3 days and 3 nights

  • Thread starter Thread starter javid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
javid said:
Hi.

Lord jesus’ Resurrection happend 3 days and 3 nights after his Crucifixion.

But can’t find 3 days and 3 nights between Friday’s sunset and Sunday’s sunrise.

please help me.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Learn about synecdoche
dictionary.reference.com/browse/synecdoche
a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special, as in ten sail for ten ships or a Croesus for a rich man.
Other examples would be buying 20 head of cattle or asking someone to give you a hand. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any examples where the whole denotes the part, but I have seen them before.
3 days and 3 nights is an example of the latter, denoting part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday.
 
DavidFilmer,

re: “Umm, you cited one such example…Matt 12:40.”

Umm, actually I didn’t. Matthew 12:40 is not an example where the Messiah’s 3 prophesied nights absolutely had to mean 2 nights.

re: “Why are you asking this?”

The OP seems to be questioning the lack of a 3rd night between the Messiah’s death and His resurrection. Several responses appear to suggest that Matthew12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic/figure of speach language of the period. I am simply curious if there is any writing from that time to support such a contention.

re: “What do you think ‘three days and three nights’ means?”

I think that it most likely means that at least parts of 3 daytimes and at least parts of 3 nighttimes were involved between the Messiah’s death and His resurrection.

re: “Why do you think this is important?”

When asked by the scribes and Pharisees for a sign of his authority, the Messiah said that the only sign would be His entombment - assumming that is what the "heart of the earth refers to - for three days AND three nights. If He didn’t spend that time in the tomb, then He would not qualify.
 
DavidFilmer,

re: "If someone today… told you he went to a party at 3:00 PM on Friday, and the party lasted three days and three nights, when would you think the party ended? At dawn on Monday? At 3:00 PM on Monday?

Since each calendar day consists of 2 night times separated by 1 daytime, the only way someone could say that the party lasted “three days and three nights” is if they stopped the party for one of the night times and then started again during a subsequent daytime. Therefore, I think the latest the party could have ended would be at some point during Sunday daytime.
 
rstrats said:
DavidFilmer,

re: “Umm, you cited one such example…Matt 12:40.”

Umm, actually I didn’t. Matthew 12:40 is not an example where the Messiah’s 3 prophesied nights absolutely had to mean 2 nights.

re: “Why are you asking this?”

The OP seems to be questioning the lack of a 3rd night between the Messiah’s death and His resurrection. Several responses appear to suggest that Matthew12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic/figure of speach language of the period. I am simply curious if there is any writing from that time to support such a contention.

re: “What do you think ‘three days and three nights’ means?”

I think that it most likely means that at least parts of 3 daytimes and at least parts of 3 nighttimes were involved between the Messiah’s death and His resurrection.

re: “Why do you think this is important?”

When asked by the scribes and Pharisees for a sign of his authority, the Messiah said that the only sign would be His entombment - assumming that is what the "heart of the earth refers to - for three days AND three nights. If He didn’t spend that time in the tomb, then He would not qualify.
Click to expand...
The following seems to me to be a reasonable explanation
catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/3Days3Nights.pdf

Not everything in scripture is to be taken in a wooden literal sense as others have pointed out.
 
steve b,
re: “Not everything in scripture is to be taken in a wooden literal sense…”

And I’m simply asking for some writing to support that non-literal sense with regard to Matthew 12:40. If the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language I would think that there should be examples of phrases stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when they absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specified number of days and at least parts of each one of the specified number of nights.
 
rstrats said:
If the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language I would think that there should be examples of phrases stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when they absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specified number of days and at least parts of each one of the specified number of nights.
Click to expand...
I would think that this is a case where “absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.” The assertion that “there should be examples” is one that, on the surface, seems reasonable. Yet, the fact that it only shows up in this form once – and in that appearance, as a direct quotation from the Old Testament! – leads us to believe otherwise. A very important part of Matthew’s project is to show how Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the OT. As such, while Matthew quotes Jonah 2:1 directly here, the other evangelists do not – in fact, Luke even tweaks the meaning of the allusion further: for him, the ‘sign’ is “to the Ninevites” just as Jesus is a sign to “this generation.”

Here’s the thing: no one else uses this turn of phrase; in fact, the more common expression is “on the third day” or “after three days”. Matthew himself uses “on the third day” in other passages (see Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:18-19). If “three days and three nights” is intended as a literal expression, then we only have a few choices:
  • we’ve got it backward: “on the third day” and “after three days” are the idiomatic expressions
  • they’re all literal expressions, so Matthew explicitly contradicts himself.
The former choice doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The latter asks us to believe that not only are the Gospels in error, but that a single evangelist himself was a poor enough editor to make such a glaring (and significant) blunder.

No, “three days and three nights” doesn’t hold up as a literal expression. Given the fact that it’s a literal quote from Jonah 2:1, then, it’s more reasonable to conclude that Matthew is using the expression in a way that is not strictly literal.
 
rstrats said:
steve b,
re: “Not everything in scripture is to be taken in a wooden literal sense…”

And I’m simply asking for some writing to support that non-literal sense with regard to Matthew 12:40. If the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language I would think that there should be examples of phrases .
Click to expand...
places in scripture, where 3 days is idiomatic, and ≠ 72 hours

Examples to follow, where the following phrases are used to mean 3 days, but NOT a literal 72 hour period.
  • the third day
  • AFTER three days
  • THREE days and THREE nights
2 of those 3 phrases are used in the following passages verses 63 &64.

I think you’ll agree, they are saying the same thing

Matthew 27:61-66
[61] And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre. [62] And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, [63] Saying: Sir, we have remembered, that that seducer said, while he was yet alive: After three days I will rise again. [64] Command therefore the sepulchre to be guarded until the third day: lest perhaps his disciples come and steal him away, and say to the people: He is risen from the dead; and the last error shall be worse than the first. [65] Pilate saith to them: You have a guard; go, guard it as you know.

footnote [62] The day of preparation: The eve of the sabbath; so called, because on that day they prepared all things necessary; not being allowed so much as to dress their meat on the sabbath day.

[66] And they departing, made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting guards.

Was 3 daya a literal 3 days =72 hours? No

Then consider this,

AFTER the Resurrection

"Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered Him [Jesus]
‘Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?.. and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him…it is NOW THE THIRD DAY SINCE THIS HAPPENED…’ (Luke 24:18-21) Is that a literal 72 hours on the clock? No

Jesus on the road to Emmaus, on the SAME DAY of His Resurrection (Sunday), “the first day of the week”. ( Luke 24:1-13), it is said to be “NOW THE THIRD DAY since this happened” – i.e. since he was delivered up to be condemned to death and was crucified. Was that 3rd day, a literal 72 hours after the event on the clock? No

I would suggest
· This proves “a day” also counts as part of a day in their way of speaking.
· A literal 72 hours did NOT need to elapse between Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection for it to be “the THIRD day” in the way they speak
· Said another way, context shows, if we insist 72 hours is the absolute literal requirement for understanding 3 days, then we are pushing back onto these writers and these texts, a literal condition they did not hold themselves to.

These passages alone Luke 24:1 , Luke 24:13-27 shows the Friday-Sunday chronology is not a wooden literal 72 hrs.

Just as 3 days & 3 nights is another way of saying 3 days
 
Gorgias,

re: “No, ‘three days and three nights’ doesn’t hold up as a literal expression. Given the fact that it’s a literal quote from Jonah 2:1, then, it’s more reasonable to conclude that Matthew is using the expression in a way that is not strictly literal.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how quoting Jonah shows that Matthew understands the Messiah’s statement in a non-literal way unless you can show that Jonah was in the fish for only 2 nights.
 
steve b,
re: “places in scripture, where 3 days is idiomatic, and ≠ 72 hours”

I’m not questioning a full 72 hours. There are some who say that when the Messiah prophesied that He would be in the heart of the earth for three nights, that He actually meant that it would be for two nights. They say that it would be understood that way because it was a common method of counting daytimes and night times - that it was a common idiom of the period. If there are no examples of writing from the first century or before that show where a daytime and/or a night time was forecasted to be involved when no part of either one could have actually taken place, I wonder how it can be said that it was a common way of counting? Also, none of the verses that you reference do that.
 
rstrats said:
DavidFilmer,

re: “Umm, you cited one such example…Matt 12:40.”

Umm, actually I didn’t. Matthew 12:40 is not an example where the Messiah’s 3 prophesied nights absolutely had to mean 2 nights.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I got your question backwards. I thought you were taking the (apparent) position of the OP.
 
steve b,

re: “Then the question has been answered.”

I don’t see how.
 
rstrats said:
40.png
Gorgias:
No, ‘three days and three nights’ doesn’t hold up as a literal expression. Given the fact that it’s a literal quote from Jonah 2:1, then, it’s more reasonable to conclude that Matthew is using the expression in a way that is not strictly literal.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how quoting Jonah shows that Matthew understands the Messiah’s statement in a non-literal way unless you can show that Jonah was in the fish for only 2 nights.
Click to expand...
My claim is simply that Matthew’s goal here is along the lines of what his project is throughout his Gospel: showing how the OT texts refer to Jesus. So, in his description of this event, Matthew directly quotes the book of Jonah and makes the reference back to its fulfillment in Jesus. My claim is that what’s important to Matthew is the literal fulfillment in Jesus, and not necessarily the literal 3 days + 3 nights. (After all, as I’ve pointed out, he uses other language referring to the Triduum in other places in his Gospel, and they aren’t references to “3 days and 3 nights.”)

But, your question raises an interesting issue: do we, in fact, know that Jonas was in belly of a while for precisely 72 hours (i.e., 3 days + 3 nights)? Actually, we don’t. Let’s ask this question: is the book of Jonah written in a way that is always literal expression, such that we can be confident in the ‘72 hours’ assertion?
 
I think this thread has become very confused (at least I got confused). This thread was necroposted (against forum guidelines) by rstrats. The OP is javid, who has not been active here for more than three months.

I suggest that participants refrain from further participation in this two-year-old+ thread. If rstrats (or anybody else) wants to reopen this topic to discuss a particular point, I recommend that s/he open a new thread, per Forum guidelines. CAF is running a special - new threads are completely free (they are normally $1000 USD each - I had to remortgage my house just to post 20 new threads, but you can do it for free).
 
DavidFilmer,

re: “This thread was necroposted (against forum guidelines)…”

I’ve looked at the rules and can’t find where they prohibit posting to old topics that are still open. What do you have in mind?
 
david b,

re: “you agree that 3 days ≠ a wooden literal 72 hrs.”

But that isn’t the OP’s or my question.
 
Gorgias,

re: “… in his description of this event, Matthew directly quotes the book of Jonah and makes the reference back to its fulfillment in Jesus.”

And in order for Jonah’s experience to be fulfilled by the Messiah, a third night would have to have been involved. Unless of course it can be shown that Jonah was in the fish for only two nights.

re: “(After all, as I’ve pointed out, he uses other language referring to the Triduum in other places in his Gospel, and they aren’t references to ‘3 days and 3 nights.’)”

How many times would you say scripture has to repeat something in order for it to be true?
 
rstrats said:
And in order for Jonah’s experience to be fulfilled by the Messiah, a third night would have to have been involved.
Click to expand...
Really? Was Jesus named ‘Emmanuel’? If not, then was Isaiah’s prophecy not fulfilled by the Messiah?

Did Elijah literally come to announce the Messiah? If not, then was Malachi’s prophecy not fulfilled by the Messiah?

Or, isn’t more the case that prophecy is understood and interpreted in a way that isn’t always strictly literal? And, if so, isn’t it the case that a prophecy of ‘three days and three nights’ doesn’t require a literal fulfillment of 72 hours in order to be understood to have been fulfilled?

Of course that’s the case: Jesus is Emmanuel – even if that wasn’t his name. ‘Elijah’ did return to the people of God – even if it wasn’t literally, but through the ministry of John the Baptist. And Jesus did fulfill the sign of Jonah – even though He wasn’t in the tomb for 72 hours. Your demand that prophecy be fulfilled strictly and literally is not only unreasonable, but flies in the face of the way that Christians over the last two millennia have interpreted Scriptural prophecy. 🤷
How many times would you say scripture has to repeat something in order for it to be true?
Click to expand...
More to the point: how many times would Scripture have to seemingly contradict itself – at least, on a strict and literal level – in order for it to be untrue?
 
Gorgias,

re: “Was Jesus named ‘Emmanuel’?”

Scripture says that “they shall call His name Immanuel”. Was that one of the names that the Messiah was actually called? We don’t know since scripture doesn’t say.

re: "Did Elijah literally come to announce the Messiah? If not, then was Malachi’s prophecy not fulfilled by the Messiah?

Malachi, in speaking about the end times, says nothing about Elijah coming to announce the Messiah.

re: " …isn’t it the case that a prophecy of ‘three days and three nights’ doesn’t require a literal fulfillment of 72 hours in order to be understood…"

Where have I said anything about a 72 hour requirement?

re: "More to the point: how many times would Scripture have to seemingly contradict itself – at least, on a strict and literal level – in order for it to be untrue?

One time would be enough. However, where has it been asserted that Matthew 12:40 has to be a contradiction in light of other scriptures?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top