Posted on 08/14/2006 11:19:14 AM PDT by Gamecock
I'm just reading, dude:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jon 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Even if it wasn't exactly 72 hours, Friday/Sunday isn't enough time.
The Hebrew way of reckoning time is not the same as what we are used to (thus my question about "72 hours" in the Bible).
The phrase "three days and three nights" can mean any portion a period of time that covers a three day period.
When you hear "three days and three nights" don't think "3 pm on Wednesday until 3 pm on Saturday". That's a modern, Western view of time.
First of all, in the Hebrew culture, time doesn't start with zero, it starts with 1. So you have day 1, day 2, and day 3. Any part of day 1 is "one day". Any part of day 1 and day 2 is "two days". And so on.
Look at an example in Scripture:
"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." (1 Sam. 30:12)
Now look at the next verse:
"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.'"
Note how "three days ago" corresponds to "three days and three nights". If a literal 72 hours period were in view, we would think of this time period as "four days ago", not three.
Jesus uses similar language in Luke 13:32,33:
"And He said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem."
Using the same language as Jesus, it is quite reasonable to speak of the days of His crucifixion as being "today" (Friday), "tomorrow" (Saturday/sabbath), "and the third day" (Sunday).
All these passages and other help us to understand the historical and cultural setting from which these phrases arise.
That's all I got, btw. Quiver empty. I don't care which day Jesus was resurrected. The fact that He was resurrected 3 days and 3 nights after He was crucified is plenty for me.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
???
You just can't shoehorn all the stuff that happened into Friday, have the ladies rest on just one Sabbath, and then have a Sunday morning resurrection.
You can't?? According to whose theory?
It doesn't add up and it isn't enough time to fulfill the Jonas prophesy.
Unless you don't understand the prophecy.
Another passage to consider which bears on this issue:
"Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared." (Luke 24:1)
What follows in this chapter is Luke's record of what happened on that resurrection Sunday. As we read on we find:
"He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' " (v. 6).
Recall the Hebrew way of counting, esp. days. And then we read:
"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." (v. 21)
Friday, Saturday, Sunday would get the disciples to the "third day". They understood the word Jesus had spoken, and that means they also understood the prophecy of Jonah.
It's all there and it all makes perfect sense.
It's math, not prophesy. And could you please refrain from trying to insult me every post.
Jesus said he was going to be in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. Let's say He died early enough of Friday to count friday. Then you have Friday day, Friday night, Saturday Day, Saturday night, and resurrected Sunday morning. Now, even if you count Sunday morning as a day, you're still short one night.
"He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.' " (v. 6).
Using your previous post regarding the way the Hebrews counted the days, this says Jesus was resurrected on Tuesday.
The problem with using this as proof is that the "days ago" is how many days ago he fell sick, and "three days and three nights" is how long ago he didn't eat or drink. The two things are not neccesarily related. You're drawing the conclusion that the two events (not eating, and being sick) must match up. You're assuming that he didn't eat anything or drink on the first day or night that he was sick.
But let's get to the meat of the matter:
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Compare with:
Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.
Scripturally, Jesus HAD to be in the grave the same amount of time that Jonah was in the fish or else he was not the messiah.
So let's look at it the opposite way...how long was Jonah IN the fish? As far as I can tell, it has always been understood to be literally three days and three nights. Not parts of days and nights to equal 3, but a literal three days and three nights.
However, you are espousing the position that no, Jonah was NOT actually in the fish for three days and three nights, but was in the fish for something less than three days and three nights and that this too, is an idiom. In fact, your position is that this idiom is applied TWICE, once in the new testament and once in the old testament, to designate a time period that IS KNOWN.
Let me repeat this is bold: Your position is that this idiom is applied TWICE, once in the new testament and once in the old testament, to designate a time period that IS KNOWN.
In other words, instead of just putting down the actual number of days and nights that Jonah was in the fish AND Jesus was in the earth, God had to generalize and confuse the issue by inspiring a non-specific idiom to be used. Is that credible?
Now from some preliminary research I've done, the understanding of the story of Jonah is that it's a literal three days and three nights that Jonah was in the fish and that this has been the understanding for milleniums. I've emailed the question to a rabbi to ask if what the traditional jewish understanding was of the time frame that Jonah spent in the fish. I'll share that info when it comes.
Why 72 hours? Because Jesus Christ affirms that a day is 12 hours:
Joh 11:9 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.
Since a day is 12 hours, then a night is also 12 hours.
Let me illustrate this another way.
Mat 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
Mat 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
You're saying that Jesus Christ was basing his messiahship on an idiom who's exact time length was unknown AT THE TIME. Or, you're saying that the Pharisee's understood that Jonah was NOT in the fish three days and three nights, but instead was only in there 2 nights and 1 day. How they knew this without Christ being dead in the grave is a mystery indeed.
"Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
Yeah....that's always been an amazement to me also...his one and only sign proving his Messiah ship.....and some folks think he meant only a day and a half. Three days and three nights does not line up with their tradition. But....most other scripture does not line up with their tradition either. Why should I express surprise?
Blessed Sabbath to you Douglas.
Mat 12:40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Compare with:
Jon 1:17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.
Scripturally, Jesus HAD to be in the grave the same amount of time that Jonah was in the fish or else he was not the messiah.
Perhaps, but Mat 12:40 doesn't say Jesus. It says "son of man" (idiom for a human being). And it doesn't say grave, it says "heart of the earth". Resurrection timing theories aside, the traditional assumption that he spoke of himself in the grave may be correct, but considering church track record on interpretation, I'd rather mark this one as "subject to further clarification." It's not like there is another NT passage that describes Jesus by name as spending three days and three mights in the grave, so I am leery of making that leap. The closest NT reference to three days and three nights (besides Jonah) is in Revelation 11, where the two prophets lie dead in the street for three days and a half. Then they rise and are beheld by their enemies.
So unless, for example, the earth is alive with a literal beating heart, the phrase "heart of the earth" is metaphorical. Could be a grave, but a city that is spiritually equated to Sodom and Egypt is a city with a corrupt heart, and considering that...
Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
... the heart of a wicked earth would be as Sodom and Egypt. Or say, Babylon.
Besides, there are two prophets addressed as ben adam: Ezekiel, and also Daniel. I am not claiming that the prophets of Revelation 11 are literal and are Ezekiel and Daniel (e.g. the prophets could represent the two houses/sticks of Israel, and/or the Law and the Prophets, and/or the Torah rollers - etz chaim), only that a closer inspection of Mat 12:40 does lead in an alternate direction. If the followers of Jesus insist that he (Jesus) was the sign of the prophet Jonah, then they inadvertantly identify themselves with an evil and adulterous generation.
Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Yet over at Revelation 11, who observed the dead prophets in the street and sent presents to each other, happy those prophets had finally stopped harassing them?
Revelation 11:8-12
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
2588 kardia {kar-dee'-ah}
prolonged from a primary kar (Latin, cor, "heart"); TDNT - 3:605,415; n f
AV - heart 159, broken hearted + 4937 1; 160
1) the heart
1a) that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the
circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat
of physical life
1b) denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life
2a) the vigour and sense of physical life
2b) the centre and seat of spiritual life
2b1) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the
thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections,
purposes, endeavours
2b2) of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the
intelligence
2b3) of the will and character
2b4) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a
bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the
sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires,
appetites, passions
1c) of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even
though inanimate
I suspect this study will go over as "well" as it always does. :-/
Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
Mark 8:31 Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".
Mark 9:31 Again he refers to himself as the "Son of Man".
John 2:19-21 Here he refers to his own body.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Sure you want to quote these guys? :-/ At least your next quote (Mark 8:31) is direct, but then again, in that particular verse, he 1) does not have to be referring to himself (I am NOT saying that he isn't referring to himself, only that it's not demanded by the text), and 2) the "after three days" gets caught up in the the timeline battles, as three days and three nights may be a longer timeframe than something occurring "after three days".
As far as your next quote (Mark 9:31):
Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mark 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
If this "son of man" (idiom for human being) is always the same person in the NT (Jesus), then there are problems reconciling "the third day", "after three days", "three days and three nights", "in three days" et al. All I am saying is, why make the assumption that "son of man" must always equate with Jesus? After all, Ezekiel for one is addressed as "son of man" ninety odd times. Yet not every "son of man" in the Hebrew Bible a reference to Ezekiel.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
It looks like you are of the [mistaken] impression that I believe Jesus did NOT refer to himself as the "son of man". Here's an example of when he did just that:
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
If I insisted/assumed that every time he spoke of the son of man, he was speaking of himself, I would have problems with verses mentioning the death and resurrection timeline. I don't believe the Bible is contradictory, only that man's understanding can be lacking, leading to confusion. Slow and steady wins the race. Because "son of man" means a human, if a verse/context doesn't make absolutely clear the individual, I just won't assume something that's not there. Other passages will eventually shed light, but not if they also require certain assumptions.
I guess this is not connecting with you.
Thank you....no apology necessary.
I see right away, part of our problem. Your internet definition for the Greek word epiphosko, is different then the one I find on Blue Letter Bible
Luke 23:54 The same word "Epiphosko" meaning to draw on is only used in scripture one other time. And that other time is here.
It is my contention that the translators had a bias....to try and show a Sunday morning resurrection. If the word "EPIPHOSKO" means "to draw on" (begin) in Luke why does it mean "the dawn of the first day of the week" here?
Matthew 28:1 in the Greek say nothing about early morning. It simply says This.
To reiterate an earlier post....in both cases when this word is used it means a new day is about to begin. In Luke it is the First High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. In Matthew it is the first day of the week. Both instances would be about sundown.
The way I recall Jewish understanding of days is not in total number of hours (24 hours=1 day, 48 hours=2 days, etc.). Rather it equates more to how a plumber bills you (any part of the hour gets charged for an hour...any part of a day gets billed as a day)
There is indeed a Hebrew idiom that counts part of one day as a whole day......unless both days and nights are mentioned....and then the meaning is literal.
It sounds like you are saying that Mark is not truely part of the inspired Word of God. That logic sounds similar to some Catholic logic, plus if some of Mark is wrong, then how can you trust any of it?
I am not saying that at all. What the Apostle John was cautioning folks about was that Mark sometimes did not have the events in proper sequence.
Read it again.....[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Thanks. I was beginning to think I was not being clear enough. These last few posts about "math" make it clear it's just stubbornness on their part, esp. since they have not dealt with any of the texts.
We could ask out friends, did it have to be precisely 72 hours, or could Jesus have risen after 71 hrs and 59 min? Or 72 hrs and 1 min? These questions point out how absurd their arguments would be to the Hebrew mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.