Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Matthew 12:40

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently suggest that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?


This is a reply to my search for an answer to your question. The writer Dave Hunt has gone to his reward, but he was a very well known biblical scholar and bible teacher.

This is what he said about your question. Blessings to all who have subscribed to this thread........in Jesus

Dear Stephen
By your question, we're guessing it's predicated upon a conflict with the traditional belief that Jesus died on Friday, leaving not enough time for Jesus to literally be "three days and three nights" in the tomb. Following is something Dave Hunt wrote addressing that point.

FORGET "GOOD FRIDAY" (p167) Read superficially, the Scripture account of those important days from Nisan 10-14 seems to contradict itself. Unless one has a clear understanding of events, Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to indicate that Christ kept the Passover that last night with His disciples: Of course, if Christ and His disciples kept the Passover the night of His betrayal and arrest, then the Passover lamb must have already been slain that afternoon. If that were the case, then His death the following afternoon did not coincide with the killing of the Passover lambs. Yet we know it had to, and it did, The verses above need some explanation. For example, "evening" sometimes means late afternoon and at other times it means early night. And as we have already mentioned and explain later in more detail, although the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on Nisan 15 when the Passover lamb was eaten, Nisan 14, when the Passover was prepared and the lamb slain was also a time of unleavened bread.
Verses which are not clear need to be understood in har- mony with those which are clear. And we do have many very plain statements that the Passover lambs were slain the after- noon following the "last supper," and at the time of the crucifixion. All of the Gospels agree in this regard.

WHEN WAS THE "LAST SUPPER" AND THE CRUCIFIXION? (p168)
Mark says, "Now when the even [i.e., sunset was approaching] was come [after Christ had died], because it was the preparation [of the Passover lamb], that is, the day before the sabbath [the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began at sunset after the Passover lamb had been slain], Joseph of Arimathaea ... went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus" (15:42,43). Luke agrees: "And that day was the preparation, and the [special] sabbath drew on" (23:54). John gives even more detail:
So, as we noted in the last chapter, the Passover lambs were indeed being slain at the very time that Christ, the Lamb of God who fulfilled all of the relevant Old Testament types and prophecies, died on the cross. How, then, could Christ have "taken the Passover" with His disciples the night before? He didn't. The Last Supper did indeed occur the night before the crucifixion, but it was not the Passover. This often overlooked fact is clear from John's account, which is a bit more precise. While the other gospels refer to "the sabbath" drawing nigh, John alone explains that the sabbath which began at sunset the day Christ was crucified "was a high day." In other words, it was not the ordinary weekly sabbath which always began Friday at sunset. It was, in fact, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the fifteenth of Nisan), of which the first and last days were special sabbaths during which no work was to be done (Exodus 12:14-16).
John also clarifies the fact that the "last supper" was not the Passover: "Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come ... supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot. . . to betray him." So the "last supper" actually took place the night before the Passover. How could it have taken place both "the first day of unleavened bread" and "before the feast of the Passover"?
Although technically the Feast of Unleavened Bread began with the fifteenth of Nisan after sunset of the fourteenth (the Passover lamb was slain just before sunset, roasted, and eaten that night), the days of unleavened bread were also counted from the fourteenth of Nisan because the eating of unleavened bread began "on the fourteenth day of the month at evening" (Exodus 12:18). Though they were two separate feasts, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were treated as one inasmuch as they overlapped. The Passover lamb, though "prepared" (i.e., slain and the roasting process begun) just before sunset on the fourteenth, was not eaten until that night, which was then the fifteenth.
What day of the week was Nisan 14? While we refer to Nisan 10 as Sunday, it began on Saturday after sunset when the sabbath ended. Remember, the Jewish day begins at sunset. Thus Nisan 11 began at sunset Sunday, the twelfth Monday, the thirteenth Tuesday, and Nisan 14, the day of preparation, began Wednesday at sunset. The "last supper," then, took place Wednesday night, the beginning of Nisan 14, which was called the day of preparation. The following afternoon, in the "evening" of Nisan 14, the Passover lambs were slain shortly before sunset. Christ was on the cross and "gave up the ghost" at the same time that Thursday afternoon.
Thursday? Not "Good Friday"? Indeed not. A Friday cruci- fixion doesn't fit the facts. Not only the prophecies but the Old Testament types as well had to be fulfilled. One of those types was known as "the sign of the prophet Jonas [Jonah]." It required Jesus to be in the grave "three days and three nights."

THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS (p170)
Obviously, had Christ been crucified on Friday, He couldn't possibly have spent three days and three nights in the grave by Sunday morning. The verification of that fact is simple. What was left of Friday afternoon can be counted as day one. All day Saturday is day two. Friday and Saturday nights until dawn Sunday total two nights. The period comes up short by one day and one night.
Even counting a few minutes of Sunday morning as the third day would not suffice. There would still be one night missing. Furthermore, no part of the day on Sunday may be counted because we are distinctly told that the angel rolled away the stone "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (Matthew 28: 1). The tomb was already empty at that point, so Christ must have risen from the dead sometime prior to dawn. How long before we are not told.
Had the Scriptures simply said "three days," then a Friday crucifixion could have qualified by counting any part of a day as the whole. If Christ were crucified before sunset Friday, then that would be part of the day which began Thursday at sunset and ended Friday at sunset. The second day went from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and the third day, which began at sunset Saturday, would be counted as well.
The Bible, however, is precise in its language and quite specific about "three days and three nights." The specifica- tions derive from Jonah's experience: "And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17). Jesus Himself declared: "For as Jonas 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 [i.e. in that part of Hades known as Abraham's bosom]" (Matthew 12:39,40; Luke 16:22). That specific requirement cannot be met by a Friday crucifixion.
In spite of the undeniable error, the Roman Catholic Church persists in the myth of a "Good Friday" crucifixion. Indeed, Rome has built much of its ritual and dogma upon that obvious falsehood. It is too late for her to change her story now. In this fact alone we have sufficient evidence of the Roman Catholic Church's manufacture and official endorsement of untruth to cast doubt upon everything else it affirms with equal dogmatism, And what can be said for the Protestants by the millions who go along with this lie so willingly in their "Good Friday" special worship services each year?
Does it really matter? Yes! Aren't we just splitting hairs? No, we are not. The day of our Lord's crucifixion is of the utmost importance. Christ said He would be three days and three nights in the grave. If He did not spend that time there, then He lied. Nor is this all. As we've already seen, in fulfill- ment of numerous prophecies, Christ had to die at the very time when the Passover lambs were being slain all over Israel-and He did. That necessity determined the day of His crucifixion.

Thank you for writing.

Ed Newby
The Berean Call
 
The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, page 475 gives us a perfect example

"A short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day."

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived about A.D. 100, stated: "A day and a night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it."

Joseph: Further proof for inclusive reckoning is seen in Joseph's dealing with his brethren. Genesis 42:17-19 says "He put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them on the third day, This do, and live; ... go ye. ..."

1 Samuel 30:12 speaks of an abandoned Egyptian servant who "had not eaten bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights." The servant states that his master had left him behind "three days ago" (v. 13). But if the "three days and three nights" were meant to be taken literally, then the servant should have said that he had been left behind four days before.

See Esther 4

15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,

16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and all of you fast for me, and neither eat nor drink for three days and three nights (some translations say “for three days; day and night)

She then says “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.

17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

Now 5

5 Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther 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.

IF a literal 72 hours was meant, then Jesus rose ON the 4th day and all other passages were lies.

Paul
 
Look up

Matt. 16:21 - From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (not after it on the 4th)

17:23 – And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

20:19 - And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

26:61 - And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Mark 9:31 - For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day

10:34 - And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. (note that it is before a third night)

15:29 - And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days

Luke 9:22 - Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Luke 13:32 - And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Luke 18:33 - And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (note that this is before the 3rd night)

Luke 24:7 - The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

Luke 24:46 - And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day (not after the third night)

John 2:19-20 - Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Acts 10:40 - Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly

1 Corinthians 15:4 - And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Paul
 
Brother Paul,

re: "Rstrats already had his answer before he began this thread..."


That is incorrect. I didn't and still don't. It appears that you don't understand the question.
 
Nope! Been there done that got the T shirt many times...you KNOW the answer....there is no such writing that SAYS it is being used idiomatically...they probably never even considered the notion of "idiom" as it is a normative cultural method of communication that makes perfectly good sense to 1st century Hebrew hearers....but Biblical examples and cultural commentary like from the Jewish Encyclopedia demonstrate CLEARLY it is NOT to be taken literally
 
Brother Paul,

re: "Nope"

OK, so you don't understand my question. Let me rephrase it:

There are some who believe in a sixth day of the week crucifixion/first day of the week resurrection who try to explain the missing night time of Matthew 12:40 by asserting that the Messiah was using common idiomatic language of the time. If you are one of them, what examples can you show to support your assertion that it was common to forecast a daytime and/or a night time for an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have taken place?
 
And again, remember that 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, as stated, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He 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.
 
I found this and thought it might provide a visual to assist with the timeline being talked about.

upload_2016-4-12_19-50-36.png




"Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it" (Matthew 28:1-2; see also Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).


Peter, looking back on these events stated, "And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly" (Acts 10:39-40). Peter said the resurrection happened on the third day, not after the third day. Jesus time in the tomb wasn't a full day, but only a part of a day -- a very small part since he arose early in the morning before it became fully light. Thus there is no contradiction or difficulty in the records.


Below is a link to the site I found it at, if you're interested in looking further into it.


How could Jesus be in the grave three days and nights if he died on Friday and rose on Sunday?

YBIC
C4E
<><
 
Christ4Ever,

re: "Below is a link to the site I found it at, if you're interested in looking further into it."

Thanks, but for the purpose of this topic I'm not. The link is concerned with a different issue. Perhaps, though, someone else may know of some writing.
 
@rstrats
I understand your reply and did a little more digging. Have you tried the writings of Josephus or Eusebius of Caesarea? Though Eusebius (Christian) was of the 3rd Century he has a large quote which he attributes to Josephus. This is supposed to be disputed because Josephus was a Pharisee. You'll know why when you read it following the conclusion of my post. To give credit where credit is do. I found this information from a book I'm reading by Josh McDowell.

I realize that this might not be exactly what you're look for, but I hope that it can point you in the direction that might help you find what you are seeking. Also, I'm sure you've taken into account that non-Christian sources can also be valuable in your search. For even statements made in denial/ridicule by non-believers still can allude to a third day resurrection and its time frame as a belief held by our early Church Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus. Even if they themselves did not believe them or attribute anything special to it.

As far as Eusebius. He wrote Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. Which covers the early Church History from the 1st - 4th Century. I believe the original was both in Latin and Koine Greek. I myself have not read this, but have found that it was translated by a Reverand C. F. Cruse who was an Assistant Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. I believe it was originally published in 1833.

If I do find more, I will pass it on to you, as the Spirit moves me. Should you find what you are seeking. I and I'm sure others here would also like to hear of it.

With the Love of Christ Jesus
C4E
<><

Excerpt from "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict":

"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Cited by Eusebius.
 
Christ4Ever,

re: "I realize that this might not be exactly what you're look for..."

I'm afraid that it isn't. I merely would like to hear from someone who believes in a 6th day of the week crucifixion/first day of the week resurrection who tries to explain the missing night time of Matthew 12:40 by saying that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language. If it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred, there would have to be examples to allow someone to legitimately make the assertion that is was common.
 
Christ4Ever,

re: "I realize that this might not be exactly what you're look for..."

I'm afraid that it isn't. I merely would like to hear from someone who believes in a 6th day of the week crucifixion/first day of the week resurrection who tries to explain the missing night time of Matthew 12:40 by saying that the verse is using common Jewish idiomatic language. If it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred, there would have to be examples to allow someone to legitimately make the assertion that is was common.

How I read the question you were asking. Had me believing that you had already met some individuals who professed this or had made statements to that affect and were looking for documentation concerning this assertion.

The problem you will find is in attempting to apply our methods of scientific accuracy in writing to that of scripture whose intent was for the commoner, and therefore for everyone.

I have not read every posting on this thread, but my hope is that someone would have asked you the purpose behind your question and if this is meant to detract or add to the Glory of God?

C4E
<><
 
Christ4Ever,

re: "How I read the question you were asking. Had me believing that you had already met some individuals who professed this or had made statements to that affect and were looking for documentation concerning this assertion."

That is correct.



re: "The problem you will find is in attempting to apply our methods of scientific accuracy in writing to that of scripture whose intent was for the commoner, and therefore for everyone."

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate?





re: "I have not read every posting on this thread, but my hope is that someone would have asked you the purpose behind your question..."

The purpose of this topic is to see if those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic/figure of speech/colloquial language can support their position of commonality by providing examples from the first century or before which forecast a daytime or a night time to be involved with an event when at least a part of the daytime or at least a part of the night time couldn't have occurred.



re: "...and if this is meant to detract or add to the Glory of God?"

As far as I can tell, the question has nothing to do with that.
 
re: "...and if this is meant to detract or add to the Glory of God?"

As far as I can tell, the question has nothing to do with that.

Then what exactly DOES it have to with? If there is no purpose for the question, then why keep
persistently asking it? No question is asked without a purpose.

...and IF for some reason, some writing or article was found to support this.... so what?
We should take the article of what some person says over 20 Bible verses that says otherwise?
.... and even then, even if we decided to do that... what would it prove?
 
re: "The problem you will find is in attempting to apply our methods of scientific accuracy in writing to that of scripture whose intent was for the commoner, and therefore for everyone."

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Could you elaborate?

I will attempt to be brief in this explanation, but as is the case at times, I can get a bit wordy. So, only as the spirit moves me I will write.

Too often the modern mind analyzes scriptural text with the same method by which it does any other document. Example: You have looked at the middle verse of the following from Matthew.

Matthew 12:39-41 "39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas 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. 41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here."

Now look at

Luke 11:29-30 "29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation."

Often the modernist sets a standard of critique that Scripture was not meant to be understood by. What is then done. The above scripture from 2 of the Gospels would get tagged as lacking accuracy, because Matthew includes a verse that is not included in Luke.

The scientific and modern mind find it difficult to wrap the thought that what we use to determine truth in writings in this day and age. Is not how God has declared His Word to be understood. It can truly only be understood spiritually even though it still does have relevance to those seeking to study antiquity. (1 Corinthians 2)

That is what I meant by my comment above.

re: "...and if this is meant to detract or add to the Glory of God?"

As far as I can tell, the question has nothing to do with that.

The very first thing we should remember is that we are talking about the Word of God. It is most precious, for it is His communication to us. It serves His purpose, as a dear Sister in Christ Jesus is wont to say "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11

or as some attempt to do by the misuse of it which we are told of. "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." 2 Corinthians 2:17, and "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Corinthians 4:2,

So if the purpose is not to grow in Jesus to the Glory of God. As Brother BAC has talked of. I must also ask you, "To what purpose?"

My sincere hope is that you will attempt to answer this outside the box of your original query. For answering my question in that fashion would not be anymore enlightening to me then sadly, I have been to you so far in this discussion!

With the Love of Jesus.
C4E
<><
 
B-A-C,
re: "Then what exactly DOES it have to with?"

It has to do with determining if those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language are correct in making that assertion. So far no one has shown that they are.



re: "...and IF for some reason, some writing or article was found to support this.... so what? We should take the article of what some person says over 20 Bible verses that says otherwise?"

What 20 verses say that it wasn't common?
 
Christ4Ever,
re: "That is what I meant by my comment above."

I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand what your comment has to do with the OP.
 
May the word of God always be a lamp unto you feet and alight unto your path @rstrats. May you fare well in what you are seeking.
With the Love of Jesus.
C4E
<><
 
What 20 verses say that it wasn't common?

22 passages say it was 3 days. Not more than 3 days, not less.

Matt 16:21; From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.
Matt 17:23; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day." And they were deeply grieved.
Matt 20:19; and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up."
Matt 27:64; "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
Luke 9:22; saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day."
Luke 13:32; And He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.'
Luke 18:33; and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again."
Luke 24:7; saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
Luke 24:21; "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.
Luke 24:46; and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
1 Cor 15:4; and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Matt 26:61; and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'"
Matt 27:40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Matt 27:63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'

Mark 8:31; And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 9:31; For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later."
Mark 10:34; "They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again."
Mark 14:58; "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'"
Mark 15:29; Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,

John 2:19; Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John 2:20; The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"

Then we have Matt 12:40; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth.

22 verses say 3 days. 1 verse says 3 days and 3 nights. Why would you pick one verse to argue against 22 others?

Jonah 1:17; And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.


This from Jewish Time

The Jewish day does not begin and end at midnight as does the secular calendar day. Midnight is not a distinguishable astronomic event. In the era before the modern clock, a specific hour of the night could not be precisely known, whereas an hour of the day was easily determined by sighting the location of the sun. Thus, the day had to begin by precise, simple and universally recognized standards. This meant that the day had to be reckoned either from the beginning of night or the beginning of day.

In Jewish time, the day begins with the onset of night (the appearance of the stars) followed by the morning (which technically begins with the appearance of the North Star). According to some Jewish teachers, night and morning begin with sunset and sunrise respectively. For that is how the Torah describes it: "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

That is how the Torah describes it: "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

For this reason, the Sabbath begins on Friday night and ends with the appearance of the stars on Saturday night. The same is true for the major holidays such as Passover, Sukkot, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the fast day of Tisha B'Av, and Hanukkah and Purim.

Beginning the day with the night is, in a sense, a metaphor of life itself. Life begins in the darkness of the womb, then bursts into the brightness of the light and eventually settles into the darkness of the grave, which, in turn, is followed by a new dawn in the world-to-come.

I have a much harder time finding anything that says a Jewish night was 24 hours.
But even if I did... to what purpose? To show that one verse disagrees with 22 others?
In a court room, if it was my word against 22 other witnesses, which side do you think the judge and jury would take?

But of course, it's possible Matt 12:40; simply means 3 days and 3 nights the same way most people mean it today. Not as 6 days.
 
Back
Top