Crucifixion Happened ON Wednesday

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"You see it says, "and now the evntide was come", it means night was falling shortly after He entered the city, at the beginning of Palm Sunday, Nisan 11, [Palm Sunday began at 6:00 pm.] The next daylight hours all day was still palm Sunday the 11th up until 6:00pm."

GE
Problem easily solved as above, by only turning to the most literal meaning of the adverbial adjective, 'opse' - only three times used in the NT, and elsewhere without exception meaning 'late of daylight (or whatever)' - not, 'after sunset' - which would be the correct rendering for the also consistent use and meaning of 'opsias' - the Noun derived from 'opse', and each time whereever used, meaning 'after sunset'.
See every instance mentioned in Lexicons treated upon in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', http://www.biblestudents.co.za.

 

[Bro. James]

One minor detail

Overriding scripture with the traditions of men makes any argument null and void. If the Holy See says it was Friday, it was Friday. How does one argue with that.? It is really so much wasted effort.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

O yes, 'opse' was the time Jesus left the city - not when He arrived.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Overriding scripture with the traditions of men makes any argument null and void. If the Holy See says it was Friday it was Friday. How does one argue with that.? It is really so much wasted effort.

Selah,

Bro. James

GE

I am overwhelmingly grateful for your contribution, dear 'Bro. James'!

Protestants: See with whom and what you have to do in this matter and the translation of the Scriptures! Awake!

 

[EdSutton]

Ed Sutton
"You see it says, "and now the evntide was come", it means night was falling shortly after He entered the city, at the beginning of Palm Sunday, Nisan 11, [Palm Sunday began at 6:00 pm.] The next daylight hours all day was still palm Sunday the 11th up until 6:00pm."

GE
Problem easily solved as above, by only turning to the most literal meaning of the adverbial adjective, 'opse' - only three times used in the NT, and elsewhere without exception meaning 'late of daylight (or whatever)' - not, 'after sunset' - which would be the correct rendering for the also consistent use and meaning of 'opsias' - the Noun derived from 'opse', and each time whereever used, meaning 'after sunset'.
See every instance mentioned in Lexicons treated upon in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', http://www.biblestudents.co.za.

C'mon, Gerhard Ebersoehn! None of this stuff you keep trying to attribute to me over the last three pages in posts # 64, 68, 69, 71, 79, 80, and 81 is anything I said - not one word of these supposed quotes!

I don't particularly get upset when one does not agree with me, but I do get annoyed when words are trying to be "put into my mouth", by anyone. I also appreciate that you acknowledged I did not in fact say one of these things in two posts. But please be a bit more careful, in the future, as opposed to being mostly concerned with merely posting your POV. That is not asking too much, IMO.

(I would note that I am still waiting for the answers to some questions I raised earlier, as well to both you and Eliyahu. I have some questions/corrections for antiaging, as well, which I may post, if I get the time.)

Some of these words, that are not mine, are those of antiaging; others I am not necessarily sure of, but I definitley do know they are not mine, for they are not particularly what I believe nor words I say.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Sutton
"Jewish days start at 6:00pm."

GE
Agreed most assuredly - like in John 19:31!
But when translated 'next day' it almost always is like in Mt27:66, when actually and correctly, it is 'epi-aurion' = 'East-light-day-middle'. When the sun is in the east it is early day(light) still; just like it would be the early hours of night = 'evening', when it is said, "early darkness still" 'prooiskotias eti ousehs'. (Jn20:1)

Many surprises await the one brave enough to investigate the traditional viewpoint of a Friday crucifixing!

GE
Annoying it must be; I again apologise addressing the wrong person. I don't know how, I took special care to be correct, but clearly was negligent again.

So why is it I never reply to anything to Ed Sutton has said? I couldn't get what your standpoint must have been. Did you speak (or write) about some 'fourth day' Sunday the resurrection would have occurred on? Kindly repeat your stance for this old Dummkopf please?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have found this from a post by Ed Sutoon, this time for sure!
".... (Lk. 22:7 - HCSB; Lev. 23:5, Num. 9:3 - YLT)] and 'firstfruits', normally, apparently observed, as another has noted, 16 Nisan. However, the text does not give this specific date, but merely references it as "after the sabbath". It is not 'on a sabbath', hence ruling out its occurring on the 'seventh day sabbath', as well as any other 'Sabbath'."

GE
Now note the last section, "....hence ruling out its occurring on the 'seventh day sabbath', as well as any other 'Sabbath'."

By no means necessarily! The Feast Sabbath could concur with the weekly Sabbath. I know of no such incidence however in the OT. But rabbinic literature from AFTER Christ, began the practice to move the Feast Sabbath onto another date of the month so as to create time-space for it to be observed independently. This however is NOT Biblical. Why should we worry about it in any case, seeing it was not the case with the Passover when Jesus was crucified?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

In fact I have dealt on this phenomenon but it was so long ago I have forgotten where. It even has a 'name'. And I now recall it originated somewhere about the sixth century AD? So its worth only to be discarded out of hand!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have had to explain the Gospels' chronology hundreds of times to many and very different audiences, so that eventually the easiest way to its understanding crystalised into this one: Begin where you have the most certain time being pin-pointed, and from there move to the rest. But even before doing that, remember that we find the Passover of God firstly and finally explained in the history of Jesus Christ - from which the OT Institution of it must have DERIVED, and not, vice versa!
So where is the most definite point in time indicated: in Mt28:1. But seeing that is the text everybody differs upon and which is to be proved either way, we leave it for later confirmation, and look for the next clearly defined point in time in the Passion-story. I am sure no one will disagree it is Mark 15:42, where Mark says, "It was evening already, the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath" - the beginning of the day upon which Jesus was BURIED!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Where did Friday begin? Here, where Joseph appeared on the scene and the body was still hanging on the cross: Thursday-night! So that Jesus had to have been crucified and died the day before - on Thursday! And so that He had to have been raised the day after - on the Sabbath!

Now mark well: THE TRANSLATORS SAW THESE VERY IMPLICATIONS, and because it destroys the traditional viewpoint of a Friday-crucifixion Sunday-resurrection, they DESTROYED THE TEXT AND ITS TRUTHFULNESS TO SERVE THEIR IDOL SUNDAY-SACREDNESS.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I in person went into the Bible House in Kempton Park in South Africa where the Translating Committee of South Africa resides, to confront them with this very subject, and in writing presented the Chairman with my findings. He wrote to me back, and I have his answer to this day. Unnecessary to say, it was not at all flattering or friendly. I have on seminars challenged scholars, and was pushed aside for and as a nil and nothing. Most notably is the 'renouned Professor' Samuele Bacchiocchi who eminated the most profound protagonist of Roman Catholic tradition, by simply shouting me down, and belittling me in correspondence. His own post Box should still contain those reactions although decades have intervened.

 

[EdSutton]

I have found this from a post by Ed Sutoon, this time for sure!
".... (Lk. 22:7 - HCSB; Lev. 23:5, Num. 9:3 - YLT)] and 'firstfruits', normally, apparently observed, as another has noted, 16 Nisan. However, the text does not give this specific date, but merely references it as "after the sabbath". It is not 'on a sabbath', hence ruling out its occurring on the 'seventh day sabbath', as well as any other 'Sabbath'."

GE
Now note the last section, "....hence ruling out its occurring on the 'seventh day sabbath', as well as any other 'Sabbath'."

By no means necessarily! The Feast Sabbath could concur with the weekly Sabbath. I know of no such incidence however in the OT. But rabbinic literature from AFTER Christ, began the practice to move the Feast Sabbath onto another date of the month so as to create time-space for it to be observed independently. This however is NOT Biblical. Why should we worry about it in any case, seeing it was not the case with the Passover when Jesus was crucified?

Correct, here! Finally, one from my post.

The quote you are commenting on here, is out of context, though. So I will repeat this, and hopefully maybe make myself clearer. I was commenting on the statements two made, (you were one of them, maybe?) in light of Lev. 23., about "firstfruits" occurring on 16 Nisan. There is no such "requirement" for this date, in the Scripture, although it would usually work in about six of every seven years.

However, the Hebrew calender was I believe, based on a thirty day month, there being twelve of them, with an added "Second Abib" month thrown in about once every six years, to make the calender year to more or less match the solar year. Still, neither 360 nor 390 are equally divisible by 7, so that the day of the week, for a particular date, changes every year, just as it does with our own calenders.

But the number of days in a week is always constant at 7, and have always been so reckoned, to my knowledge.

The second point I made was that "firstfruits" is not said to be "a holy convocation", or "Sabbath", in the text, unlike "the First day of the feast of unleavened bread", which is specifically designated as 15 Nisan (Abib), and is always a "Sabbath". This 'special' "Sabbath" can also occur in conjunction with the regular weekly Sabbath, and this would occur about one time in seven years, or so. 14 Nisan, or "Passover" can occur on the 'regular' weekly Sabbath, too, about once in seven years, from what I read, for 14 Nisan "moves" through the week, just as does 15 Nisan.

But not "Firstfruits"! There is no date of 16 Nisan (Abib) assigned to 'Firstfruits', here, even though that would be the 'usual' date, most years, for that is the next day after the 'Sabbath' of the "Feast Day of Unleavened Bread". But "firstfruits" and the attendant "wave sheaf" cannot occur on a Sabbath, for the 'restriction' given is that specifically of "after the Sabbath" (Lev. 23:11). Hence, when 16 Nisan falls "on the Sabbath" (a good example of something you tried to prove regarding another subject) the "wave sheaf" and "firstfruits" would necessarily be "moved" to 17 Nisan, "on the morrow" (KJV) or after "the sabbath was past".

(If either of these two phrases somehow sound vaguely familiar, it may be because both wordings occur in the KJV, having to do with events of the week of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of our Lord.)

Your argument that this "after the sabbath" really means only that of the "'high day' Sabbath' of 15 Nisan, does not change the fact that the text reads "after the Sabbath", and "on a Sabbath" still does not mean the same thing as "after the sabbath". :BangHead:

Ergo, "firstfruits" cannot occur on the "seventh day" of the week, regardless.

Way past my bedtime! G'nite, all!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have had to explain the Gospels' chronology hundreds of times to many and very different audiences, so that eventually the easiest way to its understanding crystalised into this one: Begin where you have the most certain time being pin-pointed, and from there move to the rest. But even before doing that, remember that we find the Passover of God firstly and finally explained in the history of Jesus Christ - from which the OT Institution of it must have DERIVED, and not, vice versa!
So where is the most definite point in time indicated: in Mt28:1. But seeing that is the text everybody differs upon and which is to be proved either way, we leave it for later confirmation, and look for the next clearly defined point in time in the Passion-story. I am sure no one will disagree it is Mark 15:42, where Mark says, "It was evening already, the Preparation which is the Fore-Sabbath" - the beginning of the day upon which Jesus was BURIED!

I'm just not so sure that the 'most clearly defined points in time in the Passion-story' are exactly as clear as you seem to see certain ones as being. (Naturally, the "clear ones" support each and every one of our own viewpoints as to clarity!)

If they were all that clear, and we all agreed, we would not have had this discussion to even begin, I'd say.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

In fact I have dealt on this phenomenon but it was so long ago I have forgotten where. It even has a 'name'. And I now recall it originated somewhere about the sixth century AD? So its worth only to be discarded out of hand!

Although I could be wrong, I believe the "name" of the practice to which you are referring is called "moveable feasts", in the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox, and some other organized churches. Or perhaps you are referring to "Liturgical Calender" or "Liturgical Year".

Hope that helps.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

GE

What, if God also 'appointed' the day Jesus would rise from the dead? Would it have been pointless and meaningless? So we must find out if God did, 'appoint a day' for Jesus to have raised on. I dare tell you it in fact is so God did! And for anybody who reads the Old Testament for Scripture, there's only one day that would fit -- the weekly Sabbath Day. For there is nothing the like about the First Day of the week in all of Scripture.

Scripture, please! This is the third time you have asserted this, and the third time I've asked for Scripture to back that the OT requires the "weekly Sabbath Day" (or any particular day, for that matter) resurrection.

As I before mentioned, I have read each and every reference to the phrase "on the Sabbath" to be found in the NKJV. Not one time does this phrase occur tied in, in any way, to the words or idea of "resurredtion", that I can find. Likewise the OT gives varied instances (Elisha and Samuel e.g.) and suggestions Job and Daniel e.g.) and "types" (Isaac and Jonah, and the "wave sheaf" offering on the day of firstfruits" e.g.) of "resurrection".

Unless, I've missed it, not one of these says a word about "Sabbath" in its context except "firstfruits and its wave sheaf", hence my statement about " not any particular day" associated with resurrection. And the "wave offering" was specifically said to be offered on the day "after the Sabbath", which I believe would include any and all Sabbaths, and not only the "high-day Sabbath" of 15 Nisan/Abab that I believe to be referenced in Jn. 19:31.

I likewise think there is specific signifigance (actually about three of them) to Matt. 28:1, where the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to pen the words

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον. (Matt. 28:1 - Tsch. Gk NT, my underlining)
- After the Sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day following the Sabbaths, Mary, the Magdalene, and the other Mary, came to examine the tomb. (Matt. 28:1 - HBME)

The first is the use of the plural form "σαββάτων", two times, in the verse. Translators such as Green, Fenton, Marshall, and Young get the import, here, and get it right as "the end (conclusion) of the Sabbaths", (a 'literal' sense, here, in the first instance) as there were more than one involved. The second use, later in the verse, is also a normal rendering of "σαββάτων" as "week". Both of these uses are attested to by J. H. Thayer and Alan Wigram, in their lexicons. (Sorry, as a farmer and not a theologue, I still ain't laying out two C-notes to acquire a BAGD and the companion Index, any time soon, as long as my other two do not completely disintegrate!)

The first point is directed at the Jewish people, to and for whom Matthew wrote. Only for them does the "high Sabbath" of the first day of teh feast of Unleavened Bread, have a patrticular significance, unlike the regular weekly Sabbath, known to all. Scriptures that specifically testify to this are Matt. 26:1-5; Mk. 14:1-2; and Jn. 19:31. Matt. 26:1-5 also, with Jesus' use of the phrase "after two days is the Feast..." is consistent with the Jewish "inclusive" reckoning of time, as well. The day on which he was speaking, the following day (starting at sundown) which would have been 14 Nisan, and when the Passover was celebrated "between the evenings", whiich meaning never showed the import of those words, until the partaking of the passover Seder by Jesus and the disciples and His crucifixion which followed about 9:00, the next AM. (still on 14 Nisan) and the "Feast" of 15 Nisan. (to be continued)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

GE

What, if God also 'appointed' the day Jesus would rise from the dead? Would it have been pointless and meaningless? So we must find out if God did, 'appoint a day' for Jesus to have raised on. I dare tell you it in fact is so God did! And for anybody who reads the Old Testament for Scripture, there's only one day that would fit -- the weekly Sabbath Day. For there is nothing the like about the First Day of the week in all of Scripture.

(Part 2!)

The second "reason" for the usage of "σαββάτων" is well summed up in the notes of the New Scofield Study Bible - New King James Version p. 1180, which says

1(28:1) The Sabbaths end; the first day begins as a Christian memorial. See Mt. 12:1, note. Cp. Jn. 20:19: Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. The 1917 Scofield put it this way: "Lit. end of the sabbaths. The Sabbaths end, the first day comes. ..."

I fully agree, here, with what the Scofield notes say. The ripping of the temple veil, rent from the top to the bottom, showed to first, to the Jews, and second, to the world that God himself had now taken away the barrier, both of sin and the law, as Jesus personally nailed the Mosaic law to the cross (as it were, His final act on the cross before He dismissed his own Spirit), even as He, Himself, was nailed to the cross, for our sins, and Jesus took the codified Mosaic law, and its "death", out of the way, showing it to be, along with 'sin', and "principalities and powers", the bankrupt and ghostly beggars they all really were, to their now open shame! (Mt. 27:50-54; 28:1; Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:8-10; Eph. 2:14-16; Col.2:10-23; Heb. 1:3; 9:25- 10:25)

The Sabbath no longer has specific meaning, except through and in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Lord, Himself, thundered in His victorious shout on the cross, "It is finished!" (John: 19:30) Then "Father, into your hands, I dismiss my Spirit!" (Lk. 23:46)

I submit, that the 'resurection' that occurred in Matt. 27:50-54 did not happen on any Sabbath, nor was our Lord resurrected on any Sabbath, but rather, "after the Sabbaths" during the "night", and that an unspecified time from 'sundown to before "as it began to dawn toward the first day", and there was a second earthquake, at the time the stone was rolled away, from the tomb, not to "let the Lord out", for he was now already risen, fulfilling the "three nights" bit, but to "let us, of all the world, in", for indeed "He is not here; but He is risen, as He said!" This is now 17 Nisan, after the two Sabbaths of 15 Nisan (Feast) and the regular weekly Sabbath that occurred that year on 16 Nisan. Also the reason He told Mary to 'not to cling to Him, for He was nt yet ascended', was that He had not yet ascended to the Father, with his "wave sheaf" of resurrected saints. He would do this forthwith, and before He appeared to Peter (Lk. 24:34, I Cor. 15:5), and to the Emmaus disciples.

Hope this helps to start to explain what I've been trying to say, better than I've said it before.

(to be continued)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I managed to somehow "eat" my part 3 of this response, so am now retyping it. It will no doubt be different than what I wrote before, which made good sense, IMO, but I'll still try.

New Part 3.

Here is a website of one that I think is fairly good (although He could still stand a little work on "between the evenings", IMO ), having read this article, but whom I know nothing about, nor have I ever heard of before today.

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/GoodThursday/index.html

Both Gerhard Ebersoehn and I have mentioned the OT basis for the Passover week, and the associated events, found in Ex. 12 and Lev. 23. The feast dates, and its associated events, are all fixed on the Hebrew calender, with two exceptions, which can each sometimes "move" one day, and incidentally, when the first "moves", so does the second, I believe. Let us briefly look at the specifics and the types involved in all of this. (I am not here considering the regular weekly Sabbath, in this which occurs at a seven day interval, without exception. And I will also note that the day of the week on which any given date falls is incidental to the date itself, including the week the Lord was crucified on. The days of the week are important to certain parts of the account, but are not, of themselves, primary.)

The selection of the Paschal (Passover) Lamb is the first thing to note. The Lamb, was selected on 10 Nisan (or Abib), the first month of the Jewish year. (Ex. 12:3) It was then "kept up" and examined for imperfection until 14 Nisan. (Ex. 12:5-6a) When found to be without blemish, [which Pilate did unwittingly, when he pronounced Jesus to be without fault (Lk. 23:4, 14; Jn.18:38; 19:4, 6)] the Lamb was then killed by "the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel" "between the evenings" (Ex. 12:6b), the last phrase, of which, waited for some 1500 years, until the crucifixion of our Lord to become clear as to the meaning.

The Lamb of God was selected on what we refer to as "Palm Sunday", 10 Nisan. The Lamb of God was slain on Thursday, 14 Nisan. I have previously stated that either a "Wedneday" Crucifixion or a "Friday" Crucifixion causes our Lord to have to "break" the Sabbath. I'll expand on that, if asked, but not tonight. 'Thursday' (14 Nisan), from sunrise to sundown represents the first of "three days; 'Friday' (15 Nisan, the "high day", Feast day Sabbath from sundown to sunrise is the first of three nights, and so on, through Sunday from sundown to sunrise completing the "three nights", which order happens to be exactly deliberately reversed from the normal Jewish way of reckoning time. Our Lord was raised during the last of the three nights, and was already out of the tomb by the earliest hint of the approaching daylight. (John. 20:1) I do not have all I had in the first lost post, but am becoming unable to think clearly enough to expand further. I'll get back with more if it comes to me tomorrow. But as I already have a Part 4, I shall post this as part 3, and say

(to be continued)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

(Part 4)

Matt. 12:39-40 is usually trotted out by the proponents of a Wednesday crucifixion (Why, I do not know!), in the attempt to make these verses say something they do not say. (Creative eisegesis, anyone??) Neither Matt. 12:40 (nor any other in Scripture) says anything about "72 hours", at all. Nor do these verses say one word about "the body of Jesus being placed in the tomb" some ten feet inside the door. Yet this is what is usually read into this verse. What the verse does say is that "the son of Man would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

Exactly!!! '"The Son of Man" (not the Son of man's body) 'would be in the heart of the earth, for three days and three nights!' What did our Lord do, after around 3 PM that Thursday? Well the first thing He did was to "dismiss His spirit" into the Father's hand. (Ps. 31:5; Lk. 23:46) And I would like to suggest that the Father and Son together, rent the veil of the Temple, as the Son was 'ascending' for the first time, to the heavenly Tabvernacle. The next thing He did was to present His own shed blood (in his role as the Great high Priest) on the heavenly "mercy seat". (Heb. 9:11-12) Then He descended to the lower parts (heart) of the earth to Hades/Sheol, on the first day of the "three days and three nights", where he was there in Paradise or Abraham's bosom, to receive the 'saved' thief on his arrival. (Eph. 4:8-10; Lk. 23:40-43) He proceeded to preach to the imprisoned fallen angels in Tatarus. (I Pet. 3:19; II Pet. 2:4, Jude 6) He was heard by the lost "in Torments", as Tatarus was there, also as the deepest prison. (I Pet. 3:19) After his proclamations, he unlocked Paradise and took it, "His captivity captive"with him, as He ascended, on the first day of the week, during the third of the "three nights", and was out of the tomb, on the first day of the week, before the arrival of the first Mary, even as "first light" was beginning to appear, before the sun had come up. (Eph. 4:8-10; Ps. 16:10; Matt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2,9; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 17)

"Three days and three nights"? (Matt. 12:40) Yep!

His temple raised "in three days"? (Jn. 2:19-20) In the sense Jesus was using these words, absolutely!

"The third day"? (Mt. 20:19; Mk. 9:31; Lk. 9:22; Lk. 24:46; Acts 10:40; I Cor. 15:4, et al.) As the Romans, Greeks and Greek Corinthians would usually reckon time, you got it!

"After three days?" (Mt. 27:63; Mk. 8:31) Exactly, as this is one way the Jewish people reckoned time!

"The third day since..."? (Lk.24:21) The Emmaus disciples could surely count, even though they did not yet "get it" (Lk. 24:30-31), nor did those of the eleven disciples 'in hiding' yet understand fully, but needed further understanding. (Lk. 24:36-46)

"On the third day??" Amazingly, these words are not to be found in the KJV having to do with the resurrection of Jesus, and is rendered in this way fewer times than I might have expected among the other "standard versions".

Still, my point is that there was no misunderstanding as to the time involved with the hearers of the message. They all understood, and "got it"!

And in my scenario, they all "fit like a glove", even when one tries to play like the late Johnny Cochran. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

It certainly does fit! And perfectly, at that!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Just in case anyone may have missed it, and does not want to study all I've posted, I'll merely say here, one more time. The Crucifixion of the Lord was on 'Thursday', as we reckon time.

And IMO, there is absolutely no doubt about it! :BangHead:

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'm just not so sure that the 'most clearly defined points in time in the Passion-story' are exactly as clear as you seem to see certain ones as being. (Naturally, the "clear ones" support each and every one of our own viewpoints as to clarity!)

If they were all that clear, and we all agreed, we would not have had this discussion to even begin, I'd say.

Ed

GE
I'll come back to you on your previous post - it requires more time.

On this post,
By 'clear' I mean in the first place, 'literal' meaning of words, and next, established meaning in both Jewish and Christian tradition. In Mk15:42, there are several inter-confirming given that all point to one only possible day of the week, according to both these criteria, and that is Friday beginning. The strongest 'traditional factor of these, is the definition of the specific 'Day of Preparation' involved, namely, "the Fore-Sabbath"-'Preparation' which in no single source ever is used for another day than Friday, so there can be absolutely NO doubt Jesus was BURIED on Friday.
Then we have the other time-indications that confirm the fact in the very text, as well as other factors such as the last "six days before Passover" (as I posted the sequence of).
And last, but not least, there is the eschatological (prophetic / prospective significance of all OT Sabbath-references of God's Finishing of His Works in Christ which - to me - could only as much as to Christ as the Person, have shown the Sabbath as the Day of God's Finishing.