Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 15
May 23, 1963
NUMBER 4, PAGE 7,11b

"Three Days And Three Nights"

N. W. Allphin

In Gospel Guardian issue of last January 17, bro. Robert H. Farish had an article under the above heading, which was a review of an article of mine that was carried in last December 6 issue. In his article, brother Farish made some statements and drew some conclusions which I think are in error, and to which I would like to make a brief reply. If this indulgence is granted, it will likely be the last I will have to offer on the subject.

It could go without saying that bro. Farish is a good Bible scholar and an able writer. I relish the reading of all his contributions to the paper, and his various religious tracts. But his effort in defense of "Friday evening till Sunday morning" being equal to "three days and three nights" falls short of being proof for that claim.

First, bro. Farish concedes that both bro. Larimore and bro. Allphin could and did prove the possibility of an additional sabbath in the crucifixion week. That is a point in favor of my position.

Next, concerning my reference to a dilemma, he says, "This is not a true dilemma for there is no scriptural basis upon which one can contend for seventy-two hours being embraced in three days and three nights." Sorry, but I have always considered the Lord's own language as "a scriptural basis" for any contention. In his rhetorical question John 11:9, Jesus virtually says, "there are twelve hours in the day;" and in verse 10, by implication, that there are twelve hours of night. Then, in Matthew 12:40 he emphatically says, "three days and three nights," which equals three twelve hour periods of day and three twelve hour periods of night. This seems very clear, to me.

Then, he says, "The problem can be resolved by simply studying scriptural usage of the term." In this he definitely implies that the Matt. 12:40 statement is not "scriptural usage of the term." That is pretty close to charging the Lord with an error or blunder in stating the length of time he would be in the tomb. I think he should not have stated his case in such terms. Bro. Farish admits that the "term" means three days and three nights, "according to current English usage." But isn't this bit of "current" English a correct translation of the then current Greek? About one hundred and one scholars thought so! I am willing to go along with them.

At this juncture, in search of proof that Matt. 12:40 does not mean exactly what it says, he appeals to the writings of bro. McGarvey, relative to the Jewish custom of counting a part of a year or day as a full year or day, citing 1 Kings and Acts as evidence of such "usage." These near-euphemistic expressions — Hebrew colloquialisms, dating back a thousand years — do not, and cannot, operate so as to vitiate or destroy the evident significance of an unambiguous phrase elsewhere in the records. And, in my judgment, it is unfair and unsafe to dignify such expressions by naming them exclusively as examples of "scriptural usage of the term."

After citing the "after three days" texts in Mark, he says they are equivalent to "the third day" of the parallel passage in Matt. and Luke; and that these terms are all equivalent to "three days and three nights." That is not bad; for the Lord did on occasion adapt their customary speech. But, to better express it would be to say, the Jewish idioms in Matt. and Luke are used as the equivalent of three days and three nights. Then he reverses himself in asking "Why not explain three days and three nights in the light of the "third day be raised up?" Well, here is why not: To do so violates a cardinal principle of interpretation, which is, interpret the vague expression "in the light of" the clearly expressed one. The question was put in reverse order. Let us get the horse back before the cart, not behind it. Let us explain the indefinite phrase by the definite one.

As to "arbitrarily" deciding that there must be seventy-two hours involved, neither bro. Larimore nor I assumed the role of arbiter in this matter. Such charge, I think, is, to say the least, out of place.

"Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath," is all right. The question here is, what sabbath? Bro. Farish has conceded that a sabbath other than the seventh day could have been in that final week; and it is well that he did, because John 19:31 just about compels it. No one can show where any seventh day sabbath was higher (in rank) than any other seventh day. Yet, he insists that "there is nothing to suggest that this be understood as anything but the regular weekly sabbath and hence, the day before the sabbath would be our Friday." Nothing? Well, maybe, if he ignores John's evaluation of it. But there is other evidence against that being the regular weekly sabbath, which I shall submit later. First, however, let us notice what he says following the above statement. "This is the conclusion that comes most readily to mind upon reading the passage." Now to many fine people, when they read Acts 16:31, there comes readily to mind the conclusion that the jailor was saved by belief or faith only. But their conclusion is wrong; and brother Farish would be among the first to say so. Reaching a "conclusion" proves nothing and that argument goes for nought. He further says, "Unless there are compelling reasons for affirming that it is a sabbath other than the familiar weekly sabbath, we should allow it to mean what the majority of people get from a reading of the passage." What's that? Shall we accept an idea in doctrine or practice on just the opinion of a majority? I believe not. Take Mark 16:16; shall we allow it to mean what a "majority of people get from a reading of the passage"? Certainly not! A fact is, a majority opinion in favor of any issue never makes it right. He continues thus: "There are no compelling reasons for putting an unusual construction on the passage." What is so "unusual" about saying that a plainly worded statement means what it says? Jesus said "three days and three nights." Or what is "unusual" about saying that the sabbath in question was in some way different from the regular seventh day? Didn't the inspired narrator say, "for the day of that sabbath was a high day"? How readest thou?

He concludes with this assertion: "There is no discrepancy between three days and three nights and the generally accepted day (Friday) as the day of our Lord's death." To him or McGarvey, maybe not. From my point of view, it would require a skilled artist in legerdemain to pack three days and three nights into the space between late Friday evening till early Sunday morning.

Now I offer further evidence against the day "after Preparation" being the regular seventh day. In Matt. 27:62ff, we note the following: "Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead...." Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: Go, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them." Note this carefully: First, Jesus arose early on "the first day of the week." Next, he died on Preparation day. So, if that day was "Friday" the "day after" was Saturday. What of it? Answer! Those priests and Pharisees may have been as jiggered as Judas, but they were not dumb; they may have been as subtile as Satan, but not silly. They knew that the first day of the week would begin at around sundown that very day. Why, then, ask Pilate to have the tomb sealed and guarded until "the third day"? when they knew it was only a matter of a few hours, and mostly daylight — if that was Saturday. There would be no need for a guard till dark; and it would then be "the third day" or first day of the week. This, though circumstantial evidence, proves pretty conclusively that the sabbath "after the Preparation" was not the weekly seventh day sabbath. With this, the defense "rests."

— Tahoka, Texas