22:7 the day of unleavened bread; notice that Luke omits the word "first" which is in Matthew and Mark.   This is because Matthew and Mark introduce the question of the disciples with the narration, "Concerning the first day of unleavened bread" (Mat. 26:17; Mark 14:12);  Luke, on the other hand introduces the question with the narration, "Then came the day of unleavened bread".  The reason for this is that the question was asked at the beginning of the 14th of Aviv, just after sunset.  The 14th is here being reckoned on a setting to setting basis.   Luke cannot say the "first" day of unleavened bread came, because that would be the 15th of Aviv, so he says "the day of unleavened bread".   The unleavened bread for the 15th was actually baked on the 14th.  Also, the Galileans began to abstain from leaven at the start of the 14th (setting to setting), and the Judeans began to abstain from leaven between daybreak and noon of the 14th.   So it is a day of unleavened bread, but not a countable day.   Josephus' tradition calls the festival a feast of eight days, which seems to take account of calling the 14th "unleavened bread":

 

317 Hence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. (Ant 2:317 JOE)

 99 and on the feast of unleavened bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth day of the month of Xanthikos [Nisan], (Jwr 5:99 JOE)

250 But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. And while they suppose it proper to honour God, from whom they obtain this plentiful provision, in the first place, they offer the firstfruits of their barley, and that in the manner following: (Ant 3:250 JOE)

 

If we logically parse Josephus' information, we see that he includes the 14th in the overall measure of 8 days, and that he reckons the 14th part of the feast of unleavened bread, but when it comes to numbering the days, it is evident that he numbers the 15th as the 1st day from the fact that he calls the 16th of Nisan the 2nd day.  Josephus also separates the two feasts:

 

249 The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; (Ant 3:249 JOE)

 

The Galileans abstained from leaven from sunset at the start of the 14th, while the Judeans abstained only from noon on the 14th day. According to the Torah, one only need abstain for seven days, starting with the 15th of Nisan. So when Luke is referring to the "day of unleavened bread" that "came" he is saying the 14th, and in this case he is referring to the passover lamb on the 14th the way Josephus or some other Galilean would refer to the 14th day. The removal of leaven from the houses was done on the 14th of Nisan, and so for this reason, it came to be called the "day of unleavened bread". For not only was leaven removed, but unleavened bread was baked in preparation of the 15th, which unleavened bread must be eaten.

Therefore, the disciples questions were asked just after sunset at the start of the 14th of Nisan. It was after sunset when they went into the city and were shown the upper room, and Yeshua and his disciples arrived there when it was dark.
 

 

23:54 D. Codex Bezae: ην δε η ημερα προ σαββατου. The NA-27th Text reads, και ημερα ην παρασκευης και σαββατον επεφωσκεν.  Codex Bezae reads ην δε η ημερα προ σαββατου.  The reason we should go with the reading of D is that the word επεφωσκεν means dawning, and does not make any sense at this point in the narrative.  The Sabbath does not begin with "dawning";  The word is composed of επι (on, upon) and φωσκω (light).  BDAG, "grow towards or become daylight, sine forth, dawn, break, perh. draw on " (pg. 386, 3rd edition).   The reason for "perhaps" is that BDAG is only forced to adopt "draw on" to explain one text, i.e. Luke 23:54.  Thus, it is not a true definition of the Greek word.  It is purely ad hoc.  One text is hardly evidence that a word has a linguistic meaning totally divorced from its etymology.  One text is only an enigmatic evidence of a mistake or misuse.   The word clearly means "dawning" in Matthew 28:1.  The later and obviously dependent Gospel of Peter, επεφωσκοντος του σαββατου cannot be considered lexical evidence since the use obviously comes from just one source, namely the Byzantine Luke 23:54.

The Western Codex Bezae has a consistent chronological record of turning out to be correct over and against the official Byzantine Text.  For example in Mark 15:25, D omits the problematic "third hour" in agreement with the old itala.   It also has Matthew 16:21=Luke 9:22 in correct agreement with Mark 8:31=μετα τρεις ημερας. Likewise Mark 9:31 and 10:34 for their respective parallel passages.  For a full rundown see torahtimes.org/book/page50.pdf.   Also the words κατα την εντολη are omitted from Luke 23:56. (DLC: torahtimes.org)

The day in question was the annual Sabbath, Nisan 15, which fell on Thursday, March 25, AD 34.   It was from the sunset on Wednesday, March 24 to sunset on Thursday, March 25 Julian Period (J.P.).   Codex Bezae does not call the day before it the preparation day.  Even so, the day before this Sabbath was the preparation of the Passover (John 19:14; 31).

Codex Bezae (Catabrigiensis) is "one of the five most important Greek New testament MSS" (newadvent.org).  "St. Luke's Gospel alone, of the books contained, is preserved complete" (ibid); "there is no indication that it was, like the other great uncial manuscripts, ever joined to the text of the Old Testament" (ibid) [significance: Eusebius under Constantine has no control over it]; "the text of D bears a remarkable resemblance to the text quoted by St. Irenæus [ca. 140-202 AD], even, says Nestle, in the matter of clerical mistakes, so that it is possibly derived from his very copy"; "Following Scrivener, scholars universally dated it from the beginning of the sixth century [500], but there is a tendency now to place it a hundred years earlier [400]." (ibid). "The type of text found in D is very ancient, yet it has survived in this one Greek manuscript alone, though it is found also in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and the Old Armenian versions. It is the so-called Western Text, or one type of the Western Text. All the Fathers before the end of the third century used a similar text and it can be traced back to sub-Apostolic times."  (ibid).

If however, someone has total "faith" in the Constantinian text, then I would suggest that επεφωσκεν sooner means the lighting up of sabbath lamps than the idea of dawning at sunset, as the latter intuition at least makes linguistic sense, whereas dawning is contradictory.

Finally, even if it be granted that the original said "dawning", then this means no more than that the Sabbath was beginning, and that "dawning" is used in some metaphorical sense like, "dawn of the age".  There is no disputing that the Sabbath began with night before the day, and even though Sabbaths are from setting to setting, this does not prove that all other days are so computed.  It only shows that Sabbaths are reckoned this way.

On the reckoning of the day in Genesis 1, the reader should see Gen 1:5.

23:56b The Greek structure shows that the chapter division must go in the middle of the Luke 23:56.  This is because the second half of the verse is one coordinated sentence with Luke 24:1.  This is shown in J.P. Green's Interlinear Bible and explained in the Concordia Commentary by Arthur Just.  This proper chapter division is of critical importance to the chronology.  In 23:54, the annual Sabbath on Thursday that year is referenced.  Then 23:56a tells us that they prepared spices.   The initial verse of the next chapter (23:56b-24:1) fills in the detail that they rested on the annual sabbath, but then brought the spices on the first of the sabbaths after the annual sabbath.   Necessarily then the spices were prepared on Friday between the two Sabbaths.   Mark 16:1 gives us explicit confirmation that the spices were bought after the annual Sabbath.

Photo of J.P. Green's Interlinear:

 *Correction from J.P. Green, John 20:1.

comment: "23:56b-24:1. το μεν σαββατον ... τη δε μια των σαββατων—The μεν ... δε construction links these two days together and prompts consideration of a literary and theological link. (In Nestle-Aland25 23:56b begins a new paragraph that continues with 24:1-11; 23:56b is separated from 24:1 only by a comma.  In Nestle-Aland26 and Nestle-Aland27 23:56b has been separated from Luke 24 and ends with a period.) The close relationship between 23:56b and 24:1 forms the transition from Luke 23 to Luke 24.  The double use of σαββατον and the way Luke has phrased the sentence suggest theological implications as the narrative moves from one day to the next.  This is why 23:56b is best considered part of Luke 24 and the resurrection narrative" (Concordia Commentary, Luke 9:51-24:53, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997).

 

END OF CHAPTER 23

 

Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, before a Sabbath. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. 

 

CHAPTER 24

 

 [24:1]  Now they rested the one Sabbath, [[according to the ordinance,]] 24:1 But upon the first of the Sabbaths, at deep dawn, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they made ready, and certain others with them"

 

the one Sabbath: το μεν σαββατον. This was the annual Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan, Thursday that year.  The ordinance to rest on this Sabbath is specified in Leviticus 23:7, however Codex Bezae omits the words in brackets.   The annual Sabbath is called, "the Sabbath" in Lev. 23:11, 15, השבת.  It was the annual shapattu that came on the 15th of the first month.   Luke 23:56b actually goes with Luke 24:1.  The words "the one" here translates the Greek article το which sometimes has a demonstrative meaning.  In fact, BDAG 3rd edition, "1. this one, that one, the art. funct. as a demonstrative pronoun...b. ο μεν... ο δε the one...the other" (pg. 686).

comment: Chapter 23 is supposed to end at the "." after the word "ointments".  The effect of properly ending chapter 23 after the word 'ointments' is that it ends the chronology of that chapter.  Chapter 24 then beings a fresh chronological description of events jumping backward in time to reference their resting on the annual sabbath, and then progressing to the weekly sabbath after it.   Luke 23:54 introduces the annual Sabbath in vs. 54, "But it was the day before a Sabbath", ην δε η ημερα προ σαββατου, (Codex Bezae), and 23:56a ends the chapter saying "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments" which of course, was after the annual Sabbath.   However, Codex Bezae (D) omits the words "according to the commandment".   The western text D is the best here.  Perhaps the Byzantine Scribes edited the text to make it look like the weekly Sabbath, counting on people being ignorant of the ordinance to rest on the annual Sabbath?  At all events, 23:56b goes with the next chapter, and introduces the two sabbaths, between which, the spices were bought and prepared, but which are not mentioned again since the reader will assume that they waited till after the annual Sabbath to do this.

 

first...Sabbath: μια των σαββατων. The first of the seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath which were counting during the 50 days till Shavuot (Pentecost), cf. Lev. 23:15.  The Greek word σαββατων in this text means "Sabbaths", the same as everywhere else it occurs.  Μια των σαββατων means "one of the sabbaths" in literal Greek.   However, in Jewish Greek, which is influenced by the Hebrew idiom, the word μια may stand for "first" like the Hebrew word אחת.  Further the word σαββατων besides being plural in Greek is a Hebrew loan word derived from שבתון, which means "sabbatism" or from the Hebrew word שבתות, which means "Sabbaths" in the plural sense.  Evidently the later is meant:

 אחת השבתות=one/first of the Sabbaths, and refers to Lev. 23:15, the annual seven sabbath counting between the Passover Sabbath and the Shavuot Sabbath.

comment: J.P. Green's The Interlinear Bible, vol. iv correctly begins the last chapter of Luke with verse 23:56b, "και το μεν σαββατον ησυχασαν [κατα την εντολην,] τη δε μια των σαββατων, ορθρου βαθεος ηλθον επι το μνημα...." (Luke 23:56b-24:1a).   This is a typical μεν...δε construction, properly translated as, "And on the one hand, that Sabbath they rested [according to the commandment], but on the other hand, on the first of the Sabbaths they came upon the tomb...."  It is a compare and contrast construction where "μεν ... δε" = "on the one hand...but on the other hand" (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, pg. 672) and J.P. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Luke 23:56-24:1.   Luke's purpose is to contrast the two Sabbaths, the annual Sabbath on which the women rested (cf. Lev. 23:7) from the following weekly Sabbath, which was the first of the Sabbaths (cf. Lev. 23:15) in the annual seventh Sabbath counting.  Evidently, Green was too hasty, because he forgot to insert the traditional "first day of the week" into the English side translation, which reads, "But on the indeed sabbath, while still very early, they came upon the tomb..." (a freudian slip?, hmm).

comment: The words "at deep dawn".  "ορθρου βαθεως—The genitive signifies the period of time (the one known as "deep dawn") during which the action takes place. (BDF, §186 [2], calls this an unclassical usage for the point of time at which.)  Perhaps the most illuminating comment on this phrase is the remark of B.B. Rogers in his commentary on Aristophanes, where he describes ορθρος βαθεως as "the dim twilight that precedes the dawn ... the thick dullness of night [that] has not yet yielded to the clear transparency of day" (The Wasps of Aristophanes, 32, n. 216)." (pg. 964, Concordia Commentary, Luke 24:1, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997).  This phrase is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew שחר, shakhar, in Hosea 6:3, which says that YHWH (Yeshua) goes forth at שחר in reference to the resurrection of Yeshua on the third day (cf. Hosea 6:1-2).  The word means the hint of reddish light that precedes the dawn.  It is derived from the same Hebrew word as the word for "black".   It refers to the end of the third night hinting in the east while it is still the darkness of night everywhere else except the hint of the coming dawn in the east.  This accords well with his crucifixion on Wednesday afternoon and resurrection on the Sabbath at the deep dawn, making exactly three days and three nights (cf. Matthew 12:40). 

the spices: The question is often asked if the women were permitted to so this on the Sabbath according to the Law.  According to Jewish interpretation, 'They make make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it.  They may draw the mattress away from beneath it and let it lie on sand that it may be the longer preserved; they may bind up the chin, no in order to raise it but that it may not sink lower.  So, too, if a rafter is broken they may support it with a bench or with the side-pieces of a bed that the break may grow no greater, but not in order to prop it up.  They may not close a corpse's eyes on the Sabbath; nor may they do so on a weekday at the moment when the soul is departing; and he that closes the eyes [of the dying man] at the moment when the soul is departing, such a one is a shedder of blood.' (The Mishnah, Herbert Danby, 23.5) "  Further, it is generally considered disrespectful to the dead to neglect anything involved in a proper burial, mourning, or last respects.   How much work did they do?  Yeshua was buried in a rich man's garden tomb on the Mount of Olives, and the women lived in Bethany, which was 1.5 miles from the garden. (DLC: torahtimes.org)

 

24:13 This was the "first of the Sabbaths", which was the first weekly Sabbath after the Passover.  Two disciples, one named Cleopas, and the other unnamed heard the same report that Peter and John heard early that morning from the women.  On the one hand, Peter and John went to investigate.  But on the other, Cleopas and his friend concluded that the only reasonable explanation was that the body was missing, and decided that they would be first in line for the blame, when the authorities caught on.  The third day was ended, and as they said, they did not see Yeshua, but only heard a confused report.  They did not bother to investigate before they fled what they assumed would shortly become a crime scene, and before they were arrested as prime suspects.  And they were not too far wrong in what the authorities were planning considering the report in Matthew 28:13.  After all, if everything went wrong with their Master Yeshua, then it could go wrong with them too.   As it was all the disciples were hiding "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19).

Lest it be objected that the disciples would not do this on a Sabbath, we need only point out that these two thought their lives were in danger. The action could be justified because they did not want to be unjustly implicated for stealing the body. It was prudent to flee. Yeshua justified such measures in his teaching concerning David and the bread of the presence in the holy place when David was fleeing from King Saul.  That which was ordinarily not permitted was allowed in order to save life.

Another point worth considering is that they were not part of the inner circle of disciples, who might at least have some confidence in each other's integrity.  They might have been afraid of become the "fall guys" among the disciples, that is, they may have feared being accused of stealing the body by one of the eleven or some other disciples eager to turn a gain with the authorities like Judas.  They already had Judas' example of a crack in Yeshua's organization.   Perhaps one of the eleven had looked at them suspiciously and made a remark, like they should split up?  Consider also the fact that the authorities were planning to kill Lazarus also, and think of the political hay that could make if they could only get their hands on a likely body thief.   "To flee or not to flee", that is the question.   The information that could have stayed their decision would have come with a little more patience, but their faithfulness led to a fear based decision.  One should ponder, which is the greater violation of Torah, their faithfulness in what the prophets said, or their fleeing on the Sabbath.  The fact that they did it on the Sabbath only underscores the emotional tension and fear of the situation they saw themselves in.

To make their flight on the Sabbath some weighty objection to the clear statement that it was the "first of the Sabbaths" is simply a desperate grab for anything that can be said to justify unbelief in what the text actually says, as if they can expect the the human behavior of a normal and un-stressful situation to be followed in an unusual and maximally trying and stressful situation.  As if they can base their whole counter argument on an argument from silence, and an un-provable assumption (and improbable one too) about what people actually would do in the situation.  Another effect of this misguided argument is to make Yeshua's Jewish disciples less than human, and to turn them into robots that have no choice but to be traditional automatons.

24:21 The Authorized translates, "today is the third day since these things were done", and the NASB, "it is the third day since these things were done."  Both of these translations are wrong, and are against the context.  Cleopas would not have raised this point as the final point as to why their hopes were dashed unless the third day was completely expired.  We must remember that the disciples did not foresee Yeshua's death.  Peter argued with Him about it, yet Yeshua told them anyway that He would rise "the third day".  When He did die, then the last straw of hope they had was to remember these words, that Yeshua said he would rise "the third day", yet they were inclined not to believe it because He died against their expectations.  So what they are expressing here is that their last straw of hope has vanished.  They easily assume that since the third day is ended that he was not raised.

This consideration is squarely against the Friday-Sunday chronology of Roman Christianity.  The passing of the third day would not be a complaint at all on Sunday, because it was not ended.  It is no wonder then that Constantinian Christianity must mistranslate this text to say it WAS the third day when they were speaking.  But if the third day was not yet expired, then why are they noting it as a reason to abandon hope?  Cleopas places high emphasis on his words, recorded in Greek for us: αλλα γε και συν πασιν τουτοις = "but indeed beside also with all this" (literally), but is the same as the English idiom "But also on top of all this";  This is not just an observation, it is another strike against their hope like the death of Yeshua in the first place.  They did not expect him to die.  The end of the third day was the last straw, and so they throw that on their list of reasons.   They would wait no longer than the end of the third day to leave Jerusalem.  They were leaving already, proving that they lost hope in Yeshua's third day prediction as well.   And neither did the fantasy of grief stricken women sway them.  They conclude with "Him they did not see" (at the end of the third day), and they are all too eager to leave for fear of the authorities now that a body is missing, and they are first in line for the blame!  In Cleopas' view, the expiration of the third day is just one more reason why they have no more responsibility to hang around to see if Yeshua's words will come true.

So, from the context we have every reason to doubt the AV and NASB translation.  The translators have added the word "is" to achieve their aim.  This word does not exist in the Greek text, and where they can get away with it, they added it at the wrong place.  A perfect case of this is Romans 2:29, where they put "is" between "circumcision" and "heart" to change the meaning of circumcision to "circumcision is of the heart" when it should be "circumcision of the heart", a well known phrase from the Torah.  What they did is predicate the word "is" between "third" and "this day".   The correct sense is thus, "a third day, this day passeth by".  A comma must be placed after "third".  In clear English, someone would say "The third day expired today".  This means that sometime on that day, the third day, as they understood it from Yeshua had ended.   So calculating on a sunset basis, the third day expired at the previous sunset.  Calculating on a sunrise basis, the third day expired at sunrise, or Calculating on Roman time, it expired at the midnight.

Cleopas was not saying that "this IS the third day".  He is saying that "the third day, today—this day, is passed".   While one may place the commas according to the views of Constantinian Christianity, the context contradicts it!  And this difference is not lost on the keepers of the ancient MSS as the scribal differences on the key words will show.  One set of codices reads "a third, this day passes from when";  Another set of codices reads, "a third, this day, passeth today from when".  Codex Bezae (D*) reads, "a third day, today passeth from when".  Codex D and D2 read "a third day passeth from when", which is the shortest reading.  These differences are no careless scribal mistakes, but deliberate attempts to reconcile the original text to Constantinian Christianity's view of the Passion Chronology, or least least to try to make it seem like Cleopas was saying that that very day was the third day when he was speaking.

Lest the simple minded think that the present tense verb αγει means that the third day was progressively passing when they were speaking, I cite Daniel B. Wallace:

 

 "A. Instantaneous Present (a.k.a. Aoristic or Punctiliar Present)

1. Definition
The present tense may be used to indicate that an action is completed at the moment of speaking. This occurs only in the indicative. It is relatively common" (pg. 517, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament).
 

Furthermore, a significant portion of the Syriac tradition agrees with the notion of the third day being passed by:

x

MGI Luke 24:21 But we had hoped that he was going to deliver Israel and behold, three days [have passed] since all these [things] happened. (Luk 24:21 MGI, Magiera Peshitta Translation, 2006)

MRD Luke 24:21 But we expected that he was to deliver Israel . And lo, three days [have passed], since all these things occurred. (Luk 24:21 MRD, James Murdock, 1852)

a

Now we must explore the chronological significance of these things.  First off, if we wanted to, we could accommodate the AV and NASB by counting "since these things" exclusively, i.e. 1 day "since" the crucifixion on Wednesday would be Thursday.  Two days "since" would be Friday, and three days "since" would be on the Sabbath.   However, we do not need to accommodate those translations, and they are unlikely from the context.   It is also unlikely that Cleopas would have used exclusive counting to reference his supposed failure of Yeshua's prophecy when Yeshua said, "the third day".

Cleopas is assuredly counting inclusively from Wednesday as he refers to "these things", and the last event he has described in vs. 20 is Yeshua's death.  Furthermore, the key prophecy Hosea 6:1-2 also counts from the death of the Messiah inclusively.  The three days are counted according to the Temple day for sacrificial offerings, which was on a sunrise basis.  Day one was Wednesday sunrise to Thursday sunrise according to the first passover offering, i.e. the 14th of Nisan as counted in Egypt, where "that night" was the night following the day part of the 14th.  Day two was Thursday sunrise to Friday sunrise, according to the festive chag offering, which is the 15th of Aviv as counted at the Exodus; the terminal point for the eating of this offering was the morning after the end of the day part of the 15th, and the third day was Friday sunrise to Sabbath sunrise, the 16th of Aviv, which also had the wave sheaf offering, and for its purpose the "same day" was reckoned to sunrise on the Sabbath.  This is explained in this chart of the passion.

So as far as Cleopas was concerned, the third day expired, i.e. passes at sunrise on the weekly Sabbath following the crucifixion on Wednesday.   As Cleopas says "this day passeth" he means the Sabbath, and at sunrise on the Sabbath the third day passes.   Here is an amplified version, "a third day [sunrise Friday to sunrise Sabbath], this day [on the Sabbath] passes by [at sunrise on Sabbath] from when these things happened [inclusively from Wednesday]."

The Wednesday Crucifixion and Sabbath resurrection at dawn can accommodate all the Greek variants, and all the translations.  The one in this text, however, is the correct one from the context, and considering Hosea 6:1-2.  The Friday-Sunday Chronology contradicts the context as well as the fact that the resurrection was on the first of the Sabbaths (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; 19), which was "on the third day" counting inclusively:  Hosea 6:1-2.

Most Christians who realize Constantinian Christianity has led them astray still have no idea of the depths of its depravity and the extent of its lies.  That religion was created by the Serpent based on as many lies as possible, i.e. as could be swallowed by professing Christians led astray first by idolatry, and then away from the biblical history and commemorations of the true history.   We should then realize that recovering from this apostasy is a process of discovery dependent on the willingness of Yahweh to redeem the situation anew.  And he does so only in his own timing.

It is with the above preface, that I commend the majority of believers who understand the crucifixion to be on Wednesday, and the Resurrection on the Sabbath, who believe it was on the afternoon or evening of the Sabbath, to consider that they only have part of the solution that can be ascertained using current English translation.  The wickedness of Roman Christianity, however, goes much deeper.  They have corrupted the text and translations in the worst ways possible at all levels in addition to their interpretive and theological corruptions.  Therefore, one should not be surprised if the glimmer of solution still present in the English translations can be made by further consideration of the chronology and translations themselves.  And that is the redemptive purpose of this commentary and translation.

So, I urge them to consider that "the third day" is counted inclusively from the Hosea 6:1-2 passage, and to examine other texts explained herein pointing to the resurrection at dawn on the Sabbath.   I would point out that the present text, Luke 24:21, is very hard to reconcile with a Sabbath evening resurrection where the women come to the tomb on the first day of the week and Cleopas speaks on Sunday.  Sunday is the 4th day counting exclusively, and the 5th day counting inclusively.   I noted one attempt to explain it by a Messianic believer who held to the resurrection just before sunset on the Sabbath, where he explained "these things" as including the events on Thursday of posting the guard at the tomb.    The problem with this is that in vs. 20 "these things" end with Yeshua's crucifixion.  And, the greater problem is that the Scripture actually does count the three days inclusively counting the day of Yeshua's suffering as "day" one.  See  Hosea 6:1-2 and related passages linked to its notes.