Christian Forums and Chat
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonah 1:17 & 2:1 (above), quoted in Matthew 12:40.The expression, 'Three days and three nights,' is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights. In 1 Samuel 30:11-12, it is said that a certain Egyptian had not eaten bread and drunk water for 'three days and three nights,' and yet it was only three days since he fell sick (ver.13), not four days.In Esther 4:16, Esther says she and her maidens will fast, 'three days and three nights,' and yet it was on 'the third day' that Esther went in to the king, not the 4th day, which it must have been if the expression were literally understood.It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.Now the New Testament is for the most part Hebrew in idiom, but Greek in language. This is the simple explanation of the difference between it and classical Greek. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the First Gospel, as we have it, is a translation from a Hebrew Original. This is one of the idioms. It is used in Jonah 1:17-2:1, and by our Lord in Matthew 12:40. And yet many Scriptures say that He should rise, and did actually rise on 'the third day'. This could not have been if the expression were used in its literal sense. It must have been the fourth day and not the 'third'.The fact is that the idiom covers any part of 'three days and three nights'. This method of Hebrew reckoning is as distinct from Gentile reckoning, as their commencing the day at sunset and our commencing it at midnight. All these different modes of reckoning are peculiar to the respective peoples and languages and must be duly taken into account.The Lord's words in Matthew 12:40 do not disagree with the Scripture assertion that He should rise on 'the third day'.We have the expression 'after three days' once (Matthew 27:63), and 'in three days' once (John 2:19). But the common expression is 'on the third day,' and it occurs ten times. But if the expression be literal and not an idiom, all these passages should say the fourth day! Paul preached the resurrection on 'the third day' according to the Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:4), and this is the great Scriptural fact which we cannot get away from.Neither can we alter the fact that He rose on 'the first day of the week.'Neither can we alter the history which records His death and burial as taking place the day before the Sabbath. 'The sabbath drew on' (Luke 23:54; Matthew 27:62); 'the day before the sabbath' (Mark 15:42); and yet the two disciples going to Emmaus on the first day of the week say, 'This is the third day (not the fourth) since these things were done' (Luke 24:21).From all this it is perfectly clear that nothing is to be gained by forcing the one passage (Matthew 12:40) to have a literal meaning, in the face of all these other passages which distinctly state that the Lord died and was buried the day before the Sabbath and rose the day after it, viz., on the first day of the week. These many statements are literal and history: but the one passage is an idiom which means any part of 'three days and three nights.' The one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.It may be added that we have a similar usage in English. When a person is sentenced to 'three days' imprisonment, 'it may be late in the evening of the first day when he arrives at the prison, but when the doors open on the morning of the third day (not the fourth) he walks out a free man. In other words, if a person is committed to prison for three days - and he reaches it on Monday night - he leaves it the first thing on Wednesday morning. (ref. 'The Coming Prince' by Dr Robert Anderson, C.B.)
Author
Topic: Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language? (Read 1081 times)
