Was Jesus in the Tomb for Three Days?
One of the questions that always comes up this time of year is this: if Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday, how was He in the tomb for "three days and three nights" as He had foretold in Matthew chapter 12:
Some attempt to sidestep the issue by claiming that Jesus was crucified on an earlier day (usually Wednesday) because of some supposed special Sabbath or the like, and that by backing up the day they can get what we westerners understand as three, 24 hours days of tomb time. But of course one thing they don't think about is this:
Jesus makes this "third day" claim here in Matthew 16:21, as well as Matthew 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, and 24:7.
This begs the question: how could Jesus claim that He would be in the tomb "three days and three nights", and that He would "on the third day be raised"? At face value, at least to people of a western mindset, these are contradictory statements. Consider: Day 1/ Night 1, Day 2 / Night 2, Day 3 / Night 3. How could Jesus be both "on the third day be raised to life" without cratering the time limit He gave of "three days and three nights"? If the latter is true He would have to be raised on Day 4. If the former is true, He could only spend Day 1 / Night 1, Day 2 / Night 2 in the tomb as well as part of Day 3 (and be raised on that day).
The short answer is that as westerners, we don't do a good job of understanding what we're reading. It's understandable. We pick up a Bible written in our language and we immediately start reading it as if it were written in our language and our time. But of course it wasn't. The particular passages in question were written over two thousand years ago in Greek and Aramaic by first century Jews. They lived as first century Jews, thought at first century Jews, and spoke and wrote as first century Jews: Jesus included.
The keys to Biblical interpretation are these, as given by the late Robert L. Cate in his excellent book "Old Testament Roots For New Testament Faith". The bullet points are his, the explanations are mine:
Okay, those things being said, how in the world do they apply to this topic?
In this case there really aren't any translation issues that we have to deal with. It's fairly straightforward to understand it in the English. Jesus has made both claims: "three days and three nights", and "on the third day". If we only understand one or the other to be true, we have a real problem with how we're interpreting Scripture. All Scripture is true and it was given to be understood. But how can both of these types of statements from Jesus be true? The answer is to be found in Jewish idiom and Jewish thought.
The passage's historical meaning unlocks this for us. As English speaking, western minded people reading this passage we see "three days and three nights" and automatically assume three 24 hour periods as we think of them in "modern" society. But do we have the right to do that? Well, no - we really don't. Not when reading something that has been translated into English from a time period sometimes very different from our own. How do we know that first century Jews thought about time like we do? The answer is that they didn't. Please consider the following from the renowned Biblical historian and Rabbinical Scholar John Lightfoot (1602-1675). Lightfoot, along with a couple of later historians named Augustus Neander and Joseph Barber Lightfoot clear up many such questions as these with their research, but sadly they aren't taught much any more in Bible study classes. (Why that is exactly I can only guess but from my experience people clamor for something far less than true, in-depth Bible study.)
Lightfoot writes this concerning how the religious Jews documented the referencing of time in their era and culture. This passage is taken from "The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D. D. (Doctor of Divinity) - Volume XI":
So clearly the Jews had the concept of an "onah" - a portion of a day, yet also a whole day. An onah could mean the nighttime of a day, or the daytime of a day - but it could also mean the whole day. A half-day onah could also be taken to mean the whole day (day and night), and a partial onah (a part of the daytime 'day' or the nighttime 'night' could count for the whole thing (what we would call a 24 hour day).
So that is that. It's simply a different way of referencing time and it seems strange to us in the 21st century. But let's check our work as it were instead of wildly clinging to one example that seems to rescue us from this apparent difficulty. Let's not rest upon one man's research here, as good as it is. If this is true wouldn't we expect to see the same type of thing in other places in Jewish literature? Was Jesus speaking in this manner out of the norm, or was He speaking to rabbinical Jews in their own manner of speech for the purpose of trying to communicate to their self-hardened hearts?
It turns out that there are other places these concepts appear and Jesus was well within His rights to use this idiom, this figure of speech, to prophecy about His time in the tomb (about 36 hours) as "three days and three nights", as well as being risen "on the third day". In fact, it is only the Jewish concept of an "onah" that allows both of Jesus' statements to be true. But more on that in a moment.
Consider this from the book of Tobit (a Jewish apocryphal book not included in Protestant Bibles). We have the following passage concerning a woman named Sara:
So here too we have these exact same two seemingly contradictory terms used in a Jewish writing in a Jewish manner to communicate a Jewish thought.
Now we've probably all heard of the story of Esther and how she saved the Jews from slaughter under the Persian empire. Compare Esther 4:16 with 5:1:
See how this works? Unless we understand what a passage meant back then, we have no hope of faithfully understanding it now. But study, or reading someone who studies, will clear it right up. And then something that at first glance seemed to harm faith, when understood correctly, actually is a great source of increased faith. God always works like this and I love Him for it. Ask, seek, and knock - God will deliver the goods. Always.
This post is getting a bit long but I'll mention one last thing in regards to Jesus quoting Jonah. First, here from Jesus in Matthew 12 and in a couple of other places in the NT, Jonah is spoken of literally. He really did exist, he really did run from God's command to preach to Nineveh, and he really was swallowed by some type of sea creature and after the Jewish idiom of "three days and three nights" got puked up on the shore so that he could make good on his repentance and be the prophet God called him to be. That's number one. The second thing to point out is that the story of Jonah is one of judgment. The sin of Nineveh had come before God and he sent Jonah to preach that judgment. The beauty of it is that until the final judgment, all proclamations of God's judgment contain within them the hope of restoration if those receiving the message will repent and turn back to God. Nineveh heard Jonah's preaching and they did repent.
But here in Matthew 12, and in His entire ministry, Jesus has been demonstrating that He is the Messiah by His works of Godly mercy - as well as proclamations of judgement upon the unrepentant. The Jewish religious leaders didn't believe Him. They saw the miracles, but most of them refused to believe that He was from God (unlike Nicodemus in John 3) so they put Jesus in an impossible situation. They demanded "a sign" to back up His words, because they had rejected all the "signs" Jesus had been giving. The problem was, because of their unbelief there was no "sign" that Jesus *could* give them that they would believe. Oh, He could have cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple and been unharmed, and they would have seen it - but they wouldn't have attributed that to His being the Messiah. Just as in our chapter of Matthew 12, they would have said that He did it by Satan's power. Heed well this maxim: no "sign" can truly be given where unbelief has already been chosen.
So what did Jesus do? Consider this passage:
They were indeed a "wicked and adulterous" generation. The second term clarifies and expands upon the first. They had turned from true worship of the true God, and instead had made themselves the sons of Satan. There was no "sign" that Jesus could give them that they would accept, because they had already decided to reject Him. So He gives them the "sign of Jonah". It is a sign of judgment, but not without the chance of repentance if they would only choose to believe.
Just as Jonah had been in his submarine transport back to his mission field for "three days and three nights", so Jesus would be in the belly of the earth "three days and three nights". But of course this is first century Judea, with the very Jewish Messiah speaking to very Jewish, recalcitrant people. It is all in a Jewish mindset with Jewish speech and Jewish idioms.
Jesus said that He came "to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). It would be left to His disciples to carry the message to the Gentiles. So is it any wonder that God sent to the lost sheep of Israel one of their own? A Jew? Who thought in their ways and spoke in their manner? Of course not, it's perfectly natural. God desires to save all, and He uses the absolute best means available to secure that goal. But He does not force. He does not coerce. Faith and love must be a choice, otherwise they cease to be faith or love.
Late on this Easter Sunday evening, I hope this message blesses you. And I hope it shows you just how much God loves you and desires for you to believe.
Each and every time someone names a supposed "contradiction" or "inconsistency" in the Bible, the answer is always found in the same manner as above. And that answer doesn't minimize God, it maximizes Him. It glorifies Him, for it shows His heart for what it is: He sends just the right messenger to those He would save. If only they will accept it and believe.
Some attempt to sidestep the issue by claiming that Jesus was crucified on an earlier day (usually Wednesday) because of some supposed special Sabbath or the like, and that by backing up the day they can get what we westerners understand as three, 24 hours days of tomb time. But of course one thing they don't think about is this:
Matthew 16:21
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, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Jesus makes this "third day" claim here in Matthew 16:21, as well as Matthew 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, and 24:7.
This begs the question: how could Jesus claim that He would be in the tomb "three days and three nights", and that He would "on the third day be raised"? At face value, at least to people of a western mindset, these are contradictory statements. Consider: Day 1/ Night 1, Day 2 / Night 2, Day 3 / Night 3. How could Jesus be both "on the third day be raised to life" without cratering the time limit He gave of "three days and three nights"? If the latter is true He would have to be raised on Day 4. If the former is true, He could only spend Day 1 / Night 1, Day 2 / Night 2 in the tomb as well as part of Day 3 (and be raised on that day).
The short answer is that as westerners, we don't do a good job of understanding what we're reading. It's understandable. We pick up a Bible written in our language and we immediately start reading it as if it were written in our language and our time. But of course it wasn't. The particular passages in question were written over two thousand years ago in Greek and Aramaic by first century Jews. They lived as first century Jews, thought at first century Jews, and spoke and wrote as first century Jews: Jesus included.
The keys to Biblical interpretation are these, as given by the late Robert L. Cate in his excellent book "Old Testament Roots For New Testament Faith". The bullet points are his, the explanations are mine:
- Find out what the passage really says. This involves the study of languages and the mindset behind those languages. Any Bible other than the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT is a translation of the original manuscripts and fragments. No translation is perfect. English is not nearly as expressive as Koine Greek and if you never pick up a Greek dictionary to research words, I can guarantee you that you'll miss out on the deepest, most rich truths of Scripture.
- Establish the passage's historical meaning. This involves the study of archaeology, history, culture, and comparative religions. In other words, know what it says - then know what it said to the people to whom it was immediately given, and what it meant in the time in which it was given. Missing the keys mentioned so far has lead many astray from understanding God's truth. Hebrew is full of various idioms as is Greek. An idiom is simply a cultural figure of speech. An idiom's meaning is different than its literal meaning. In English I might call something I like "cool". But that is a temperature reference in its literal sense. Without understanding that particular idiom, a non-English speaker would be quite confused by that phrase. Our current question has its answer in a Jewish idom as well as how they thought about time. More on that in a second.
- Discover the passage's basic principle or thrust. This involves the study of the context of the passage: its immediate context, chapter and book context, and then how it relates to other parts of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture.
- Apply the passage to contemporary life. Once we know the ancient meaning of a text, then we can figure out the modern meaning. As Cate puts it: "every passage has a "so what?" attached to it. If you don't know what it meant in the original language, to the original people, in the original culture, in the original time, in the original context... how could you every figure out how you should understand it? The answer is you can't. You can just take some blind stabs in the dark and hope for the best.
- Apply the spiritual dimension. Once you know what it really means, then you can see better how to apply the passage's spiritual meaning to your life and the lives of those around you. All Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is infallible and completely sufficient as it was originally given. Ultimately it can only be truly known by the inward help of that same Holy Spirit.
Okay, those things being said, how in the world do they apply to this topic?
In this case there really aren't any translation issues that we have to deal with. It's fairly straightforward to understand it in the English. Jesus has made both claims: "three days and three nights", and "on the third day". If we only understand one or the other to be true, we have a real problem with how we're interpreting Scripture. All Scripture is true and it was given to be understood. But how can both of these types of statements from Jesus be true? The answer is to be found in Jewish idiom and Jewish thought.
The passage's historical meaning unlocks this for us. As English speaking, western minded people reading this passage we see "three days and three nights" and automatically assume three 24 hour periods as we think of them in "modern" society. But do we have the right to do that? Well, no - we really don't. Not when reading something that has been translated into English from a time period sometimes very different from our own. How do we know that first century Jews thought about time like we do? The answer is that they didn't. Please consider the following from the renowned Biblical historian and Rabbinical Scholar John Lightfoot (1602-1675). Lightfoot, along with a couple of later historians named Augustus Neander and Joseph Barber Lightfoot clear up many such questions as these with their research, but sadly they aren't taught much any more in Bible study classes. (Why that is exactly I can only guess but from my experience people clamor for something far less than true, in-depth Bible study.)
Lightfoot writes this concerning how the religious Jews documented the referencing of time in their era and culture. This passage is taken from "The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D. D. (Doctor of Divinity) - Volume XI":
II. If you number the hours that passed from our Saviour's giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find almost the same number of hours (36); and yet that space is called by him "three days and three nights," when as two nights only came between, and only one complete day.
Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not without the consent both of the Jewish schools, and their computation. Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Sabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days.
Among other things these words occur; "R (Rabbi). Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanan saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.
It is not easy to translate the word Onah into good Latin: for to some it is the same with the half of a natural day; to some it is all one with a whole natural day. According to the first sense we may observe, from the words of R. Ismael, that sometimes four Onoth, or halves of a natural day, may be accounted for three days: and that they also are so numbered that one part or the other of those halves may be accounted for a whole. Compare the latter sense with the words of our Saviour, which are now before us: "A day and a night (saith the tradition) make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole."
Therefore Christ may truly be said to have been in his grave three Onoth, or three natural days (when yet the greatest part of the first day was wanting, and the night altogether, and the greatest part by far of the third day also), the consent of the schools and dialect of the nation agreeing thereunto. For, "the least part of the Onah concluded the whole." So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day upon which Christ arose may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.
So clearly the Jews had the concept of an "onah" - a portion of a day, yet also a whole day. An onah could mean the nighttime of a day, or the daytime of a day - but it could also mean the whole day. A half-day onah could also be taken to mean the whole day (day and night), and a partial onah (a part of the daytime 'day' or the nighttime 'night' could count for the whole thing (what we would call a 24 hour day).
So that is that. It's simply a different way of referencing time and it seems strange to us in the 21st century. But let's check our work as it were instead of wildly clinging to one example that seems to rescue us from this apparent difficulty. Let's not rest upon one man's research here, as good as it is. If this is true wouldn't we expect to see the same type of thing in other places in Jewish literature? Was Jesus speaking in this manner out of the norm, or was He speaking to rabbinical Jews in their own manner of speech for the purpose of trying to communicate to their self-hardened hearts?
It turns out that there are other places these concepts appear and Jesus was well within His rights to use this idiom, this figure of speech, to prophecy about His time in the tomb (about 36 hours) as "three days and three nights", as well as being risen "on the third day". In fact, it is only the Jewish concept of an "onah" that allows both of Jesus' statements to be true. But more on that in a moment.
Consider this from the book of Tobit (a Jewish apocryphal book not included in Protestant Bibles). We have the following passage concerning a woman named Sara:
7 Now it happened on the same day, that Sara daughter of Raguel, in Rages a city of the Medes, received a reproach from one of her father's servant maids,
8 Because she had been given to seven husbands, and a devil named Asmodeus had killed them, at their first going in unto her.
9 So when she reproved the maid for her fault, she answered her, saying: May we never see son, or daughter of thee upon the earth, thou murderer of thy husbands.
10 Wilt thou kill me also, as thou hast already killed seven husbands? At these words she went into an upper chamber of her house: and for three days and three nights did neither eat nor drink:
11 But continuing in prayer with tears besought God, that he would deliver her from this reproach.
12 And it came to pass on the third day, when she was making an end of her prayer, blessing the Lord,
13 She said: Blessed is thy name, O God of our fathers: who when thou hast been angry, wilt shew mercy, and in the time of tribulation forgivest the sins of them that call upon thee.
Tobit (Douay-Rheims Version) 3:7-13
So here too we have these exact same two seemingly contradictory terms used in a Jewish writing in a Jewish manner to communicate a Jewish thought.
Now we've probably all heard of the story of Esther and how she saved the Jews from slaughter under the Persian empire. Compare Esther 4:16 with 5:1:
4:15 Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: 4:16 “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.” 4:17 So Mordecai went away and carried out all of Esther’s instructions.
Est 5:1 On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the hall, facing the entrance.
See how this works? Unless we understand what a passage meant back then, we have no hope of faithfully understanding it now. But study, or reading someone who studies, will clear it right up. And then something that at first glance seemed to harm faith, when understood correctly, actually is a great source of increased faith. God always works like this and I love Him for it. Ask, seek, and knock - God will deliver the goods. Always.
This post is getting a bit long but I'll mention one last thing in regards to Jesus quoting Jonah. First, here from Jesus in Matthew 12 and in a couple of other places in the NT, Jonah is spoken of literally. He really did exist, he really did run from God's command to preach to Nineveh, and he really was swallowed by some type of sea creature and after the Jewish idiom of "three days and three nights" got puked up on the shore so that he could make good on his repentance and be the prophet God called him to be. That's number one. The second thing to point out is that the story of Jonah is one of judgment. The sin of Nineveh had come before God and he sent Jonah to preach that judgment. The beauty of it is that until the final judgment, all proclamations of God's judgment contain within them the hope of restoration if those receiving the message will repent and turn back to God. Nineveh heard Jonah's preaching and they did repent.
But here in Matthew 12, and in His entire ministry, Jesus has been demonstrating that He is the Messiah by His works of Godly mercy - as well as proclamations of judgement upon the unrepentant. The Jewish religious leaders didn't believe Him. They saw the miracles, but most of them refused to believe that He was from God (unlike Nicodemus in John 3) so they put Jesus in an impossible situation. They demanded "a sign" to back up His words, because they had rejected all the "signs" Jesus had been giving. The problem was, because of their unbelief there was no "sign" that Jesus *could* give them that they would believe. Oh, He could have cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple and been unharmed, and they would have seen it - but they wouldn't have attributed that to His being the Messiah. Just as in our chapter of Matthew 12, they would have said that He did it by Satan's power. Heed well this maxim: no "sign" can truly be given where unbelief has already been chosen.
So what did Jesus do? Consider this passage:
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
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.
41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.
42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
Matthew 12:38-42 (NIV)
They were indeed a "wicked and adulterous" generation. The second term clarifies and expands upon the first. They had turned from true worship of the true God, and instead had made themselves the sons of Satan. There was no "sign" that Jesus could give them that they would accept, because they had already decided to reject Him. So He gives them the "sign of Jonah". It is a sign of judgment, but not without the chance of repentance if they would only choose to believe.
Just as Jonah had been in his submarine transport back to his mission field for "three days and three nights", so Jesus would be in the belly of the earth "three days and three nights". But of course this is first century Judea, with the very Jewish Messiah speaking to very Jewish, recalcitrant people. It is all in a Jewish mindset with Jewish speech and Jewish idioms.
Jesus said that He came "to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). It would be left to His disciples to carry the message to the Gentiles. So is it any wonder that God sent to the lost sheep of Israel one of their own? A Jew? Who thought in their ways and spoke in their manner? Of course not, it's perfectly natural. God desires to save all, and He uses the absolute best means available to secure that goal. But He does not force. He does not coerce. Faith and love must be a choice, otherwise they cease to be faith or love.
Mt 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Late on this Easter Sunday evening, I hope this message blesses you. And I hope it shows you just how much God loves you and desires for you to believe.
Each and every time someone names a supposed "contradiction" or "inconsistency" in the Bible, the answer is always found in the same manner as above. And that answer doesn't minimize God, it maximizes Him. It glorifies Him, for it shows His heart for what it is: He sends just the right messenger to those He would save. If only they will accept it and believe.
Comments