Was Christ in the Grave 3 Days & 3 Nights ?

Matthew 12:40 states: "For as Jonah was three days and three night in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

There are a number in the Christian (and not so "Christian") community who believe, based upon the above scripture and others, that Jesus was placed in his tomb late on a Wednesday and rose from the dead late on a Saturday, and not on the normally accepted late Friday/early Sunday scenario that most Christians accept as fact.

Some cults, such as those that have sprung up from Herbert Armstrong’s teachings, have established their organizations by using this and other little-understood issues in an attempt to cast orthodox Christianity in a very unfavorable light – that of deliberately teaching error. These groups usually attempt to use this scripture to aid in the undermining of the observance of Sunday as a day of worship.

They believe that if it can be proven that Christ rose just before sunset on a Saturday evening, Christianity’s reason for observing the first day of the week can also be shown to be without merit. Many of these groups have tied their very validity as a "true church of God" with the validity of a Wednesday/Saturday scenario. If they can be shown to be wrong in this belief, it follows that the very trunk of the doctrinal tree in which they are perched will also have been shown to be rotten and without solid substance.

These Wednesday/Saturday adherents assume that Matthew’s reference to "the heart of the earth" is referring to Jesus’ tomb. They argue, quite plausibly, that there are not three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. They believe that this means that Jesus must have been in his tomb a full 72 hours. How could that amount of time be squeezed into a Friday afternoon/Sunday morning time frame, they question.

However, often overlooked is the fact that there is only ONE verse in the Bible that uses the term "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"! There are TWENTY verses that say Christ's resurrection would be "in three days" or "on the third day."

According to a basic rule of biblical interpretation, we would normally seek to understand one verse in the light of twenty, not the other way around. Yet, according to the Wednesday/Saturday position, all twenty verses must mean three full days and three full nights – based on this one verse! But this appears to be forcing an otherwise unrevealed meaning on these verses.

If we counted "in three days" or "on the third day" from an event that happened on Friday, the next day would be Saturday, and Sunday would be the third day – regardless of when the event happened on Friday. This is normal Biblical language. To insist that "the third day" means three FULL days and three FULL nights in these twenty verses would be an abnormal usage. How can we be so certain of this?

We can be certain because there are many Biblical examples that validate what the normal usage was. Here are just several, from both the old and new testaments:

Lev 7:16, 17: A vow sacrifice could be "eaten the same day…and on the morrow also," but any portion remaining "on the third day" was to be burnt with fire.

Luke 13:32-33: Jesus said "Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures TODAY, and TOMORROW, and the THIRD DAY I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following. "

Other verses validating this point are: Esther 4:16, Gen 42:17, 18, I Sam 20:12, Acts 27:18, 19, and Exodus 19:10, 11.

In normal Biblical language, the day after tomorrow is the third day and even the earliest part of that day can be called the third day. Based on these scriptures, it becomes clear that the Friday/Sunday position does indeed fit the requirements for what the Bible calls the third day.

Applying this normal usage, let’s look at Luke 24:20 – 21 for further proof as to which day the crucifixion occurred on. It states: "The chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him…today is THE THIRD DAY since these things were done." Because these words were spoken by two of the disciples on the first day of the week, there can be little doubt as to which day the crucifixion occurred. By simply counting back three days, we know it was Friday.

A THURSDAY SABBATH?

Those who hold to the Wednesday/Saturday position have had to make the preparation for the Sabbath mentioned in Mark 15:42 ("And now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath") mean a preparation for a festal day – the first day of unleavened bread. This, they say, was a Sabbath on THURSDAY! But this does not fit the facts. Food was prepared ahead on that Friday and not on that Wednesday because food preparation on the first day of unleavened bread (Thursday) – "that which every man must eat" – was permitted (Exod. 12:16). The day before the first day of unleavened bread (Wednesday) would NOT have been a preparation day!

John 19:31 tells us: "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 a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken…" Being Passover time, it was not only the weekly Sabbath, it was an annual holy day as well: the first day of unleavened bread. With an annual holy day falling on the weekly Sabbath, it is easy to understand why it would be called a high day. So "that Sabbath day was a high day" does not change the fact that it was the Sabbath – the weekly Sabbath. It was unique in that it was also an annual holy day.

It is also true that no servile work was to be done on the seventh day of unleavened bread: "…in the seventh day (of unleavened bread)…you shall do no servile work therein" Lev. 23:8). It follows, then, that if the first of these seven days can be called by the term "the Sabbath" – then the seventh day of unleavened bread would be a "Sabbath" also. This would make two extra Sabbaths at the Passover season: Thursday would be a Sabbath, and Wednesday of the following week would be a sabbath – in addition to the weekly Sabbath.

But this cannot be, for then the counting of Sabbaths whereby Pentecost was determined would not add up. Lev. 23:15, 16 tells us that this counting of fifty days to determine when Pentecost falls shall begin on "the morrow after the Sabbath" – the Sabbath that followed Passover – and continued so that "seven Sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the morrow after the SEVENTH Sabbath shall you number fifty days."

According to the Wednesday crucifixion position, Thursday would have been the Sabbath that followed Passover. So, as shown on the chart below, day 1 (Friday) would be "the morrow after the Sabbath, " that began the count to Pentecost. Day 2 would be the weekly Sabbath (Saturday). The following Wednesday, day 6 of the count, would be a Sabbath, etc." Sabbaths," according to this view, are shown in red type. For those who don’t have color, the dates are: 2, 6, 9, 16, 23, 30, 37 & 44 – you might want to circle these numbers. The number 50 is Pentecost.

The error of this arrangement is apparent. The Bible says to count SEVEN Sabbaths, and the day after the seventh Sabbath is the fiftieth day (Pentecost). But with this counting, by the time we get to day 50, there are EIGHT Sabbaths!

The Bible says that day 50 is the day after the seventh Sabbath. But with this counting, day 50 does not follow any Sabbath! With this counting, the day after the seventh Sabbath would be day 38, not day 50 as Scripture requires!

Now let’s see how this works out with a Friday crucifixion. The day after the crucifixion would have been the weekly Sabbath. Beginning the count to Pentecost on "the morrow after the Sabbath" – day 1 on the chart below – and counting seven Sabbaths "unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath" would indeed be fifty days, exactly as the Bible says. Each Sabbath is shown in red (the dates are: 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 & 49). The number 50 is Pentecost.

Seven Sabbaths are counted, and the day after the seventh Sabbath is Pentecost, the fiftieth day. This arrangement is in perfect harmony with the scriptures.

One more thing that should be noted about the idea of extra Sabbaths having been involved: If the first and last days of unleavened bread can be called "Sabbaths" because no servile work was to be done on them, the day of Pentecost would also have been called a Sabbath since this same wording is used of it (Lev. 23:21). But the annual holy day called Pentecost cannot rightly be called "the Sabbath," for it was the day "after the Sabbath" (verse 16)!

Some attempt to establish two Sabbaths by comparing Mark 16:1 with Luke 23:56, in which some women buy spices for Christ's body AFTER the Sabbath, but prepare spices BEFORE the Sabbath - supposedly an impossibility except if two Sabbaths are involved.  However, there is no conflict here as the Bible nowhere states that these are the SAME women.

We now come to another scripture that some use as a major proof text to support the idea that Christ’s resurrection was on the Sabbath (Saturday) – Matthew 28:1:

"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher…"

The context mentions a great earthquake; an angel descends from heaven, rolls back the stone from the tomb, and announces that Jesus has risen from the dead! The women quickly go to tell the disciples the glad news, and then actually see the risen Christ and worship him! All of these things took place "in the end of the Sabbath," we are told, and not on Sunday morning at all!

One writer, whose booklet on this subject has been around for many years, states:

The women came to the tomb "late on the Sabbath."

The stone was rolled away "late on the Sabbath."

The tomb was empty "late on the Sabbath."

The angel said Jesus had risen "late on the Sabbath."

Since all these things happened "late on the Sabbath," he reasons, "Is it not the silliest kind of nonsense to say that the resurrection took place on Sunday morning?"

A Sunday morning resurrection is not silly for the following reasons:

If it was late on the Sabbath when the women went to the tomb and found it empty, why do all the other Gospel writers place their visit to the tomb early in the morning on "the first day of the week"?

If it was late on the Sabbath when the women discovered the stone was rolled away, why would they be asking the next morning: "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?" (Mark 16:2,3)

If it was late on the Sabbath that the women found the tomb empty, why would they be taking spices to anoint the dead body the next morning, knowing it was not there?" (Lk 24:1).

If it was late on the Sabbath that the angel told the two Marys to "go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen" (Matt. 28;7), why would the disciples be so unconcerned that they calmly waited until morning before going to check it out? The fact is, they "ran" to the tomb as soon as they heard the report! (John 20:4)

If it was late on the Sabbath that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, found it empty, and actually saw and worshipped the resurrected Christ, why would she be weeping the next morning at the tomb and asking the supposed gardener where the body had been placed? (John 20:1, 11, 15).

If it was late on the Sabbath that the women discovered the empty tomb, why do the other accounts link it with dawn, and why does even Matthew 28:1 say it was "as it began to dawn"? Dawn is when the sun is coming up, not when it is going down!

How can we explain the inconsistent statement "in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"? There is a very simple solution, so simple that it’s a wonder that it’s often been overlooked! That solution is that the words "in the end of the Sabbath" were not describing when the women went to the tomb, but when the tomb was sealed and guarded, in the previous verse.

Without changing the wording in the least, the entire passage can be brought into harmony with every other verse by simply placing the period in a different place. To do this is certainly not out of order, for punctuation was not a part of the original text. With this simple change, these two contradictory clauses ("end of the Sabbath" vs "dawn") are no longer linked together as being the same thing, and Matthew’s account comes into immediate alignment with the other Gospels.

The change would look like this:

66 So they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch in the end of the Sabbath.

CHAPTER 28

1 As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.

Thus, the simple movement of the original period, which was never a part of the original text to begin with, brings this text into total harmony with the other gospel accounts.

We noticed earlier that there are twenty verses that describe the resurrection as occurring "in three days" or "the third day," all of which fit with the Friday/Sunday position. There is one other phrase that we will now consider: "after three days." It appears in two verses: Jesus said that he would "be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mk. 8:31) and, later, this statement was quoted by the Pharisees when they asked Pilate to have the tomb guarded (Matt. 27:63).

The Wednesday/Saturday position uses this expression in the following way: "after three days" cannot be figured as anything less than three full days, and "in three days" cannot be figured as anything more than three full days – so the expression "the third day" must mean three full days and three full nights (72 hours exactly). But this will not do! "After" cannot mean "in." It can’t be both ways.

What this expression actually means is that the resurrection would be in three days after the crucifixion; that is, three days later – the third day. The proof for this is seen in the way the term was understood at the time. The Pharisees said to Pilate: "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until THE THIRD DAY, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away" (Matt. 27:62-64).

A proper understanding of "after three days" is confirmed by other biblical usage. During a dispute about taxation, King Rehoboam said, "Come again unto me after three days." Then "Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king bade" (2 Chron. 10:5, 12). The expression "after three days" did not extend on into the fourth day.

After having established this background, we are now ready to look more closely at the one verse that does not appear to agree with the other twenty:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there will be no sign given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt 12: 39-40)

Taking this passage at face value, we should notice some things it does not say. It says nothing about the crucifixion. It says nothing about Christ’s death. It says nothing about the resurrection. Are these things implied? Perhaps. But the point we would make is that they are not actually mentioned. Even the expression "the heart of the earth" is not defined.

The expression "heart of the earth" is only recorded by Matthew, and in only one verse, so we have not parallel verses with which to compare. Because Jesus often used parables and dark (obscure) sayings (Matt. 13:34, 35; Ps. 78:2), what he may have meant by this term is open for discussion.

Today, because we understand that the earth is shaped like a globe, we might think of the heart of the earth as an inner area halfway between America and China. Some understand this as a shadowy area, the realm of the dead, the unseen world of departed spirits. But, right or wrong, this hardly seems to be what Jesus was talking about here, for he was giving a "sign" – something that could be observed by that generation of Jews – not something that would occur in an unseen realm.

Events that occurred in and around the tomb, being observable, could serve as a "sign." But, since Christ’s body was only in the tomb from Friday until Sunday morning – and not literally three days and three nights – this certainly raises a question as to whether Jesus’ use of the term "heart of the earth" actually meant the tomb.

There is another explanation regarding the heart of the earth that better fits the requirements of the text. Within the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, JERUSALEM was considered the center or heart of the earth’s surface. Could it be that Jesus’ sign involved things he would experience in Jerusalem for three days and three nights?

That Jerusalem was regarded as the center of the earth is confirmed in rabbinical writings, by Jerome and other church fathers, in literature such as Dante, and by many ancient maps. Jerusalem was the center of the earth in that people came from all directions to worship there (John 4:20; Acts2:5-11; 8:27; etc.). When the Jews were in a foreign land, they would pray "toward Jerusalem" (Dan. 6:10, 2 Chron. 6:34). Even Jonah inside the great fish, prayerfully looked toward the temple in Jerusalem (Jonah 2:4).

Jerusalem, the historic capital of Israel, was regarded as "the city of the great King" (Matt. 5:35); "For god is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth" (Psalms 74:12 cf. Ezek. 38:12). "This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst [center – NIV] of the nations and countries round about her" (Ezek. 5:5).

According to George Lamsa, Bible translator and an expert on expressions used in his native East, the experience of Jonah provided the basis for a proverbial saying: people who were caught in a perplexing situation would say they were "in the whale’s belly." In similar circumstances, we might speak of being in a jam, in a tight squeeze, in a pickle, in a pinch, in a crunch, etc. But Easterners would say they were in the belly of the whale.

Did Jesus experience a difficult predicament – a belly of the whale experience – that lasted three days and three nights? And, did this predicament of three days and three nights occur "in the heart of the earth" – in Jerusalem? Whether our application of terms is correct or not, there is absolutely no doubt that this was the case!

Jesus told his disciples that "he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed" (Matt. 16:21), that in "Jerusalem…the Son of Man will be betrayed…and they will condemn him to death, and will deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him" (Matt. 20:17-19). His "decease" would be "at Jerusalem" (Lk. 18:33).

When the beginning of the three days and three nights ordeal in Jerusalem approached, Jesus said: "Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Matt. 26:46). Until this precise time, he had always experienced divine protection. As a baby he was protected from Herod by the flight into Egypt. In the temptation, when Satan would have destroyed him, angels ministered unto him. On the Sea of Galilee he was protected from the wrath of the storm. At Nazareth, when the mob was ready to throw him over a cliff, he miraculously escaped their plot.

But now, on the night before the crucifixion, he would be arrested – and escape no more. Twelve legions of angels could be dispatched to save him – but this would not happen. He would be mocked, scourged, and finally die – this "cup" would not be taken from him. Things began to close in. The forces of evil would swallow him up. With the divine protection lifted, they were able to bind him (John 18:12) and Pilate was granted power "from above" to condemn him to crucifixion (John 19:11).

The beginning of this unique period in the life of Christ is clearly defined – it was the night before his crucifixion. The end of this period, when the divine protection was restored, was clearly demonstrated by his resurrection!

If, then, we include these things that led up to Jesus’ death as a part of his "belly of the whale" experience – and not just the time in the tomb – we can account for three days and three nights. On the first night, he was betrayed and delivered into the hands of men. The next day he was crucified and buried. Night followed, and another day: the Sabbath. Another night followed (now three nights) and the resurrection occurred the next morning (now three days).

If this explanation of "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" is correct, the whole subject is now seen in a different light. There is no more hassle about how to reconcile two conflicting sets of scriptures. All of the twenty references about "the third day" or "in three days" can be taken to mean just that: Friday, Saturday, Sunday. The longer period involving "three days and three nights" is freed to have its own unique beginning one night earlier: on Thursday night. 

I hope that this month’s column has thrown some light on the subject.

‘Til next time, here’s whistlin’ at ya! ;o)

[Note: If you would like to have a copy of this article in a "non-offensive" form that would be suitable to send to those still entangled in the various COG’s (i.e., no mention of Armstrongism or cults, etc.), then e-mail me at whistler4truth@hotmail.com and I’ll e-mail a copy of the "cleaned-up," version to you. It’s a bit shorter and should print onto 3 sheets of paper, both sides (6 pages total ) if you use Arial font and type size 11 and adjust your margins out far enough. Your e-mail address, etc., will be held in strictest confidence.]