Was Jesus Entombed 72 Hours? - Part II

Is the phrase "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12 to be taken literally and understood as 72-hours? We look at sources inside and outside the Bible to get some clues.

---

In the previous post, we looked at the phrase "three days" and other similar phrases. We learned that the Bible counts days differently than the modern Western mind, using inclusive reckoning. "Three days" means three consecutive days, whether they are complete or fractions of a day. The phrase "third day" could mean "day after tomorrow" or "day before yesterday". We saw how that fits into five different descriptions of the entombment of Jesus.

We needed that so we would be ready to look at description number six: “three days and three nights”. 

We have important questions to answer. Must this phrase be interpreted literally as 72-hours? Does adding "and nights" force the difference? Does the Bible offer help on how we should understand it? Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that might shed some light? Is "three days and three nights" the one phrase out of six that we must use to interpret the length of Jesus' entombment?

We are going to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

SAMUEL

Let's spend some time on Samuel 30, because this is going to be arguably the most important selection of all. There are only three places in the entire Bible where “three days and three nights” appears. One is in Jonah 1: 17. Another is in Matthew 12: 40. The last is in Samuel 30: 12.

Here, David's men were tracking some Amalekites when they happened upon a young Egyptian man in a field somewhere in the Levant. He fell ill while raiding for slaves with the Amalekites and was left behind to starve to death.

(I SAM. 30: 11-13) 11 Then they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David; and they gave him bread and he ate, and they let him drink water. 12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. 13 Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.

There is that phrase - three days and three nights. Notice it's not the Egyptian who says this, but the narrator of the story. This selection is quite special. It is the only instance of "three days and three nights" in the Bible that has another time reference nearby to give us a clue about how to understand it. The Egyptian had not eaten for “three days and three nights”, yet he had only fallen sick “three days ago”. There is the clue.

Using what we learned in the last post about how counting days works in the Bible, we know "three days ago" means day before yesterday.

We now have but three options:

1) The Egyptian had not eaten for upwards of a day before he fell ill. 

2) The Egyptian misspoke and fell ill four days ago.

3) “Three days and three nights” is a figure of speech not meant to be understood as 72 literal, exact hours, and means the same thing as "three days".

#2 is the least reasonable. If we try to press for #1 and its literal interpretation, we must ask how anyone knew it was exactly 72 hours (not 71.5 or 73) since the last time the Egyptian ate? In that time period, how did a slave on a raid in the Levant, so unimportant that he was left for dead, have the means to know exactly what hour it was?
What luck! They interrogated him exactly 72 hours to the minute after he last put food in his mouth.

Also, notice the time of day in this scene. David found the Egyptian while pursuing the Amalekites, and then continued his pursuit. This scene was clearly not at the beginning or ending of a day. If we insist on three complete days and three complete nights, how does that work in a scene that takes place in the middle of the day? This must also be explained.

I prefer #3. It simply makes more sense.

The text gives us nothing to support an exact 72-hour chronology. It does give us reasons to discount this, however, by also using "three days." The most reasonable explanation is that it was never meant to be taken literally.

JONAH

We have two more instances of this phrase to review. Matthew refers to Jonah. Many claim that Matthew 12 is definitely 72-hours because Jonah is definitely 72-hours. But is it?

I am not going to explore Jonah deeply because I want you to do that yourself. Go ahead. Should you go to verify that claim, you will come away from Jonah unable to prove anything about the exact timing. (I know because I tried for days.) All you will see is the phrase "three days and three nights" with no other time markers to help demonstrate whether it is literal or figurative. Isn't that odd now?

If Jonah does not give any way to prove 72-hours, then Matthew cannot rely on Jonah as proof of 72-hours. Matthew refers to Jonah, no doubt, but not for an exact timing.

MATTHEW AND LUKE

Matthew is one of the synoptic Gospels. It has a parallel in Luke.

(LUK. 11: 29-30) 29 And while the crowds were thickly gathered together, He began to say, “This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation."

What is missing here? Timing. There is no mention of timing at all. How can it be that the entire point about the sign of Jonah is its chronological precision when Luke doesn't mention time?

Answer: it isn't. A literal 72-hours is not taken from the Gospels, it's read into the Gospels.

Add in that example from Samuel and we see none of the three mentions are meant to be taken literally.

One might say, "But Jesus referred to the example of Jonah, not David." So, what then, this reference of the exact same phrase from Samuel doesn't count? Are we to understand that this one phrase means two completely different things depending on where it is? Should we not expect it to always mean the same thing, if indeed it is so exact a phrase? If it doesn't mean the same thing in each place then the phrase is nigh useless. Who can say what it means?

With Matthew relying on Jonah, and Jonah saying nothing about timing, we must rely on Samuel, and Samuel is clearly not literal. Therefore there is no legitimacy to the claim that the phrase "three days and three nights" must be taken literally.

ESTHER

Esther does not say "three days and three nights" but it does say something quite similar.

(EST. 4: 15-16) 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”

(EST. 5: 1) Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house.

Here is another three days and three nights, only it’s worded “three days, night or day”. Esther told Mordecai to fast for three days and nights before she went in to see King Xerxes, but "on the third day" she went in. This means the conversation happened on day 1, therefore the first day was partial, and she went in on the third day, so the third day was also partial. There was no third night.

Once again, not to be understood as 72-hours.

How can the ancient Israelites get away with this? Because that's simply how they counted time. That's inclusive reckoning. Onah! They are using idiomatic expressions. They don't have to be literal. You might just as well obsess over how there can be an apple in your eye, skin on your teeth, or a heart in the earth.

A DISSENT

Now, let's consider those who disagree with my conclusions. Many sources inside and outside of Armstrongism assert, “Adding ‘nights’ makes the phrase strictly literal.”

Oh? Based on what evidence?

Outside the Bible, this phrase is surprisingly more difficult to find than I anticipated. I used AI to locate everything it could find:

• Inanna/Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld (Sumerian): After Inanna is killed and hung as a corpse in the underworld, "after three days and three nights had passed," her minister Ninshubur carries out the instructions Inanna had given her before descending into the netherworld.
• The Contendings of Horus and Set (Egyptian): Horus and Set fight, transform into two bears (or hippopotamuses in variants), and “pass three days and three nights” in that form.
• Setna Khamwas and Naneferkaptah (Demotic Egyptian): Setna and the priests of Isis “spend three days and three nights searching in all the tombs on the desert of Coptos,” turning over stelae in search of a hidden tomb.
• Setna Khamwas and Si-Osire (Demotic Egyptian): A Nubian magician threatens to cast sorcery so the people of Egypt “spend three days and three nights seeing no light, only darkness.”
• Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor (Middle Kingdom Egyptian): A sailor is stranded on an island and lies helplessly for three days (some renderings add “and nights”) before encountering a divine serpent.
• Rare mentions in magical papyri: Rituals or preparations that take “three days and three nights.”

That's all it found. That is a very short list. None of these are meant to be chronologically precise.
In each case, “three days and three nights” is a figure of speech indicating a significant but inexact period of time. This means that in every instance outside the Bible, the phrase is not meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours.

Inside the Bible, the phrase “three days and three nights” appears in three verses. Only Samuel includes any additional clue nearby. Esther's phrase, although not exactly the same, has an additional time clue. Neither Samuel nor Esther are 72-hours. That leaves two verses, but they have no additional time indicator close by. They are ambiguous.

But if you think about it, Matthew does have supporting evidence, we just have to hunt for it.

As we saw in the last post, there are twenty one verses which describe the length of Jesus' entombment. Six different phrases are used. All describe one event that happened in one way. The parallel in Luke does not mention time at all. Now, add the evidence of Cleopas' words on the road to Emmaus, where he said Sunday was three days since the trial and crucifixion. Counting inclusively as the Bible does - Friday was three days before Sunday. There is not enough time between Friday and Sunday for "three days and three nights" to be literal. And if an exact 72-hours was the sign Jesus gave, why was there nobody to witness it? What kind of critical sign has no witnesses? By using these other clues, we can be confident "three days and three nights" in Matthew is not a literally 72 hours.

Matthew and Samuel and Esther are not literal. That leaves us with Jonah, which has no additional time indicator close by. 

But if you think about it, Matthew ties to Jonah, which means Jonah ties to Matthew. What we see in Matthew should also apply to Jonah. Either it does, and the time is not meant to be taken literally, or it doesn't, and Jonah is completely ambiguous. Take your pick. In neither case does it support a literal interpretation.

This means every instance in the Bible comes with contextual clues, and in every case the phrase is not meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours.

Someone will say, "But it's the natural reading of the phrase." To our modern minds, perhaps it is. But that is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what it meant to the ancient mind. Proper Bible study is not getting the Bible to think like us, but getting us to think like it.
Someone else may say, "But being idiomatic doesn't mean it cannot be literal in some cases." True! I agree. But possibility is not proof. We must rely on the evidence. We can't just say it might be literal, we have to prove it is literal. And that, the evidence will not allow.

Not a single biblical example gives us a reason to treat the phrase as exactly 72 hours.

Not a single extra-biblical example gives us a reason to treat the phrase as exactly 72 hours.

So, the claim that adding “nights” makes the phrase strictly literal is based on what, exactly? Opinions and guesses. My disagreement is based on what, exactly? All the evidence I could find.

ONE TRUE PHRASE

As I've said multiple times, there are five other phrases used to describe the length of Jesus' entombment. Why is it that we must choose "three days and three nights" over the others?
I'll tell you why: personal preference. 

The entire Wednesday crucifixion scenario hinges on literality of "three days and three nights." It needs it. All the beautiful charts like the one below absolutely require it.

But if that phrase is not literal, then what we have left is "third day" and inclusive reckoning. And as we've seen, that only works in a Friday scenario. Wednesday is cleanly eliminated.

Is the phrase literal? As we saw, no. It is not. This insistence is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew.
Ergo, we have no reason in or out of the Bible to demand "three days and three nights" is the one true phrase that a proper understanding of Jesus' entombment hinges upon. We have no reason to insist inclusive reckoning is a creation of the Pharisees. We have no reason to believe the Catholics swapped the proper timeline with another. We have no reason to dismiss five other phrases from twenty other verses, because they all mean the same thing. And we have no support for the Wednesday crucifixion timeline.

I cannot agree that, "It has to be literal against all odds because I really want it to be," is a convincing argument.

Whether you hear it from a Minister, a publication, a video, social media, a meme, or otherwise - whether you hear it one time or a thousand times - if you have 700 people on social media all saying "Yeah yeah, that chart makes sense to me," - the claim has no independent support, therefore it must be rejected.

CONCLUSION

Today, we had important questions to answer.

• Is a plain reading the best way to understand this phrase? If plain means literal, then no.
• Does any source treat "three days and three nights" literally? No.
• Does adding "nights" force it to be literal? No.
• Do we, then, have compelling reason to continue insisting the phrase is literal? No.
• Can we find evidence in the Bible for how best to understand "three days and three nights"? Yes.

All four passages that we explored today point in the same direction: none of them were meant to be taken as a literal 72 hours. Extra-biblical references only confirm it.

"Three days and three nights" is an idiomatic expression, not a precise chronological statement. It is paired with "three days", which we learned in the last post has clear meaning. These phrases describe one thing, so they must be speaking the same thing. Six phrases to describe Jesus' entombment and they all tell the same story. What story? Not a Wednesday crucifixion.

Trying to force "three days and three nights" to be a literal 72 hours just to support a Wednesday crucifixion scenario only ignores what the overwhelming weight of evidence is telling us.

The Wednesday crucifixion timeline does not work.

For more, read our post "Three Days and Three Nights" and "Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28".

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Three Days and Three Nights

How did ancient Israelites count days? This deep-dive into "inclusive reckoning" and “onah” explores whether “three days and three nights” in Matthew 12:40 is literal, and whether it supports a Wednesday crucifixion.

---

(MAT. 12: 39-40) 39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For 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.

It is an established tenet in the Armstrongist Churches of God that Jesus had to be in the grave for exactly 72-hours. If you feel this is a trivial matter, you don't understand Armstrongism. It has been taught from the pulpit that if Jesus was not in the tomb for 72-hours then He wasn't Christ and the Bible is wrong. (Regardless of His resurrection, or any of His other signs and wonders.) To put that much weight on this one point is not wise.

This blog is dedicated to investigating what we call 'Armstrongism'. But if you don't know what that is, don't worry. Today's post will still be accessible for you. I have noticed a 72-hour entombment / Wednesday crucifixion trend recently outside of Armstrongism, so I have tried to make this post a little audience-agnostic.

In some instances, there are people who insist upon a literal 72-hour reading of Matthew 12: 39-40 because they start from the assumption that Easter is pagan (we have several posts on why Easter is not pagan, see our Categories page), or perhaps they start from the assumption that mainstream Christianity is counterfeit. For these, to even seriously consider that a Friday death and Sunday resurrection is a possibility is tantamount to heresy. This is an emotional commitment. The ideology is already inflexible and the debate already over before it begins. Additional evidence will do no good. To these ones, no amount of evidence will be enough. You cannot affect an emotional commitment with rational evidence.

But to you, our fair-minded reader, I speak today. And evidence I will give on the matter of why many believe a literal 72-hour interpretation is improper. Could it be that 72-hours is read in?

Please at least give us a fair trial and hear us out on this.

20 OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER

I would ask you to consider that Matthew 12: 39-40 is not by any means the only verse that describes the length of Jesus’ interment, yet it is the only one that uses the phrase "three days and three nights". I ask you to consider that proper Bible study will never make a stand on proof-texting, but will carefully weigh all that the evidence says, in context.

I want to review the other instances in the New Testament where the three days are mentioned. I am going to use the New King James Version. Certainly other translations will be slightly different, but I prefer this one for readability.

Some of these verses are actually one event recorded by more than one author. I am going to tell you who is speaking, and give the verse or verses where it appears. Then I'll offer some commentary.
Ready?

>>>Jesus' accusers - MAT. 26: 61 also MAR. 14:58:

(MAT. 26: 61) “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

(MAR. 14: 58) “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’”

Jesus' accusers say "in three days" and "within three days". Though they were falsely accusing Him, Matthew does have them quote Jesus accurately. It seems possible to quote Jesus yet twist His intent. Let's work together to avoid that!

>>>Jesus' mockers - MAT. 27: 40 also MAR. 15: 29-30:

(MAT. 27: 40) “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

(MAR. 15: 29-30) 29 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!”

Jesus' mockers all say "in three days". Once again, not 72 hours.

>>>The chief priests and Pharisees requesting guard from Pilate:

(MAT. 27: 63) “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’

The priests and Pharisees say "after three days". 
After three days? You mean four days? No, not 4 days. They are saying the same thing everyone else was, only in a slightly different manner of speaking. They mean nothing different by this than anyone else meant. You’ll see Mark use this same language in my next example. 
Also, bear in mind that these are Pharisees, to whom Jesus mentioned the three days and three nights in Matthew 12. If anyone was to understand this as literally 72-hours it would be them, but they don’t understand it this way. They don't understand Jesus that way and they don't understand Jonah that way which clearly means they don't understand the phrase "three days and three nights" that way. Again, these are exactly the same people to whom Jesus spoke in John 2: 18-20. Jesus said "in three days" and they say "after three days". Why? Because these phrases are interchangeable.

>>>Jesus, after Peter witnesses about Christ - MAT. 16: 21 also MAR. 8: 31 and LUK. 9:21-22:

(MAT. 6: 21) From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.

(MAR. 8: 31) 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

(LUK. 9: 21-22) 21 And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”

Now here’s a very interesting example. Matthew and Luke record Jesus as saying "the third day", but Mark has "after three days". They each write about the same event, but there are two different ways to describe it. Do you suppose that one in three Apostles just didn’t get the memo? I doubt it. “After three days”, “Third day”, “three days and three nights” – all mean the same thing. And "three days and three nights" is not the only way Jesus described His own entombment.

>>>Jesus, after the transfiguration - MAT. 17: 22-23 also MAR. 9: 31:

(MAT. 17: 22-23) 22 Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.” And they were exceedingly sorrowful.

(MAR. 9: 31) For He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day.”

Matthew and Mark record Jesus as saying "the third day". Once again, "three days and three nights" is not the only way Jesus described His own entombment.

>>>Jesus, before James and John ask to rule with Him - MAT. 20: 18-19 also MAR. 10: 33-34 and Luke 18: 33:

(MAT. 20: 18-19) 18 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.”

(MAR. 10: 33-34) 33 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles; 34 and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”

(Luke 18: 33) 33 They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Jesus as saying "third day". Yet again, "three days and three nights" is not the only way Jesus described His own entombment.

>>>The holy angels:

(LUK. 24: 6-7) 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”

The angels say "third day". Do you suppose the angels can’t tell time?

>>>Cleopas, explaining to Jesus the events of the last 3 days:

(LUK 24: 18-21) 18 Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, “Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?”19 And He said to them, “What things?” So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened.

Here is one we need to stop at briefly. There is an important point you need to see.

Herbert W Armstrong (from whom we coin the phrase 'Armstrongism') would always give the explanation that when Cleopas says, “Today is the third day since these things happened,” what he really meant was, "Today is the third day since these things were finished, including sealing of the tomb and the setting of the guard." There’s a major problem with that: it’s not what Cleopas said.

When Jesus asks Cleopas what things he was referring to, Cleopas comes right out and says what things he was referring to: the trial and crucifixion. When Cleopas says "third day" how can that be anything other than a quote of the words of Jesus when He predicted His death and resurrection? Cleopas was referring to the same thing Jesus was. So, according to Cleopas, it was “the third day” since the trial and crucifixion. The rolling of the stone isn't included. But, let us for sake of argument say that it is included. It does no good. Armstrong's argument intends for us to count forward form the rolling of the stone, but we've now ignored what Cleopas specifically stated in order to focus on something he didn't say at all. We cannot simply ignore that Cleopas said Sunday is the third day since the trial. Here we have Cleopas, on a Sunday, speaking of Sunday being the third day since the trial and the crucifixion. It is improper to ignore the trial. This becomes obvious if we count backward from Sunday. Starting on Sunday, we must proceed back to trial, and do so in three days. Once we do that, Armstrong's views disintegrate.

As we will demonstrate later on, the Jews counted time inclusively. This was typical of people in the Mediterranean at that time. This will seem odd to many people today.
According to their thinking in that place and time, "three days ago" would be today, yesterday, and the day before that. Including today in the count makes it inclusive reckoning. So when Cleopas says, "today is the third day," he means, today [Sunday], yesterday [Saturday], and the day before that [Friday].

In a Wednesday crucifixion, the guards would have been set on Thursday, not Friday. In a Wednesday crucifixion, Cleopas would have said "today is the fourth day" since the rolling of the stone, or he would have said "today is the fifth day" since the crucifixion.
Cleopas saying on Sunday, "today is the third day," only works with a Friday crucifixion scenario.

And what does Jesus respond with?

>>>Jesus, in response to Cleopas:

(LUK. 24: 46) Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day"

Jesus understands "third day" as a reference to His death and resurrection, not the setting of the guard. He suffered and rose again the third day. He obviously didn't rise the third day from the guard-posting. Herbert Armstrong's explanation cannot be correct.

No literal 72-hours here.

>>>Jesus, driving the Jews out of the temple:

(JON. 2: 18-20) 18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” 19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

Jesus says "in three days".
Again, recall how the Pharisees would later rephrase these very words as "after three days". It appears clear enough that the terms are interchangeable. None of them seemed to understand a literal 72-hours.

>>>Peter summarizing the events:

(ACT. 10: 40) Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly

Peter says "on the third day".

>>>Paul summarizing the events:

(I COR. 15: 4) and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures

Paul says "third day".

Only Matthew 12 verse 40 uses the phrase “three days and three nights”.
In all of these twenty other instances, none of them repeat Matthew 12: 40. Here is how they play out in the NKJV:

• "The third day" 11 times.
• "In three days" 5 times.
• "After three days" 2 times.
• "On the third day" 1 time.
• "Within three days" 1 time.

Of those, if we only look at what the Apostles record Jesus as having said, we see: "the third day" 8 times, "in three days" 1 time, and "after three days" 1 time.

We have so many ways to describe one and the same event. Are we seriously to accept that one verse is the gold standard, and that all of the other 20 verses are to be understood in its light? This is dangerously close to proof-texting.

We are left with three choices here:
1) Matthew 12 is literal and the twenty other selections are idiomatic expressions.
2) One of the other 20 selections is literal (perhaps "the third day") and the rest are idiomatic expressions.
3) All of them are idiomatic expressions and none are to be taken literally to-the-hour.

Keep in mind that every one of these, regardless of the way they are phrased, are in fact speaking about one and the same event - Jesus' death and resurrection - which only played out in one way. The inescapable fact here is a good number of these have to be idiomatic. There's no escaping the presence of idiom in this, folks. It's just a matter of determining which. 

Truth be told, I see no compelling reason to accept option #1. People who insist on a 72-hour period highlight one verse, dismiss 20 others, and have no good supporting reason to explain why.

Let's turn now and look at why not option #1.

THE ONAH

I know this can get dry and boring, but please bear with me.

I want to enter more evidence in the case that there is good reason to believe that Jesus was indeed being idiomatic in Matthew 12. I mentioned earlier that the Pharisees to whom He spoke didn't seem to take "three days and three nights" literally. This section will attempt to explain why that was.

In Jewish thinking, at least Pharisaical thinking, there is such a thing called an “onah”.

An onah is a synecdoche – a figure of speech where a part represents a whole. Much like saying “wheels” but you mean the entire automobile. This is the exact same kind of thing where "Sabbaths" means "week" -- the plural of “sabbaton” refers to the entire week by only mentioning the Sabbaths on either end of the week (see MAT. 28: 1, MAR. 16: 2, LUK. 18: 12, JON. 20: 1, 19, ACT. 20: 7, and I COR. 16: 2).
"Sabbaths" means "week." "Wheels" means "car." It’s an idiom!

There was, in first century Palestine, a manner of speaking where part of a day represents the whole, entire day. This is what the onah is.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa 90-155 AD), was President of the Sanhedrin after Gamaliel II (grandson of the Gamaliel that taught Paul), and is considered one of the great Rabbis whose views are recorded in the Mishnah.

In the Jerusalem Talmud, in the Sabbath tractate chapter 9 part 3j, it says this:

“It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, ‘A day and a night constitute a span [onah], and part of a span [onah] is equivalent to the whole of it.’"

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (circa 180-230), who was also considered a great sage of his day, is recorded in the Mishnah as well.

In the Talmud, Pesachim 4a v6, Rabbi Hiyya says this:

"...and part of the day is as the whole of it".

So, it is possible to demonstrate that Jesus’ audience would have had an idiomatic understanding of what Jesus said in Matthew 12: 39-40. You see, folks, onah is really just another word for inclusive reckoning.

Some people refuse to accept this testimony because these two Rabbis were ideologically descended from the Pharisees and were recorded in the Talmud. There are many who hate the Talmud and see it as all that is wrong with Judaism.
We have obvious theological differences with the Jews but we don't hate them at all. God loves them, too! "To the Jew first....."

Why do so many people have to be "evil" in order for certain ones to be "right"? A question to ponder.

We should keep in mind that our personal prejudices should be set aside as much as possible when we are digging for historical truth. A truth, I remind you, that directly involves a statement made to Pharisees.

Why should we ignore what the Pharisees say, when we are discussing a phrase said to them, and that very well could have been said in a way they would understand? They were the audience after all. Does not proper exegesis tell us to always ask how the audience would have understood a statement?
Well, the onah is how they would have understood it.

Since it is true that some people refuse to accept the concept of the onah on the basis that the Talmud is involved, I wish to remove that from the equation and present some similar circumstances from the Old Testament.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF NON-LITERAL "THREE DAYS"

If we must take what Jesus said literally, then we must believe that for 72-hours Jesus was in the literally beating heart, the cardio-vascular system, of the planet. He did say "heart of the earth" after all. No one has a problem with that part of His sentence being idiomatic.
We will see that “three days” and even “three days and three nights” is not taken literally in several instances in the Old Testament. This has the effect of making the onah idea a Biblically-based one, as if to say this is a genuine Hebrew understanding and not some corruption of the “evil” Pharisees. These examples are certified “Pharisee Free”.

I will give you a verse and then some commentary about that selection.

(GEN. 40: 12-13) 12 And Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of it: The three branches are three days. 13 Now within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your place, and you will put Pharaoh’s cup in his hand according to the former manner, when you were his butler.

Even though there were three branches representing three days in the butler’s dream, his release would come within three days’ time. If we force the Bible to be so chronologically literal all the time, one would expect two-and-a-half branches. But the full three branches are there, even though a full three days are not there.

This same thing is repeated in verses 18 and 19.

(GEN. 42: 17-19) 17 So he put them all together in prison three days.

18 Then Joseph said to them the third day, “Do this and live, for I fear God: 19 If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined to your prison house; but you, go and carry grain for the famine of your houses.

Understand Joseph's brothers weren’t in the prison for a full three days. They were only in the prison for part of one day, then a full day, and then only part of another day. Sounds pretty much exactly like Jesus’ death. Yet there the Bible says "the third day." A part of a day counts as the whole. Inclusive reckoning. Onah!

Now, let's spend some time on Samuel 30, because this is going to be arguably the most important selection of all.

(I SAM. 30: 11-13) 11 Then they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David; and they gave him bread and he ate, and they let him drink water. 12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. 13 Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.

There is that phrase - three days and three nights. Now, look -------

The Egyptian had not eaten for “three days and three nights”, yet he had only fallen sick “three days ago”. We now have but three options:

1) The Egyptian had not eaten for several hours before he fell ill. 

2) The Egyptian misspoke and fell ill four days ago.
3) “Three days and three nights” is not meant to be understood as 72-hours and all of these phrases about “three days” are interchangeable and mean the exact same thing.

Do I really need to say out loud that I prefer #3?

There are three places in the entire Bible where “three days and three nights” appears. One is in Jonah. Another is in Matthew. The last is this one in Samuel.

I cannot emphasize how important the selection in Samuel is. 

Matthew refers to Jonah. Many claim that Matthew 12 is definitely 72-hours because Jonah was definitely 72-hours in that whale. I am not going to explore Jonah because I want you to do that yourself. Go ahead. Should you go to verify that claim, you will come away from Jonah unable to prove anything about the exact timing. (I know because I tried for days.) All you will see is the phrase "three days and three nights" with no other time markers to help demonstrate it is literally 72 hours. Isn't that odd now? If Jonah does not give any way to prove 72-hours, then Matthew cannot rely on Jonah as proof of 72-hours. 72-hours isn't taken from the Bible, it's read into the Bible.
Good thing there is still this third example in Samuel. Samuel does give us timing clues. Without a doubt the phrase "three days and three nights" in Samuel is not exactingly specific. It is not 72 hours. 

Therefore there is no legitimacy to the claim that Jonah is literally 72 hours. And with it goes Matthew 12.

Some will say, "But Jesus referred to the example of Jonah, not David". So, what then, this reference of the exact same phrase from Samuel doesn't count? Are we to understand that this one phrase means two completely different things depending on where it is? Should we not expect it to always mean the same thing, if indeed it is so critical a phrase? If it doesn't mean the same thing in each place then the phrase is nigh useless. Who can say what it means? 

The problem with Jonah is that Jonah does not give us any time reference to verify against. Jonah gives us no way to know what Jonah meant when he used the phrase. Well, Samuel says "three days and three nights" every bit as much as Jonah, yet it is not 72 hours. I see no reason to dismiss this reference from Samuel.

But wait, there's more!

(EST. 4: 15-16) 15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”

(EST. 5: 1) Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house.

Here is another three days and three nights, only it’s worded “three days, night or day”. Esther told Mordecai to fast for three days and nights before she went in to see King Xerxes, but on the third day she went in. Once again, not to be understood as 72-hours. How can they get away with this? Because that's simply how they counted time. That's inclusive reckoning.
It's an idiom. They are inexact by nature. You might as well just obsess over how there can be an apple in your eye or skin on your teeth.

Another example of inclusive reckoning is from Acts 10. On day 1, after 3 PM Cornelius sends men 36 miles south to Joppa. On day 2, Peter has a vision around noon as Cornelius' men approach Joppa. They stay the night and leave the next day. On day 3, they travel all day. On day 4, before 3 PM they arrive at Cornelius' house. Now, in verse 30, Cornelius relates that "four days ago" he sent men. Cornelius includes his current day in the count. That's inclusive reckoning. Onah!

A literalist will insist on 72-hours, but they base that on what, exactly? Nothing. There is no supporting evidence. They just make this demand. It's all emotional.
I disagree, but based on what, exactly? Multiple other verses and cultural context.

Do we not see that the Jews counted time inclusively universally from ancient times? The Jews had counted time this way form the start:

(EXO. 19: 10-11) 10 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. 11 And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people."

We could not have a more plain example when God says today, tomorrow, and the third day. "Third day" here means "day-after-tomorrow". Exactly the same as when Cleopas said "today is the third day"  he means "day-before-yesterday". The phrase "third day" always carried this meaning. "Third day" from Wednesday cannot be Sunday or Saturday. Wednesday doesn't work.

I have seen a video on YouTube of Herbert Armstrong in a World Tomorrow television program. The topic was "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday". In this program, Herbert Armstrong goes to Mark 9: 31 and he even uses a chart to show that the third day from Friday would be Monday. But that, friends, is not how inclusive reckoning works. That is not how the Hebrews counted. This is not how reckoning time works in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong's chart is wrong! It's wrong because he did not bother to learn how Jews counted time. He told you how we count now, not how they counted then.

For yet another fine example of inclusive reckoning, please see our post Wednesday Crucifixion? Not Likely.

I will place some quotes from several Bible commentaries regarding Jewish reckoning of time in comments for this post. Jamiesson Fausset and Brown, Wesley's Notes, People's New Testament, Gill's Expository, Clarke's Commentary, Barnes' Notes and others agree with what I've told you here, and they have more to add. I think it will be helpful to you. So don't forget to check the comments when you're done.

To be completely fair, we wanted to know if we could find examples of counting in the Bible that were not inclusive. We did find some (e.g., Nehemiah 5: 14). Even so, I think I can say I have demonstrated the Bible does primarily use an inclusive reckoning system. And I think I have especially shown this where it counts for the topic at hand.

We have seen multiple examples from the Bible, not just the Mishnah, no Pharisees involved, where “three days” and even “three days and three nights” is not exactly 72 hours. We have seen precisely zero examples of literalism.
Even if the Hebrew is written as “three days” and “three nights”, this wording is not meant to be understood literally. We cannot demand the Bible conform to our thinking. No! Our thinking needs to conform to the Bible.

This short video from William Layne Craig sums up what this post claims: "Jonah and Jesus: Three Days and Three Nights".

A DISSENT

Now, let's look at an example of someone who disagrees with my conclusions, provided by "the most accurately informed man in the world", Herman Hoeh.

In his booklet titled "The Crucifixion Was Not On Friday", Herman Hoeh goes to II Chronicles 10, with its parallel in 1 Kings 12. Hoeh then feeds us this:

"The people left 'for three days' and did not return until 'after three days' - 'as the king had appointed.' Let us suppose they had first met the king sometime on Friday. As they were ordered to return at the end of three days, they could not have returned before the same time of day the following Monday. Now was Monday “the third day” from the day they had originally met with the King? The first day from that Friday was Saturday; the second day from that Friday was Sunday; and the third day was Monday - exactly the time the king expected them to return."

-Herman Hoeh, "The Crucifixion Was Not On Friday", 1968, pp. 9-10.

Pay very close attention to what Hoeh just did. He cited the selection incorrectly. 

He said, "The people left 'for three days' and did not return until 'after three days'." That order is backwards. What Rehoboam told the people to was return 'after three days' (v. 5) and they returned 'the third day' (v.12). Then Hoeh counts incorrectly again, using modern counting styles rather than the appropriate inclusive reckoning. Two errors. Hoeh is fully aware of the Onah and inclusive reckoning, he just dismisses it as Pharisaical. So, not only does Hoeh reverse the order of scripture and count incorrectly, he doesn't understand what he's reading in the first place.

Hoeh's entire point is the people returned precisely when Rehoboam expected them to - after three days. With that I agree! You should also know verse 12 is actually a quote of verse 5. The parallel selection in 1 Kings 12 doesn't say "after" at all. All this fuss over the word "after" is really making much of nothing.

If the king asks you to return after the third day but you return on the third day, and everyone is fine with that, that is a good indicator that everyone understood it the same way and all happened as expected. And we have just demonstrated one of the points of today's post. As with the Gospels, these phrases all mean the same thing. In three days, on the third day, after three days - it's all the same.

In the end, the best thing we get from Herman Hoeh is a lesson on why paying attention to the details is valuable.

WHAT SIGN IS IT ANYWAY?

We know that Jesus refers to Jonah, but we cannot prove from Jonah anything at all about the timing. So we need to ask the question - what signs did Jesus give? In what way was Jesus referring to Jonah? Was it a sign of exact timing, or something else?

What sign did Jesus give?

(MAT. 16: 4) A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed.

Jesus gave the sign of Jonah as evidence.
Notice that this is Matthew 16, not Matthew 12. Jesus apparently reiterated that Jonah would be His only sign. But notice what's missing here. No mention of time at all.

That got me thinking. Matthew is one of the three Synoptic Gospels. Matthew 12, where Jesus originally offers the sign of Jonah, should have parallels in Mark and Luke. What do they have to say about the sign?
Turns out Mark says nothing at all. Neither does John, by the way. But Luke does give the parallel to Matthew 12.

(LUK. 11: 29-30) 29 And while the crowds were thickly gathered together, He began to say, “This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation."

Now that's odd. No mention of the timing whatsoever. In Matthew 12, Jesus mentions Jonah and time, but in its parallel in Luke, Jesus mentions Jonah but time is not considered important enough to be recorded. Then we come to Matthew 16, where Jonah is mentioned but Jesus Himself never mentions a time component.
Was exact timing the sign, then, or was it something else?

With the way Jesus phrases it in Matthew 12 one would think the timing was His point. In other words, I agree that it is completely reasonable to read Matthew 12 and come away thinking the sign was the timing. 
But the way Jesus phrases it in Luke 11 and Matthew 16, one would think that the totality of what happened to Jonah was His point, not the specifics of timing. In other words, I believe it is completely reasonable to read Luke and come away thinking the sign was that Jonah was "resurrected" from the whale.

The sign was Jesus returning to life, period. Not Jesus returning to life in 72 hours.

Given the witness of both accounts, it becomes more understandable why the Pharisees didn't seem to think precise timing was Jesus' point. It becomes more understandable why timing is not exact in I Samuel 30 nor Esther 4. It becomes more understandable why an exact timing is never the point in any of the other 20 selections, most notably John 2. Let's look at that, briefly.

We know that Jesus said the only sign he would give to the ones who tested Him was the sign of Jonah (MAT 12: 39-40; MAT 16: 4; LUK. 11: 29-30). Mark 8 mentions no sign, but that is a parallel of Matthew 16 so clearly Mark just neglects to mention it. Then we come to John 2:

(JON. 2: 18-19) 18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?” 19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

So wait, wait, wait! That didn't mention Jonah. Is this a Bible contradiction? He said the only sign He would give to those who tested Him was the sign of Jonah, yet here He is in John 2 giving another sign to those who tested Him: the sign of the temple. It was the sign of the temple for which He was mocked as He died on the cross. Now, that would be odd if these two very different metaphors were two different things. But they are not two different things. They are the same thing!

 
     The one and only sign is His death and resurrection.

CAN I GET A WITNESS!

We can all plainly see that there was a time component involved: that being 3 days. But was it 72 hours exactly? With that in mind, now notice that when Jesus rose there were no witnesses present except the Roman guards who had passed out in fear. No Pharisees. No Apostles. No women. No Romans. There were no witnesses to the exact 72-hour timing. 

What major sign has no witnesses to testify to it? Ergo a 72-hour death is unlikely to be the sign.

However, if the sign were His death and resurrection, there were many witnesses! He died, and no prophet brought Him to life again ...and everyone knew it. The only condition was that it had to happen on the third day, and that was testified to over and over again.

Do you suppose it was the exacting nature of 72-hours that invigorated Jonah to preach to the Ninevites, or the fact that he was spared from death? Should Jonah have been in the fish only 70 hours, would he have discounted the event? Or if 74 hours then would he have continued to Tarshish? Do you think a single Ninevite would have said to Jonah, "Your resurrection is an incredible miracle! But it wasn't exactly 72-hours, so I'm off for some falafel"?

In Jonah chapter 2, Jonah never once mentions timing in his prayer of thanksgiving. Clearly the focus was on the "resurrection" itself.
As it was with Jesus.

He gave one sign. The fact of the resurrection itself is the sign. Not the precise timing. 

HISTORICAL WITNESS

I would like to reinforce my claims with some evidence from the second century church fathers. If Jesus was indeed in the tomb for a literal 72-hours, that would have put Him in the grave from either Wednesday, as Herbert Armstrong taught, or Thursday, for those who take Mark 16: 9 at face value. We can debate what the Bible says, so let’s enter into evidence what history says.

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."-Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter LXVII [67] (130-165 A.D.)

"On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection."-Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians (98-117 A.D.)

No early church document places the crucifixion on any other day than Friday. No early church document places the resurrection on any other day than Sunday.

I only offer this as a final supporting evidence. I don’t want to get into this too deeply. It really is outside of the scope of this post. But it is something to consider.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that aside from Matthew 12: 39-40 there are twenty other New Testament selections to consider.
We have seen that the Pharisees, to whom Jesus was speaking in Matthew 12: 39-40, would not have any reason to understand “three days and three nights” as 72-hours. 
We've seen how the Jews counted time inclusively, and Cleopas' statement only works in a Friday crucifixion scenario. 
We have seen that in the Old Testament that a literal 72-hours not supported. 
We've seen in one instance that the very phrase "three days and three nights" was not literally 72-hours, and another instance where the phrase "three days; night and day" is also not 72-hours.
We've seen the parallel account in Luke that focuses on the fact of the resurrection rather than the timing, and we've seen how Jonah did the same. 

We have seen some history that demonstrates the early church fathers did not understand a literal 72-hours, nor a Wednesday crucifixion, nor a Saturday resurrection. 
And we have seen that the use of idiom is inescapable; they can't all be literal. But they all have to mean the same thing, since they all point to the same thing that played out in only one way.

Consider, therefore, if we insist these phrases must be 72-hours, then all instances where these phrases are used throughout the Bible must now be exactly 72-hours. That is simply not supportable.

Therefore, I conclude the sign Jesus gave to the Pharisees was not a literal 72-hours at all but rather the fact of the death and miraculous resurrection itself, ergo a Friday crucifixion scenario is not ruled out by any means! But a Wednesday crucifixion is absolutely ruled out.

We have seen reasonable, valid evidence today that I hope you do not just ignore but prayerfully consider. I do very much hope that even if you go away yet in disagreement with me at least grant that I have demonstrated that I have reasons to believe as I do. I didn't just demand a thing be so.

We close as we started -- It has been taught from the pulpit that if Jesus was not in the tomb for 72-hours then He wasn't Christ and the Bible is wrong. (Regardless of His resurrection, or any of His other signs and wonders.) To put that much weight on this one point is not wise!

Beloved of God, please hear me out in this. If you absolutely cannot accept a Friday crucifixion, please consider that I have given you but a fraction of the available evidence. I can only put so much in one post! Please refer to our Categories Page for our other articles on this topic.
(There are links to other valuable resources off-site from AsBereansDid in those posts for you, too.)

But please, please, please work with us to stop all the judging and condemning that goes on over this.

I have watched as people become vicious in attacking others over the timing of Jesus’ death and resurrection. On both sides this happens! Condemnation and judgment and wickedness comes from some people who say they love our Lord. Is this why Jesus died, so we can fight about timing? Christians fighting one another over their understanding and interpretation of how one should love his neighbor as himself. You thought what I said earlier was absurd? This is absurd, my friends.

Dear reader let us come together. Let’s reason together about this. If could only ask you for one thing, I would ask you for this: let's agree that He was literally dead and literally raised to glory. 
Let’s not argue over the timing, because the timing is trivial. So much weight should never have been hung on this issue. The sign of Jonah was given to the Pharisees and they yet rejected Him nonetheless. I want to be bluntly honest with you - at best this entire debate is a distraction. Rejoice in the fact that our Lord and Savior died and was raised and now lives forever more... for us! He didn't have to, you know. With Him we have died, and with Him we shall live! After all, isn’t that what’s really important here?

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Does John 11 Define A Biblical Day?

(JON. 11: 8-9) 8 The disciples said to Him, “Rabbi, lately the Jews sought to stone You, and are You going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world."

Many are the times when I have heard someone point to John 11: 9 in an attempt to support a 72-hour length of time for the phrase "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12: 40. "Jesus comes right out and tells us precisely how long a day is," they say, "so we know He had to be 72-hours in the tomb." Are they right about that? Is it truly appropriate to take "are there not twelve hours in the day" and apply that to the phrase "three days and three nights"? Or, are there other mitigating factors we should be aware of before we go this route?

Let's just start off by putting this out there - it is an undeniable fact that the ancient Hebrews (and most of the surrounding cultures besides) did recognize twelve hours in a day and twelve hours in a night, making twenty-four hours altogether. Hebrews apparently got this from the Babylonians, who got it from the Egyptians. Nothing at all that I say here should be understood as disputing or taking away from that fact. It is true.

Does that mean the game is over? Set and match? Let's investigate this further.

IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS

Their day had twenty-four hours just as much as ours does. But is it true we always mean a twelve or a twenty-four hour period every single time we say the word day? No. We can use words in colloquial ways. When we use a word in a non-literal sense, it is called an idiom.

Webster's first definition of idiom is:

"1. An expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)"
-Mirriam-Webster, "Idiom", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

The meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from its elements. In other words, you say one thing but mean something else entirely. Do you know what the phrase "tickling the ivories" means? It means playing the piano. Every culture has idioms, and the Bible is full of them.
Perhaps the most well known is this:

(PRO. 7: 2) Keep my commands and live, And my law as the apple of your eye.

Is there an apple in your eye? No. Not literally. There is not a Macintosh inside your eye fluid or a Red Delicious in the reflection. Here's a fun fact for you - "apple of your eye" is an English idiom, not a Hebrew one. The literal translation is "little man of the eye". It just means your pupil.
Here is another:

(JOB. 19: 20) My bone clings to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth.

Are your teeth covered in flesh? No. Not literally. A completely other understanding is hiding in that phrase.
Here is an example we all know:

(GEN. 4: 1a) Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain...

You know exactly what is really meant when the Bible says "knew". They say it, but they don't say it. Idioms are very handy for that sort of application.
Here is an example from the very verse we focus on most:

(MAT. 12: 40) 40 For 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.

Jesus was placed inside the literal beating heart within the cardio-vascular system of the earth? No. An idiom is right here in exact same verse which people demand is the most literal of all.
Let's do just one more:

(ISA. 2: 12) For the day of the Lord of hosts shall come upon everything proud and lofty, upon everything lifted up - and it shall be brought low -

I chose this example specifically because it uses the word day in a way that is neither twelve nor twenty-four hours. Taken all together, the many examples of the phrase "day of the Lord" will paint a very clear picture that this is a period of time far beyond a single day. The word day is not always literal, dear reader. It just isn't.

These are all examples of non-literal uses of words and phrases. They are idiomatic expressions. 

Today, we can use the word day every bit as literally or idiomatically as anyone else. Take for example the phrase "in my day." It doesn't mean, "In my literal twelve or twenty-four hour period of time." It means, roughly, "Back when I was in my prime." Jesus used the phrase "my day" (JON. 8: 56). He didn't mean Abraham saw his literal 24-hours. For another example, "Have a nice day!" Do we intend people only to have twelve nice hours, or for their period of niceness to end at sunset? No. Not at all. It was never intended to be chronologically specific. Sometimes language can just be unspecific. It's one of the hardest parts of literal translations of the Bible, and why we sometimes need thought-for-thought translations.

A person went to a job interview at 3 o'clock PM. They did well and got the job. The hiring manager said, "You're hired. You start in two days." Two days later, the employee arrived precisely at 3 o'clock PM. The manager saw the person walking in, and angrily said, "What is the meaning of coming here at this hour? Turn right back around and go home. You're fired!"
Why? The employee arrived exactly forty-eight hours later, didn't they? But starting time was 8 o'clock AM, not 3 o'clock PM. When the manager said, "in two days," their intent was at the appropriate hour on the second day. It is still the case, even in our mathematically and chronologically meticulous day and age, that day is not always meant to be literally twelve or twenty-four hours.

A minute has sixty seconds, does it not? Must it follow that every time we use the word minute it only refers to a literal sixty-second period of time? No. For example, we say "a hot minute." When things get hot, they expand. A hot minute is a completely inexact period of time that is longer than a minute. It has no specific meaning at all. It's the same when we exclaim, "Give me a minute!" We don't mean to say, "Give me precisely sixty seconds because that's the definition of a minute." No. We just need more time. It doesn't matter how much time, precisely, just however much more it takes to finish the task at hand.

Why waste so many words on this simple concept? Two reasons. First, to show that words with specific meanings like day can be idiomatic under the right circumstances. Second, because I intend to demonstrate an inconsistency. It is the tendency of some people to apply a literal meaning to day when they want to force the length of Jesus' interment to be precisely 72-hours. They will go right back to defining a day loosely elsewhere. Let's see that.

CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT

As I pointed out in my article "Three Days and Three Nights", the only verse in the New Testament that uses the phrase “three days and three nights” is Matthew 12 verse 40. There are twenty other places where the length of Jesus interment was described. In all of these twenty other instances, none of them repeat Matthew 12: 40. Here is how they play out in the NKJV:

• "The third day" 11 times.
• "In three days" 5 times.
• "After three days" 2 times.
• "On the third day" 1 time.
• "Within three days" 1 time.

There is no possible way all of these can be taken literally. All twenty-one instances (these 20 plus Matthew 12: 40) speak of one and the same event. One event that played out one way described with six different phrases. They cannot all be literal. Every single person who just set John 11: 9 as their standard to define day as exactly a twelve or twenty-four hour period of time in order to make Matthew 12: 40 into 72-hours, will now abandon that standard for most if not all of these other phrases.

If someone, unwisely, decides not to abandon their literal standard, they cause a terrible issue. Let's see that. Let's replace the word day with twelve-hour period.

• The third twelve-hour period.
• In three twelve-hour periods.
• After three twelve hour periods.
• On the third twelve hour period.
• Within three twelve hour periods.

Do you see the problem caused? The, in, after, on, within... creates several different resurrection times. If we insist on a strict literal interpretation, we turn the Bible into an inconsistent mess. No one involved agreed on the length. Not even Jesus Himself!

Of those, if we only look at what Jesus said, we see: "the third day" 8 times, "in three days" 1 time, and "after three days" 1 time. One man speaking of His own resurrection in four different ways (these three plus "three days and three nights"). When we force a literal definition onto the word day, we see only inconsistency in the words that came from Jesus' own mouth.

There is but one way to solve this issue: they all mean the exact same thing and day is not meant to be taken as a literal twelve or twenty-four hours in any of them. Not even in "three days and three nights".

EMPTY ASSERTIONS AND PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS

It seems we have an option. I have shown you why I think day should not be literal. Now we need to ask, what evidence is there to support applying a literal definition to "three days and three nights"?

Please supply a reason why we should. We need some kind of legitimate, biblical reason, not just, "Because it suits our desired outcome of Jesus not dying on a Friday." Demanding a certain definition without plotting out support for it makes it just that - a baseless assertion. If this were some petty point, nobody would really care. But it's not. This is a premier claim for some people, and they use it to accuse billions of other Christians of being pagans. Evidence for something this important is required. So, where is this evidence?

Having spent decades in a church that taught me to believe it should be literal, and having read thousands of articles and booklets over the years, and having reviewed many here at ABD, we have yet to see any particularly convincing evidence. No sermon from any minister I have ever heard, nor article from any author I have ever read or reviewed, nor any response from any person I have ever debated on this topic, has given any convincing reason why we should take that phrase literally. It is just assumed we should. So, I went to look for my own evidence. I went over in my article "Three Days and Three Nights" how there is no other biblical reason. In fact, there are several legitimate biblical reasons why it should not be defined literally. "Three days and three nights" is a known and quite ancient idiom.

Why is "three days and three nights" held as the gold standard, but those twenty other utterances are shoved aside? I will tell you why. Because the claim of 72-hours in the tomb absolutely relies on it. It is necessary in order to get the result they went looking for in the first place.
But, as we hope you have seen, there is no good Biblical reason to take the phrase literally. There is no good reason to showcase it to the exclusion of the others. Therefore, "three days and three nights" is simply a convenient means to an predetermined end. It is a conclusion looking for support.

Predetermined conclusions are not a very good thing. You know how scientific research is suspect when it has been funded by a special interest? It's practically the same thing here. Does that mean it is wrong? No, not necessarily. But it makes peer review more important. What happens when we peer review the 72-hour assertion in the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet? As I said, it comes up completely unsupported. We have a desired outcome looking for evidence and suppressing anything that disagrees.

One strict definition for day is used in one place, and another loose definition is used in twenty other places. One verse is emphasized, twenty others are shoved aside. The modern way to count time exclusively is used, and the way Hebrews count time inclusively is ignored. The demonstrably false claims of Alexander Hislop are promoted, and the historically documented ideas of the Pharisees and the early church are dismissed. The 12-hour definition of day is insisted upon in one verse, and the words sabbaton and prosabbaton used by Matthew and Mark are redefined out of existence.

Did I lose you there? I am referring to topics covered in other articles. See our articles "Three Days and Three Nights", "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28", and "Easter FAQ" for more.

There really is nothing whatsoever to support the conclusion. What some people are doing with John 11: 9 is neither intellectually honest nor consistent.

THREE DAYS IS FOUR DAYS?

I assure you, dear reader, that even after 14 years, we are still searching the topic, trying to be as even-handed in everything as we can. Perhaps we have missed something. Perhaps someone noticed some new detail everyone else overlooked. We have not come across anything that persuades us to change our minds.
That isn't to say we haven't seen new ideas. There are some. For example, there are people out there saying "the third day" is actually four days.

To explain, let's turn to the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Some of John the Baptist's disciples are meeting Jesus for the first time and being called to follow Him, then they head together to Cana for the wedding where Jesus turns water into wine. There is a time progression described here that we need to see.

John 1: 29 says, "on the next day," then v.35 says, "again, the next day," then v.43 says, "the following day," and finally we come to John 2: 1 which says, "on the third day". Did you catch that? Day, day, day, third day.  ??
Some people look at that and conclude, "John says 'on the third day' when it was actually the fourth day, so 'third day' is a phrase that refers to the fourth day."

You might be saying, "Huh. I never noticed that before. That's really interesting." If so, that's fine. But please follow that up with, "I am going to go see if there is any other example anywhere within the Bible or without where 'the third day' indicates a fourth day, and if not, this conclusion is merely a simple misunderstanding which needs to be clarified."

There are several examples showing this is not how the Bible uses the phrase "third day". The Hebrews counted inclusively. The phrase "third day" is easily recognizable as being equivalent to saying 'day after tomorrow' (e.g., EXO. 19: 10-11; HOS. 5: 2). You can even find an example of "fourth day", where the timeline is meticulously laid out and there is no doubt that four days are involved (ACT. 10 all). In all of the Bible commentaries I dug through, none agreed that "third day" can be understood as "fourth day". In all the oldest and most reliable extra-biblical sources I read, I found no hint of support. So, we have no examples within the Bible or outside of it to support the claim that third day means fourth day.

It doesn't even make sense chronologically.

The distance between where John was baptizing in the Jordan in Judea, somewhere due west of Jericho, and Cana of Galilee where the wedding was, is roughly 60 miles in a perfectly straight line (verified on Google Maps). If you walk at a steady 4 miles per hour, it would take 15 hours. The terrain is rough, and Samaria lay in between the two. Jews would never go into Samaria unless they absolutely had to. The Bible makes no mention of it. Some time later, when Jesus did go through Samaria, the Apostles protested strongly. Clearly, this was not something they were accustomed to doing. We can reasonably assume they went around at this point. This means they would have to first go east into the Decapolis to go north and then west into Galilee. Your 60-mile trek just got much longer. The only way that journey could have been made in one day is by purchasing transportation, which Jesus was not accustomed to doing.

One cannot simply walk from the Jordan River on day three to Cana on day four. That interpretation is prohibitively difficult. So, I feel justified in rejecting it.

There are four explanations for John's choice of words:

1. John is referring to Tuesday, which was called 'the third day'.
2. John starts the count at John 1: 35 where Jesus first gains a following.
3. John means it had been three days since John 1: 43 where Jesus decides to go to Galilee.
4. John means it is the third day since Jesus entered the area of Cana.

Options #1 and #2 are weak, and the hardest to accept since they are so arbitrary. Options #3 and #4 are strong. I feel the more reasonable of those is option #3. They left John the Baptists on day one, on foot, and arrived in the region of Cana on day three.

There is no clear way to settle which is the correct option, but it is abundantly clear 'the third day' cannot be defined as 'the fourth day'. This is not only unsupported but contraindicated from the rest of the biblical and extra-biblical evidence. It is simply not a possible option.
Yet, someone is out there right this minute relying on it as part of their Biblical interpretation (in this case, the person making this argument wanted to support a Thursday crucifixion).

These are the wild things we get when people start with a conclusion -- making the cherry-picked evidence go in the direction of the pre-determined conclusion, rather than allowing the total evidence to lead us to the reasonable conclusion. What we should be doing is letting the Bible interpret the Bible.

CONCLUSION

Is a day defined as 12-hours in the New Testament? Yes, that is a possible option. We granted that at the start. But must that definition always apply to the word day? No. We demonstrated that. In fact, forcing a literal definition in every instance of day causes terrible issues for resurrection timing.
More importantly, does John 11: 9 define the meaning of Matthew 12: 40? Does it apply for "three days and three nights"? From what we have seen in this article and others, I say no.

If there is an option, we need a good reason why we should choose one or the other.

Those who argue Jesus was entombed for 72-hours make assertions without a compelling explanation why. We investigate the claims, and they keep coming up making the same mistakes over and over again. Their conclusion depends on proof-texting and too many other things I categorize as nothing shy of intellectual dishonesty.

As for the evidence we provide for our conclusion, aside what I have shown you here today, As Bereans Did has several articles where we lay our case out in detail. Some of them I have already mentioned. We invite you to our Categories page where our articles are listed under the topic Easter.

All of the best evidence leads us to conclude the phrase "three days and three nights" is a very ancient and known idiom that was never meant to be understood as literally 72-hours. Choose exegeses over eisegesis!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************