Thomas Andrews

Imagine you are a hard-working employee at a automobile factory and your foreman calls a meeting to inform everyone that if they meet a certain quota this week everyone will earn a 3 day and 3 night vacation to begin immediately after work Friday afternoon. Suppose further that everyone picks up the pace, busting ass and really giving it the proverbial 110%. Now, imagine that sometime about noon on Friday the word begins to circulate around the plant that the quota has been met and everyone has earned the 3 day, 3 night vacation.

Now, as everyone begins clocking out about 5pm, and the sun is setting rapidly in the western sky, there is much excitement and talking as happy employees prepare to leave the building, looking forward to that much anticipated three day, three night vacation. The foreman stands up to address the group and the group falls silent. "Ladies and gentlemen", he intones, "I am very happy to tell you that the quota has been met and my boss has agreed to give you the three day and three night vacation, with pay of course."

The crowd cheers. The foreman continues, "Now remember, you must be back here Sunday morning at 7am to begin work again."
There is a stunned silence. What kind of 3 day and 3 night vacation is that? The foreman shuffles his feet then continues, "The Boss says that in his culture any part of a day, no matter how small, counts as a whole day and a whole night. Therefore, what's left of today will count as the first day and night, tonight and daylight tomorrow will count as the second day and night and Saturday night and the first few minutes of daylight Sunday morning will count as the third day and night. The boss warns you that anyone not at your workstation at 7am sharp Sunday morning will have it noted in their record and consequences could follow. Enjoy your 3 day and 3 night vacation."

Does anyone see something wrong here? Doesn't something smell rotten in Detroit? Would you think that arrangement was something far less that you expected?

Well, in the supposedly inerrant Bible we find that Jesus of Nazareth staked his Messiahship on the claim that he would be three days and three nights "in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).This is crucial. It wasn't the resurrection itself that would demonstrate the Messiaship of Jesus to the generation of that time, but a precise period of time that he would be "in the heart of the earth." Theologians debate whether "in the heart of the earth" refers to Hades or the sepulchre Jesus was buried in. Since being interred in a tomb would be a empirical demonstration, most Christians have opted for the tomb theory. Regardless, whether the prohecy refers to Hades or the rock-hewn sepulchre, there is a problem.

The synoptics and John clearly shows Jesus died on the cross the afternoon before the Jewish Sabbath (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54-56; John 19:31). This would be what we call Friday afternoon. The gospels go on to show he was already risen from the dead early the morning after the sabbath (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1-2). This would be what we call Sunday morning.

Now, by no manner of reasoning can one fit 3 nights into this scenario. The prophecy clealrly failed. Keep in mind the resurrection itself was not the sign. It was the amount of time Jesus was to repose in the heart of the earth that was significant.

We may not even have 3 days. According to Luke, as Joseph was rushing to bury the body before the sabbath, we read in Luke 23:54 that the sabbath was already "dawning" (Greek). If the heart of the earth meant the tomb, then we cannot even count the first day with any certainty. Likewise, the third day is elusive. Since Mary came to the tomb while it was still dark (John 20:1) and the tomb was already open, then we may not even have the third day. At best, we have only 3 days and 2 nights, at worst, 2 nights and 1 day. This prophecy was a total flop, and it was the only one Jesus supposedly gave as evidence of his Messiahship.

Some apologists will try to tell you that in the Jewish milieu that Jesus lived in, any part of a day, no matter how small, could count as a whole day AND night. They will assert with much certitude that this was an idiom of the day and we are not to question it. They go on to assert we should never use 21st century methods of reckoning time and apply them to first century A.D. Palestine. They will usually buttress this claim with appeals to a more ancient scholar or scholars to make their claim sound impressive and intimidating to those not schooled in the practices of first century Judaism.

However, orthodox Jews today boldly tell us there was no such method of reckoning time among the Jews in 1st century A.D. Palestine. They tell us the Christian Apologists are pulling our collective legs when they make these claims. The Apologists are counting on our reverence for their scholarship and on our reluctance to challenge their claims.

Tufted

I've often noted that apparent error. I think it would be bad for the economy if Easter were on a Monday. Corporations would HAVE to give another payed holiday.

The Apostles Creed says "On the third day He rose from the dead". This could be judged as Sunday. But as you pointed out in Matthew 12:40, three days AND three nights!

JEST2ASK

Welcome ... to the fun house .....

Great Post very descriptive analogy .... (even a dummy like me can relate to it) ..............

Do you have any reference for the "Orthodox Jews" not using such a method of time reckoning ... what about earlier (pre-1st century) or later (e.g. 3rd or 4th centruy CE) ...

I guess to be honest I never bought into the apologetic about counting the days but never questioned it (asked on what basis did the idea come from) ...


Complete side track ???? TUFTED ??? where is N. Babylon NY

Kosh

No, what would be REALLY bad for the economy is if the Xians hadn't co-opted a pagan holiday (including the Easter Bunny) which gave a boost to candy sales in the lull between Xmas and Halloween...

Thomas Andrews

Jest2Ask wrote:

Welcome ... to the fun house .....

Great Post very descriptive analogy .... (even a dummy like me can relate to it) ..............

Do you have any reference for the "Orthodox Jews" not using such a method of time reckoning ... what about earlier (pre-1st century) or later (e.g. 3rd or 4th centruy CE) ...

Thomas Andrews
Hi Jet2Ask, Gerald Sigal and Michael Drozin are two of the best known Jews who have refuted this by making the claim there is absolutely no evidence of a "3 day and 2 night" period being reckoned as a "3 day and 3 night" period in either the Tanach, the Talmud, or any Jewish writngs of the first century A.D.

They also assert there is no evidence of a Jewish mode of reckoning that reckoned any part of a day, no matter how small, as both a whole day and a whole night. They have asked christian apologists for proof but any quotations the apologists offer are easily shot down. What would be interesting is to go to the Jews for Judaism website and post a question to have it answered by a Jewish rabbi. Or, if if you live in a big city with a synagogue, pay it a visit and inquire of the leading rabbi for some information.

In 1988 I visited the Jewish synagogue in Macon, Georgia and had a very genial chat with the head rabbi. We discussed mainly British-Israelism, but I did ask about this odd idiom the Jews supposedly used in the first century A.D. He assurred me there was no such idiom and suggested next time I encounter a missionary to press him for some examples. He assurred me I would be able to demolish any example they offered. As I look back on the conversation I realized the rabbi had confidence in my reasoning skills because I was later able to utilize them to demolish the pathetic examples offered by apologists in personal conversations as well as print (i.e. Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, and many others).

I have found the three most common examples offered are 1) the passage from Esther 4:16- 5:1; 2) the one from I Samuel 30:11-13; 3) and the infamous Talmud quote that states "a day and a night are an Onah and any part of an Onah is reckoned as the whole."

I will leave the refutation to you because these days anyone can click on a mouse button and find the refutation on websites around the world. Keep in mind that the "Onah" was a rabbinical term not used by the common people. Jesus did not use rabbinical terminology when making his prophecy. Rather he used the common vernacular of his day to express to his listeners just how long he would remain in the heart of the earth.

Onah was a term used by the rabbis well over a century after Jesus lived to calculate the time of a woman's uncleanliness after her menstrual cycle or giving childbirth and is so used by orthodox Jews today. There are even Jewish websites that instruct on how to compute the "Onah". The Hebrew word "Onah" (#5772 in Strong's concordance) is found only once in the Tanach and is used in reference to the sexual obligations the man owed to his wife (Exodus 21:10 ). It's sexual connotations certainly evinces no evidence of a dubious Jewish idiom used by the Jews in the first century A.D.

As far as Esther and the case of the abandoned slave in I Samuel, just keep in mind Jewish civil days began and ended at sunset. So if Esther began her fast on Friday night at sunset and she approached the king on Monday afternoon, she would still be approaching the king on the "third day" as stated in Esther 5:1 and yet have fasted 3 days and 3 nights since the third night preceded the third day. Apologists who use this example will try to get you to believe Esther began her fast on the daylight portion of Day 1 and went to the king on the daylight portion of Day 3. They will point out that comes to three days and only two nights yet Esther promised three days and three nights in Esther 4:16. This passage is then adduced as proof of a Jewish idiom. However, you should get them to establish Esther began her fast on the daylight portion of Day 1 as opposed to the nightime portion of Day 1. If they cannot do that, they have no case. It is the apologist who denies the prima facie meaning of "three days and three nights." The skeptic is the one who is taking Jesus at his word. The one who denies the prima facie meaning of a passage has the burden to show his meaning is the correct one.

And if you examine 1 Samuel 30:11-13, you will find there is no proof of an idiom there either. The slave hadn't eaten in 3 days and 3 nights (I Samuel 30:12). The day on which the slave was discovered would be Day 3. For convenience, let's say it was Friday afternoon. All day Friday was Day 3, nightime Thursday-Friday predawn was Night 3. All day Thursday was Day 2, and nightime Wednesday-Thursday predawn was Night 2. All day Wednesday was Day 1 and nightime Tuesday and predawn Wednesday was Night 1.

Now consider the apologist's argument. He claims that the slave could only have been abandoned without anything to eat for 3 days and 2 nights, yet the Bible plainly calls his fast a period of 3 days and 3 nights, ergo an idiom. Why the apologist assumes the slave could have fasted only 2 nights is a mystery to me since if he had not eaten anything since Tuesday sunset and was discovered by David and his men Friday afternoon, we would not only have the "third day" but "3 days and 3 nights" as well.

The KJV says he fell sick "three days ago" (I Samuel 30:13). If the Hebrew reckoning was inclusive, as Jewish scholars claim, then we know he fell sick sometime Day 1 between Tuesday sunset and Wednesday sunset (remember I am using the names of the weekdays for convenience only). However, if "three days ago" is exclusive, then he fell sick sometime Tuesday, 3 days *before* Friday.

This still doesn't help the apologist as this is nowhere near 3 days and 2 nights, which is what the apologist is seeking to make his case for an idiom that signifies 3 days and 3 nights. In this situation the slave fell sick on Tuesday and as night fell he was abandoned and had nothing to eat until he was rescued on Friday afternoon.

Can we count the afternoon of the third day as the third day of the slave's fast even though he received nourishment on that same day? Look at Saul's example in the same book (I Samuel 28:20-25) where it says Saul hadn't eaten all day or all night yet he receives nourishment the selfsame night.

One final note: Some use the old Wednesday crucifixion dating scheme. Don't fall for it. It has as many faults as the Friday crucifixion.

Thomas Andrews

JEST2ASK

Thanks very interesting I will have to research a bit more ...

Onah --- Onan Hmmm interesting coincidence (Just the way my mind works I am strange)

However I had never heard of a "Wednesday" Crucifixion scheme. How could that work with Jesus eating the pass-over meal before his arrest & trials ( Peter's denial & the cock crowing ) His excution took place the next day which was the day before the Sabbath ... and the empty tomb discovered on the first day of the week (just before or at sunrise)

I know I can be a bug .....

Tufted

North Babylon is on the south shore of Long Island. It's really a very ordinary suburb.

judge

The important point here is that sabbath days occured on other days apart from saturdays. Some of these "holy days" occured during the feast of unleavened bread.
As our Lord was crucified at this time of year we know that there were "non saturday" sabbaths happening.
John 19:31(?)..I think tells us of an "high day"...in other words a non saturday sabbath that occured during the week.

Here is a link which attempts to explain this.

http://www.redbay.com/ekklesia/3daynite.htm

Volker.Doormann

It seems, that your century counting starts with 1. If I’m not wrong, then a day in your 1st century (“31. December 99 A.D.) counts round about 100 years (= 1 century) to a day in the 3rd century (“1st January 300 A.D.). Because days are also start counting by 1 like centuries (and not by 0) as a convention of calendar maker, I do not see your problem.

Volker

Thomas Andrews

Hi Again Jet2Ask!

The reason why I mentioned the Wednesday crucifixion scheme is many christians today are abandoning the Friday crucifixion and embracing the Wednesday crucifixion. There are some plausible "explanations" that explain why many are embracing the Wednesday crucifixion scheme, but their reasons cannot bear the light of scrutiny.

As an aside, I might add that some christians go so far as to hold to a Thursday crucifixion. These are fewer in number than those that hold to a Wednesday crucifixion, but they believe it for some of the same reasons the Wednesday believers have. The Wednesday crucifixion scheme is first noticed in the 2nd century A.D. by a group of christians in Asia Minor. They held to the belief that Jesus held the last supper on Tuesday night, was betrayed, and was finally crucified on Wednesday afternoon. The "gospel of Peter" which was circulating about this time, clearly taught there were two sabbaths in Palestine the week Jesus was crucified.

What is so funny about this whole mess is this: Jesus was supposedly the greatest man in history, yet christians cannot agree on what year he was born, what time of year he was born, what year he began his ministry, what time of year he began his ministry, how long his ministry lasted, what year he died, what day of the week he died, how long he remained in the heart of the earth, etc, . Why don't they just get together, like the Jesus Seminar, and just vote on these disputed matters? Who knows, by luck, they may get it right.

Anyhow, I have digressed. After the Friday crucifixion view won acceptance among the church faithful, it wasn't until the 19th century that the "Wednesday view" reappeared among some christians in the western world. Dr. Rice espoused it in the 20th century and Herbert W. Armstrong picked it up and began proclaiming it from the radio. He also published two books on the subject and distributed them cost free, thus obtaining a wider audience for this view. In time, there were other christian groups picking up on this, including Hal Lindsey of "The Late Great Planet Earth" fame. Since the advent of the Usenet, many other christians have been persuaded to jump on the Wednesday crucifixion bandwagon. One prominent theologian, Ralph Woodrow, did the complete opposite and went from the Wednesday view (after nearly 40 years teaching it) and accepted the Friday view.

There are serious problems with this view, however, and in a future post I will point out the flaws of such a scenario. For now, I will only point out it has a unique twist that relies heavily on the word "sabbath" found in John 19:31, some juggling of parallell passages, a hyper-literal translation of a quote from Jesus, the misunderstanding of a word in Matthew 28:1, and a equally, fatally flawed misunderstanding of a word in Luke 24.

Those that hold to this view have the best of intentions I am sure (I was one myself). But I soon realized it is a position held together with bubble gum and kite string. I could no longer hold to it in good conscience. If I don't die prematurely, I will be back to defend my position. In the meantime, best wishes to you all,

Thomas Andrews