Matthew 12:40 Using Common Idiomatic Language?

But you haven't offered any valid reason for disagreeing. You just insisted that I was disagreeing with rounding up to a whole day while not addressing my actual points.To restate1) The Rabbi says that you may round up any part of a "whole day" - he does not say that you may then call that "a day and a night"2) The commentary explicitly states: So your own source agrees with me3) as I stated in my last post if the substitution of "a day and a night" for "a whole day" was valid - a claim which is certainly not explicit in the Rabbi's words, nor clearly implied - the plural would be "three days and nights" since "a day and a night" is the unit you would be using (and even that is ambiguous). However the phrase "three days and three nights" separates the days and nights, so it would still not be valid.

kbertsche,
re: "I haven't been able to find any example which EXACTLY, DEFINITIVELY shows what you ask."OK, sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to explain the lack of a 3rd night time by saying that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time. Perhaps someone new looking in will know of examples.

Faith,
re: "But I think that is a distinction WE make that they didn't make..."So how about showing examples which show that a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could occur?BTW, what is there in scripture that makes it absolutely, positively, no question about it necessary for the crucifixion to have to have taken place on the 6th day of the week?Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

The only one I know of is the three days from Jesus' crucifixion to his resurrection. I think kbertsche has conclusively shown that the gospel of Matthew refers to that event in two different ways which must be understood to be synonymous. I think that's conclusive myself, making "three days and three nights" clearly synonymous with references to Jesus' rising on the third day. It shows that "three days and three nights" IS an idiom that doesn't mean what we would mean by it today, and in context it refers to a period in which one of the days has no night at all and consists of just a few hours of daylight before sunset, and the third day consists of a few hours in the early morning (what if He rose before sunrise, then He would have risen in the dark or night, and yet it is called the third "day." This is so clear I don't see why there is still any argument.Then the Rabbi who is quoted at the link I provided confirms the reasoning for this view.Here's what kbertsche wrote: That's an interesting question and I don't know the answer and doing a quick bit of research didn't clear it up.I've had the idea for years that because Jesus was crucified in connection with the Passover that it was in keeping with the instructions God gave the Israelites through Moses for the observance of Passover down the years, though I've never studied the connections myself.I figured that since Jesus is our Sacrificial Lamb that He probably died on the day the lamb was slaughtered for the Passover observance, but various references put Passover on Thursday so now I'm confused about all that. I know the day of His crucifixion is called the Preparation Day in scripture, on which it would make sense that the lamb was slaughtered for the feast, but nothing I found in my research clearly bears out that idea. Granted I didn't spend a lot of time looking.There is also a Preparation Day connected with every Sabbath observance, in which the Jews did all the work necessary for the observance in advance, since work is forbidden on the Sabbath, and this is still their practice.Symbolically it seems to me that either for the Sabbath or the Passover it fits for the crucifixion to fall on a Preparation Day, because in relation to the Sabbath Jesus' death earns believers the ultimate Sabbath Rest; and in relation to the Passover His death is the event on which the sins of those who have painted the lamb's blood on the doorposts (those who have faith in Christ's death for us, and are protected by His blood) are all "passed over" by the angel of death, and it precedes/makes possible the great Exodus from "Egypt" -- this fallen world -- which we inherit through His sacrifice.Such symbolism is common in scripture. John calls Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." There are many references in the Old Testament to His different roles as Messiah, including His being that lamb, starting with Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, symbolizing God's sacrifice of His own Son; and Abraham tells Isaac "God will provide the lamb" and literally He does provide a ram caught in a thicket, to replace Isaac.So there are MY ponderings for what it's worth even if I can't find anything online that says the same thing. I would guess I read all that somewhere but I don't remember where.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The obvious reason why it has to be Friday is that the next day is the Sabbath.The Gospels disagree on the relation to the Passover.On the other issue

quote:

---

Then the Rabbi who is quoted at the link I provided confirms the reasoning for this view.

---

This is clearly false, since no such reasoning is provided, and the commentary clearly disagrees with you.

Why not Thursday or Sunday?

quote:

---

Why not Thursday or Sunday?

---

Because the Sabbath is Saturday, the previous day must be a Friday.

But why the previous day?

Because that is what the Gospels say: Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31

I'm not going to look them up but if they say that in so many words that's certainly the sufficient answer asked for.

quote:

---

2) that "three days and three nights" is synonymous for "the third day" (i.e. two days from now). Matthew himself uses both phrases interchangeably without noting a contradiction (the former in Mt. 12:40; the latter in 16:21; 17:23; and 20:19.) From Mt 27:57—28:1 it seems that this refers to a period of less than 48 hours.

---

Let's have a look at these.12:40 is part of a speech from Jesus and says: 16:21 says: 17:23 repeats the "on the third day" formula, as does 20:19Let us note that there is a difference between having compatible meanings and identical meanings. Even assuming that there is no contradiction - which is not a safe assumption - we can only conclude that the meanings are compatible.And they are. Remembering that - for the Jews - the night starts a 24-hour day, if Jesus was buried during the night of the first day, and rose in the daytime of the third then He would "rise on the third day" having spent at least portions of three days and three nights in the grave or tomb. That "on the third day" is also compatible with a shorter period only makes 16:21, 17:23 and 20:19 pretty much irrelevant.Which means that your argument comes down to assuming that there is no conflict between the "Sign of Jonah" and the story of Jesus' burial and resurrection, which simply begs the question.If there was genuinely a common idiom at the time which resolved the conflict surely there should be better evidence than that.

It's not clear what you are suggesting here. But if you are suggesting that He was buried on Thursday after sunset and raised on Sunday after sunrise, your suggestion seems to go against the timetable that Matthew himself lays out in 27:57-28:1. This timetable seems to suggest burial late on Friday (the first day) and resurrection early on Sunday (the third day). No, my argument comes down to the author (Matthew) writing a consistent account. He uses various phrases to refer to the same thing. By this, he implies that he sees these phrases as synonymous.

quote:

---

It's not clear what you are suggesting here. But if you are suggesting that He was buried on Thursday after sunset and raised on Sunday after sunrise, your suggestion seems to go against the timetable that Matthew himself lays out in 27:57-28:1. This timetable seems to suggest burial late on Friday (the first day) and resurrection early on Sunday (the third day).

---

I am not discussing the timetable. I am simply pointing out that the phrases "three days and three nights" and "on the third day" have overlapping meanings - using the obvious interpretations. Thus there is no contradiction between them.

quote:

---

No, my argument comes down to the author (Matthew) writing a consistent account. He uses various phrases to refer to the same thing. By this, he implies that he sees these phrases as synonymous.

---

No, he does not imply that. Even if you assume a strong intent to maintain consistency (which I think is mistaken) you can't conclude that the meanings are synonymous rather than merely compatible and the only clear contradiction is between the "three days and three nights" and the account of the burial and resurrection. "On the third day" is compatible with both.

But the timetable IS the issue!We know from Lk. 13:32 that, according to first century usage, "the third day" is what we would call "two days from now". According to Matthew's use of this phrase and his own timetable, this would put the crucifixion on Friday and the resurrection on Sunday.If this is what you are saying, then we are all in agreement. If you are saying something else, then you seem to be in disagreement with Lk 13:32 and with Mt 27:57-28:1.

quote:

---

But the timetable IS the issue!

---

Establishing that your "on the third day" references don't really help your position is certainly a relevant point. Which leaves the difference between the timetable and the "three days and the three nights" your only evidence that there is a solution to that difference.

quote:

---

We know from Lk. 13:32 that, according to first century usage, "the third day" is what we would call "two days from now".

---

Actually we know by counting that if you include today the day after tomorrow will be the third day. I really can't believe I have to keep pointing this out. Maybe you think that the Jews couldn't count past two ?

quote:

---

According to Matthew's use of this phrase and his own timetable, this would put the crucifixion on Friday and the resurrection on Sunday.

---

And the problem has always been that by putting the burial late on the Friday, Jesus only stays buried for two nights, not three. THAT is what I am saying.