Matthew 12:40 an Idiom?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rstrats
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rstrats

Guest
In keeping with the forum guidlines of not posting to topics that have been inactive for extended periods of time, I am “initiating a new thread” which deals with the same issue as the old one.

Matthew 12:40 quotes the Messiah saying that He would be in the “heart of the earth” for 3 days and 3 nights. A majority of folks believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week. This period of time, however, would only allow for 2 night times. To account for this discrepancy, it is frequently “argued” that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language of the time.

I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the “heart of the earth” is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?

And remember, the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that. However, for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language I should think that one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used in order to say that it was common. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise.
 
Please clarify the following. It is difficult for me to understand.
a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
Click to expand...
Not fully understanding the question, I will point to the opening lines of Genesis from which the Jewish people received their method of counting days as documented in the Talmud.

**God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ** (Genesis 1:5)

-Tim-
 
rstrats said:
I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the “heart of the earth” is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s even possible to construct a phrase that meets this criteria (without making reference to a clock). Using as many words as you please, could you construct such a sentence which is absolutely unambiguous?

I can’t. And, I figure if I can’t even devise a hypothetical phrase, I could hardly to expect to happen upon an actual one in some ancient text.

If you can think of a hypothetical sentence then I would be interested to read it. I wonder if I would be able to find some level of ambiguity.
 
TimothyH said:
Please clarify the following. It is difficult for me to understand.
Click to expand...
He’s looking for an actual quotation from an ancient source in Hebrew in which an expression of the type “X days and X nights” was used in such a way that it didn’t literally mean that many ‘daytimes’ and that many ‘night-times’; in other words, that it meant “X days”, where there might have been X-1 daytimes and/or X-1 night-times.

And, to be more precise, following the lines of the discussion in the older thread, he’s not looking for a rationale that includes other modes of expression that are found in the Bible; rstrats seems to want to see another example of this particular expression, used as an idiom, as the only way of demonstrating to him that it is a non-literal expression.

That’s pretty much what you’re looking for, rstrats, right…?
 
TimothyH,
re: “Not fully understanding the question…”

I’m looking for examples where a daytime was counted as a daytime or a night time was counted as a night time when no part of one or the other actually took place. This is what sixth day of the week crucifixion advocates say happened.

Also, I don’t understand your point in quoting Genesis 1:5. I wonder if you might explain?
 
Gorgias,
re: "That’s pretty much what you’re looking for, rstrats, right…? "

See my post #5 to TimothyH.
 
I think I understand but cannot provide such a quote.

The reference to Genesis was given because “evening and morning, one day” is the scriptural basis for how the Jewish people counted days. You had asked for quotes from scripture and I thought it might be of help.

I have a feeling that your answer is somewhere in one of the 29 volumes which make up the Babylonian Talmud.

-Tim-
 
rstrats said:
I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the “heart of the earth” is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
Click to expand...
[An] example from the book of Esther where this idiom is…used [is] when Esther states the following: “Go, assmeble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way… And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16 NASB)

Two verses later, however, we read:

“Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in front of the king’s rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace.” (Esther 5:1 NASB)

Licona comments: “Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours.”

Licona also points out that from the Gospel of Matthew itself, the same place where we read the prophecy of “three days and three nights”, we see that three days and three nights is not meant to be taken literally. After Jesus’s crucifixion, the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said:

“Sir, we remember that while living that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Theresefore, order the grave to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say to the people, ‘He was raised from the dead,’ and the last deceit will be worse than the first.” (Matthew 27:63-34).

Source
 
dmar198,

I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything in your Esther and Matthew passages which precludes at least a portion of each one of the daytimes and at least a portion of each one of the night times. I wonder if you might explain why you think that they do?
 
Not to belittle the OP’s point, but…

I just don’t get why it matters. I’ve been involved in similar discussions with several protestants who seem to find some sort of fulfillment in dissecting every syllable of the Bible with no particularly ascertainable end in mind, other than to discredit the Catholic Church, for it’s diabolical Tradition (…as so many of them do with trying to disregard science, in order to conform their beliefs to the 6 days of the Creation).

As far as I’m concerned, Christ was crucified on Good Friday; died at 3 PM; and remained deceased until Easter Sunday morning–when it was discovered–by the women (or just the a woman–the Magdalene, if recollection serves…)–that He had resurrected from the dead. According to Tradition. Catholic Tradition–derivative of the Bible (which btw, is why we celebrate mass on Sunday–the Lord’s Day–as opposed to the Jewish/OT Sabbath, which was/remains “Saturday”–the sixth day of the week–begging the question as to why the Fundamentalists ‘keep the Sabbath’ on Sunday–why that’s just unbiblical…).

The point of the Creation narrative, is that God created the world, and everything in it–and everyone (particularly, us, in His (their) image).

The point of the Passion and Resurrection, is that Christ died for our sins, and redeemed Man from the consequences of the Fall, by/through His Resurrection.

3 days/nights fits the typology of the Bible, and the significance of the number 3 (e.g.–the Trinity, the Holy Family, Christ =33 y/o when he died, Christ’s ministry lasted for 3 years, Christ prophesied that He could destroy the Temple…and rebuild it in 3 days…). But a literal interpretation/application of 3 days/nights, is simply of zero consequence. It is an academic endeavor of futility that serves only to distract from the significance of the greater Redemption narrative (and to undermine–or at least seek to undermine–Sacred Tradition in the process). (not to mention that the Resurrection occurred ‘…on the 3rd day’, not 3 days/nights hence; but that’s playing into the semantics of the discussion, which as I alluded to, strikes me as patently pointless).

JMHO.
 
rstrats said:
dmar198,

I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything in your Esther and Matthew passages which precludes at least a portion of each one of the daytimes and at least a portion of each one of the night times. I wonder if you might explain why you think that they do?
Click to expand...
Sure. In the Esther passage, she appears to say not to eat or drink for three days and three nights, after which she will see the king. However, she appears to see the king only partway through: it was on the third day that she went to see him, and the third night that she mentioned earlier had not come yet.

This appears to be the same thing that happened with Jesus: He said He would be buried for three days and three nights, but He appears to have risen only partway through, on the third day and before the third night that He seemed originally to indicate.

The passage from Matthew 27:63-64 seems to show something similar because they only request guards for a part of the three-day-three-night period. They request the guards to remain only until the third day, which is before the third night that Jesus appeared to indicate. This suggests that the Jewish leaders did not understand Jesus to mean that He would rise on the third night or after it, even though that seems to be what He said.

In each case, the phrase “three days and three nights,” or an equivalent, is treated by the Jews in a way that only lets part of that time pass, with the actual third night not being treated as part of the equation. All of this suggests that the third night is only mentioned in the phrase as part of an idiom, and is not meant literally.

Does that explanation make more sense?
 
rstrats said:
In keeping with the forum guidlines of not posting to topics that have been inactive for extended periods of time, I am “initiating a new thread” which deals with the same issue as the old one.

Matthew 12:40 quotes the Messiah saying that He would be in the “heart of the earth” for 3 days and 3 nights. A majority of folks believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week. This period of time, however, would only allow for 2 night times. To account for this discrepancy, it is frequently “argued” that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language of the time.

I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the “heart of the earth” is referring to the tomb) knows of any writing which shows a phrase from the first century or before which states a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights when the actual period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?

And remember, the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that. However, for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language I should think that one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used in order to say that it was common. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you’re a Protestant of some type. I’m guessing these 2 answers come from Protestants of some stripe, as well, each using different ways to explain this question you keep raising.


  1. *]http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/81/t/three-days-and-three-nights.aspx
    *]http://christianthinktank.com/q3rdday.html

    Note the first person isn’t keen on “idiomatic” references, the other isn’t.bothered by idioms for their answer. Both however, come up with answers for the question
 
Goya,
re: “Not to belittle the OP’s point…”

I’m sure glad that you’re not doing that, because I’d hate to see what you would be saying if you were to belittle it.
 
dmar198,
re: “Does that explanation make more sense?”

Well, let’s see. While “three days, night or day” does not necessarily mean the same thing as “three nights and three days”, even if it does, the Esther account does not preclude at least parts of three night times and at least parts of three daytimes.

Let’s say the fast began sometime during the night of the 4th calendar day of the week. and continued during all of the daytime of the 4th calendar day. That would include a part of one night time and all of one daytime, and be counted as the 1st calendar day of the fast.

Then the fast continues for the night time and daytime of the 5th calendar day of the week, and be counted as the 2nd calendar day of the fast.

And then the fast continues for the night time of the 6th calendar day of the week and ends sometime during the daytime of the 6th calendar day of the week, and be counted as the 3rd calendar day of the fast.

So here we have a part of 1 night time plus 2 full night times, plus 2 full daytimes plus a part of 1 daytime. This doesn’t comply with my request in the OP. And similarly, your Matthew account can be laid out the same way.

BTW, you write: “… it was on the third day that she went to see him, and the third night that she mentioned earlier had not come yet.” How did she get to the third day[time?] without fasting during the night time of the 3rd day?
 
rstrats said:
dmar198,
re: “Does that explanation make more sense?”

Well, let’s see. While “three days, night or day” does not necessarily mean the same thing as “three nights and three days”, even if it does, the Esther account does not preclude at least parts of three night times and at least parts of three daytimes.

Let’s say the fast began sometime during the night of the 4th calendar day of the week. and continued during all of the daytime of the 4th calendar day.
Click to expand...
That seems impossible if my understanding of day-night sequences is correct. The night of the 4th calendar day would seem to begin at some point after ~6:30 pm of the 4th calendar day. There is no daytime part left, correct? When day comes, we are on the 5th calendar day, right? Then we only have one nighttime, from the 4th calendar day, and we proceed through a day-night sequence on the 5th calendar day, adding up to two nights and one day. Then we hit the 6th calendar day, with a day-night sequence that adds up to three nights and two days. If Esther had started the fast on the night of the 4th day, then in order to get three days and three nights by your method, we would seem to need to end the fast at least on the day-time part of the 6th calendar day, which seems to be the 4th day, not the 3rd day. Thus, this calculation appears to contradict the command and behavior of Esther, at least if I’m reading it correctly. Therefore, I don’t think your proposed solution fits the description of the text.
And similarly, your Matthew account can be laid out the same way.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how. Are you saying that they thought Jesus died and was buried during the night period of Good Friday, and that He had foretold that He would continue to lie in the tomb for all of Saturday and all of Sunday, and then rise on the morning of the Monday? That does appear to me to result in 3 nights and 3 days, but I don’t think it accounts for the passage that says He died at 3 pm on a Friday, which I think is during the day-time period. If the Jews understood Him to have said He would rise again on Monday, that would seem to mean that they thought He intended to be in the tomb for three nights and four days, and that seems to be an unlikely interpretation of His words.
BTW, you write: “… it was on the third day that she went to see him, and the third night that she mentioned earlier had not come yet.” How did she get to the third day[time?] without fasting during the night time of the 3rd day?
Click to expand...
Because it is my understanding that the nighttime of the third day comes after the daytime of the third day. If she went to see the king during the daytime of the third day, then the night period, which I think comes after, hadn’t happened yet. Is your understanding different?
 
rstrats said:
I’m looking for examples where a daytime was counted as a daytime or a night time was counted as a night time when no part of one or the other actually took place.
Click to expand...
But here is where the ambiguity lies. For one thing, in the First Century (the time period you specified), there was no agreement on even the meaning of “day time” and “night time.” To Jews, a new day began at sunset. To gentiles, a new day began at sunrise. In modern culture, a new day begins at a somewhat arbitrary “midnight,” but it is impossible for a culture without clocks to know when midnight occurs.

So, at what point does “day” end and “night” begin? This is ambiguous, even in our modern world. One o’clock in the morning is the “middle of the night” to us, even though it is technically early in the morning.
 
dmar198 said:
Then we hit the 6th calendar day, with a day-night sequence that adds up to three nights and two days. If Esther had started the fast on the night of the 4th day, then in order to get three days and three nights by your method, we would seem to need to end the fast at least on the day-time part of the 6th calendar day, which seems to be the 4th day, not the 3rd day.
Click to expand...
Editing is a burr. The second time the word 6th appears in the above paragraph, it should read 7th, not 6th.
 
DavidFilmer,
re: “So, at what point does ‘day’ end and ‘night’ begin?”

I don’t see what difference it makes, but if it does, then how can someone say that it was common to count a night as a night when no part of a night was involved?
 
dmar198,
re: “The night of the 4th calendar day would seem to begin at some point after ~6:30 pm of the 4th calendar day.”

Correct, which would be the start of the 4th calendar day.

re: “There is no daytime part left, correct?”

That is incorrect. The daytime part of the 4th calendar day is yet to come.
And once you realize that night time comes before the daytime of a calendar day, the rest of your post is moot.

re: “Are you saying that they thought Jesus died and was buried during the night period of Good Friday, and that He had foretold that He would continue to lie in the tomb for all of Saturday and all of Sunday, and then rise on the morning of the Monday?”

No.

re: “Because it is my understanding that the nighttime of the third day comes after the daytime of the third day. Is your understanding different?”

Yes. You have the sequence reversed.
 
rstrats said:
dmar198,
re: “The night of the 4th calendar day would seem to begin at some point after ~6:30 pm of the 4th calendar day.”

Correct, which would be the start of the 4th calendar day. … You have the sequence reversed. … And once you realize that night time comes before the daytime of a calendar day, the rest of your post is moot.
Click to expand...
First, I’m not sure it’s true that we should count the night time as coming before the daytime. But even if we do, I don’t think the Matthew 27 passage I quoted is mooted. The Pharisees there said to guard Jesus until the third day, which I interpret to mean the third daytime period of the burial. If they intended the guards to keep watch until the third nighttime, then it seems to follow that, if I’m correctly understanding your day-night sequences, in their minds that would be the fourth day of the burial, which does not appear to be what they requested.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top