Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

I've been giving this argument some thought over the last couple of days. Some text.Matthew 12:40

quote:

---

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

---

Matthew 16:21

quote:

---

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

---

17:23

quote:

---

They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. And the disciples were filled with grief.

---

20:19

quote:

---

and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!

---

Out of all of these quotes, Matthew used three days and nights only once, and used three days elsewhere. Nobody seems to dispute that a time period like Thurs-Sunday would be reported as four days. I think that means that whatever Matthew was thinking when he said three days and three nights, he consistently does not refer to a third night in other passages.That would largely settle the issue in your favor except that Matthew might have made a mistake in speaking rather than using an idiom. For me, the distinction does not matter. You convinced me that the text supports the Friday-Sunday traditional timeline. But that might not end the dispute between you and Paul.

The point here is extremely simple. The gospel writers say that Jesus was raised "on the third day". Lk 13:32 shows us that "the third day" was actually two days in the future. Very clear and simple. Perhaps we are in full agreement then, that for first century Jews "the third day" was about 48 hours in the future? It has seemed to me that you disagree with this, which is why I feel that I need to keep stressing the point. But there is no "problem" here. According to Matthew 27-28, this is exactly what happened. Jesus was buried on Good Friday and raised "on the third day", Easter Sunday. Yes, He was buried for two nights, not three.

The only problem here is trying to put a mathematical spin on language. As the examples show, there are many ways of expressing a time-line in words. Few of them are mathematically precise.

quote:

---

The point here is extremely simple. The gospel writers say that Jesus was raised "on the third day". Lk 13:32 shows us that "the third day" was actually two days in the future. Very clear and simpl

---

Which in no way answers my point that there is an overlap in meaning between "three days and three nights" and "on the third day"

quote:

---

Perhaps we are in full agreement then, that for first century Jews "the third day" was about 48 hours in the future? It has seemed to me that you disagree with this, which is why I feel that I need to keep stressing the point.

---

In a context where "today" is included, of course it is. But that can go up to 72 hours since the precision is very coarse.

quote:

---

But there is no "problem" here. According to Matthew 27-28, this is exactly what happened. Jesus was buried on Good Friday and raised "on the third day", Easter Sunday. Yes, He was buried for two nights, not three.

---

So, you don't consider the fact that Jesus was not buried for three days and three nights a problem. But in that case, why have you been engaging in rather desperate attempts to try to explain away the problem ?

???

kbertsche,
re: "But there is no 'problem' here. According to Matthew 27-28, this is exactly what happened. Jesus was buried on Good Friday and raised 'on the third day', Easter Sunday. Yes, He was buried for two nights, not three."So why do you suppose He specifically said that 3 nights would be involved, and why do you suppose He specifically said that He would rise "after" 3 days, and why do you suppose the men on the road to Emmaus on the 1st day of the week said that it was the 3rd day "since" the crucifixion? Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

That is not under contention... we're talking about Matthew 12:40.

quote:

---

Matt 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

---

Here's the relevant section from Jonah:

quote:

---

Jonah
1:17 Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
2:1-9 details Jonahs prayer while in the fish
2:10 And the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.
3:1-3 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you. Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh.

---

In the story of Jonah, Jonah spends 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish and then gets out on the fourth day.Jesus, on the other hand, spent 3 days and 2 nights in the earth and was raised on the third day.

How can we know that this is on the fourth day? There is so little detail in the story that we don't know if Jonah was captured morning or night, or if he was puked up morning or night, or on which day either occurred.I don't believe it is possible to resolve the question this way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The third night was spent in the fish.Then the fish barfed him up and the Lord appeared a second time and Jonah went to Nineveh.It's fair to conclude that the second appearance and leaving was the next morning rather than that same night he was ejected.I suppose you could force an interpretation where that all can technically happen during that third night, but that doesn't come off as a plain reading to me. And it doesn't make sense to travel to Nineveh in the middle of the night.Aside, arguing that this is an idiom where a portion of that 3rd night can be referred to as the whole night seems like desperately trying to force any interpretation that saves face. That's just bad exegesis.

The whole discussion has been about the phrase "three days and three nights" and the fact that it does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels. You did not even address that when you said that there was no problem.You have been trying to argue that it is an idiom which fits the actual time but all your "evidence" turned out not to be evidence (and obviously so) - except for the fact that the phrase read literally does not agree with the time Jesus was buried according to the Gospels. You even tried to repeat the refuted arguments when this thread came back to life. And need we mention your resort to arrogant and insulting bluster to try cover over the fact that you had no evidence?

There is nothing wrong with kbertsche's evidence, it's quite solid: Matthew describes the same event in both terms, "three days and three nights" AND "He rose again on the third day." They refer to the same event, they are therefore synonymous, he's made the case that "three days and three nights" is not literal as we would use it, it fits what Rabbi Azariah describes of Jewish idiom.

There is nothing in the text that allows you to interpret this phrase. Was it dark when Jonah exited? Mid afternoon? There is absolutely no way to verify that the usage is inconsistent with the usage in Matthew 12. There are no facts, outside of the phrase itself, to interpret. And now you are grasping at straws. None of the story really makes sense. But what you are really hanging your interpretation on is your belief that Jonah would not start a journey at night. Okay. I think you are out on that limb by yourself.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with kbertsche's evidence, it's quite solid:

---

Really ? I look forward to your answers to all my refutations of his "evidence" in this thread. Yes, that is a joke, and so is your assertion.

quote:

---

Matthew describes the same event in both terms, "three days and three nights" AND "He rose again on the third day.

---

The time Matthew uses the term "three days and three nights" it is in a story about Jesus, and in the story Jesus apparently describes the time he will be buried as "three days and three nights". It is not Matthew describing the events of Jesus' burial and resurrection at all.

quote:

---

They refer to the same event, they are therefore synonymous,

---

This is an obvious falsehood. All that can be said is that their meanings should be compatible - but given the context of 12:40, even that is not necessarily the case.
But their meanings are compatible, without resorting to the claim that there is anything odd in the language.

quote:

---

he's made the case that "three days and three nights" is not literal as we would use it

---

He's not made the case that it can refer to a period of time that includes only two nights without even a portion of a third - which is the problem all along.

quote:

---

it fits what Rabbi Azariah describes of Jewish idiom

---

Aside from the objections I have already used, Rabbi Azariah does not - in the material quoted - even claim to be dealing with idiom, nor does he say anything that would clearly address the real issue. Indeed, as I keep pointing out the commentary you quote explicitly says that at least portions of three nights are needed.so, just the usual pack of falsehoods, ignoring all the discussion that has gone on.

Faith,
re: "I think Azariah's version does make more sense: calling a 'night and a day' a whole day in which night is subsumed in a way that means you can call a time period a 'day and a night' meaning a whole day, but without there being any actual night as part of it."Would you say that was common usage in the first century and before?

Good question. What do you think is the main point of Mt. 12:39-40? What is the main thing that Jesus/Matthew is trying to communicate to his listeners/readers?