Was Jesus Really Three Days and Three Nights in the Heart of the Earth?
MarrHew in the twelfth chapter of his Gospel and the fortieth verse reports Jesus as saying, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale “sea monster” R. V. margin; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” According to the commonly accepted tradition of the church, Jesus was crucified on Friday, dying at 3 P. M., or somewhere between 3 P. M. and sundown, and was raised from the dead very early in the morning of the following Sunday. Many readers of the Bible are puzzled to know how the interval between late Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning can be figured out to be three days and three nights. It seems rather to be two nights, one day and a very small portion of another day.
The solution of this apparent difficulty proposed by many commentators is that “a day and a night” is simply another way of saying “a day,” and that the ancient Jews reckoned a fraction of a day as a whole day, so they say there was a part of Friday (a very small part) (or a day and a night); all of Saturday, another day (or a day and a night); part of Sunday (very small part) another day (or a day and a night). There are many persons whom this solution does not altogether satisfy, and the writer is free to confess it does not satisfy him at all. It seems to me to be a makeshift, and a very weak makeshift. Is there any solution that is altogether satisfactory? ‘There is.
The first fact to be noticed in the proper solution is that the Bible nowhere says or implies that Jesus was crucified and died on Friday. It is said that Jesus was crucified on “the day before the Sabbath” (Mark 15:42). As the Jewish weekly Sabbath came on Saturday (beginning at sunset the evening before), the conclusion is naturally drawn that, as Jesus was crucified the day before the Sabbath, He must have been crucified on Friday. But it is a well-known fact, to which the Bible bears abundant testimony, that the Jews had other Sabbaths beside the weekiy Sabbath, which. fell on Saturday. The first day of the Passover week, no matter upon what day of the week it came, was always a Sabbath (Ex. 12:16; Lev. 23:7; Num. 28:16-18). The question therefore arises whether the Sabbath that followed Christ’s crucifixion was the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) or the Passover Sabbath, falling on the 15th of Nisan, which came that year on Thursday. Now the Bible does not leave us to speculate in regard to which Sabbath is meant in this instance; for John tells us in so many words, in John 19: 14, that the day on which Jesus was tried and crucified was “the preparation of the Passover” (R. V.). That is, it was not the day before the weekly Sabbath (that is, Friday), but it was the day before the Passover Sabbath, which came this year on Thursday — that is to say, the day on which Jesus Christ was crucified was Wednesday. John makes this as clear as day.
The Gospel of John was written later than the other Gospels, and scholars have for a long time noticed that in various places there was an evident intention to correct false impressions that one might get from reading the other Gospels. One of these false impressions was that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples at the regular time of the Passover. To correct this false impression John clearly states that He ate it the evening before, and that He Himself died on the cross at the very moment the Passover lambs were being slain “between the two evenings” on the 14th Nisan (Ex. 12: 6 Hebrew and R. V. margin). God’s real Pascal Lamb, Jesus, of Whom all other Pascal lambs offered through the centuries were only types, was therefore slain at the very time appointed of God. Everything about the Passover Lamb was fulfilled in Jesus. (1) He was a Lamb without blemish and without spot (Ex. 12:5). (2) He was chosen on the 10th day of Nisan (Ex. 12:3); for it was on the tenth day of the month, the preceding Saturday, that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made, for they came from Jericho to Bethany six days before the Passover (John 12:1 — that would be six days before Thursday, which would be Friday), and it was on the next day that the entry into Jerusalem was made (John 12:12 and following) that is, on Saturday, the 10th Nisan.. It was also on this same day that Judas went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. (Matt. 26: 6-16; Mark 14:3-11). As it was after the supper in the house of Simon the, leper, and as the supper occurred late on Friday or early on Saturday, after sunset, after the supper would necessarily be on the 10th Nisan. This being the price set on Him by the chief priests, it was, of course, the buying or taking to them of a lamb, which according to law must occur on the 10th Nisan. Furthermore, they put the exact value on the lamb that Old Testament prophecy predicted (Matt. 26:15; cf. Zech. 11:12). (3) Not a bone of Him was broken when He was killed (John 19: 36; cf. Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20). (4) And He was killed on the 14th Nisan between the evenings just before the beginning of the 15th Nisan, at sundown (Ex. 12:6, R. V. margin). If we take just exactly what the Bible says, viz., that Jesus was slain before the Passover Sabbath, the type is marvellously fulfilled in every detail; but if we accept the traditional theory that
Jesus was crucified on Friday, the type fails at many points.
Furthermore, if we accept the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday and ate the Passover on the regular day of the Passover, then the journey from Jericho to Bethany, which occurred six days before the Passover (Jno. 12:1), would fall on a Saturday — that is, the Jewish Sabbath. Such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath would be contrary to the Jewish law. Of course it was impossible for Jesus to take such a journey on the Jewish Sabbath. In reality his triumphal entry into Jerusalem was on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday. This was altogether possible, for the Bible elsewhere tells us that Bethany was a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem (Acts 1:12; cf. Luke 24:50).
Furthermore, it has been figured out by the astronomers that in the year 30 A. D., which is the commonly accepted year for the crucifixion of our Lord, the Passover was kept on Thursday, April 6th, the moon being full that day. The chronologists who have supposed that the crucifixion took place on Friday have been greatly perplexed by this fact that in the year 30 A. p. the Passover occurred on Thursday. One writer in seeking a solution to the difficulty suggests that the crucifixion may have been in the year 33 a. D., for although the full moon was on a Thursday that year also, yet as it was two and half hours of being Friday, he thinks that perhaps the Jews may have kept it that day. But when we accept exactly what the Bible says, namely, that Jesus was not crucified on the Passover day but on “the preparation of the Passover,” and that He was to be three days and three nights in the grave, as the “preparation of the Passover” that year would be Wednesday and His resurrection early on the first day of the week, this allows exactly three days and three nights in the grave.
To sum it all up, Jesus died just about sunset on
Wednesday. Seventy-two hours later, exactly three days and three nights, at the beginning of the first day of the week, Saturday at sunset, He arose again from the grave. When the women visited the tomb just before dawn in the morning they found the grave already empty. So we are not driven to any such makeshift as that any small portion of a day is reckoned as a whole day and night, but we find that the statement of Jesus was literally true. Three days and three nights His body was dead and lay in the sepulchre. While His body lay dead, He Himself being quickened in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18) went into the heart of the earth and preached unto the spirits which were in prison. (1 Peter 3:19). This supposed difficulty solves itself, as do so many other difficulties in the Bible, when we take the Bible as meaning exactly what it says.
It is sometimes objected against the view here advanced that the two on the way to Emmaus early on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, said to Jesus in speaking of the crucifixion and events accompanying it, “Besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21), and it is said that, if the crucifixion took place on Wednesday, Sunday would be the fourth day since these things were done; but the answer is very simple. These things were done just as Thursday was beginning at sunset. They were therefore completed on Thursday, and the first day since Thursday would be Friday, the second day since Thursday would be Saturday, and “the third day since” Thursday would be Sunday, the first day of the week. So the supposed objection in reality supports the theory. On the other hand, if the crucifixion took place on Friday, by no manner of reckoning could Sunday be made “the third day since” these things were done. There are many passages in the Scripture that support the theory advanced above and that make it necessary to believe that Jesus died late on Wednesday. Some of them are as follows: “For as Jonah was three days and nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). “This fellow said ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days’” (Matt. 26:61). “Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it im three days save Thyself” (Matt. 27:40). “Sir, we remember that this deceiver said while He was yet alive, after three days I will rise again” (Matt. 27: 63); “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be killed and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31); “They shall kill Him, and after He is killed, after three days, He shall rise again” (Mark 9: 31, R. V.); “They should scourge Him and should kill him and after three days He shall rise again” (Mark 10:34, R. V.); “Destroy this temple, that is made with hands and in three days I will build another made without hands” (Mark 14: 58, R. V.). “Ah, thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself” (Mark 15:29). “Besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24: 21); “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘ Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building and wilt thou raise it up in three days, but He spake of the temple of His body. When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said” (John 2:19-22). There is absolutely nothing in favour of Friday crucifixion, but everything in the Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion. It is remarkable how many prophetical and typical passages of the Old Testament are fulfilled and how many seeming discrepancies in the Gospel narratives are straightened out when we once come to understand that Jesus died on Wednesday, and not on Friday.
HOW COULD JESUS COMMEND THE ACTION
OF THE UNRIGHTEOUS STEWARD?
A very puzzling passage in the Bible to many is the story of the unrighteous steward recorded in Luke 16: 1- 14. Once when this lesson was appointed by the International Committee, a lady told me that she had made up her mind not to teach that lesson. She said, “The three points of difficulty are: First, that Jesus should hold this dishonest scoundrel up for our imitation. Second, That the Lord should commend the unrighteous steward. And third, that Jesus should command these disciples to make themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.”
We will take up these three points in order. By noticing exactly what is said, we will soon see that in each point, if we adhere strictly to the very words of Jesus, the difficulty will disappear, and that the incident instead of staggering us will be found to be profoundly instructive along the line where instruction is greatly needed to-day.
1. Why did Jesus “hold this dishonest scoundrel up for our imitation”? ‘The answer is found in the text itself. Jesus did not hold him up for imitation. He held him up first of all as a warning of what would overtake unfaithful stewards, and how they would be called to give account of their stewardship, and their stewardship be taken from them. - Having taught this solemn and salutary lesson, one that is much needed to-day, Jesus goes on to show how the “sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light” (v. 8, R. V.). They are wiser at this point, that they used their utmost ingenuity and put forth their utmost effort to make present opportunities count for the hour of future need. “The sons of light”
oftentimes do not do that. Indeed, how many twentieth century sons of light, who profess to believe that eternity is all and time is nothing in comparison, are using their utmost ingenuity and putting forth their utmost efforts to make the opportunity of the present. life count most for the needs of the great eternity which is to follow? The average professed Christian to-day uses the utmost ingenuity and puts forth his utmost effort to bring things to pass in business and other affairs of this brief present world, but when it comes to matters that affect eternity he is content with the exercise of the least possible amount of ingenuity and with the putting forth of the smallest effort that will satisfy his conscience.
Jesus did not point to the steward’s dishonesty to stir our emulation. Jesus plainly rebukes his dishonesty, but Jesus did point to his common sense in using the opportunity of the present to provide for the necessities of the future, and would have us learn to use the opportunities of the present to provide for the necessities of the future, the eternal future. Even in pointing out his common sense, Jesus carefully guards his statement by saying that the unjust steward was “wiser for his own generation.” He knew only the life that now is, and from that narrow and imperfect standpoint he was wiser than the “son of light,” from his broad and true standpoint of knowing eternity, but an eternity for which he is not wise enough to live wholly.
There are other utterances of our Lord and Saviour, where wicked and selfish men are held up by way of contrast to show how much more godly men, or even God Himself, may be expected to act in the way suggested (e. g., Luke 18:6, 7; 11: 5-8; Matt. 12:11, 12). The first difficulty then in the passage has disappeared upon careful scrutiny of exactly what is said. Let us pass on to the second difficulty.
2. Why did “the Lord commend the unrighteous steward”? The answer to this, too, is very simple, namely, that the Lord Jesus did not commend the unrighteous steward. This is evident by a single glance at the R. V. of verse 8. In our Authorized Version it is true it reads, “The Lord commended the unrighteous steward.” Now if we were to leave it standing in that way, there might be some possible doubt as to whether “the lord” meant was the “lord” mentioned in the passage, 1. ¢., the lord of the steward, or whether it was the Lord Jesus, who relates the parable. The Revised Version removes this possible ambiguity by translating “his lord” (that is, the steward’s lord) commended the unrighteous steward. It was not the Lord Jesus who commended him, but his own lord, and he only commended his shrewdness. That the interpretation of the R. V. is the correct interpretation of the verse is beyond dispute; for the Lord Jesus is the speaker, and it is He that speaks about the one who does the commending as “the lord,” evidently not speaking about Himself, but about the lord of the unjust steward. It is only by very careless reading of the passage that anyone could make “the lord” of this passage the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus, so far from commending him, flatly calls him “the unrighteous steward,” and, furthermore, just below warns against unfaithfulness in stewardship (vs. 10, 11). So the second difficulty entirely disappears on a careful noticing of what is said. So then, let us pass on to the third difficulty.
3. Why does Jesus “command His disciples to make themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness”? This difficulty disappears when we get the correct. and exact Biblical definition of the terms used. First of all, what does “mammon of unrighteousness” mean? It means nothing more nor less than money. Money is called “mammon of unrighteousness,” because money is such a constant minister to sin and selfishness (as for example in the case of the scoundrel above mentioned): and because “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6; 9, 10, R. V.).
Jesus, in passing would lift a word of warning against the perils of money by speaking of it as the “mammon of unrighteousness.” He often packed a whole sermon into a single phrase.
In the second place what does the “of” mean when our Lord tells us to make to ourselves friends “of” the mammon of unrighteousness. The answer to this question is found in the Revised Version, ‘where the “of” is properly rendered “by means of.” So then what Jesus bade His disciples do (and what he bids us do) was to make themselves friends by means of money, that is to say, to so use the money God entrusted to them in the present life as to make friends for themselves by their use of it, and (as the context shows) to make these friends among God’s poor and needy ones, who would go to the eternal “tabernacles” (v. 9, R. V.), and be ready to give us, their benefactors, who had used our money to bless them, a royal welcome when our life here on earth is ended and so our money has failed. In other words, Jesus simply puts into a new and striking form His oft-repeated teaching not to keep our money hoarded, not to spend it on ourselves, but to spend it in doing good, especially to God’s needy ones, and so invest it in heavenly and abiding securities (cf. Matt. 6:19; 21; 19: 21, 29; 25:40; 1 Tim. 6:17-19; Prov. 19:17). That this teaching of Jesus was clearly understood by His hearers is proven by v. 14 (R. V.) that follows. In this verse we are told that the Pharisees, “who were lovers of money,” heard all these things and they scoffed at Him (R. V.). So the third and last difficulty has disappeared, and this passage stands out in glorious light, teaching with great force a lesson that our day greatly needs to learn, that money is a stewardship, and that he who seeks to enjoy it in the brief present, and not rather so to expend it that it will bring Lim interest for all eternity, is a great fool, and even the petty shrewdness of the “sons of this world” rebukes him.