By Liaf
Once upon a time when I was visiting on the deck of a ship, there was a sea captain who promised me a three day and three night cruise to and from Nassau. "Great, when do we leave?" I asked. "Friday evening about sunset." he replied. He quietly lit his pipe and took a brief look through his sextant (for those of you with your minds in the gutter, a sextant is an old measuring device that records the angles of the stars, moon or sun used in navigation). Silence prevailed until he said, "Friday night is the best time to leave according to my observations." "You're the captain." I replied. "I'll be here."
I arrived with light luggage late Friday afternoon and we promptly set out for the sea by Friday sundown. The ocean was beautiful. But by pre-dawn Sunday morning, I was awakened as we were pulling into port. "Are we at Nassau?" I asked. "No," he replied, "we are home already!"
So.... what is wrong with this picture? Did the captain keep his promise to me? Of course this was a hypothetical sea captain and voyage. As a matter of fact, nobody uses sextants seriously any longer when we have a GPS system. I just added that for a nostalgic taste. However, if this really happened, I am sure most of you would say that this captain definitely cut this trip short, no question about it. Yet, when we go to church, we have no problem believing that Jesus died on a Friday and was risen by pre-dawn Sunday morning even though he clearly said, " 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." Jesus clearly mentioned the number of days and nights. He did not say "three days and nights" which could be misconstrued as meaning a day-night-day OR a night-day-night period of 36 hours. Instead, he said THREE days AND THREE nights. PERIOD! I often wondered why nobody seriously challenged the Friday-to-Sunday myth in the same manner they would challenge that sea captain.
Actually, people have questioned it, but they were promptly given theories as to why Friday sundown until pre-dawn Sunday morning is really three days and three nights (when we all know sure as hades it really is not). Theories that the churches offer come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but they all boil down to TWO basic concepts: First of all, the Jews counted days differently than we do. The same day is really day one or the first day. Friday was the first day they say, Saturday was the second day, and Sunday was the third day. They will then proceed to show you scripture after scripture that "shows" the validity of their point. Seemingly, the "weight" of all the verses outweigh the one specific comment Christ made about three days and three nights (even though I would put infinitely more credence in the one thing he said than a thousand verses that somebody else said). The second concept is what they call "inclusive reckoning". If you were to say to them, "Well, I can see that Friday is day one, Saturday is two and Sunday is three, but Friday and Sunday are PARTS of a day whereas Saturday is a FULL day." They will then point out that "parts of days" were counted as whole days just as whole days were. In other words, this is effectively saying that Jews had a hard time counting FRACTIONS of days.
Let's take a closer look at these two concepts. For the first concept regarding counting of days, if one counts today as the first day, then the third day is NOT a specific length of time mathematically speaking. The third day can occur 24+ hours to 72- hours later as shown by the diagram.
We must consider what the Bible has to say. There is NOTHING in the KJV that says he rose "on the third day". That seems to be the newer translations that say that. It merely says "the third day" time and time again. Other equivalent phrases are 1) "after three days", 2) "three days and three nights", 3) "in three days", 4) "within three days". Phrase #2 and #3 sounds very precise to me (72 hours). Phrase #1 actually seems to imply a slightly longer period of 72 hours whereas #4 maybe a fraction less than 72 hours. So these all "average" 72 hours and define limits on "the third day" which is a questionable span of time. Now let me show the fallacy of the reasoning that Friday is the first day, Saturday is the second, and Sunday is the third. What did Jesus say in Matthew 12:40? He said he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. He did not use that span of time to designate how long he would be dead. Obviously, he died on the cross before he was buried. No. The three days and three nights refer to the time he was in the grave. So... we must ask when he was buried. At sundown? Yes, according to the Bible. That point of time is the "starting point" of Christ's countdown, not when he died on the cross. The problem is that the Jewish day begins at sundown. As a matter of fact, the Scripture indicated the importance of getting him in the grave because the Sabbath was starting (I'll explain more on that Sabbath soon). Therefore, if he died on Friday, his "countdown" in the grave really began on Saturday by Jewish reckoning. He would have been in the tomb only on Saturday (day one) and Sunday (day two), certainly not three days even in accordance with this strange way of counting.
Thus, I already have shown that Friday cannot be included as "day one" because by Jewish reckoning he was not entombed on a Friday if he died on a Friday. Friday could only be counted as "day one" from the ROMAN (pagan) system, not the Jewish. How about the second concept regarding "inclusive reckoning"? That is the scholarly and theological phrase of the day which basically justifies bad mathematics. The idea supposes that there was no such thing as "parts of days" but they were counted as full days. Sure there were partial days. Let's look at Revelation 11:11 regarding the resurrection of the two witnesses: "And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them..." It seems to me that ol' John knew how to use fractional days. Why not say the "forth day" or even the "fifth day", why "three days and an half"? So that blows that theory all to h... .
I think I've spent enough time showing the frivolity of their argument that Friday sundown until pre-dawn Sunday morning is three full days. This span of time does not even consist of three half days. Yet, in forums people who believe that Christ was crucified on a Friday persisted in arguing their point even when I pointed out the same things to them that I just did here. It cannot be denied, but somehow these blinders of theirs prevents them from accepting fact over their cherished beliefs. To add even more insult to their ridiculous arguments, some even pointed out that my mathematics were seriously flawed. Never mind the fact that I studied mathematics for a while. I know very well how to count to three and it was because of my mathematical knowledge I could not in good conscience believe a Friday-to-Sunday period as consisting of three days and three nights. I said this before; I do not openly criticize or cut people down on forums the way they may feel compelled to do to me at times. But I will say this---- without openly admitting this to them, I saw they were really more stupid than I took them for because they refuse to believe the truth and also blatantly deny the clear evidence I present while persistently shooting off their mouths trying to make me look stupid.
Christ did not die on a Friday. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says he died on a Friday! He really died on a Wednesday. He was interred at the start of Thursday on the Jewish calendar. He was in the grave night and day on Thursday (day one), night and day on Friday (day two), and night and day on Saturday (day three). As sundown Saturday occurred, he rose again as Sunday commenced. This is why the Bible says that the women came while it was yet dark according to one account. But why does the Bible say he was interred at the start of the Sabbath? Certainly that is the impression the synoptic gospels give (the first three gospels). And most people consider the Sabbath as meaning Saturday. However, the book of John sheds light on that problem. In John 19:31 it says, " The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." The Sabbath was a "high day" or feast day. This was the feast of Unleavened Bread. This Sabbath could fall on a day other than Saturday! You see, the Jewish feasts were shadows of things to come. The feast of Passover was fulfilled by Christ's dying on the cross for our sins (remember the story of the Passover lamb?) The feast of Unleavened Bread foreshadowed the sinless body of Christ being interred and this feast occurred immediately after Passover on the start of the next day which justifies the reason that the "countdown" of the three days and three nights started on the next day after the crucifixion. We "Gentilized" the calendar and do not understand very well how both the Jews and Jesus reckoned time. These feasts were very prophetic. IF JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED THE SAME DAY, THEN THESE FEAST "TYPES" WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY FULFILLED. And as such the Bible would be wrong! Three days later Jesus rose from the dead to fulfill the feast of FIRSTFRUITS which occurred on SUNDAY of the Passover week. This was a foreshadowing of the first day of his new life.
The critics them persisted to ask me questions about the resurrection (while ignoring the prophetic feast types in which that argument did not seem to faze them). The famous question was if he arose on a Sunday, that would be the fourth day even by the way I was reckoning time. Yes. It would. "Ohhhhhhh! This proves Liaf is wrong! Jesus said he'd raise the third day." Hold your horses. The third day issue relates to his time in the tomb. As the third day closed, he was no longer dead. The fourth day is the first day of his being alive again. You see, when he said he'd rise "the third day" that was equivalent to saying when the third day was completed and came to a close. That was the allotted period of time he was supposed to be dead and in the tomb. But when he rose again, this started a new day as the old (third) day expired. When we are talking death and life here, we are comparing apples to oranges. The critics wanted them to be lumped together in the same fashion the death and burial were lumped together although these were two different days. The bottom line is that they cannot get the idea out of their head believing he rose "on the third day" instead of "the third day". As I stated earlier, we could replace the "third day" with an equivalent statement such as "after three days" or "three days and three nights". Well what of it? If Jesus came out of that tomb "after three days" or after he was in there "three days and three nights" what does that make the next day? Day #4. Four comes after three doesn't it? What is wrong with that?
What about those guys Jesus met on the road who said "this is the third day (Sunday) since this happened"? No contradictions. The keyword is SINCE. Saturday was ONE DAY SINCE. Friday was two and Thursday was three. "But you said Jesus died on a Wednesday!" Yes I did, but again, things were still happening into Thursday on the Jewish calendar. We already established Thursday was the day of the week according to the feast days that Jesus was buried. Do you think everything was wrapped up by then? No. Even after Jesus was buried there was still some commotion going on and many of the disciples hid themselves for fear of the authorities which transpired into Thursday. These events would have been associated with the crucifixion. In addition, the word "since" denotes the idea of three FULL days passing until the day they were experiencing. If the crux of the events took place on a Wednesday, then only Thursday-Saturday are three full days beings they were talking to Jesus when it was still Sunday. For sure, if this conversation with Jesus was on a Sunday, the third day "since" would take you back to Thursday and that certainly precedes Friday! So for those who would argue that the "third day since" disproves a Wednesday crucifixion certainly cannot claim it supports a Friday crucifixion.
This final chart shows the real timing of the events that transpired when Jesus was crucified, buried and rose again. You can see there were actually two Sabbaths involved---- the Unleavened Bread feast day Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath. This allowed one day (on a Friday) for the women to buy and prepare the spices and other materials for a proper burial (since Jesus was rushed into the tomb with a make-shift preparation). They rested again on the weekly Sabbath and then went to the tomb after sundown (Saturday night by our reckoning) to prepare the body when they found Jesus already resurrected. In addition, the apocryphal gospel of Peter suggests two Sabbaths by virtue of the wording and impossible time elements had there been only one Sabbath.
So there we have it. You can be brave enough with the aid of this information I presented here to take a solid stand in believing Jesus was in the tomb three days and three nights as he said he would be. The Good Friday/Easter Sunday holidays are, as noble as their intentions are, really traditions of men.
One final note. You may be wondering why I used the sea captain as an illustration. The reason is simple: How many of you heard cruises advertised for "four days and three nights"? Very specific indeed. Jesus said it the same way--- it's as simple as that! Don't let anybody bamboozle you into believing otherwise, especially if they threaten you with accusations of heresy or punishments of hell fire. These same people are the false prophets themselves. You see, Jesus' resurrection is CENTRAL to our faith. The "sign of Jonas" regarding three days and three nights were critical. Screw this basic fact up and I doubt if one can get anything else in Christianity straight.