(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?
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?
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.
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,
>>>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.
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:
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
(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.
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.
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.
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!
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
(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?
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?
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
************
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
************
