement when asking for Roman protection at the tomb of Jesus and the sealing of it. They pointed out to Pilate that Jesus said it would be three days and He would rise (Mt 27:62-66).

We have Jesus making significant promises to His enemies that He would arise in three days and three nights. This is very precise and demands precise fulfillment, since it is drawing a parallel with another event from the Jewish scriptures. Jesus stated that this was the only sign that He would give to them. Such a singular sign would hold very high significance and would need to be fulfilled precisely as well to verify Jesus as a prophet.
According to Jewish law, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, if a prophet spoke something that did not come to pass in the way spoken, then that prophet was not from God, should not be listened to, and would even be worthy of death. So, the idea that Jesus could give a specific timed prophesy and that the prophesy did not conform to that timing would make Jesus a false prophet.
As an interesting side note; those commands follow a prophesy (verses 18 and 19) of the coming of a Prophet like Moses that would give the commands of God and that to disobey would bring judgment. This prophesy was of Jesus and was one that the Jews were looking for, hence they asked John the Baptist if he was that man (John 1:19-27).
Viewing the issue practically, Jesus gave these specific statements to the Pharisees. This is meaningful because the Pharisees were the "literalists" of their day. They upheld a strict view of scriptural prophesy and statements, so that they went so far as to tithe from their herb gardens (Mt. 23:23). Do you you really believe that such men would take any statements of prophesy made to them as anything other than literal in how they would be fulfilled? They were already looking for reasons to deny and fight against Jesus, so they would have grasped any difference between events and His statements as a tool to deny His works.

With all of those things established, we have shown the scriptural and practical reasons why Jesus' statements regarding the timing of His burial and Resurrection would need to be precise: based on what He specifically said.
This is, by His own words, the singular great sign for the Jews of His identity as Messiah. If it doesn't comply with the description He provided, His ministry is moot.

So, explain to me how Jesus could be crucified on Friday, be put in the grave on Friday (around sunset), and rise again on Sunday at sunrise and make this prophesy true.

Let's go back to the chart from before and look at how it works out in time:

I've never been terribly good at math, but this one seems pretty easy to me.
To be honest, following the generally accepted time-line for the events leaves you with a LOT of holes.
This is nowhere close to three days and three nights. We're not even half way there!
How could the women buy spices to anoint His body, as described in Mark 16:1, when the only opportunity to do so was on the Sabbath? How could they get to the tomb at sunrise (Mark 16:2) and find Him already gone, if He rose with the sunrise as the common story is portrayed?

I've had this conversation before and immediately the response involves people trying to change terminology in order to make the story fit. The first argument is that if you're using the Jewish method of reckoning days as starting with the evening, this works. Secondly, they will start using fractional times like an hour or less to count as a "day." Let me point out that the above graphic actually uses the Jewish methodology; so this is not based on ignorance of that.
There are several issues with these kinds of counting methods.
First, the Gospel accounts mention that Jesus was taken down from the cross when "the even[ing] was come" (Mt 27:57 and Mk 15:42). It was already evening, just when His body was taken down. Both Matthew and Mark state that Joseph of Arimathaea didn't even approach Pilate to get the body until this point (Mt 27:58 and Mk 15:43-45), that doesn't even count Pilate calling a centurion to verify that Jesus was dead (Mk 15:44-45), the preparation of Jesus' body for the tomb by Joseph (Mt 27:59), the transportation of the body to the tomb and the placement of the stone on the entry. Now I'll give the mainstream the benefit of the doubt here and say that maybe all of that could happen in the short period between evening and night, though that seems highly unlikely.
Returning to the issue of practical concerns with the audience; how could any Pharisee be persuaded that Jesus had fulfilled His prophesy when the time frame just doesn't match? How does an hour or two (if even possible as seen above) make a "day?" Jesus Himself argued that there are twelve hours in a day (Jn 11:9), why would His enemies accept a fraction of that as reasonable? To any disinterested person that you are discussing something with, saying that two hours equals a day looks like you're bending the rules. Why would it be otherwise for those looking to criticize? Again, these men were the nit-pickers of the Law of God, they liked to examine and attack the smallest of things, let alone something obvious.
The third and issue is there is no way at all to get a third night into this. You can bend the meaning of "day" into anything you want, but you're stuck with a maximum of two nights. The nights are just as important as the days in this because of the critical nature of the precise prophecy. If nights were mentioned and numbered alongside the days, why would they be any smaller portion than the days themselves? The nights are so easily overlooked, but they are no less part of this.

Finally, there is evidence, from after the fact that verifies the importance of the stated time frame.
When Jesus spoke to his Disciples after His resurrection (Luke 24:45-47), He told them again of the importance of three days in the tomb.
The Apostle Paul (after the events in question), wrote affirming that Jesus did in fact rise on the third day (I Cor 15:3-4). So, this is not merely a matter of Jesus making a promise and it being fulfilled in a hazy manner, but something that is demonstrably correct by the testimony of His followers. Also, Paul twice uses the phrase "according to the scriptures" in these verses, showing a heavy connection between scriptural prophesy and precision with the events. If they were not precise, they would not meet that scriptural standard.
From both before and after the event, the same standard is shown. Three days and three nights. It very much matters.

So, what really does fit the Biblical account?
That is a very valid question to ask. If a person wants to prove something wrong, they should be able to prove what is right as well. In this case, it actually is very easy and aligns with other aspects of scripture as well.

Jesus was crucified on Wednesday during the day and placed in the tomb that evening. The Sabbath day that followed after His death was the special "High Sabbath" associated with the Passover (Exo 12:16) and not the weekly Sabbath. This leaves a whole day (Friday) between the special Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath for the purchase and preparation of spices by the women (Mk 16:1) and before Jesus rose. This is further proven by the women going to see the tomb in which He was buried and then going to buy the spices before resting on the Sabbath in Lk 23:55-56, which would not otherwise be possible. Jesus rose from the dead during the night and before the dawn in order for Him to be gone before the women arrived (See here for another outline that goes through the scriptures proving that).
These facts, as illustrated above, both perfectly conform to Jesus' statements about how long he would be in the tomb and also resolve other issues caused by the incorrect tradition.


What about objections?
I've discussed this for a number of years with people and their responses has boiled down to two objections. The most frequent is the response of: "Who cares, this doesn't change anything." The less frequent, but sometimes more painful, is the idea that denying the traditional format of Easter somehow is attacking the Bible or the Resurrection of Christ. I'll deal with both in reverse order.

1. Pointing out the errors in tradition doesn't attack the truth. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus was crucified on the sixth day. Pointing out that the common tradition is wrong and that the holiday associated with it is flawed based on that doesn't deny any of the truth of Jesus dying, being buried, and being resurrected. In fact, being willing to look into scripture to see where we might be doing something that doesn't match affirms our commitment to the truth instead. Every time we make changes to get closer to God's word, we are telling ourselves and those who see those changes that we were wrong and that God and the Bible are right. Like in any area of life; correcting our mistakes in an area doesn't undermine the value of the thing but help it grow.
   I fully affirm in every point that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the dead bodily and was seen as such. The fact that I deny Easter tradition and Easter itself changes nothing about that in the least.
2. Why does this matter? Jesus' identity as the Son of God and perfect Prophet is put into question and armament for those who would question the account of His death and resurrection are created by the false traditions that are commonly believed. If we value the words and character of Jesus, then we should want to make sure that we conform to what they are and not just what everyone else thinks they are. God values how we worship Him in the New Testament, not only in spirit, but also in truth (Jn 4:23-24). Worshiping "in truth," or in accordance with what is true, means that we need to be willing to change to match what the truth is rather than just sticking with a convenient or popular error.

Additional Objections (added 2019)

1. Couldn't Jesus just have risen faster, in order to show His power was greater? First, that doesn't work with the statements from after His resurrection. If that were the case, these would not have been stated, but would have been changed to talk about how He accomplished it faster. Secondly, that's not how a timed prophesy works. Part of the fulfillment, and the way that it can be verified to be true, is the fact that it gives a specific time-frame for fulfillment. Prophesy is not for the purpose of speculation and mystery, but for evidence of God's power when it comes to pass and for the confirming of the faith and direction for the faithful when they see the events predicted take place. Raising someone from the dead, though a rare miracle, had been done by others. Jesus Himself had done so publicly, and His enemies had tried to hide the events. However, raising one's self and doing so on an appointed day was something that could not be argued against.
2. What about Luke 24:21? Some have argued, that since the verse states that it was the third day on that day that Jesus was risen and appeared, that Jesus must have been crucified on Thursday and rose on Sunday. First, this is attempting to make a scriptural point based on one verse alone, which is an uncertain practice at best (Deut 19:15, II Cor 13:1, etc). Secondly, it ignores all of the other verses (especially those from after the resurrection) that state three days. If this is reliant upon Jewish calendars, we've already addressed that. The answer to this is that the disciples in question are counting "exclusively" and not counting the current day. This is a common way of counting (though we don't consider it much), and the differences between inclusive (counting the present thing) and exclusive (not counting the present thing) can be seen throughout scripture. This argument largely stems from missing the common use of phrase and making it into a point by itself with no other support.

As always; I invite anyone who would like to challenge me on any part of this to respond with their questions or disagreements.
This is only one of many issues that are brought to light by a study of Easter and the things associated with it. For the time being, based on trying to make this a coherent discussion, I'm not going into those things.
If you have scripture to justify tradition, I'd love to see it. Book, chapter, and verse will always prevail with me. As I stated before, willingness to change our stances based on scripture is what matters way more than thinking we are correct, and that applies to me first. If you could show me how I'm wrong, you would be doing me a service. It would be the same service that I am attempting to supply to everyone else by writing this.

Nothing New Under the Sun[rise Service]

Sunrise services are a common tradition among many.

Let's just take a quick moment to look at the only "Sunrise Service" recorded in scripture and why there is a tradition of something like this in Christianity today.

While there is practically no mention of any of the religious holidays or practices celebrated by Christians today in scripture, this one does actually appear. It's just not how you think.

The passage that we are going to examine is Ezekiel chapter 8. For those who haven't read it or who are not familiar with it: God gives Ezekiel a vision of what the hearts and actions of the people of Israel show about their worship of God. It is a condemnation of both what they do and what they are thinking, and lists a growing (both in number and severity) collection of sins. The entire passage is very interesting, but I'm just going to pull out the relevant statement to this time of year.

From verse 5 to verse 17 is a list of the sins taking place in Israel.
At each step along the way Ezekiel is told that what he would see next would be even more abominable than what came before. It starts with an "image of jealousy" within Jerusalem, moves onward to some of the leaders of the people secretly offering sacrifice to idols, and then it gets worse to have the women of the nation engaged in the ritual worship of the pagan deity Tammuz (Click here for a description of Tammuz and the noted worship).
So, we've gone through all of those obvious sins, and now we've come to the last in the list, the one God calls more hated in His sight than any before.

^{Eze 8:15-17a
15} Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
¹⁶ And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.
¹⁷ Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here?

Here we have the one description in scripture of a "Sunrise Service."
Now, of course someone is going to say to me, "how do you know it's sunrise?" That's easy. When is the sun positioned in the East? When it is rising. Additionally, the act of worshiping the sun as it is rising is a well-documented pagan practice.

And I also know that someone will say that these things are not the same and shouldn't be compared.
But let's ask ourselves why Christians even have something called a "Sunrise Service."
The tradition of doing this is derived from the Catholic and Orthodox "Easter Vigil," but was modified into something that didn't include the hours long liturgy. The point of doing it at sunrise is to commemorate Christ "rising with the sun" as many view the tale of Easter.

There's problems with that narrative though.
First, it is a slightly modified version of the Catholic practice. A simple look at the Catholic practices associated with Easter will show the multitude of Pagan elements appropriated for the Christian festival in order to help convert Pagans. Most of the emblems associated with Easter are derived from these sources. Bunnies and eggs are incredibly well-documented fertility symbols (and still accepted and used by Protestants and Baptists). The Catholic practice of "hot crossed buns" is further condemned in scripture (Jer 7:18) as being nothing more than the appropriation of the worship of the "Queen of Heaven" (a name they have stolen to give to Mary). The adoption of a practice that mirrors sun worship is very obvious here. So, why would anyone want to copy this?
The bigger problem for this is that the only reason someone might want to make such a service would be to fit the idea that Christ "rose with the sun," but that's just not scriptural (no matter how many people think it).

Jesus was risen before the sun ever came up. The Gospels are explicit on this. Some may be confused by the ordering of the verses in Mt 28, since it mentions the women coming to the tomb about the time of the dawn before it mentions the stone rolling away, but when looked at carefully, you can see that when they arrived the angel said He was already gone. Mark 16:2 states that they came at the time of the rising of the sun and He was already gone. Further, Jn 20:1 says that it was still dark as they got there (so, as the dawn was beginning) and He was gone.
So, scripture itself proves that Jesus did not "rise with the sun," and so the practice of claiming to emulate it by the timing of service has no biblical merit.

Most people ignore the blatant pagan roots of practices associated with Easter. They would say that "we mean something different by them" and that therefore their intention makes the act itself clean. This is little more than an argument that the ends justify the means. The exact same people who use this argument would be repulsed by it being used in other circumstances, and applying it consistently across areas other than this would lead to atrocity. Others like to take the argument from silence and say that since the things involved in these practices aren't condemned explicitly, they can be allowed. That argument also doesn't hold water scripturally, but we can deal with that another time.
The end result of this though is that many Christians, indeed; churches themselves, are planning for a religious service that is patterned after something explicitly condemned in scripture. Neither the argument of intention nor the argument from silence can whitewash something God has made clear is abominable in His sight.

This tradition, just like most traditions, is never questioned. No one examines the merits of it and sees if it fits with the word of God. Whether it be because it is something that is assumed to be "Christian" because so many do it, the happy memories associated with the great emotion of the event, the support of all the godly and wise people that also take part in it, or any other factor; all that matters is what God says about His worship.
No "tradition" should be held above approach. If it can't be proven from the word of God, then it is suspect at best.

If nothing else, it is my desire that Christians would look at the traditions that they hold to (or the new ones that so many are adopting as more and more are adding in additional Catholic days and rites - like Maundy Thursday, Palm Sunday, and the like) and look at the word of God. If you can verify something by the weight of the word of God, then it is good and proper, if not, it has no place in the worship of God.

For more points on the problems with the Easter narrative click here.