Matthew 12:40 an Idiom?

[Ignatius]

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.

You know how the Hebrews at the time of Christ counted days right; the “day” started at sundown of what we could consider the day before. Furthermore, they counted anything that happened during any part of a day as having been on that day. So Christ was Crucified and died on Friday, that’s one day, Saturday would have started at sundown of Saturday, that’s two days. Sunday started at sundown on Saturday, that’s three days.

 

[DavidFilmer]

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?

It matters. Suppose a day begins at sunset (per the Jewish belief), and we stick with that.

If Jesus was burred just one minute before sunset, his burial would have included part of the previous day. Right?

But, when is sunset? With modern astronomy, we have “official” sunset (and we need clocks to know when it occurs), but for less advanced people, it occurred when you could no longer see any part of the sun. But that is affected by many factors - notably terrain. If there are hills or mountains to the west, sunset will appear to come sooner than for someone on flat plains. For someone on the top of a hill or mountain, sunset will come later (because the horizon is lower). A line of trees or buildings will cause the horizon to seem higher. The difference in perception can easily be an hour or two, or even several hours in more extreme cases.

So different observers can have a completely different idea of when sunset happens.

Your question was worded with a very precise definition but without regard to such irregularities which make your question impossible to precisely answer.

 

[Gorgias]

First, I’m not sure it’s true that we should count the night time as coming before the daytime.

It is; that’s how they did it: the Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday – that is, the ‘day’ doesn’t begin at midnight (like we think it does). So, the Sabbath (‘Saturday’) begins at sunset (‘Friday’) and ends at sunset (‘Saturday’).

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

The ‘third day’, then, would begin on Saturday at sunset and end on Sunday at sunset.

rstrats’ issue is that, if “three days and three nights” really means “three days” – without the expectation that it would literally contain three daytimes and three nighttimes – that he would want to see that kind of usage elsewhere in Hebrew antiquity.

 

[Gorgias]

It matters. Suppose a day begins at sunset (per the Jewish belief), and we stick with that.

If Jesus was burred just one minute before sunset, his burial would have included part of the previous day. Right?

Right. And, it’s critical to recognize that it was necessary for Jesus to have been buried prior to the Sabbath, in order for those who buried him to be able to participate in that Sabbath. So, Jesus must have been buried on Friday prior to sunset. Therefore, we have Jesus “in the ground” on Friday (daytime), Saturday (night & day), and Sunday (night). The women come to anoint the body Sunday morning, when the sun had risen.

Hence rstrat’s question: can three ‘days’ – which only include two daytimes and two nighttimes – be seen to fulfill Jesus’ words about the sign of Jonah and “three days and three nights”?

The answer, of course, to rstrats’ question (“how can we count a ‘night’ when no part of a night is involved”) is that “three days and three nights” means “three days”, and not literally “three day-times and three night-times”… but he doesn’t want to hear that unless we produce a document in Hebrew from antiquity that shows such a usage.

 

[rstrats]

DavidFilmer,

re: “If you can think of a hypothetical sentence then I would be interested to read it.”

4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days and three nights, I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, before the sun had risen, that Esther ended her fast, put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,
re: “The answer, of course, to rstrats’ question (‘how can we count a ‘night’ when no part of a night is involved’) is that ‘three days and three nights’ means ‘three days’, and not literally ‘three day-times and three night-times’…”

You left out the gist of my question: “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.”

 

[rstrats]

dmar198,
re: "First, I’m not sure it’s true that we should count the night time as coming before the daytime.

See Gorgias’ post #23. And I’m afraid I don’t understand the rest of your post.

 

[rstrats]

Ignatius,
re: “…they counted anything that happened during any part of a day as having been on that day.”

I agree, but would they count a forecasted night as a night when no actual night transpired?

 

[Gorgias]

You left out the gist of my question: “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.”

That is one way of knowing it. Another would be to look at other accounts of the same event, and by knowing more about that event – by virtue of these other accounts – you come to an understanding of what the particular instance means, and realize that it was simply a mode of expression that wasn’t literal.

For example, suppose I said, “On March 7, it was raining cats and dogs in Washington DC.” If you asked, “cats and dogs? literally?”, and someone came to you with another description of the event (“On March 7, the heavens opened and D.C. was deluged”) and yet another came with another description (“On March 7, in a three-hour period, two inches of rain fell in D.C.”), what would you conclude? It would seem reasonable to conclude that “cats and dogs” meant “lots of rain” rather than “Lassie in the sky with Duchess”…

That’s precisely what we have here: multiple statements in the New Testament about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and this particular one – from Jesus’ own mouth – is one that is more idiomatic than literal. To say “we don’t know it’s non-literal because we have no other instances of the idiom” asks us to ignore the evidence at hand in favor of evidence we don’t have…

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,
re: “That is one way of knowing it. Another would be to look at other accounts of the same event, and by knowing more about that event – by virtue of these other accounts – you come to an understanding of what the particular instance means, and realize that it was simply a mode of expression that wasn’t literal.”

But that is only for that one event. It doesn’t mean that it is a common way of looking at days and nights. And let me be clear - if I haven’t been, and appears that I haven’t - for the purpose of the OP, I’m not questioning if it’s an idiom, I’m questioning if it is a *common *idiom.

re: “…what would you conclude? It would seem reasonable to conclude that ‘cats and dogs’ meant ‘lots of rain’”

Perhaps, but would you conclude that “lots of rain” meant “cats and dogs”?

Let me ask you; what is there in scripture that makes it absolutely, ‘positutely’, no question about it, necessary to not take Matthew 12:40 as a literal forecast - at least parts of 3 daytimes and at least parts of 3 night times?

 

[rstrats]

Delete - double post.

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,

re: “That’s precisely what we have here: multiple statements in the New Testament about Jesus’ death and resurrection…”

To which multiple statements are you referring?

 

[DavidFilmer]

DavidFilmer,

re: “If you can think of a hypothetical sentence then I would be interested to read it.”

4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days and three nights, I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, before the sun had risen, that Esther ended her fast, put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

Read your question and then read this passage. Are you saying this passage fulfills the particular requirements of your question? Or are you saying this is yet another ambiguous passage?

 

[rstrats]

DavidFilmer,
re: “Are you saying this passage fulfills the particular requirements of your question?”

Yes, because there couldn’t be any daylight portion on the third calendar day.

 

[rstrats]

Perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,

You have a question directed to you at the end of post #30.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias,

You have a question directed to you at the end of post #30.

Thanks for the reminder.

You wrote:

rstrats:

But that is only for that one event. It doesn’t mean that it is a common way of looking at days and nights. And let me be clear - if I haven’t been, and appears that I haven’t - for the purpose of the OP, I’m not questioning if it’s an idiom, I’m questioning if it is a common idiom.

I think that it would be difficult to frame the question in that way. Rather, it would seem more productive to ask the question this way: is the idiomatic phrase that Jesus used in Mt 12:40 a phrase that His listeners would understand? In other words, can we infer ‘common idiom’ from the reaction of His listeners and the contemporary readers of the Gospel in the time & place of its development? Clearly, we see other expressions that do not imply a literal 3x24 hour timeframe, so the witness of the Gospels themselves don’t lead us in that direction. By the same token, we don’t see His audience in that passage being confused by the expression itself. Most strikingly, we don’t see early Christians talking or writing about confusion about that passage – for them, it falls in line with their knowledge of a Good-Friday-evening to Easter-Sunday-morning event. It’s only millennia later – and in a different culture – that we see confusion.

Therefore, I would assert that it’s not unreasonable to conclude, from the evidence on the page and the lack of confusion in the early Church, that the idiom that Christ uses in Mt 12:40 is one that was plainly understood by His listeners.

re: “…what would you conclude? It would seem reasonable to conclude that ‘cats and dogs’ meant ‘lots of rain’”

Perhaps, but would you conclude that “lots of rain” meant “cats and dogs”?

Of course not – since ‘lots of rain’ is a literal, not idiomatic, expression.

Let me ask you; what is there in scripture that makes it absolutely, ‘positutely’, no question about it, necessary to not take Matthew 12:40 as a literal forecast - at least parts of 3 daytimes and at least parts of 3 night times?

That’s a red herring, I’m afraid. Is our only standard “the literal words in Scripture”? Of course not. Is Scripture always a fundamentalist, literalist document? No way. More to the point, as with any work of literature, there’s never only one sole “absolute” interpretation (that’s why the Church’s notion of the magisterium is so important – it gives us that certainty of the meaning of Scripture, with divine protection!).

Nevertheless, that being said, I would assert that the reason we can confidently state that “three days and three nights” means “three days” (rather than three dark periods and three light periods) is that we see that the other accounts in the Gospels do not make this requirement. Therefore, a period of daylight-dark-daylight-dark-daylight meets the other expressions of this period of time; hence, we can conclude that the idiomatic expression “three days and three nights” does so, as well.

 

[Wesrock]

The fact that Matthew doesn’t feel the need to clarify this but links this statement to the death and resurrection which he places on Friday and Sunday, respectively, seems to be fairly convincing evidence, unless you just believe Matthew messed up that one detail.

Or is this really only a question of language practices and not trying to imoly anything further?

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus was in the tomb on Friday, Saturday and sunday. that is three days.

Jesus was in the tomb on Friday night, before sunrise on Saturday and after sunset on Saturday and before sunrise on sunday. that is three nights, unless we conclude that before sunrise on sunday should be called Saturday night instead of sunday night.

in any case, I see no reason to believe Jesus or the book of Jonah was limiting the words three days and three nights to meaning 72 hours.

now if Jesus had referred to three sunsets and three sunrises …, but He did not.

 

[Mintaka]

Oh, heck, this is nothing.

Many ancient sources refer to Jesus as being forty years old at the time of the Crucifixion, because the Jews tended to count by decades. Anybody in the decade from 0-10 could be classified as ten, anybody in the decade from 11-20 could be classified as twenty, anybody in the decade from 21-30 could be classified as thirty, and anyone in the decade from 31-40 was forty years old.

This is also why many ancient sources talk about Jesus as having recapitulated all the different stages and ages of a man in his life on earth, because as someone who was “forty” (by this kind of reckoning of decades) he counted as being “old,” for some purposes. (Well, he wasn’t a young guy anymore, and he was past the age of being mature (the decade of being thirty, ie 21-30). Other ancient Jewish sources were pickier, and didn’t say you were old until you were in the decade of fifty (41-50). But this sort of thing could vary a lot by culture and preference.)

So yeah, if you’re willing to count a forty-one-year-old as being 50, you can certainly count the tiniest part of a third day as adding up to “three days and nights.”