 |
| |
 |
#3) The Testimony of the Catacombs: It is improper biblical exegesis
to use history, pictures or artwork as though these things were infallible.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God and believing what it says. The
Bible tells us nowhere that we are to accept the Catacombs, as
representations of the truth.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
It is understandable that one’s doctrine will cause him to create
artwork and history with a bias. Paul’s writings tell us that even in
his day some teachers were already teaching <another gospel>. The
people were already accepting this other gospel to the point that
Paul marveled!
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
In Romans 1:4, Paul tells us that the Messiah was, by declaration (of
the Father) the <Son of God> by the resurrection from the dead.
The sign of Jonah was in two parts. #1) The 3 nights and 3 days in
the tomb showed that He was the Son of man; and #2) the
resurrection showed that He was the Son of God. The Messiah
displayed His humanity in the fact of His death, and His resurrection
showed that the Father had brought Him to life as the Son of God.
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit
of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
The apostle John was very clear on the subject that only those who
understood the humanity of the Christ are of God. Those who teach
that the Messiah was not dead during His stay in the tomb are not of
God. For example, those who teach that He went and preached to
demons during the time of His “death” are not of God! They do not
understand the scriptures. (For an explanation of 1Peter 3:18-20
ask for our article on the Spirits In Prison).
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Furthermore, the sign of Jonah was not necessarily for us today. It
was a sign to that generation. Today we have the New Testament.
We can observe a fuller picture of the time of the Messiah’s life.
The people of that time only saw a small perspective of who He was.
The sign for that generation was that He would indeed die and live
again after 3 full days.
Luke 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son
of man be to this generation.
We certainly do not argue that one must prove that the Messiah was
in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days in order to believe that He is the
Son of God! Only His resurrection proves that for us. However, we
do not prove His resurrection by observation. We were not there as
were the disciples. We read the word and believe what it says. In
other words, we know that the Messiah was the Son of God because
we have faith that God’s word is true.
Therefore, our conclusion is that the sign of Jonah was proof of the
Messiah in two ways. 1) He was truly flesh; it was possible for Him
to die; as the Son of man He did die; and Joseph of Arimathaea
placed the body in his own new tomb where it remained for three
nights and three days; and 2) He arose from the dead, on the third
day, as the Son of God.
Matthew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:
58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded
the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and
he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
to use history, pictures or artwork as though these things were infallible.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God and believing what it says. The
Bible tells us nowhere that we are to accept the Catacombs, as
representations of the truth.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God.
It is understandable that one’s doctrine will cause him to create
artwork and history with a bias. Paul’s writings tell us that even in
his day some teachers were already teaching <another gospel>. The
people were already accepting this other gospel to the point that
Paul marveled!
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you
into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
In Romans 1:4, Paul tells us that the Messiah was, by declaration (of
the Father) the <Son of God> by the resurrection from the dead.
The sign of Jonah was in two parts. #1) The 3 nights and 3 days in
the tomb showed that He was the Son of man; and #2) the
resurrection showed that He was the Son of God. The Messiah
displayed His humanity in the fact of His death, and His resurrection
showed that the Father had brought Him to life as the Son of God.
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit
of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
The apostle John was very clear on the subject that only those who
understood the humanity of the Christ are of God. Those who teach
that the Messiah was not dead during His stay in the tomb are not of
God. For example, those who teach that He went and preached to
demons during the time of His “death” are not of God! They do not
understand the scriptures. (For an explanation of 1Peter 3:18-20
ask for our article on the Spirits In Prison).
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it
should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Furthermore, the sign of Jonah was not necessarily for us today. It
was a sign to that generation. Today we have the New Testament.
We can observe a fuller picture of the time of the Messiah’s life.
The people of that time only saw a small perspective of who He was.
The sign for that generation was that He would indeed die and live
again after 3 full days.
Luke 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son
of man be to this generation.
We certainly do not argue that one must prove that the Messiah was
in the tomb for 3 nights and 3 days in order to believe that He is the
Son of God! Only His resurrection proves that for us. However, we
do not prove His resurrection by observation. We were not there as
were the disciples. We read the word and believe what it says. In
other words, we know that the Messiah was the Son of God because
we have faith that God’s word is true.
Therefore, our conclusion is that the sign of Jonah was proof of the
Messiah in two ways. 1) He was truly flesh; it was possible for Him
to die; as the Son of man He did die; and Joseph of Arimathaea
placed the body in his own new tomb where it remained for three
nights and three days; and 2) He arose from the dead, on the third
day, as the Son of God.
Matthew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple:
58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded
the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and
he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
How did the Hebrews Reckon Time?
At this point, Bacchiocchi goes into what he terms as Inclusive
Reckoning to back up or “prove” that 3 days and 3 nights can be
understood idiomatically as 3 parts of 3 days and not the whole time
interval of 72 hours.
His first example is Matthew 4:2, Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2, or the
scriptures that tell us of the 40 days that the Messiah fasted in the
wilderness.
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
an hungred.
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan;
and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days, he did eat
nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Bacchiocchi would have us believe that when Matthew said 40 days
and 40 nights that he only meant part of 40 days. Question: Did the
Messiah eat during the night segments of this 40-day time interval?
What did Luke mean when he records that “when they were ended”
in reference to the 40 days? If the Messiah ate during part of these
40 days then why did Luke record that He was hungry after the 40
days?
It is obvious that the 40 days and 40 nights are exactly what they
say. The 40 days of Mark and Luke do not override the 40 days and
40 nights of Matthew. One does not pit one scripture against
another to prove a lesser meaning of the scriptures. The scripture
that gives the greater amount of time, to keep this in our example,
would always supersede any scripture that gives a lesser time.
At this point, Bacchiocchi gives the examples of an abandoned
Egyptian and Esther’s visit to the king to back up his theory that 3
days and 3 nights is to be understood idiomatically as part of 3
calendar days. We have shown earlier Bullinger’s explanation of
these scriptures. Bullinger uses these same examples to prove that 3
days and 3 nights mean 3 complete 24-hour days.
It should be obvious that there is a difference between the
expressions: 1) “three days” and 2) “three days and three nights.”
If there were no difference, why would a writer resort to the longer
phrase when he could just write, “three days”? It is well to repeat
what Bullinger, a scholar in the biblical languages, said concerning
the phrase “night and day.”
“The fact that “three days” is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of
three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the
common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years.”
“But, when the number of “nights” is stated as well as the number of
“days”, then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a
literal statement of fact.”
Reckoning to back up or “prove” that 3 days and 3 nights can be
understood idiomatically as 3 parts of 3 days and not the whole time
interval of 72 hours.
His first example is Matthew 4:2, Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2, or the
scriptures that tell us of the 40 days that the Messiah fasted in the
wilderness.
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
an hungred.
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan;
and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days, he did eat
nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Bacchiocchi would have us believe that when Matthew said 40 days
and 40 nights that he only meant part of 40 days. Question: Did the
Messiah eat during the night segments of this 40-day time interval?
What did Luke mean when he records that “when they were ended”
in reference to the 40 days? If the Messiah ate during part of these
40 days then why did Luke record that He was hungry after the 40
days?
It is obvious that the 40 days and 40 nights are exactly what they
say. The 40 days of Mark and Luke do not override the 40 days and
40 nights of Matthew. One does not pit one scripture against
another to prove a lesser meaning of the scriptures. The scripture
that gives the greater amount of time, to keep this in our example,
would always supersede any scripture that gives a lesser time.
At this point, Bacchiocchi gives the examples of an abandoned
Egyptian and Esther’s visit to the king to back up his theory that 3
days and 3 nights is to be understood idiomatically as part of 3
calendar days. We have shown earlier Bullinger’s explanation of
these scriptures. Bullinger uses these same examples to prove that 3
days and 3 nights mean 3 complete 24-hour days.
It should be obvious that there is a difference between the
expressions: 1) “three days” and 2) “three days and three nights.”
If there were no difference, why would a writer resort to the longer
phrase when he could just write, “three days”? It is well to repeat
what Bullinger, a scholar in the biblical languages, said concerning
the phrase “night and day.”
“The fact that “three days” is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of
three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the
common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years.”
“But, when the number of “nights” is stated as well as the number of
“days”, then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a
literal statement of fact.”
| Quoting a Rabbi |
Bacchiocchi gives the following quote from Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azariah, who lived about AD 100, “A day and a night are an Onah [‘a
portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.”
Did you catch what Bacchiocchi obviously missed from this quote?
Notice the Rabbi made the following observations:
#1) A day and a night are an Onah (a portion of time).
#2) A part of an Onah is as the whole of it.
Notice that the Rabbi did not say that one could consider the Onah
(a day and a night) as a part of the day! One can consider a part of
the 24-hour day as the whole day, but one cannot consider the whole
day and night as only a part of the day! This is exactly what
Bullinger observed, that the phrase, “a day and a night” is an Onah,
the whole portion of time (24-hours).
One cannot just automatically assume that because the Rabbi said
that a part of an Onah is as the whole that he also meant that the
whole was the same as a part! This is faulty reasoning. It is obvious
that the Onah is “a day and a night” and that it is the <complete 24-
hour portion>. As an example, one could consider the daylight
portion of the day as the whole day. However, one cannot reverse
this and say that one may consider the whole day and night as only a
part of the 24-hour day! That is what Bacchiocchi is asking us to
believe! He is asking us to believe that one may reduce the whole
Onah to a part! One could use this information alone to prove that
Bullinger was correct in his statement as articulated above
concerning what constitutes an idiomatic expression.
It is obvious that one cannot consider the whole: “a day and a night”
as only a part of the Onah. Moreover, when any scripture uses the
expression “a day and a night,” it take precedence over any other
scripture that uses the expression of only “a day” in reference to the
same exact event. For according to the rule, one can consider a day
(the part) as “a night and a day,” but one cannot consider “a night
and a day (the whole)” as only a part.
The examples Bacchiocchi gives, for the prevailing Jewish usage, in
no way prove an exception to what we have stated before. If the
Jews had been required to wait “8 days and 8 nights” before
circumcising their male babes, it is obvious that the baby would have
had to be circumcised on the 9th day after the 8 whole days were
complete. The law required them to circumcise on the 8th day. One
can understand the practicality of the rule that one may consider a
part of an Onah as the whole in this situation. Consider that a given
male baby was born at noontime of Nisan the 20th. A period of eight
24-hours would require the baby’s circumcision on Nisan the 28th at
noon, the exact moment of birth. However, using the rule of a part
for a whole meant that the baby’s circumcision could take place at a
convenient time on the morning of the 28th. Although this fell short
of a literal 8 days, it fell within the rule that one could consider a
part of the Onah as the whole.
It is apparent that when one uses the term “night and day” he is
referring to the whole, as the Rabbi’s quote unmistakably
designates. One can consider the part as the whole, but one cannot
consider the whole as a part.
Bacchiocchi admits the following:
“The latter phrase, (after three days), which is used four times in the
Gospels (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Matt 27:63), if taken in isolation
would confirm the literal interpretation of “three days and three
nights” (Matt 12:40), since the latter requires the Resurrection to
take place after three whole days from the time of the Crucifixion.”
Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again.
We understand that Matthew 12:40, which uses the expression
“three days and three nights,” means three whole 24-hour days or
sunset to sunset periods of time, according to the definition given by
Rabbi Azariah. Bacchiocchi agrees that the four “after three days”
confirms the literal interpretation of “three days and three nights.”
All that remains is for us to reconcile the other scriptures stating
that the Messiah would rise “on the third day”.
We cannot have contradictions in the word of God! If 5 scriptures
tell us that it is after the whole period of 3 nights and 3 days, other
scriptures cannot contradict what they say. Therefore, how do we
reconcile these scriptures? It was not to be only after 3 nights and 3
days, but it was also to be on the 3rd day! Furthermore, the timing
began with the entombment of Christ’s body.
Joseph of Arimathaea laid the Messiah’s body in the tomb shortly
before the holy day began on Nisan 15. In other words, before the
sunset of the 14th day of Nisan Joseph put His body in the tomb.
The criterion is that He arose from the tomb after 3 nights and 3
days – and yet that He arose on the 3rd day. Had He arose on the
4th day, He would have been in the tomb longer than 3 nights and 3
days. Therefore, it was necessary that He arose after 3 nights and 3
days, but still on the 3rd day.
Joseph placed Him in the tomb just before sunset of the 14th of
Nisan. Just before sunset of the 15th would have been one night and
one day; just before sunset of the 16th would have been the second
night and the second day; and just before sunset of the 17th would
have been the third night and the third day. Therefore, just before
sunset of the 17th He rose from the tomb after three nights and
three days but still on the 3rd day.
Now let us notice Bacchiocchi’s faulty reasoning process. He says,
“This comparison (a chart showing that some scriptures say “after
three days” and other scriptures say “on the third day”) clearly
indicates that Matthew and Luke understood Mark’s “after three
days” as meaning “on the third day.”
How does one reach such a conclusion? What is there so clear about
this deduction? It is just as clear that Mark understood Matthew
and Luke’s “on the third day” to mean “after three days!” One
cannot pit scriptures against each other in this way.
Each writer is expressing a different perspective of the same event –
and both are correct. It was not only to be after 3 full nights and 3
full days, but it was to be on the third day! These two perspectives –
when we consider them together – pinpoint the time of Christ’s
resurrection. When we carefully ponder both perspectives as a
whole, they merge to a moment of time when the three nights and
three days are complete but just before the fourth day began. As
the day began at sunset, there can be no doubt that the resurrection
took place just before sunset.
In order to understand the scriptures, we must often perceive the
different perspectives expressed. We should not be satisfied with
contradictions based on our wish that these scriptures had said the
same thing. There is a purpose when the bible records two different
perspectives. The Messiah was to rise from the tomb after 3 full
nights and 3 full days and furthermore, He was to arise on the 3rd
day.
On the third day does not express a space of time. It specifies which
day the resurrection would occur. The fact that most scholars have
not distinguished between the two perspectives expressed by these
different scriptures – trying to lump them all into one perspective –
reveals the reason for their making faulty conclusions. Moreover,
by using defective exegesis they compromise the scriptures in the
eyes of those who are unable to achieve a conclusion based on their
own study.
Azariah, who lived about AD 100, “A day and a night are an Onah [‘a
portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.”
Did you catch what Bacchiocchi obviously missed from this quote?
Notice the Rabbi made the following observations:
#1) A day and a night are an Onah (a portion of time).
#2) A part of an Onah is as the whole of it.
Notice that the Rabbi did not say that one could consider the Onah
(a day and a night) as a part of the day! One can consider a part of
the 24-hour day as the whole day, but one cannot consider the whole
day and night as only a part of the day! This is exactly what
Bullinger observed, that the phrase, “a day and a night” is an Onah,
the whole portion of time (24-hours).
One cannot just automatically assume that because the Rabbi said
that a part of an Onah is as the whole that he also meant that the
whole was the same as a part! This is faulty reasoning. It is obvious
that the Onah is “a day and a night” and that it is the <complete 24-
hour portion>. As an example, one could consider the daylight
portion of the day as the whole day. However, one cannot reverse
this and say that one may consider the whole day and night as only a
part of the 24-hour day! That is what Bacchiocchi is asking us to
believe! He is asking us to believe that one may reduce the whole
Onah to a part! One could use this information alone to prove that
Bullinger was correct in his statement as articulated above
concerning what constitutes an idiomatic expression.
It is obvious that one cannot consider the whole: “a day and a night”
as only a part of the Onah. Moreover, when any scripture uses the
expression “a day and a night,” it take precedence over any other
scripture that uses the expression of only “a day” in reference to the
same exact event. For according to the rule, one can consider a day
(the part) as “a night and a day,” but one cannot consider “a night
and a day (the whole)” as only a part.
The examples Bacchiocchi gives, for the prevailing Jewish usage, in
no way prove an exception to what we have stated before. If the
Jews had been required to wait “8 days and 8 nights” before
circumcising their male babes, it is obvious that the baby would have
had to be circumcised on the 9th day after the 8 whole days were
complete. The law required them to circumcise on the 8th day. One
can understand the practicality of the rule that one may consider a
part of an Onah as the whole in this situation. Consider that a given
male baby was born at noontime of Nisan the 20th. A period of eight
24-hours would require the baby’s circumcision on Nisan the 28th at
noon, the exact moment of birth. However, using the rule of a part
for a whole meant that the baby’s circumcision could take place at a
convenient time on the morning of the 28th. Although this fell short
of a literal 8 days, it fell within the rule that one could consider a
part of the Onah as the whole.
It is apparent that when one uses the term “night and day” he is
referring to the whole, as the Rabbi’s quote unmistakably
designates. One can consider the part as the whole, but one cannot
consider the whole as a part.
Bacchiocchi admits the following:
“The latter phrase, (after three days), which is used four times in the
Gospels (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; Matt 27:63), if taken in isolation
would confirm the literal interpretation of “three days and three
nights” (Matt 12:40), since the latter requires the Resurrection to
take place after three whole days from the time of the Crucifixion.”
Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and [of] the chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again.
We understand that Matthew 12:40, which uses the expression
“three days and three nights,” means three whole 24-hour days or
sunset to sunset periods of time, according to the definition given by
Rabbi Azariah. Bacchiocchi agrees that the four “after three days”
confirms the literal interpretation of “three days and three nights.”
All that remains is for us to reconcile the other scriptures stating
that the Messiah would rise “on the third day”.
We cannot have contradictions in the word of God! If 5 scriptures
tell us that it is after the whole period of 3 nights and 3 days, other
scriptures cannot contradict what they say. Therefore, how do we
reconcile these scriptures? It was not to be only after 3 nights and 3
days, but it was also to be on the 3rd day! Furthermore, the timing
began with the entombment of Christ’s body.
Joseph of Arimathaea laid the Messiah’s body in the tomb shortly
before the holy day began on Nisan 15. In other words, before the
sunset of the 14th day of Nisan Joseph put His body in the tomb.
The criterion is that He arose from the tomb after 3 nights and 3
days – and yet that He arose on the 3rd day. Had He arose on the
4th day, He would have been in the tomb longer than 3 nights and 3
days. Therefore, it was necessary that He arose after 3 nights and 3
days, but still on the 3rd day.
Joseph placed Him in the tomb just before sunset of the 14th of
Nisan. Just before sunset of the 15th would have been one night and
one day; just before sunset of the 16th would have been the second
night and the second day; and just before sunset of the 17th would
have been the third night and the third day. Therefore, just before
sunset of the 17th He rose from the tomb after three nights and
three days but still on the 3rd day.
Now let us notice Bacchiocchi’s faulty reasoning process. He says,
“This comparison (a chart showing that some scriptures say “after
three days” and other scriptures say “on the third day”) clearly
indicates that Matthew and Luke understood Mark’s “after three
days” as meaning “on the third day.”
How does one reach such a conclusion? What is there so clear about
this deduction? It is just as clear that Mark understood Matthew
and Luke’s “on the third day” to mean “after three days!” One
cannot pit scriptures against each other in this way.
Each writer is expressing a different perspective of the same event –
and both are correct. It was not only to be after 3 full nights and 3
full days, but it was to be on the third day! These two perspectives –
when we consider them together – pinpoint the time of Christ’s
resurrection. When we carefully ponder both perspectives as a
whole, they merge to a moment of time when the three nights and
three days are complete but just before the fourth day began. As
the day began at sunset, there can be no doubt that the resurrection
took place just before sunset.
In order to understand the scriptures, we must often perceive the
different perspectives expressed. We should not be satisfied with
contradictions based on our wish that these scriptures had said the
same thing. There is a purpose when the bible records two different
perspectives. The Messiah was to rise from the tomb after 3 full
nights and 3 full days and furthermore, He was to arise on the 3rd
day.
On the third day does not express a space of time. It specifies which
day the resurrection would occur. The fact that most scholars have
not distinguished between the two perspectives expressed by these
different scriptures – trying to lump them all into one perspective –
reveals the reason for their making faulty conclusions. Moreover,
by using defective exegesis they compromise the scriptures in the
eyes of those who are unable to achieve a conclusion based on their
own study.
On the Road to Emmaus
Bacchiocchi uses Luke 24:21 to “prove” that a literal interpretation
of the “three days and three nights” is wrong. His interpretation of
this account is as follows:
Bacchiocchi translation:
“Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened”
(Luke 24:21).
KJV:
Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he, which should have redeemed
Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were
done.
Others try to use Luke 24:21 to show a Sunday resurrection.
However, one commentator (Robertson's NT Word Pictures) says
that the phrase "today is the third day" as used here in Luke 24:21,
is a difficult idiom for English. This would explain why the
translation is less than accurate.
Look at the translation of the BBE (Bible in Basic English).
According to this version, the Messiah had let three days go by
from the time when these things took place, according to the
disciples. This version would place one in the 4th day since the
crucifixion without requiring the resurrection on Sunday.
Undoubtedly, the BBE translators have arrived at what the difficult
idiom for English means. In this case, the disciples were focusing on
“the third day” phrase – often spoken by the Messiah about when
He would rise from the grave. They were saying in effect that the
point of time had passed, which He had stated for His resurrection
and yet as far as they could see it had not happened. All the time
they were speaking to the Messiah and did not recognize their
error! Notice the BBE translation:
BBE:
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that he would be the Saviour of Israel. In
addition to all this, He has now let three days go by from the time when
these things took place;
According to this translation, the disciples were not saying, “today
is the third day since these things were done”. Rather, they were
telling someone whom they thought a stranger that the Christ had
let three days go by; and yet He had not arisen from the grave on
the third day, according to His promise, as far as they could see.
Furthermore, that today – when we had hoped He would be alive
again – is the fourth day: implied.
He would not have shown Himself on the third day, as He would still
be in the tomb. It would have to be the fourth day before He could
have appeared to anyone. For if he had appeared on the third day
He would have not been in the tomb for three days and three nights.
Three days and three nights from His entombment would have
continued until late afternoon. He would have remained in the
tomb until just before sunset of the third day, as His interment took
place just before sunset. In other words, it was impossible for the
disciples on the road to Emmaus to speak to Him on the third day
since these things; it had to be the fourth day, from any perspective
we broach this subject. The BBE translation has obviously given
the correct understanding of this difficult Greek idiom.
Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the
preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
Continue ...
of the “three days and three nights” is wrong. His interpretation of
this account is as follows:
Bacchiocchi translation:
“Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened”
(Luke 24:21).
KJV:
Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he, which should have redeemed
Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were
done.
Others try to use Luke 24:21 to show a Sunday resurrection.
However, one commentator (Robertson's NT Word Pictures) says
that the phrase "today is the third day" as used here in Luke 24:21,
is a difficult idiom for English. This would explain why the
translation is less than accurate.
Look at the translation of the BBE (Bible in Basic English).
According to this version, the Messiah had let three days go by
from the time when these things took place, according to the
disciples. This version would place one in the 4th day since the
crucifixion without requiring the resurrection on Sunday.
Undoubtedly, the BBE translators have arrived at what the difficult
idiom for English means. In this case, the disciples were focusing on
“the third day” phrase – often spoken by the Messiah about when
He would rise from the grave. They were saying in effect that the
point of time had passed, which He had stated for His resurrection
and yet as far as they could see it had not happened. All the time
they were speaking to the Messiah and did not recognize their
error! Notice the BBE translation:
BBE:
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that he would be the Saviour of Israel. In
addition to all this, He has now let three days go by from the time when
these things took place;
According to this translation, the disciples were not saying, “today
is the third day since these things were done”. Rather, they were
telling someone whom they thought a stranger that the Christ had
let three days go by; and yet He had not arisen from the grave on
the third day, according to His promise, as far as they could see.
Furthermore, that today – when we had hoped He would be alive
again – is the fourth day: implied.
He would not have shown Himself on the third day, as He would still
be in the tomb. It would have to be the fourth day before He could
have appeared to anyone. For if he had appeared on the third day
He would have not been in the tomb for three days and three nights.
Three days and three nights from His entombment would have
continued until late afternoon. He would have remained in the
tomb until just before sunset of the third day, as His interment took
place just before sunset. In other words, it was impossible for the
disciples on the road to Emmaus to speak to Him on the third day
since these things; it had to be the fourth day, from any perspective
we broach this subject. The BBE translation has obviously given
the correct understanding of this difficult Greek idiom.
Mark 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the
preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
Continue ...
| When Did the Crucifixion and Resurrection Occur? |