The Sign of Jonah for Islam

Muslims seem to be having trouble understanding the "Sign of Jonah." Because Islamworld and my webpage currently trade off for Google's number 1 slot on the subject, I have been overwhelmed with Muslim claims that the sign disproves Jesus, so please allow me to answer with Scriptures. Jesus said:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 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" (Mt 12:40)

The Muslim argument begins with the claim that Jonah was alive when he was thrown into the sea, was swallowed by the fish and then vomited out to go on and preach at Ninevah. They argue that if Jonah was alive, then Jesus must have been alive in the tomb.

Where do Scriptures say that Jonah did not die in the giant fish? From Jonah's prayer, it looks like he did:

"...Out of the belly of hell I cried...the earth with its bars closed behind me forever; Yet You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD, my God. When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD..." (Jonah 2)

Surely Islam agrees that once dead we do not cease to exist? This is not the whole miracle of Christ, but the parallels between Jesus and Jonah confirm each other.

Once the debate about the death of Jonah is over, the argument begins that Jesus was not dead three days and three nights. Read carefully what the Scriptures say. It was never written that Jesus was dead three days and three nights, how would that be a sign when Jesus had just called Lazarus out of the tomb after four days? Would Christ give a lesser sign?

"For He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21)

When Jesus became sin, He was engulfed by it on the night He was betrayed and arrested.

As I showed in "The Sign of Jonah," ALL of the Scriptures name the time by including Jesus SUFFERED, died and rose again wherever it is written: "three days and three nights." EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. One Scripture quotes a Pharisee that left out any form of "suffer," but that was because he was a Pharisee and didn't know. In the authority of Scripture, twelve times, the suffering of Christ is ALWAYS included.

The three days and three nights, as told by Scriptures, began when He was taken by the soldiers and presented as the Lamb, without blemish. His last noted Biblical miracle until His resurrection was healing an ear. At the exact moment in time when He was taken, He was made to be sin for us and the beatings and abuse began. If it was not so, then these verses would make no sense:

"He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace [prosperity, welfare] was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5)

"[We were redeemed]... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (1 Peter 1:19)

"For He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor 5:21)

Payment for our sins did not begin with His death, but when His precious blood flowed. This is what Scripture says. And at that point He was sin, "that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Jesus did not begin payment when He died but for three days and nights before He rose again, at the moment He was arrested. He even said so:

The heart of the earth, according to Scripture, is not death in the ground. The heart of the earth is the wickedness of men's souls. The heart of the earth is our sin that Jesus became surrounded and submerged in. Why do you think there are so many parables about sowing seed [the words of life] in the earth [the heart of man]? We are the earth, remember?

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen 2)

If death alone was the only price to redeem us, then why did Christ pay with so much more? "Wounded for transgressions." "Bruised for our iniquities." "By His stripes we are healed." All of that, ALL of it, is included in the sign of Jonah, who was praying "out of the belly of hell."

So to all of Islamworld who try to use the Sign of Jonah to criticize Christians and our beliefs, be very careful. We come to Christ as children, there are mysteries in the Bible that the Holy Spirit reveals in His timing, not ours. But what He has revealed to us we receive gratefully, because He came for us and for you too, if you would receive Him. Please don't miss the last words of Jonah's prayer fulfilled by Jesus:

God did not want you to miss His Son. Please do not miss the sign that He gave. It points directly at Jesus Christ and His suffering, death and resurrection that you could have life in Him.

Original "Sign of Jonah" given to atheists Much more in depth, even explains the man in linen on the night He was betrayed. http://www.blessedcause.org/BlessedCause%20Exclusives/The%20Sign%20of%20Jonah.htm

From John Gill: So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth", in distinction from the surface of it; but some difficulty arises about the time of his continuing there, and the prediction here made agreeable to the type: for it was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday", towards the close, on the day of the preparation for the sabbath, and when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first of the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, he rose from the dead; so that he was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave. To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural days, consisting of day and night, or twenty four hours, and are what the Greeks call νυχθημερα, "night days"; but the Jews have no other way of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule, and used on all occasions, as in the computation of their feasts and times of mourning, in the observance of the passover, circumcision, and divers purifications, that מקצת היום ככולו, "a part of a day is as the whole" (n): and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish. So Gill is basically saying that as a matter of Hebrew linguistics, it was ordinary to speak of day passages as day-night pairs, even when the event described did not cover the whole 24 hour period. It would be like saying “something will happen tomorrow,” by saying “something will happen during the next day-night cycle.” There is no reason to infer the event extended over the entire 24 hour period. Without wanting to split hairs, this seems more natural and less strained than the author’s theory that the “burial” in effect began in Gethsemane. If we explain our faith to Muslims, surely we can do so in a way that appeals to the ordinary meaning of words, and linguistic styling is certainly a legitimate way to get at the ordinary meaning of words. BTW, the young man in the linen is thought by some to be John Mark, author of the second Gospel. Other theories are possible, and there may be some symbolism in the loss of his clothing, but it is simply too speculative to see anything more here than an anonymous disciple so fearful of the adverse turn in circumstances he would rather dash off naked than keep his dignity. That natural and very human fear, and the stunning lack of it after the resurrection, becomes one of the best arguments that the resurrection was the real event that later gave the disciples their indestructible courage.

Reposting for clarity (html ate my homework): From John Gill:

"So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That Christ means himself by the "son of man", there is no reason to doubt; and his being laid in a tomb, dug out of a rock, is sufficient to answer this phrase, "the heart of the earth", in distinction from the surface of it; but some difficulty arises about the time of his continuing there, and the prediction here made agreeable to the type: for it was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday", towards the close, on the day of the preparation for the sabbath, and when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first of the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, he rose from the dead; so that he was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave. To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural days, consisting of day and night, or twenty four hours, and are what the Greeks call νυχθημερα, "night days"; but the Jews have no other way of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule, and used on all occasions, as in the computation of their feasts and times of mourning, in the observance of the passover, circumcision, and divers purifications, that מקצת היום ככולו, "a part of a day is as the whole" (n): and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, if but an hour, or ever so small a time, before or after it, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; he continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish."

So Gill is basically saying that as a matter of Hebrew linguistics, it was ordinary to speak of day passages as day-night pairs, even when the event described did not cover the whole 24 hour period. It would be like saying “something will happen tomorrow,” by saying “something will happen during the next day-night cycle.” There is no reason to infer the event extended over the entire 24 hour period. Without wanting to split hairs, this seems more natural and less strained than the author’s theory that the “burial” in effect began in Gethsemane. If we explain our faith to Muslims, surely we can do so in a way that appeals to the ordinary meaning of words, and linguistic styling is certainly a legitimate way to get at the ordinary meaning of words.

BTW, the young man in the linen is thought by some to be John Mark, author of the second Gospel. Other theories are possible, and there may be some symbolism in the loss of his clothing, but it is simply too speculative to see anything more here than an anonymous disciple so fearful of the adverse turn in circumstances he would rather dash off naked than keep his dignity. That natural and very human fear, and the stunning lack of it after the resurrection, becomes one of the best arguments that the resurrection was the real event that later gave the disciples their indestructible courage.

Thank you Springfield Reformer. You quoted a lot of what a well thought commentator said, using linquistics as an excuse for the misunderstanding of three days and three nights. But Christ said, "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." He could have said simply "three days" and left off the nights, but He didn't. He went through the trouble of naming nights as well, using the word νύξ (nux) which means night, TWICE. I don't think it's a linguistic problem. I think it's John Gill trying to explain the unexplainable...because Jesus did not say He was dead for three days and three nights, He said He was three days and nights in the heart of the earth. Jesus Himself used "earth" many times when He referred to man's heart. The "four soils" parable (originally "earth" in Scripture, Greek and KJV) confirms that earth is used to describe the heart of man. The importance of this is exemplified, for when the disciples asked Jesus to explain the parable, He said, "Know you not this parable? How then will you know all parables?" (Mk 4:13) Jesus then explains that the seed that was sown in the earth is: "the word that was sown in their hearts." (Mark 4:15) Do you want to believe commentators or the Scriptures?

People seem to forget that the time of the passion of Christ was the Feast of the Passover. These are also called "Sabbaths" and do not always just mean the seventh day of the week (Saturday). I agree that the sign was "three days AND three nights". If you count backwards from "early on the first day of the week" (Sunday morning) to Saturday morning is one day. Then Saturday morning to Friday morning is two days. Friday morning to Thursday morning is three days. But, if you notice, the women came to the tomb early on Sunday morning and the body was already gone. The angel at the tomb said, "He is not here. He has risen as he said.". The resurrection, then would have been the evening of the Saturday sabbath. Count backwards from there and you get to Jesus being crucified on WEDNESDAY and being buried that evening. There was a preparation day before the sabbath - the sabbath of the Passover - and they took the prisoners down from the crosses the preparation day.

Mark 15:42-43
"It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body."

That's why I believe that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and was buried that evening. Thursday was the Passover Feast then Friday would have been the preparation day for the regular sabbath on Saturday. If you count forward from Wednesday evening to Thursday evening it is the first day in the belly of the earth (the tomb). Thursday evening to Friday evening is the second day and Friday evening to Saturday evening is the third day. Christ arose on the evening of the Sabbath and the women came to the tomb very early on Sunday to anoint his body (they could not have done so on the Sabbaths) and he was already gone from the tomb. Anybody else agree with this but me?

I’ve heard that explanation and the explanation that Jesus was actually crucified on Thursday, double High Sabbaths, it was a unique year for Passover, but when I studied the events that took place between His being crucified and rising (what others were doing in the Bible leaves a timeframe) it did not add up to three days and three nights.

Why is it so hard to accept what the Scriptures say?

“In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn...” (Matt 28:1) “And when the Sabbath was past...and very early in the morning the first of the week... (Mark 16:1-2) “Now upon the first of the week, very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1) “The first of the week” (John 20:1) It all adds up to exactly three days and three nights when one accepts what Christ said,

“Know you not this parable? How then will you know all parables?” (Mk 4:13)

Jesus then explains that the seed that was sown in the earth is “the word that was sown in their hearts.” (Mark 4:15)

Read it in context:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4&version=NKJV

Friend, checking against how a people use their own language is hardly the false dilemma you present, and finding value in one who is wise in the Scriptures is not to deny Scripture, but to affirm Scripture. A good commentator is God’s gift to the Church via the Holy Spirit:

“And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit…” 1 Corinthians 12:6-8

And in two millennia of the indestructible Church, those who have taught have long found it beneficial to consider the impact of idiomatic expressions on Biblical understanding. While I reject an undue elasticity in symbolic interpretation, there is also a kind of hyper-literalism which is equally capable of distorting the truth by treating these idioms as if there were not there.

If I tried to say, for example, that the Bible is wrong when it says “the sun rises,” because any modern person knows full well the sun is stationary and it is the earth that rotates, would I not be going too far? Absolutely. The sun rising is a matter of earthy perspective, and that perspective is captured in the idiom; it is simply a way of speaking that communicates a definite idea to any listener familiar with the idiom, and it is not wrong to rely upon it as true, despite the “scientific” imprecision of the idiom.

Likewise, Hebrew idiom has a long history of describing first and last days of an interval as full day-night cycles, even when only a fraction of the first and last day are actually used by the durational event. For example:

“A short time in the morning of the seventh day counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day.” See Jewish Encyclopedia,Vol.4, pg.474

If we are not allowed to consider the idiomatic rules of a given language in order to gather the true meaning, then anyone can come along and inject whatever they want into the text and we have no defense against error. I have a commitment to not accept any doctrine in which I must lie to myself about some difficult detail in order to accept it. The idiomatic use of “three days and three nights” is awkward to the modern, western mind, so governed by precise clock and calendar as we are. But it was completely comfortable for them, and we really tread on dangerous ground trying to force the text to operate by modern western time sense, when it is clearly not designed to do so.

Furthermore, your interpretation runs afoul of its own precision. You contend, in effect, that a precise 72 hour timer started sometime before the crucifixion, and that Jesus remained in the tomb until the last second of the third day ticked off the clock. But if that were the case, how could Jesus rise *on* the third day? There are 14 NT passages affirming this. One of the best is here:

“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, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 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.” Luke 24:19-21

In the above passage, “today” is clearly the not fully expired third day, and yet these disciples are speaking with the resurrected Jesus. Yet according to you this can only be the fourth day, because he cannot rise until the third day has fully expired. You cannot have it both ways. Therefore, if he rose sooner than the literal end of the third day, and it is clear from the above passage he did, the idiomatic notion of partial days is the only possible explanation that I can hold without afflicting my conscience.

SR, of course it's necessary to understand the expressions of the time, and I apologize if I've insulted you in some way, I didn't mean to.

I don't believe Jesus ticked off time to rise exactly when He said He would, I think He knew in advance when He would and told us.

It's funny that you brought up that verse, because I was just noticing it also confirms exactly what I've been saying:

"and HOW the chief priests and our rulers DELIVERED Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him."..."Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ TO HAVE SUFFERED these things and to enter into His glory?” [notice no where in Scripture does it say by His death and resurrection only, except one time that I could find when quoting others who had no clue. Scriptures always include His suffering, death and resurrection, because it was never about His death and resurrection alone, payment began when He was delivered, when the blood began to flow, when He became our sins, immersed in them, on the night He was betrayed]

You posted that verse, I think, to show that not all days were expired. I never meant to imply they were. I believe with the crack of the ray of sun of the third day, He rose again "on the third day"

But in all of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the timeline of what everyone was doing from the time He was put in the tomb until the first break of the sun on the third day, it was not three days and three nights or even partially three days and three nights. The clock started ticking on the night He was betrayed.

-"On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation"

-"Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn"

-Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour

-because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,

-Now when the Sabbath was past,

-Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

-Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour

-Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning

There are so many previously puzzling pieces that fit perfectly in Scripture. But if you want to believe a commentator claiming it's a linguistics issue, well, I feel blessed that for now we live in a country that we can all believe what we choose without persecution. If only they would allow children in public school the same freedom.

Here's an example of an analogy common in Sunni Islam. A great landowner is angry because of the actions of his servants. Rather than punish them, the landowner kills his son as an atonement. Anyone familiar with the Bible will know this is a spin off of a parable told by Jesus. But in Jesus’ tale, the servants kill the son.
Sunnis use this analogy to explain what to them is the ridiculous idea that God might sacrifice His Son for the sins of others. The Son is innocent; why should the innocent pay for the sins of the guilty?
Of course, it you understand the Christian message, you know how to refute this analogy. First, though we are servants of God, we are also His children. He loves us as His greatest creation. Second, the sacrifice of Jesus - that is, of God Himself in the second person of the Trinity - is the greatest act of Divine love that can be imagined. Third, no sacrifice made by humans could ever atone for the staggering guilt of mankind.
Shia tend to reason by syllogism. A simple example: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
This sort of reasoning has to attacked at the premise.
Remember: almost all learning in Islam is by rote. Innovation is scorned and in most instances it is condemned.
Its easy to argue with Muslims, but you cannot do so by arguing directly from the Bible. You must attack their reasoning at its base. That requires an understanding of classical logic. Books that teach the rudiments can be obtained at most pubic libraries.

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.