POWELL:
This post has to do with whether the "three days and three nights" spoken of for burial to resurrection of Jesus is satisfied by a Friday afternoon burial and Sunday morning resurrection. The source JP Holding uses is a quote from Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Thanks James for that information.

I have analyzed what I think Azariah meant and what his commentators meant. This task was made more difficult because the modern commmentator I got this from, Tzvee Zahavy, seems to have misunderstood several things. My source is in pdf format located at

http://zahavy.com/eleazar.pdf

I still need to consider Biblical passages and another Talmud reference that Glenn Miller and others have suggested support their interpretation of what "3 days and 3 nights" means.

First, I will just quote the source with Zahavy's comments.

Tzvee Zahavy:
The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . .114

62.
. . .A. "If one discharged thick drops from his member he is unclean." The words of R. Eleazar Hisma.
. . .B. If one suffered impure thoughts at night and got up and found his flesh heated, he is unclean.
. . .C. "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean."
. . .D. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .E. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six."
. . .F. R. Aqiva says, "Always five." M. Miq. 8:3 (Mekh. Bahodes, 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 214; Mekh. De R. Simeon, p. 142)

Comment: C-D gives the ruling of Eleazar b. Azariah. If a woman discharges semen on the third day she is clean.



The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . .115

The implication is that if she does so on the first or second, she is unclean. M. Shab. 9:3 explains the source of Eleazar's ruling:

"From whence do we know that one who discharges semen on the third day is clean (so K, other MSS. give 'unclean')? For it is written, 'Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman (Ex. 19:15).' "

Potent semen is classified as one of the fathers of uncleanness (M. Kel. 1:1). After the second day the presumption is that it is no longer considered potent semen. Hence if it is discharge she (and it) is clean.

E is phrased as a gloss to C-D and F disputes E. It is likely that E-F referred originally to another protasis since the word "they" in the present context has no antecendent. A possible protasis might be: "A woman who discharges semen in the first three days after intercourse is unclean." Then Ishmael could introduce the question of how many "periods" are encompassed in the "three days."

Each day consists of two "periods"--the daytime and the night. Ishmael points out three days can be either four, five, or six periods, depending on whether intercourse last occurred
at night, during the day, or at the end of the day. If it was, for example, late Wednesday afternoon we can count two periods on Thursday and two on Friday so that on Saturday, the third day, if she discharged semen she would be clean. It is possible to add on two more periods on Wednesday giving either five or six altogether until Saturday. Aqiva, on the other hand, simply holds that no matter when you start, if you count five periods you
have spanned three days.

. . .A. "[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean."
. . .B. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .C. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they [i.e., the three days] are four periods, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six."
. . .D. R. Aqiva says, "Always five,


The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

. . . E. "and if part of the first period elapsed we complete it with part of the sixth." T. Miq. 6:6

Comment: A-D simply repeats M. Miq. 8:3. E is then T.'s comment on M. It modifies Aqiva's ruling. In each case the time span is a full sixty hours (five periods). If intercourse occurred late on Wednesday, for example, any semen discharged until late on Saturday is unclean. Without T.'s comment we would have considered any discharge from the morning on (the beginning of the fifth period) as clean.


63.
. . .A. tny: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a period.
. . .B. "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one."
. . .C. wtny: Concerning the teaching of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, "Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." y. Shab. 9:3

Comment: The pericope refers to M. Miq. 8:3: "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse she] is clean; the words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah." A-B is in direct
discourse. C is a comment on the ruling of A-B.

The issue is how we add up the time between intercourse and the time the woman becomes clean. According to A-B any fraction of a period, that is the day or the night, counts for the reckoning as a full period. Therefore as C points out, one day plus a small
amount of time the night before and the night after is enough of a lapse of time for the woman to be considered clean. There are then three days in all. On the other hand if two full days are elapsed from just after sunrise on one day to just before sunset on the second, she is still unclean, for only two days can be counted.


The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

It is strange, however, that Eleazar speaks of "periods" since in M. only Ishmael and Aqiva reckon on that basis. Eleazar's counting there is confined to days (cf. comment to M. Miq. 8:3).

POWELL:
Tzvee Zahavy seems to have several things confused. If someone really cares, I suppose I could explain exactly where I think Zahavy was right and where he was wrong, but I'd rather not if that's not necessary.

Let me rewrite Zahavy's sources to help explain what I think they really meant.

Azariah:
[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean.

[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean.

A day and a night constitute a period.

And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one.

POWELL:
What Azariah, the primary source of all this business seems to be saying in the repeated lines is that if a woman discharges the semen she received from her husband on the third day then she is clean (to have sex again?).

Evidently, this instruction derives from Moses telling the Israelite men not to have sex during the time they were preparing to meet Yahweh (Exo 19:15). This command from Moses for that specific event has been interpreted by Azariah, I guess, to be a general principle of sexual behavior for the Jews.

The last two lines are highly important, since Christian apologists depend upon them being interpreted a certain way to deal with the "3 days and 3 nights" problem. However, what Azariah is saying is unclear. Does Azariah mean that a day-light period + a night-time period = 1 "PERIOD" or that each constitutes a period? Given what the commentators say about his words, I think apologists have misinterpreted Azariah's words. I think Azariah is defining each a day and a night as a "period" just like Rabbis after him have done.

Let's look at this some more.

Azariah:
[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean.

R. Ishmael:
Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six.

R. Aqiva:
Always five.

POWELL:
This is repeated.

AZARIAH:
[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean.

R. Ishmael:
Sometimes they [i.e., the three days] are four periods, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six.

R. Aqiva:
Always five,

UNKNOWN speaker from T Miq.:
and if part of the first period elapsed we complete it with part of the sixth.

POWELL:
What is Rabbi Ishmael saying?

I think Ishmael is saying that the 3 days could be as few as 4 partial periods (day and night each separately called a period) or as many as 6 complete periods. If sex occurred just before sunset on Thursday afternoon, for example, then just after sunset on Saturday evening would be two complete periods plus parts of two other periods, which count as full periods, but would be "3 days" because it would consist of parts of 3 weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The most that "3 days" could be is 6 periods, such as from right at sunset on Tuesday afternoon / Wednesday evening to right at sunset on Friday afternoon / Saturday evening, because that would include all of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but none of any other weekday. Any more than that would be parts of four weekdays. Ishmael seems to be more interested in identifying how long 3 days can theoretically be rather than instructing the reader what's the minimum they have to wait for her to be clean (which is what the reader really wants to know.)

What is Rabbi Aqiva saying?

I think Aqiva is trying to help the couples out, but he's slightly on the rigid side. He's telling them the minimum time they must wait before she is clean. He apparently believes that 3 days must be 2 complete 24-hour days or 4 complete 12-hour periods plus a bit more, or it would be cheating, so that's 5 periods, since the short period counts as an entire period.

The unknown speaker from T Miq. (Aqiva?) seems to want to prevent people misapplying Aqiva's ruling by counting short periods on both ends so that it's not more than 48 hours. With this correction, if sex occurred just before sunset on Wednesday afternoon then the woman is not clean until sunset on Friday afternoon / Saturday evening. Without this correction, the reader might think she'll be clean just after sunset on Friday morning, since that piece of Friday day counts as a full period.

Now for the critical part.

AZARIAH:
A day and a night constitute a period.
And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one.

Unknown speaker from y. Shab:
Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean.

POWELL:
As I said before, I don't think Azariah is claiming that a full 24-hour period is a "period" as Christian apologists have claimed, but he's saying that each 12-hour part is a "period" in the same way this is used by the Rabbis who have followed him. I suspected this the first time I read how his words were interpreted to contradict what the later Rabbis said.

Unknown speaker y. Shab seems to be a bit more liberal than Aqiva was. This speaker seems to be saying that you can get pieces of three weekdays and satisfy the letter of the law by having a complete weekday and slivers of each of the weekdays on each side. In other words, if sex was just before sunset on Thursday afternoon then by Saturday evening just after sunset that would be 24 hours plus a little bit, but it would include parts of three weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday which satisfies the letter of the law. On the other hand, if sex were just after sunset on Thursday night, then she would still not be clean until just after sunset on Saturday night. This would be almost two complete 24-hour periods to get parts of three weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

The commentators of Azariah seem to be in agreement that the "period" Azariah is speaking of are 12-hour periods, not 24-hour periods.

And now, what relevance does this all have to the "3 days and 3 nights" issue? I think this issue of Jewish "periods" does nothing to solve the problem that Christian apologists have to explain how "3 days and 3 nights" can be only 2 nights and at most parts of 3 day-light hours (assuming Jesus resurrected after sunrise on Sunday). If Jesus resurrected before sunrise on Sunday, which appears to be the Biblical story, then this would only be parts of 2 day-light periods.

These Rabbis merely allow that part of a night can count as a full night or part of a 12-hr daylight period can count as an entire daylight period, but that's what skeptics have allowed for all along.

I still need to check Biblical verses and another Talmud reference that are claimed to support the Christian solution.

John Powell

POWELL:
I'm fortunate no one pointed out my error in judgment. Something was still nagging me subconsciously as I posted this late last night and went to bed. Why did unknown speaker y. Tab say what he did at the point he did? I think I now understand.

Contrary to my original suspicion and contrary to my recent conclusion, Azariah DID mean for 1 day-light + 1 night-time period to equal one "period" IN THIS CONTEXT.

Remember the context, God told the Israelites to wait until the third "day." When Azariah says "A day and a night constitute a period." he's saying that God is speaking of the 24-hr days, not the 12-hr daylight periods. His commentators seem to agree. When Azariah says "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one." he's making the judgment that any part of the 24-hr day counts for fulfillment. That's why unknown speaker j. Tab allows any part of a weekday to count, so you could cheat by going from just at the end of one weekday to just after the beginning of the third weekday, a total time of just more than 24 hrs. However, Aqiva does not allow this kind of cheating. Unknown speak j. Tab is assuming that, when applying this principle to sexual practice among Jews, it is referring to 3 weekdays in which any part of the weekday counts. Aqiva thinks this must mean three 24-hr time periods regardless of when you start counting, but he allows for any part of the third 24-hr period to count as an entire period.

Here's where JP Holding gives his answer in the arena for the Spl_Cadet - Till debate.

HOLDING:
On 3 days and three nights, I took this from Miller's ThinkTank:

(Jewish idiom) understood "a day and a night" to include even the smallest part of a day and night. A Jewish source from after the time of the New Testament puts it this way: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a] Other examples of this kind of usage can be found throughout the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63). Jesus was in the tomb for only a small part of Friday and Sunday, but that counts according to Jewish idiom for the entire "day and night" for each of those days.

POWELL:
The argument goes something like this:

Skeptic: The Bible says Christ was buried for "3 days and 3 nights," but from late Friday afternoon to Sunday before sunrise is only 1 complete day and 1 complete night (Saturday) plus almost all of Sunday night and a bit of Friday afternoon. This is only parts of 2 days and 2 nights. Even if Jesus resurrected after sunrise on Sunday, which seems to contradict the Bible, that would still only be parts of 3 days and 2 nights. You can't get a third night this way.

Apologist. To the Jewish rabbis, such as the authoritative Azariah, 1 day + 1 night = 1 period and any part of that period counts as a full period so any part of three 24-hour periods counts as a full day.

Skeptic. Yes, that's true IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 3 DAYS, such as in Exodus 19:15. When you say "3 days" you mean either 3 weekdays or three 24-hr periods and parts of those count to the Jews as they often do to us too. So, to say that Jesus resurrected "on the third day" means that if Jesus died on Friday afternoon he could have resurrected as early as right after sunset on the beginning of Sunday or as late as Sunday afternoon if you mean 3 weekdays as some Rabbis think. However, other Rabbis, like Rabbi Aqiva, would probably say Jesus could not have resurrected any earlier than Monday morning around sunset for a late Friday afternoon death to satisfy this "3 days" requirement since that means, as a minimum, two complete 24-hr periods plus a little.

If you are talking about "3 days AND 3 NIGHTS," however, then you are dividing time differently and you need parts of 3 days and 3 nights to satisfy that. The Christian account does not do this. Azariah's words do not justify the Christian solution.

Apologist: You don't understand, the idiom is that "one day and one night" means any part of a weekday or 24-hour period.

Skeptic: What's your reference for that? It's not Azariah since Azariah is referring to what it means when you say "3 days," not what you mean when you say "3 days and 3 nights."

I haven't checked the Biblical references yet.

John Powell

Just a quick note about a comment you made in the first post:

POWELL:
What Azariah, the primary source of all this business seems to be saying in the repeated lines is that if a woman discharges the semen she received from her husband on the third day then she is clean (to have sex again?).

I would like to comment on your question about what she is clean for. While it would include to have sex again it would also include a return to the normal activities of life. Remember what Rabbinic Judaism’s goal was. After the destruction of the Temple they asked the question "How do we worship without a Temple?" Thus they were taking the purity laws which originally only applied to the Priests while performing Temple services and the Children of Israel when they were going to enter the outer court to present their sacrifices. Thus we have a democratization of a hieratic system.

Thus the woman would be impure and anything she touched would become impure (unless it was made of stone (don't ask me why). If an unclean person touched a clay vessel they were supposed to destroy it because the Rabbis reasoned it could not be purified (remember no sacrifices means that once a vessel was defiled then it was impure).

So to answer your question when the woman became clean again then she would be able to return to normal daily activity which she had been excluded from by her impurity which would include sex, but not only sex.

Interestingly the Rabbis view of sex was very different than ours. In fact their students flirted heavily with a mild form asceticism as is evidenced by the need to mandate that a husband must relent to his wife's request for sex as long as she was not defiled by her period. So it was a different way of thinking. The woman called the shots, at least at the time the Mishna and Talmud were codified.

GP

POWELL:
Now, let me consider the Bible versus JP Holding and others have suggested support the claim that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" can mean essentially "parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of 2 nights."

Gen 42:16-18 (KJV):
16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.

17 And he put them all together into ward three days.

18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God:

POWELL:
This passage is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights" means in the Bible since it uses the term "3 days." That could mean parts of 3 weekdays or parts of three 24-hr periods.

1 Kings 20:29 (KJV):
29 And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day.

POWELL:
This is also irrelevant. We need scriptures that speak of "days AND NIGHTS."

Ester 4:15-17 (KJV):
15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,

16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

Ester 5:1-8 (KJV):
1 NOW it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

POWELL:
The wording isn't quite the same as "3 days and 3 nights," but I think this still works against the Christian solution. Evidently both Ester and her people were to fast for 3 nights and 3 days beginning at night. Let's say these words were given to Mordecai Friday afternoon or early Saturday night. The meaning would be that they should fast all, or at least the rest, of Saturday night then Saturday day then Sunday night then Sunday day then Monday night then at least part of Monday day. On this third 24-hr day or weekday OF THE FAST, namely Monday day, Ester invites the King to the feast that same day-light period, which Ester evidently shares in.

I don't see this justifying the Christian solution to the burial since the ordering of nights and days here gives at least parts of 3 nights and parts of 3 days.

If the fast ends on Sunday day so it's only 2 nights and parts of 2 days to try to match with the burial of Jesus solution then Sunday would not be the third day of the fast, but perhaps the third day of the order to begin the fast (if that order was given on Friday afternoon.)

MATT 27:63 (KJV):
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

POWELL:
This is irrelevant again because of the lack of "nights" in the discussion.

Here's one that might help

1 Sam 30:11-13:
11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;

12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights.

13 And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.

POWELL:
If the Egyptian slave was kicked out any time during the day of, let's say Friday, or finished his last meal no earlier than sunrise on Friday then he should have gone without food the rest of Friday day, Saturday night, Saturday day, Sunday night, Sunday day, and at least part of Monday night. This would have been 3 days and 3 nights beginning with day-light periods and ending on a night-time period. The Egyptian could have been fed as early as Monday evening.

What would it mean if on Monday evening he told David that he was kicked out or began his fast "3 days agone"? If he means "parts of three 24-hr periods" then it could mean he fell sick the night of Friday before he was abandoned. If he means "parts of three weekdays" then there could be problems with my interpretation unless he isn't counting the small sliver of Monday.

I think this scenario makes the most sense if the Egyptian were to have gotten sick during the night of, let's say, Friday. That Friday morning he eats breakfast, but is then abandoned by his master. He goes without food the rest of Friday day, Sat night, Sat day, Sun night, and Sun day. He is discovered by the Jewish reconnaissance forces Sunday afternoon or early Monday night and brought to David Monday night at which point he is fed.

Ex. 13: 21 (KJV):
21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

POWELL:
Clearly this "day and night" does NOT mean that God only went in a pillar of cloud at day, but that counts for the night too, or only in a pillar of fire by night, but that counts for the day too.

Now, let's look at the one that's supposed to match the burial of Jesus.

MATT 12:40 (KJV):
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

POWELL:
So, let's see if Jonah was only in the whale for a little more than 36 hours, parts of 2 days and 2 nights.

Jonah 1: 5, 15-17 (KJV):
5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

. . .

15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

16 Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows.

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah 2:10 (KJV):
10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Jonah 3:1-3 (KJV):
1 AND the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.

POWELL:
There's nothing here to indicate that "3 days and 3 nights" means anything other than parts of 3 days and parts of 3 nights.

Perhaps the storm came up during the early morning on, let's say, Friday while Jonah was still asleep. He gets up. They cast lots and throw Jonah into the sea that morning. Jonah is in the whale the rest of Friday day, Saturday night, Saturday day, Sunday night, Sunday day, and at least part of Monday night. Some time that Monday night, perhaps even shortly before sunrise Monday morning Jonah gets vomited onto the dry land. That would be parts of 3 days and 3 nights beginning with day-light periods.

Some time after that, probably that same morning either before sunrise or afterward, the LORD tells Jonah to go to Nineveh which he does, perhaps after getting something to eat.

Conclusion:
The Biblical verses I've checked do NOT support the Christian solution to the "3 days and 3 nights" of Jesus's burial. It appears that when the Bible says "3 days and 3 nights" everywhere else the writers mean at least parts of 3 days and parts of 3 nights, not parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of only 2 nights.

John Powell

POWELL:
To GrayPilgrim.

Thanks for that clarification. What you say seems to be supported by the few internet sites I read both having to do with her ability to do normal activities upon becoming clean and her rights to sex.

Since according to the Torah, the slave woman has the right to food, shelter, and sex, the Rabbis concluded that free women must have at least those same rights.

John Powell

POWELL:
Another part of Miller's explanation at

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html

needs to be considered.

MILLER:
This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited above [e.g. Mid.Rabbath on Genesis 56 (on 22.4); Genesis 91.7 (on 42.17-18)].

POWELL:
While looking for Internet references to these sources, I found someone else, Dave, at inerrancy has already dealt with this problem (that should not surprise me). Dave talks about some of the same things I do, but didn't go into a detailed analysis of Azariah's words. I'll only quote the part that deals with what I haven't done yet.

http://www.errantyears.com/1999/jun99/000345.html

ERRANCY:
Miller:
This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited above [e.g. Mid.Rabbath on Genesis 56 (on 22.4); Genesis 91.7 (on 42.17-18)].

DAVE
Some rabbis taught that the events mentioned in the verses given above began during the nighttime portion of the day. So if Joseph jailed his brothers on Sunday night and released them Wednesday daytime it was not only the third day but also the third night had come before it. Likewise with Abrams trip with Issac, he arose before sunrise the first day (according to some rabbis) and when he arrived the third day (daytime) he had traveled three days and three nights (because the portion of the night was counted first).

POWELL;
It appears that this is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights mean" which is the crucial question I'm asking. Nevertheless, I would still like to look at the originals.

Does anyone know what "Mid. Rabbath" means? Is there an Internet link to the original passages?

John Powell

POWELL:
I'm thinking "Mid. Rabbath" means "Midrash Rabbath" or something like that.

John Powell

Hey John Powell! How come you held this party and didn't invite me?

From the looks of it you're equivocal on the rabbinic reference right now. Just as well, because after reading your arguments about the Biblical references, I am thinking it's more clear than before what's up.

Now, let me consider the Bible versus JP Holding and others have suggested support the claim that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" can mean essentially "parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of 2 nights."

“Gen 42:16-18 (KJV): 16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies. 17 And he put them all together into ward three days. 18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: ”

POWELL:
This passage is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights" means in the Bible since it uses the term "3 days." That could mean parts of 3 weekdays or parts of three 24-hr periods.

Hmm. Question: Did Joseph let them out of the ward somewhere along the line? Here's the problem I see with your anaysis: It MUST mean three 24-hour periods, and not weekdays, because otherwise you have to suggest that they were let out of the ward at night for at least part of one period (the middle one). In other words, if you are suggesting the equivalent to:

1) They were locked in at 11:59 PM Monday.
2) They were let out at 12:01 AM Wednesday.

You STILL have a point where "day" is inclusive of a full day and a full night, because you just don't let people out of jail like that. "Day" here is obviously carrying the same meaning as "day and night" just like we can speak of a 24-hour "day" which includes the physical phenomenon of day and night. Which suggests in turn that "day and night" is usable synonymously with just "day".

The same question applies to 1 Kings 20:29. Did the armies unpitch their tents and go home at some points during the 24-hour periods?

Some people argue that the crucifixion occurred on a Wednesday or a Thursday. This is mainly based on Mt. 12:40, where Christ said that he would be ‘three days and three nights’ in the tomb.

They assume that this must be three full 24-hour periods.
But this is hard to fit in with the other evidence from Scripture. The Bible claims that Christ rose on the ‘first day of the week’ (Mark 16:9) which was ‘on the third day’ (1 Cor. 15:4), as Christ predicted (Luke 24:7). Many bibliosceptics even claim that the Bible contradicts itself here. But if we believe in the authority of Scripture, this is not an option. The solution lies in a correct understanding of Jewish idiom.

The critics overlook the fact that for Jews, all those phrases were synonymous. Jews distinguished the word ‘day’ in the sense of daylight hours from ‘day’ as 24 hour cycle, by referring to the latter as ‘night and a day’. Further, in Jewish counting, a part of a day was counted as a whole day (a figure of speech known as synecdoche), e.g. 1 Sam. 30:12, where ‘he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and nights’ is equated in v. 13 with hayyom shelosha (three days ago) which could only mean day before yesterday. Another example is 1 Ki. 20:29 (NIV):

• For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined.

In English counting, if they started fighting on the 7th day, it means they were only camping for six whole days. But in Jewish reckoning, the partial days counted as wholes, so the text says they were camping for seven days. See also Gen. 42:17–18.
Another proof is Matthew 27:63–64:

• 63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’
  64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first. (NIV)

Note that even His enemies understood that ‘after three days’ meant that they only had to secure the tomb ‘until the third day’. If three full 24 hour periods were meant, then they would want to secure the tomb until the fourth day to make sure.

Note that the above analysis was based on the principle that Scripture is its own best interpreter. This principle tells us that the days in Genesis 1 must be ordinary days, because of the way the Hebrew word yom is used in Scripture. When modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. When modified by ‘evening and/or morning’, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it likewise always means a literal day. Ex. 20:11 only makes sense with literal days.

A comparison with other Scriptures shows that sometimes a part of a day could be counted as a whole day. But this is not denying that the days are ordinary days, whether parts or wholes. It is impossible to claim that ‘three days and three nights’ could mean that Christ was buried for 3,000 or three billion years!

My analysis is quite different from that used by old-earth compromisers. They do not interpret Scripture with Scripture, but try to twist Scripture to fit the alleged scientific proof of an old earth.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the best explanation is that Christ was buried at about 6pm Good Friday (Luke 23:54). Since the Jewish day started at sunset, the evening of Good Friday was the first day, all day Saturday was the 2nd day, and the 3rd day began on Saturday at sunset.

Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.



According to these verses, The women BOUGHT spices "when the sabbath was over". Then after they PREPARED the spices they "rested the sabbath day". If Jesus was crucified on Friday, then these scriptures are wrong.

The ONLY WAY that these two verses can BOTH be correct, is if there were TWO sabbath days that week (the weekly sabbath - Saturday - and an ANNUAL sabbath - Passover - which was always on the 15th of Nisan). See John 19:31.

1) The women saw Jesus buried prior to sundown (late Wednesday).
2) The next day (Thursday) began at sundown, which is when Passover (the annual sabbath day) began.
3) After this annual sabbath day had passed, they PURCHASED spices, and PREPARED them. BOTH could have been done ONLY on Friday, the day after Passover and the day before the weekly sabbath.
4) Then, AFTER purchasing and preparing the spices, the women RESTED the weekly sabbath day (Saturday), according to the scriptures.

If this is true (and I believe that it is), then "3 days and 3 nights" is not figurative but literal. Every version reads the same for Mark and Luke. One says they purchased spices AFTER a sabbath, the other says they prepared spices BEFORE a sabbath. I see no way to justify anything other than a Wednesday crucifixion with burial just prior to sundown, followed by a Sabbath day, a week day, and another sabbath day.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Agape,
Don

Don,

Spices and such had already been brought by Joseph and Nicodemus and it is these which they would have prepared in Luke -- the men bought the stuff but the women usually did this kind of work. It would have been solid blocks of spices. What they bought later was used to "anoint" which would mean it was a liquid form, something added on -- maybe as a personal touch for sentimentality.

Today @ 04:07 PM post located here
jpholding:

Don,

Spices and such had already been brought by Joseph and Nicodemus and it is these which they would have prepared in Luke --

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

This does not say that the women prepared the spices and ointments that Nicodemus bought.

If Nicodemus "already" had bought spices and ointments (and he did), the women would not have needed to buy more. And, if Nicodemus "already" had spices and ointments (and he did) AND WAS USING THEM, then they would have already been "prepared".

...the men bought the stuff but the women usually did this kind of work.

But that is not what it says! It specifically says that the women bought "spices and ointments," and they bought them AFTER a sabbath day (Mark 16:1), and prepared them before resting on a sabbath day (Luke 23:56).

It would have been solid blocks of spices. What they bought later was used to "anoint" which would mean it was a liquid form, something added on -- maybe as a personal touch for sentimentality.

Mark 16:1 specifically says that the women bought SPICES too, not just ointments. And they bought them AFTER the sabbath day. If they bought them AFTER the weekly sabbath day, when could they have done so with enough time to prepare them? The Market would not have been open on the weekly sabbath day. And it would not have opened until AFTER the women had already visited the sepulchre the first day of the week!?! That doesn't leave ANY time for them to buy them, let alone prepare them (by my calculations).

Agape,
Don

Heya Don.

The Sabbath went from 6 AM to 6 PM. After 6 PM, the Sabbath was considered over, and it is during that time period that the women would have bought spices and ointments (not at 6 AM Sunday morning).

As a sidenote, I was wondering if "the sixth hour" in Roman time could refer to both 6 AM as well as 6 PM.

Thanks for your time!

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here
Roflsaurus:

Heya Don.

The Sabbath went from 6 AM to 6 PM. After 6 PM, the Sabbath was considered over, and it is during that time period that the women would have bought spices and ointments (not at 6 AM Sunday morning).

I agree that "sundown" was the end of the sabbath day (about 6pm), but the market would not have opened after sundown. It wasn't open at night. Even now, most markets are closed at night. (I don't believe WalMart was open then either ). It would have been morning (daylight) before the market would have opened.

BUT EVEN SO, if they did buy the spices after sundown (early the first day of the week, as you suggest), THEN they would have prepared them, and THEN "rested on the sabbath day." But Sunday (the first day of the week) was NOT a sabbath day.
BUT IF IT WAS (continuing down this road), this would mean that the women would not have gone to the tomb until after sundown the first day of the week, which would be MONDAY. It just doesn't work.

As a sidenote, I was wondering if "the sixth hour" in Roman time could refer to both 6 AM as well as 6 PM.

Thanks for your time!

Sure it could. But it is an assumption to think that somehow the 6th hour of the day (as recorded in the Bible) sometimes means Noon, and other times NOT. I see no reason to switch from one method to another to try and make it all fit. I believe it all fits nicely when the Hebrew method is used - ie. 3rd hour being 9am: 6th hour being Noon: 9th hour being 3pm. This is consistent with everything except the timing of the crucifixion. But even that fits when we don't assume too much (which we have - IMHO).

And thanks for YOUR time too.

Agape,
Don

Yo,

This does not say that the women prepared the spices and ointments that Nicodemus bought.

Why does it have to? The spices certainly would not just have come out of thin air. Someone had to buy them.

If Nicodemus "already" had bought spices and ointments (and he did), the women would not have needed to buy more.

That's like saying if someone already bought flowers for a funeral, no one "needed" to buy more. As noted, an anointing spice would be a different species -- for ritual or sentimental purposes. It would also be the sort of thing that your typical peasant would be able to afford. There's no way the average disciple of Jesus would have been able to afford the burial spices needed to treat the body. Therefore there HAD to be someone else to provide them, and Joe and Nic fit the bill.

And, if Nicodemus "already" had spices and ointments (and he did) AND WAS USING THEM, then they would have already been "prepared".

Depends of what you mean by "preparation". Arranging them around the body would have been prepartory women's work.

But that is not what it says!

*sigh* It doesn't NEED to say it. We have to fill in the gaps regardless of our ideas -- yours or mine. Now will you next tell me that they never used the bathroom, becuase the text does not say they ever did?

If they bought them AFTER the weekly sabbath day, when could they have done so with enough time to prepare them?

Que pasa? How much time do you think it would take? An hour or even a half hour early in the morning is more than sufficient.

The fullest application has to do with the most spiritual application and that would be seeing the temple as the MIND. For example, Paul says, "YOU are that holy temple" (whose builder is God).

According to Hebrews, Christ was perfected through suffering.

Some time prior to Calvary, the veil was being rent in the mind of Christ. He was seeing God's love unveiled and it was exposing to Him the full propensity to evil that man has by nature.

Christ then experience the full "wages of sin" (guilt, shame, embarrassment). This is when the "temple" was "destroyed." At some point, Christ's faith gained the final victory, "It is finished!" According to what Christ told the thief, THAT day, he would be with Him in paradise.

And there He was - in paradise. Behind the veil, sin a conquered enemy, and looking straight at infinite Love.

Every other three day experience is a time of conscious torment. Most picture a time of unveiling (such as Esther in the inner court of the King, the heavy rains in Ezra, Abraham up Mount Moriah).

To look to the physical, is to miss the whole point.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)