3 days/3 nights and the Pharisees

[rstrats]

When responding to the Pharisees, why do you suppose the Messiah made the specific point that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights?

 

[HTacianas]

When responding to the Pharisees, why do you suppose the Messiah made the specific point that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights?

The "three nights" is an emendation. The "three days" may also be an emendation. It likely originally read:

“For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth."

Or:

“For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days in the heart of the earth.

 

[rstrats]

The "three nights" is an emendation. The "three days" may also be an emendation. It likely originally read:

“For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth."

What is your source for thinking that? None out of some 50 translations/versions that I looked at have it that way.

Or:

“For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days in the heart of the earth.

And out of those 50, only the Weymouth has it like that.

 

[eleos1954]

When responding to the Pharisees, why do you suppose the Messiah made the specific point that He would be in the "heart of the earth" for 3 days and 3 nights?

The earth don't have a heart .... so we know it is symbolic language.

Jesus says that the Son of Man will “be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” ... meaning in the tomb.

He was in the tomb and we know what happened .... in the tomb and resurrected on the third day.

The story of Jonah is similar but not exactly the same .... he was in the belly of the whale and considered himself a goner (as good as dead - the whale being his tomb so to speak (without escape ) ... however ....

the whale spit him out on the third day (escaped death) - Jesus died and overcame death

so Jesus used the story of Jonah as an analogy (a correspondence or partial similarity)

Through Jesus we will escape death for eternity. Amen!!!

 

[rstrats]

The earth don't have a heart .... so we know it is symbolic language.

Jesus says that the Son of Man will “be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” ... meaning in the tomb.

So you don't see any significance in the 3 days and 3 nights that the Messiah told the Pharisees He would spend in the tomb. That the period of time was irrelevant.

 

[eleos1954]

So you don't see any significance in the 3 days and 3 nights that the Messiah told the Pharisees He would spend in the tomb. That the period of time was irrelevant.

Like .... Jonah 3 days 3 nights .... Jesus 3 days 3 nights.

The timeframe is relevant else Jesus would not have mentioned it. Like I said there are similarities between the two stories. Jesus used the 3 days 3 nights as an example of his duration in the tomb as compared with the timeframe Jonah spent in the belly of the whale (of which Jonah considered his tomb)

The phrase “sign of Jonah” was used by Jesus as a typological metaphor for His future death, burial, and resurrection.

 

[rstrats]

Like .... Jonah 3 days 3 nights .... Jesus 3 days 3 nights.

The timeframe is relevant else Jesus would not have mentioned it.

I think the Jonah account is generally considered to be the type and the crucifixion/resurrection account to be the antitype. And I'm asking why it's relevant - what is it that is important about that timeframe?

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

The "three nights" is an emendation. The "three days" may also be an emendation. It likely originally read:

“For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth."

Or:

“For as Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days in the heart of the earth.

It would be more desirable to write: "the three nights" is *possibly* an emendation". Flatly declaring it an emendation without evidence doesn't work. You did fine with your comment the three days *may* also be an emendation. I have often thought of that too but there are no manuscripts of Matthew, early or late, that omit any of those words. The sign of Jonah is mentioned elsewhere in the gospels and they omit the three days and three nights entirely. But proving those words do not belong in Matthew 12:40 would be very difficult. It is crucial to understand that only Matthew mentions the resurrection of many saints on the same weekend Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection itself wasn't the sign, it was Jesus who was describing the amount of time that passed between his death and resurrection.

The question rstrats asks also deserves a response. Here is his question:

Rstrats:
I think the Jonah account is generally considered to be the type and the crucifixion/resurrection account to be the antitype. And I'm asking why it's relevant - what is it that is important about that timeframe?

SABER TRUTH TIGER
It is relevant for Matthew, but not so relevant for the other gospel writers. When one reads the gospel of Matthew he makes frequent references to the Hebrew Scriptures and prophecy fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. He makes repeated references to the Hebrew Scriptures and ties them in with Jesus. To Matthew, Jonah was said to have been in the whale's belly for three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17) so Matthew ties this in with Jesus being in the heart of the earth. Jesus may have said those words attributed to him but they are not repeated in the other gospels.

One can begin with the book of Matthew and read it carefully and use fluorescent markers to mark every occasion he makes a reference to a prophecy or story in the Old Testament and you will come to see he is very occupied with lining things in Jesus's life with events in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I believe in the Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection of Jesus but I am at a total loss to explain the "three days and three nights". It doesn't fit the Friday to Sunday scenario. So, it may very well be an emendation but I can't prove that. I don't know how to answer that.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

It would be more desirable to write: "the three nights" is *possibly* an emendation". Flatly declaring it an emendation without evidence doesn't work. You did fine with your comment the three days *may* also be an emendation. I have often thought of that too but there are no manuscripts of Matthew, early or late, that omit any of those words. The sign of Jonah is mentioned elsewhere in the gospels and they omit the three days and three nights entirely. But proving those words do not belong in Matthew 12:40 would be very difficult. It is crucial to understand that only Matthew mentions the resurrection of many saints on the same weekend Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection itself wasn't the sign, it was Jesus who was describing the amount of time that passed between his death and resurrection.

The question rstrats asks also deserves a response. Here is his question:

Rstrats:
I think the Jonah account is generally considered to be the type and the crucifixion/resurrection account to be the antitype. And I'm asking why it's relevant - what is it that is important about that timeframe?

SABER TRUTH TIGER
It is relevant for Matthew, but not so relevant for the other gospel writers. When one reads the gospel of Matthew he makes frequent references to the Hebrew Scriptures and prophecy fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. He makes repeated references to the Hebrew Scriptures and ties them in with Jesus. To Matthew, Jonah was said to have been in the whale's belly for three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17) so Matthew ties this in with Jesus being in the heart of the earth. Jesus may have said those words attributed to him but they are not repeated in the other gospels.

One can begin with the book of Matthew and read it carefully and use fluorescent markers to mark every occasion he makes a reference to a prophecy or story in the Old Testament and you will come to see he is very occupied with lining things in Jesus's life with events in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I believe in the Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection of Jesus but I am at a total loss to explain the "three days and three nights". It doesn't fit the Friday to Sunday scenario. So, it may very well be an emendation but I can't prove that. I don't know how to answer that.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

SABER TRUTH TIGER

It is interesting that some people believe that Matthew contradicts the other three gospels on the crucifixion day and the resurrection day. These people, who are few in number, claim (rightly so) that, unlike the other three gospels, Matthew does not place the crucifixion on the day before the Sabbath. Instead, he calls the day of the crucifixion "the Preparation" but he does not call it the day after the resurrection the Sabbath either. No mention of any Sabbath until Matthew 28:1 when, according to this minority, LATE on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, the women came to the tomb.

The Greek word OPSE for LATE occurs twice in the book of Mark and there it means LATE, as late in the day or evening. George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek - English translation translates it this way. Those that hold to this interpretation claim that "dawn" in this verse is not referring to daybreak but the beginning of the first day of the week. Hence, they claim, Jesus was resurrected late on the Sabbath day, Saturday. They place the crucifixion on a Thursday and quote the spurious Gospel of Peter for confirmation.

The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

The Gospel of Peter. On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

The Gospel of Peter is not an inspired document but it does allow for a day and night between the day Jesus died and his resurrection on the Sabbath.

Some theorize that there were some early Christians in the first century of the Christian era that held to the Sabbath resurrection while others celebrated it on Sunday. However, in the second century when the gospels were collated into one book the discrepancy became obvious to all, and the preposition OPSE was changed from meaning LATE in the Sabbath to AFTER the Sabbath. There is a Lexicon that calls OPSE an "improper" preposition that meant AFTER and so many translations today render Matthew 28:1 OPSE as after and not late on the Sabbath as others still do. Before the second century CE there are no cases where OPSE is translated as AFTER. It is translated consistently as LATE in the day or evening. See the following:

Strong's Greek: 3796. ὀψέ (opse) -- long after, late

I don't necessarily agree with these sentiments but I learned them in the Worldwide Church of God in the 70s. I think there are some people who are absolutely certain that the correct translation is AFTER the Sabbath. But I am not sure which one is correct.

There is a bigger problem facing Christians in apologetics. Some scholars have pointed out that the Greek word for Sabbath in "after the Sabbath" in Matthew 28:1 is plural. So, literally, it is saying "After the Sabbaths". and not after the Sabbath (singular).

Furthermore, these same scholars claim that "as it began to dawn toward the first of the week" it is actually speaking of “the first of the Sabbaths” since the English word “week” is found in most translations even though in the Greek texts it is plural Sabbaths. They claim that Jesus rose from the dead Saturday morning before sunrise after being crucified Wednesday afternoon. This accounts for the “three days and three nights”. They claim the “After the Sabbath” should be rendered “LATER of the Sabbaths” and “the first day of the week” should be “as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths”.

Those that claim this believe the first mention of Sabbaths in Matthew 28:1 is the so-called Nisan 15 Sabbath and the “first of the Sabbaths” is the first Sabbath of the seven weekly Sabbath countdown toward Shavuot or Pentecost.

There are numerous problems with this position but I will not discuss this at this time.

Thanks for reading

 

[rstrats]

Is it not important, relevant, that Jesus gave only one sign at that time to those who were seeking one?

But was there a specific reason for it being 3 daytimes and 3 night times?

 

[rstrats]

It seems , and maybe it is just the English way it is put, that 3 daytimes and 3 night times
is not the same (in meaning(s), or maybe motives?, and/or intents?)
as 3 days and 3 nights.

How is it different and what is your point with regard to this topic?

 

[rstrats]

In the original three days and three nights meant a specific time period of 72 hours, for Jesus and for Jonah.

Three day times (in English) could refer to : three day times : August 9, August 21, August 27.
Three night times , again in English, could likewise refer to three separate nights.
For instance. i.e. not a particular specific span of time or length of time.

So the sign could have been any number of days and nights, e.g. 1 day and 1 night, or 1 day and no night, etc.? It was just the first number that popped into the Messiah's head.

 

[Svt4Him]

Not going to debate this, but often the OT points to Jesus. Johan fled and there was punishment, and he had to throw himself over to stop God's wrath, and he spent three days in a large fish because of it. You'd also note Jonah threw himself into the water, which is the definition of a baptism. I liken it to judgment coming to all man-kind, they are drowning in sin, and Jesus said the cross was a baptism. So Jesus could have been saying, when the pharisees asked for a sign, that the sign they'll get is a sign of judgement. Jonah almost died under the wrath of God's judgement in the form of a storm, spends 3 days in the belly of the fish, then is brought out alive to carry out his commission. What is it a shadow of? Well Jesus drowns in his own blood under God's wrath on the cross, spends 3 days in the belly of the earth, and comes out alive. Are there differences? Of course.
That's my thoughts on it anyway.

 

[Aaron112]

Did Jesus die? (and GREATLY Jesus was raised from the dead/ grave).
Did Jonah die? yep. No big stretch, and necessary in the nature of the case, comparison, and all of God's Word....