3 days and 3 nights

[JohnR77]

** R**strats , your stated position is that “three day and three nights” must include a portion of three different nights. Whereas, it has been countered that the phrase is only a poetic way of simply referring to three different days.

My Statement:
Only a fool would insist that two thousand years ago in a different culture and language that others would think, speak, and phrase things in exactly the same way that a small particular group – English speakers in the year 2015- would do.

In Jesus’ day, and Jonah’s day, they did not have electronic clocks. Time was measured in by either the day/night cycle, the moon cycle, or the seasonal yearly cycle. The phrase “3 days and 3 nights” was just indication and poetic way of referring to the day cycle and counting it as 3 units, nothing more.
It does not mean a portion of 3 daytime periods and 3 nighttime periods.

I have shown here
defendingthebride.com/mc/sa/three.html
that three days are fulfilled in Jewish eyes when only a portion of each day is counted.
And this page shows how Esther uses the Night/Day or Day/Night phrase to single out which cycle she was counting.

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.

From this quote above it is reasonable for me to infer that you are wanting to prove that Jesus did not fulfill His prophesy and is not the messiah. As 10,000? different Protestant denominations demonstrate there are many different ways to interpret a verse.

We have provided an interpretation that shows the prophecy was fulfilled.

You on the other hand insist only your interpretation of “ 3 days and 3 nights” be accepted.

So, where is your proof, that in Jonah’s day since Jesus was quoting from Jonah’s book, that only your interpretation is acceptable ?

How many quotes or books from this time period have you read and provided to us to prove that only your interpretation is acceptable ?

Who is best able to decide whether or not our suggested interpretation is correct?

Obviously Saint Matthew thought the interpretation that I and others have provided is correct or he would not have included it. The early Church and two thousand years of Bible study confirm this by including Saint Matthew’s Gospel in the Bible.

Surely, you are not arrogant enough to think you found a verse that no else has found before.

.

 

[Gorgias]

re: “Was Jesus named ‘Emmanuel’?”

Was that one of the names that the Messiah was actually called? We don’t know since scripture doesn’t say.

In other words, “not a literal interpretation.” Check!

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.

Actually, he does: “Now I am sending to you Elijah the prophet, Before the day of the LORD comes, the great and terrible day” (Mal 3:23)

And, of course, it isn’t fulfilled literally: “[Jesus said,] ‘if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come.’” (Mt 11:14)

In other words, “not a literal interpretation.” Check!

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?

Fair enough. You’re calling for a literal three days and three nights.

But, as I’ve demonstrated, prophecy doesn’t have to be fulfilled in a strictly literal way in order for it to be true. And so, a literal “three days and three nights” doesn’t have to be what we take from Christ’s words…

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?

If we’re being forced to take these expressions literally, how can “three days and three nights” == “on the third day” == “after three days”?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

rstrats,

Let me see if I understand your position correctly;

You are not interested in proving a literal 3 full days and 3 full nights, aka 72hours, of Jesus being in the tomb; you do accept that part of a day can be counted as a full day. But you do have a problem with there not being at least part of 3 distinct nights, and part of three distinct days involved.

You do admit, that by Jewish reckoning of time, that a ‘day’ starts in the evening (not at midnight) and it starts with darkness. But even so, we have only counted 2 partial days, and two nights for absolute certain. Notably and in order: On the day he was executed – it was during the Day that they placed him him IN the tomb, He was still there Early Saturday evening (Pre-dawn version on Night), Saturday Day, and the beginning of Sunday (eg: pre-dawn version of night).

John Tells us that one of the Mary’s who followed Jesus went to the tomb ‘while it was still Dark’ on the first day of the week (John 20:1) AKA. Sunday, and found that the tomb was already empty ; so that we know he rose or at least left the tomb before the daytime began on Sunday, eg: he is traditionally supposed to have risen in the night. (Although no one sees him arisen for sure until later Sunday, perhaps in the afternoon or evening…so we don’t know for sure he was above ground, although he was not in the tomb, late Sunday morning).

So – the known days are: Day of Execution, and Satur-Day, (but no Sunday).
And the known nights are: Night before Satur-Day’s light, Night before Sun-Day’s light.

Which means, he was in the tomb during at least part of three distinct Jewish Days:
Preparation Day, Sabbath, and Sunday.

Have I summarized and elucidated what you would be willing to agree with correctly so far ?

One confusing issue we are facing is that Jewish reckoning clearly understands a day of the week to be an entity that contains both night and day – but Hebrew expressions also often considers ‘Day’ to signify merely the light of a day.; eg: it’s context sensitive how one interprets ‘day’.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

[rstrats]

My purpose for butting into this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah spent in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language when he has the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when the Messiah knew that it would only be for 2 nights. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

 

[Gorgias]

there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language when he has the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when the Messiah knew that it would only be for 2 nights. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

Fair enough.

Yet, I’ve provided three additional ways of thinking about it. First, an argument from the lack of contradiction – the length of time was spoken of in two completely different ways, and yet we do not presume a contradiction exists, and therefore, a non-literal interpretation is the only one that makes sense. Second, an argument from the perspective that it’s a direct quotation, and the ways we use direct quotes is that we apply some other situation to our current situation in order to show analogies. And finally, an argument that the fulfillment of prophecy is not a strict, literal thing.

Any of these arguments should be sufficient to allow one to conclude that this isn’t meant to be taken literally. Are you arguing for literalism, or just against the assertion “it’s an idiom”?

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,
re: “Fair enough. Yet, I’ve provided three additional ways of thinking about it.”

But you haven’t provided any examples that show that it was common to say that a night time or a daytime was involved with an event when no part of either one actually occured.

re: “Are you arguing for literalism, or just against the assertion ‘it’s an idiom’?”

I’m not trying to argue anything other than “arguing” that my request hasn’t yet been fulfilled.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Gorgias,
re: “Fair enough. Yet, I’ve provided three additional ways of thinking about it.”

But you haven’t provided any examples that show that it was common to say that a night time or a daytime was involved with an event when no part of either one actually occured.

You’re asking too much, and unfairly.
It’s never true that no part of either occurred, for only the 'Night" is missing on Friday, and only the Day is missing on Sunday. Also, we have no direct evidence that he was above ground during all of Sunday Day – only that he was not in the tomb.

The fact that his body is able to walk through locked doors after the resurrection has been viewed, indicates that it might also have moved through rock and earth to visit other peoples graves if that’s what God wanted it to do before people saw it rise.

All we know for sure is that the body had arisen, above ground sometime Sunday; we don’t know, though, exactly when.

re: “Are you arguing for literalism, or just against the assertion ‘it’s an idiom’?”

I’m not trying to argue anything other than “arguing” that my request hasn’t yet been fulfilled.

Your original request was just whether it was common idiom.
It’s questionable how one could show it’s common or not, for the prophet Jonah was seldom spoken of in scripture, period. The fact that scripture only records a fraction of the common language of the time makes such a question a matter of opinion, and although one could go outside the bible – I doubt there is enough Jewish writing preserved to find the detail you want definitively.

But, there is a type of prophetic thought which can be traced throughout scripture which shows that three days and three nights is consistent with an evil sign, which would be inappropriate to have totally fulfilled. eg: it is likely that in Jewish interpretation that it is logically inappropriate for Jesus to have suffered the full three days and night if he really is the Son of God.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Fair enough. Yet, I’ve provided three additional ways of thinking about it.

But you haven’t provided any examples that show that it was common to say that a night time or a daytime was involved with an event when no part of either one actually occured.

True – because I’m making the claim that the idiomatic usage can be inferred from the principles I’ve outlined.

For example, with respect to the ‘quotation’ assertion, I’d ask you to consider the following: have you ever heard someone (mis)quote Shakespeare by saying “the lady protests too much, I think”? What’s been your response to them? Was it “hey! I don’t see any lady here! Show me somewhere that somebody else said this non-literally, as proof that you’re not talking about some complaining woman!”…? Of course not. Similarly, here, we have a quotation which, we see, isn’t to be taken literally (especially in conjunction with the fact that two other (conflicting, if literal!) expressions are used to describe the time between the crucifixion and resurrection!)…

rstrats:

Gorgias:

Are you arguing for literalism, or just against the assertion ‘it’s an idiom’?

I’m not trying to argue anything other than “arguing” that my request hasn’t yet been fulfilled.

Right – without any justification other than “well, there should be another example somewhere…”! I’m just demonstrating that I believe that there are other arguments – besides another example – that show the reasonableness of the ‘non-literal’ argument.

 

[DavidFilmer]

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?

I didn’t say necroposting was prohibited - I said it was against Forum guidelines. I refer to the post by our tireless Moderator, Michael Francis, in the sticky section of this Forum.

Discouraging necroposting is a longstanding and common rule of etiquette in usenet groups (newsgroups), which far predate the modern internet. Per Michael Francis:
MichaelFrancis:

Your cooperation and courtesy in not reopening old/dormant threads is requested:

-1. the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally

-2. posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he is quoting was made a year ago).

 

[rstrats]

DavidFilmer,
re: “This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he is quoting was made a year ago).”

There are 913 pages of topics going back to 2004. At least 850 of those pages have been inactive for the last 12 months. If it is the desire of the moderator that those inactive topics on those pages not be responded to, why haven’t they been locked? This would end the frustration and lack of etiquette that he mentions and maybe eliminate any pain caused you by your apparent concern over the issue.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

The Hebrews at that time counted a day as starting at sunset of the previous day. What’s more, they didn’t divide a day, anything that happened during the night or day was counted as that day. So Friday was counted as a day, Saturday (starting at sundown Friday) was a day and Sunday (again starting at sundown Saturday) was counted as a day.

 

[rstrats]

Ignatius,
re: “The Hebrews at that time counted a day as starting at sunset of the previous day. What’s more, they didn’t divide a day, anything that happened during the night or day was counted as that day.”

See post #17. But you probably shouldn’t be responding to this topic per DavidFilmer’s suggestion “that participants refrain from further participation in this two-year-old+ thread” even though the topic is still open and hasn’t been locked. Nevertheless, it seems to be causing him a bit of concern which we probably shouldn’t continue to exasperate. .

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius,
re: “The Hebrews at that time counted a day as starting at sunset of the previous day. What’s more, they didn’t divide a day, anything that happened during the night or day was counted as that day.”

See post #17. But you probably shouldn’t be responding to this topic per DavidFilmer’s suggestion “that participants refrain from further participation in this two-year-old+ thread” even though the topic is still open and hasn’t been locked. Nevertheless, it seems to be causing him a bit of concern which we probably shouldn’t continue to exasperate. .

Ah, I didn’t see that. Thanks.
Michael Francis:

…

Michael, can you please close this thread so folks don’t post to it any more?

 

[rstrats]

And while he’s at it, he should lock all topics that haven’t been active for a year or more in accordance with the Forum guidelines.

 

[Cathoholic]

javid. You stated (with spelling correction mine):

Lord Jesus’ Resurrection happened 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.

What you are referring to if I am not mistaken is

MATTHEW 12:38-41 38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall 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 whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

JONAH 1:17, 2:1-2 17 And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. 1 Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish, 2 saying, "I called to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and thou didst hear my voice.

---

Count-Down Denial

Sometimes you will see what I call “count-down denial” to Jesus as Messiah.

Deniers of Jesus’ Messiahship will say something to the effect of:

“Well if it isn’t strictly 3 nights in the belly of the earth or at least portions of three nights, it is safe to assume Jesus prophecy was not accurate and the implications of that impugn claims of Jesus as Messiah.”

The objection assumes they know what in “the belly of the fish three days and three nights” in the Book of Jonah strictly meant. Yet it is unlikely that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for precisely 72 hours.

---

Harmonizing The Evidence

There are a several ways to harmonize this using all the evidence without employing “count-down denial”, or using a “count-down objection”. I’ll just talk about two.

But whatever way you look at it, remember all the initial Christians were Jews. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

So if Matthew 12:40 were NOT in some sense fulfilled (“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”) . . . we would EXPECT the early Christians, who were all Jews, to have objected on the basis of “count-down” objections—but they didn’t.

Again, we would have expected the first Christians to use the “count-down” denial or at least questioning. But this did not occur.

I am not aware of any of the early heretics even using “Count-down denial”.

We also would expect the Rabbinic Jews who denied Jesus as Messiah, to use count-down objections. They SHOULD have immediately objected to Jesus Messiahship based upon this (if “count-down denial” was a valid objection). But I know of no source where this occurred either.

WHY would nobody object based upon alleged LACK of fulfillment of 3-days/3-nights prophecy? Apparently because it WAS fulfilled.

OK. But in WHAT manner was this prophecy fulfilled?

We don’t know for sure. But we have some evidence.

---

Harmonizing The Evidence—Possibly A Hebrew Idiomatic Expression

Some have suggested Hebrew idiomatic expressions. Part of a day, even a small part of that day, being defined as that WHOLE given day.

I am going to assume a Good Friday death of our Lord Jesus. Some will say, The Crucifixion occurred on a Wednesday. That can be argued on a different forum thread. Some have argued that different sects of ancient Jews even followed differing calendars. Too many unknown variables lie in ancient Jewish calendar disputes for a thread of this subject.

Jesus was placed in the Holy Sepulcher on Friday. This is the first day.

What we would now call, “Friday night” officially begins the Sabbath or what we now call, Saturday (when the first star is visible assuming it is a clear night). This is the second day.

Then Easter Sunday begins at the first starlight on Saturday night. This is the third day.

**
We have a teaching, 'A day and a night are an Onah and
the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.**

One commenter I read emphasizes the Hebrew idiomatic component of all of this saying . . . .

QUOTE:
. . . . Another way to look at “three days and three nights” is to take into consideration the Jewish method of reckoning time. The Jewish writers have recorded in their commentaries on the Scriptures the principle governing the reckoning of time. Any part of a period was considered a full period. Any part of a day was reckoned as a complete day. The Babylonian Talmud (Jewish commentaries) relates that “The portion of a day is as the whole of it.” (3) The Jerusalem Talmud (so designated because it was written in Jerusalem) says, “We have a teaching, ‘A day and a night are an Onah and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.’”(4) An Onah simply means, “a period of time.” . . . .

1. Mishnah, Third Tractate, “B. Pesachim,” p. 4a
2. Mishnah, Tractate “J. Shabbath,” Chapter IX, Par. 3.

Continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

continued . . . .

Harmonizing The Evidence—Jesus Possibly Spent A Portion Of Holy Thursday Night In The Belly Of The Earth

But also recall tradition suggests to us Jesus spent part of Holy Thursday night in the heart of the earth too. That makes sense. We know from Scripture Jesus was interrogated several times on Holy Thursday night (“Friday” in the ancient Jewish reckoning as it would be after first star light Thursday night).

Jesus may have spent a portion of Holy Thursday night in a dungeon before, after, or between interrogations by Annas and Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin.

There is archeological evidence of such a dungeon (the Church of St Peter in Gallicantu is built over it such a dungeon and there is a veneration of this spot there). Whether or not this was from Caiaphas’ actual residence, or had immediate proximity to it, or not archeologically, we do know. It certainly has general proximity to where Caiaphas was.

But we DO know that prisoners of the Temple Guard would have to be interned SOMEWHERE.

And we do know there is archeological evidence of the existence of this dungeon (again, the Church of St Peter in Gallicantu is built over it) in this vicinity.

There is also some sort of miraculous sign that is there where Jesus was held captive. I apologize that I cannot recall what it was. I was there myself (as a pilgrim) many years ago and Father Mitch Pacwa explained it. But as anyone who has visited the Holy Land knows, there is SO MUCH, that it is impossible to remember it all. Sorry.

Jesus being interred as a prisoner temporarily in a dungeon is plausible.

This Would ALSO Explain . . . .

Perhaps THIS is why all the ancient Jews who became fulfilled Jews—Christians—did not have a “count-down objection” even occur to them.

Many Christians were subsequently persecuted for their faith in Jesus the Messiah. So if the “count-down objection” were plausible, it should have been easy to use this objection instead of being persecuted. (Any why not (?) if the “count-down objection” were valid in ancient terms).

But many of the Christians chose persecution rather than deny Jesus. And none employed the “count-down” objection to deny Jesus and abandon Him as far as I know.

And possibly Jesus spending part of Holy Thursday night in a dungeon is also why there are no rabbinic Jewish objectors to Jesus’ Messiahship based upon “count-down denial”.

---

Hopefully this helps you javid.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Remar99]

Hi.

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

I think the correct way to think of this is he rose “on the third day.”
Jews figured that a day started in the evening, at sunset.

1st day – Thu evening to Fri evening – Jesus died and was buried
2nd day – Fri evening to Sat evening – Jesus was in the tomb
3rd day – Sat evening to Sun evening – Jesus rose from the dead

 

[Huiou_Theou]

javid;9648680:

Hi.

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

I think the correct way to think of this is he rose “on the third day.”
Jews figured that a day started in the evening, at sunset.

1st day – Thu evening to Fri evening – Jesus died and was buried
2nd day – Fri evening to Sat evening – Jesus was in the tomb
3rd day – Sat evening to Sun evening – Jesus rose from the dead

Yes… although,
I would say the correct way to think of it is that he rose on the third day, AND every day after the third day.

The scriptures aren’t wrong when they say he rose after three days, either. For: Jonas did.

Consider an analogy:
There is a first time I got out of bed, for sure – when I was young.
But there have been many times since then, too.

Also, I’d like to point you to what the the previous poster noted ; eg: that Jesus may have well been kept in a dungeon below ground before his crucifixion.

And now I’d like to expand on his though a little:: For in the story of Jonas, Jonas was first found “Asleep” in the hull of the ship, before he entered into the fish and was taken down into the depths of the sea. That is to say, the story of Jonas is the prototype of the sign of the crucifixion, and he too had two phases to his death and resurrection – so we ought to look more carefully at the sign of Jonas to understand what the it means that the Son of Man was to be in the bowels of the Earth for three days AND three nights.

Besides, don’t you find it a bit odd that Jews talk about Creation (Genesis 1) as being night followed by day – but in the saying of Jonas, we have that reversed – explicitly, it is three days, preceding three nights ? Like the undoing of creation ?

If there ever was a strong way of emphasizing that there is something odd/or WRONG with this picture of creation – reversing the order of night and day in Jewish writing is sure to be one of them. It’s exactly backward.

 

[Remar99]

Remar99;12813584:

Yes… although,
I would say the correct way to think of it is that he rose on the third day, AND every day after the third day.

T

Just as Jesus died “once for all,” he rose from the dead “once for all.”
His human nature became glorified. It can’t become un-glorified.
He cannot “die” again, just as he cannot “rise” again.
He IS risen. In order to rise again, he must die again.

We do not say “He is rising all the time” we say "He died (past tense), he IS risen (present tense), and WILL come again (future tense). These are events, not processes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou;12814031:

Just as Jesus died “once for all,” he rose from the dead “once for all.”
His human nature became glorified. It can’t become un-glorified.
He cannot “die” again, just as he cannot “rise” again.
He IS risen. In order to rise again, he must die again.

We do not say “He is rising all the time” we say "He died (past tense), he IS risen (present tense), and WILL come again (future tense). These are events, not processes.

No – you’re going too far, and are flat wrong.

I never said he himself dies again, at least not in his glorified body.
The image I am talking about is the sign of Jonah, and Jonah was merely “asleep” (not physically dead) in the ship before descending into the fish but he was already dead in another sense. Also, Jesus said of Lazarus – “he has fallen asleep”, when Lazarus was actually dead and not sleeping in another sense of the word. So: As far as the sign of Jonah goes, sleep and death are seen as equivalents or metaphors of each other.

The topic of the thread is the sign of Jonah, the three days and three nights.

So – be explicit: Where in scripture does it say, he rose once for all ? That’s as silly as saying he can’t eat again, for he ate once for all at the ‘last’ supper; If you disagree, Quote the scripture or CCC where it explicitly says he rose once for all… for his new life is not like his death.

Even when Martha said of Lazarus, “Lord, I know he will arise on the last day”, Jesus did not say, Lazarus will arise on the last day – rather, Jesus said “I AM the resurrection.”

Every time someone rises from the dead, that is one example of Jesus doing so in them.

After Jesus rose from the Dead, on Easter Sunday – the scripture says, many TOMBS were opened, and Saints appeared in Jerusalem. Therefore, as far as the sign of Jonah goes – If Jesus is the resurrection, then each of those events is also Jesus rising again in them.

When Paul killed Christians, Jesus didn’t say “Why do you persectute, THEM,” rather he said “Why do you persecute, ME.” Acts 9:4. Jesus truly gives us himeself in the Eucharist, and we become BOUND to his body – so that in fact, he CAN rise again and experience it in each one of us. Whatever you do to another who is in communion with Jesus, you also do to him. Whatever you experience in communion with him, he also experiences in you.

The only thing which is impossible, is that Jesus die again in himself, mortally; for although he can be crucified again in an individual who he is in communion with, he himself can not die but only be separated from them.