Luke and Mark lay it out correctly.
Matthew 12:40
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
- Status
Luke and Mark lay it out correctly.
Yeah....and Matthew and John.
Someone new looking in who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language may know of examples of writing that show that it was common to say that a night time and/or a daytime was involved in an event when no part of the night time and/or the daytime actually occurred.
Cross Reference
New member
delete
Perhaps a further rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently assert that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I wonder if anyone knows of any writing 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 and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included 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? If it is using common idiomatic language, there ought to be examples of that usage in order to be able to make that assertion.
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, 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 had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.
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, 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 had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.
RevTestament
New member
I think the answer lies in the fact that the day of preparation was actually the day before the Passover. Therefore Christ was actually crucified on Wed eve, and rose on Sat eve. So the first day when they came, He was risen. Therefore, the idiom you are looking for is not needed.
RevTestament,
re: "...the idiom you are looking for is not needed."
But it is for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language where 3 nights actually means 2 nights. They need examples to support their assertion that it is common.
BTW, you say that "...Christ was actually crucified on Wed eve..." What day of the week is that and does "eve" refer to the whole calendar day?
re: "...the idiom you are looking for is not needed."
But it is for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language where 3 nights actually means 2 nights. They need examples to support their assertion that it is common.
BTW, you say that "...Christ was actually crucified on Wed eve..." What day of the week is that and does "eve" refer to the whole calendar day?
Someone new looking in who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language may know of examples of writing that show that it was common to say that a night time and/or a daytime was involved in an event when no part of the night time and/or no part of the daytime actually occurred.
DAY – ...twenty-four hours (Ex. xxi. 21). In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the...
(Jewish Encyclopedia/ Day)
(Jewish Encyclopedia/ Day)
Jesus did not have a funeral according to Jewish funeral rites. (see Jewish Encyclopedia)
jamie,
re: "In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day..."
And I agree as I've previously stated a couple of times. But, I'm looking for writing that shows where a daytime was reckoned as a daytime when no part of the daytime could have taken place or where a night time was reckoned as a night time when no part of the night time could have taken place.
re: "In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day..."
And I agree as I've previously stated a couple of times. But, I'm looking for writing that shows where a daytime was reckoned as a daytime when no part of the daytime could have taken place or where a night time was reckoned as a night time when no part of the night time could have taken place.
genuineoriginal
New member
Someone new looking in may be interested in knowing that the writings of the early church fathers explained the meaning of the three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40:
_____
Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians Chapter 9
On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.
_____
Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians Chapter 9
On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.
_____
Ignatius of Antioch lived 35 CE to 117 CE, which was during the time that the Gospels were written and was taught by the Apostle John, who was an eyewitness to the events written in the Gospels and the writer of one of the Gospels.
genuineoriginal,
The Ignatius quote does not satisfy the OP request. It doesn't provide proof that saying that a night time and/or a daytime would be involved with an event when no part of the night time and/or no part of the daytime could have occurred, was indeed a common way of speaking.
BTW, your comment that Ignatius was taught by the apostle John and that the apostle John wrote one of the gospels is pure speculation. Also, it is questionable that Ignatius wrote the longer version of the letter to the Trallians in which your chapter nine quote is contained.
The Ignatius quote does not satisfy the OP request. It doesn't provide proof that saying that a night time and/or a daytime would be involved with an event when no part of the night time and/or no part of the daytime could have occurred, was indeed a common way of speaking.
BTW, your comment that Ignatius was taught by the apostle John and that the apostle John wrote one of the gospels is pure speculation. Also, it is questionable that Ignatius wrote the longer version of the letter to the Trallians in which your chapter nine quote is contained.
You're trying to prove the validity of an urban legend. It's futile.
:thumb:
jamie,
re: "You're trying to prove the validity of an urban legend. It's futile."
I think you are probably correct if by urban legend you mean proving the idea that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language where the Messiah's forecast of 3 nights was a common idiom for 2 nights.
re: "You're trying to prove the validity of an urban legend. It's futile."
I think you are probably correct if by urban legend you mean proving the idea that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language where the Messiah's forecast of 3 nights was a common idiom for 2 nights.
genuineoriginal
New member
It provides proof that the people living 1900 years ago had no problem understanding that the three days and three nights referred to were the day of the passion, the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day. These are commonly called Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in our calendar.
You are attempting to change the meaning of the original phrase from what was commonly understood 1900 years ago to something else by insisting that it must be understood according to the rules used for 21st century American English.
There are some people that believe that all of Ignatius' letters are forgeries. Here is one thing they say about that:
The 15 forged letters of Ignatius:
. . .
We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD.
. . .
We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD.
So, even if the letter was not written in 110 CE, they were written no later than 250 CE, and still represent the common understanding of the phrase "three days and three nights" during that time period.
The only problem is your attempt to force a different interpretation on the phrase based on modern grammatical rules instead of accepting what the people living in that time accepted as the meaning.
genuineoriginal,
re: "The only problem is your attempt to force a different interpretation on the phrase..."
I'm not trying to force an interpretation on anything. I'm simply looking for an example from the first century or before which says that a night time and/or a daytime was involved in an event when no part of the night time and/or no part of the daytime could have actually occurred.
re: "The only problem is your attempt to force a different interpretation on the phrase..."
I'm not trying to force an interpretation on anything. I'm simply looking for an example from the first century or before which says that a night time and/or a daytime was involved in an event when no part of the night time and/or no part of the daytime could have actually occurred.
Last edited:
- Status