tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post7711766628231568720..comments2021-02-18T20:18:41.070-05:00Comments on hillschurch: Three Days and Three Nightshillschurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-43860609849305724002007-09-28T12:19:00.000-04:002007-09-28T12:19:00.000-04:00Thanks for your comment Paul. There certainly is a...Thanks for your comment Paul. There certainly is an integrity issue at stake here that Jesus' detractors could have challenged. Did Jesus really say ...<BR/><BR/>However as Keith Schooley mentioned in his comments and on his <A HREF="http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-theory-of-wednesday-crucifixion-3.html" REL="nofollow">blog post(s)</A> there are slightly different wordings which either all mean the same thing (which I think is true) or they all mean different things. If they each mean different things that would also make both Jesus and the Gospel writers liars.<BR/><BR/>Just to summarize, we have at least five readings:<BR/>- in three days (6) <BR/> (Mt 26:61 ;27:40; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19,20)<BR/>- after three days (4) <BR/> (Mt:27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; Lk 2:46;)<BR/>- three days later (1) <BR/> (Mk 10:34)<BR/>- three days and three nights (1) <BR/> (Mt 12:40)<BR/>- on the third day (9) <BR/> (Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; <BR/> 24:7, 46; Ac 10:40; 1Cor 15:4)<BR/><BR/>And possibly a sixth from the road to Emmaus<BR/>- this is the third day since all this took place<BR/> (Lk 24:21)<BR/><BR/>Another interesting passage is the one where the chief priests command that the tomb be guarded "until" the third day in Matthew 27:64<BR/><I>"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."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think the context, the culture of the time nor the text "requires" or specifies an exact 72-hour period. Neither does it absolutely rule it out. However, the phrase "on the third day" would seem to indicate that it was somewhat less than 72 hours.<BR/><BR/>Because the text(s) doesn't make it absolutely clear the reasons to affirm one position or another rely mostly on theological rather than historical grounds.hillschurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-37259678247614517642007-09-28T10:21:00.000-04:002007-09-28T10:21:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.hillschurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-28503935841708343242007-09-28T02:10:00.000-04:002007-09-28T02:10:00.000-04:00Hi everyone,I would like to address the issue abou...Hi everyone,<BR/>I would like to address the issue about the "three days, and three nights Jesus was to be in the grave.<BR/><BR/>The three days and three nights was a sign to the Jews that Jesus was the true Messiah, Matthew 12:38-40. Therefore, the lenght of time was critical to the sign. If he was in the tomb less than 72 hours, the Jews could say he was a liar, and the same if he was longer than 72 hours. And then we have Jesus himself saying that he would raise "in" three days, John 2:19-21, which tells us that within those three days he would rise. We also have Mark telling us that Jesus taught that he would be killed, and "after" three days rise again, Mark 8:31. We have a before and after of the three days, therefore, we must assume a precise 72 hour period. If Jesus arose precisely at the end of the weekly sabbath, he would have had to be laid in the tomb precisely at the end of the day Wednesday, which would be at sundown.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, PaulPaul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17977697675239371234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-74405028096513249772007-09-25T19:13:00.000-04:002007-09-25T19:13:00.000-04:00I actually had the Emmaus passage in the back of m...I actually had the Emmaus passage in the back of my mind as a third day reference as well.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments and for the occasional visit!hillschurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-3210549791544767972007-09-25T17:57:00.000-04:002007-09-25T17:57:00.000-04:00Hi, Michael.Oh, I quite agree, no special theologi...Hi, Michael.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I quite agree, no special theological significance. Just an interesting historical puzzle.<BR/><BR/>I would take John 19:31's "special Sabbath" to refer to the ordinary Saturday Sabbath, but special because it occurred during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.<BR/><BR/>For me, the crucial passage is Luke 24:31, which records the disciples on the road to Emmaus, some time during the day on Sunday, saying "This is the third day since all this took place." "All this" refers not to Jesus' burial, but to his sentencing to death and crucifixion (v. 20).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. Thursday certainly makes more sense of the data than Wednesday (the dominant "alternative" theory).Keith Schooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-51811241470232939212007-09-25T16:55:00.000-04:002007-09-25T16:55:00.000-04:00Thanks Keith for the excellent summary of the topi...Thanks Keith for the excellent summary of the topic including all the Scripture referring to it. I'm not sure if there is any theological significance to the difference and I don't think that I have any personal preference. (Are you aware of there being significant theological significance to this difference - aside from those sabbatarians who claim a Saturday resurrection.) <BR/><BR/>At any rate, I have been intrigued by observances in my Jewish community during years where High Holy Days fall on Friday creating a double Sabbath. <BR/><BR/>There were also a couple of issues you didn't address. One is the "special" Sabbath that John 19:31 mentions. (Granted that may be the Passover which could have occurred on the regular Sabbath but not necessarily). <BR/><BR/>The second is that a Thursday crucifixion also meets all the criteria of the various Scripture passages you mentioned - especially if you consider a burial at or very close to sundown. And if the burial was at or shortly after sundown Friday (ie if the Romans completed the burial), we actually can no longer legitimately call the Sunday "the third day." It is only the second day.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.hillschurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580362077503241952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34915849.post-34598226940152496042007-09-25T08:20:00.000-04:002007-09-25T08:20:00.000-04:00Hi, Michael. I wrote a series on this issue beginn...Hi, Michael. I wrote a series on this issue beginning with <A HREF="http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-theory-of-wednesday-crucifixion-1.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>; most of the relevant arguments are in <A HREF="http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-theory-of-wednesday-crucifixion-3.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>. My series was actually dealing with the Wednesday crucifixion theory, whereas yours actually views Jesus as being crucified on Thursday, but the arguments still apply. The real issue is reconciling "three days and three nights" with the many more scriptures that say that Jesus rose "on the third day."<BR/><BR/>Donald Carson argues that "Passover" tended to be used inclusively to refer to the whole Feast of Unleavened Bread; that "Preparation Day" had become a technical term for Friday; and that therefore "Preparation Day" in these passages refers to Friday within the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not the day before the actual Passover feast.Keith Schooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.com