The World Doesn't Need Pessimistic Christians

 The World Doesn't Need Pessimistic Christians

March 9, 2022 by Jack Wilkie

There’s really no way to put a pleasant face on it – we’ve reached the “tough times” part in the cycle of history.

Forget reclaiming the standard of living we were used to just 2 years ago: inflation and shortages are putting it further in our past every day. The things that are making the gas prices go up and the dollar go down will get worse before they get better. Food and other basic needs will only grow more expensive. Global uncertainty and instability will continue. Government overreach here has grown to levels previously unseen in our lives, and there may be more to come. There is no reason to pretend these things aren’t happening.

In order to engage the world and make a positive difference in it, we have to be realistic about it. A Pollyanna-ish outlook will not help us or anyone else. We as American Christians are about to learn to live by faith in ways not seen since the Great Depression.

However, being realists does not mean we have to become pessimists. In fact, it is imperative that we don’t.

The world is living through the struggles, too. They know how difficult things are. What they see from us through these times will go a long way in cementing their view of Christianity. If they see anxiety, fear, impatience, coming from Christians, they will see we have no better answers than anybody else.

We should be showing the world the joy we have based in our purpose now and in our hope for the future.

Embrace your purpose

In good times, our purpose is to take up our cross, follow Jesus, glorify Him, and help point others to Him. In bad times, our purpose is to take up our cross, follow Jesus, glorify Him, and help point others to Him. He is our strength and purpose in good times and our strength and purpose in bad times.

This is exactly what Paul was getting at in the much-misused Philippians 4:13. The immediate context reveals that Paul is talking about living with contentment in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in (4:11-12). Imprisonment, freedom, poverty plenty, whatever else life threw at Paul, he could handle it because he was living for Christ and Christ was empowering him to persevere.

In the chapter’s broader context, Paul commands the Philippians to rejoice always (4:4). We can do this because rather than being anxious, we can put our requests before God with all thanksgiving and He will guard our hearts with a peace that surpasses all comprehension (4:6-7).

Having peace in times like these would not make sense. It would surpass all comprehension. “Why are those Christians so calm through all this,” the world might ask. Well, because we traded our anxieties for God’s peace while we live for His purposes instead of our own, and in that we can rejoice.

Hold on to your hope

When I was a kid, my dad would record sporting events that came on when we weren’t able to be home to watch and would do everything in his power to avoid hearing the score. When we’d get home he would have me go down and re-wind the game, because he knew I wanted to know the score and he didn’t. He would then sit and watch the game, reacting to each turnover or point scored with joy or frustration. I, on the other hand, who knew the final score of the game, was not on the same roller coaster of emotions. Why get nervous about a first quarter touchdown given up when you know your team wins anyway?

Christian, you and I know the final score of this game. We know all of Jesus’ enemies – including the evil rulers of this world – will be shattered by Him and put under the footstool of His feet. We know we will reign with Him for all eternity. Knowing the final score means we don’t have to ride the roller coaster of day to day emotions, even in bleak times such as these.

Jesus was incredibly realistic about the threats the apostles would face. He knew He would be killed, and He knew the same people would come after His followers, too (see John 15:20). However, He wasn’t pessimistic. He reassured them He would be with them and told them to “be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (16:33b). Peter took this to heart and encouraged his readers to rejoice in the trials coming their way “for a little while” as they looked forward to seeing Jesus and receiving the salvation of their souls (1 Peter 1:6-9).

It is hard not to fill up the gas tank and feel the pessimism come on. It’s difficult not to join in the chorus of complaints and anger on social media. Make the decision today to be a happy warrior, a Christian who knows it’s bad but finds reasons to give thanks and rejoice every day anyway. Joy is going to be a precious commodity, and we of all people should have it in abundance.

 

Hobbit Man: Another Blunder…And an Insult

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

ALLEGED HUMAN EVOLUTIONBULLETIN ARTICLESCREATION VS. EVOLUTIONIN THE NEWSPALEONTOLOGY

From Issue: R&R – April 2015

Digging on the small Indonesian island of Flores in 2004, paleontologists discovered a few bones from seven different individuals that had not yet completely fossilized (cf. Brown, et al., 2004; Morwood, et al., 2004; Dalton, 2004; Lahr and Foley, 2004). 

The most complete individual discovered, labeled LB1, which consisted of most of the skull, as well as some of the leg, hands, feet, and pelvic bones, was thought to be a species of its own, and given the Latin name Homo floresiensis.

The media called it Hobbit Man because he was thought to be only 3½ feet tall. Paleoartists quickly went to work depicting what this sub-human creature looked like. Writing in Time magazine, Michael Lemonick said,“What makes the discovery truly shocking is that the beings were not, like the Pygmies of equatorial Africa, just a short variety of modern Homo sapiens. 

Dubbed Homo floresiensis, they represent an entirely new twig on the human family tree…. The chapter of biology textbooks that describes our family tree will have to be rewritten” (2004, pp. 50-51). His recommendation was heeded. Homo floresiensis was subsequently added to biology textbooks in the section on primate evolution (e.g., Miller and Levine, 2010, p. 770).

This unfortunate series of actions highlights fundamental flaws in the practices of modern paleontologists and paleoartists. Paleoartists presumptuously construct portraits and models of creatures from woefully insufficient evidence from paleontologists, and yet their speculative, conjectured illustrations shape the minds of millions for years to come regarding human origins—even when they are later found to be totally wrong in their depictions. 

Java Man (based on the upper part of a skull, fossilized teeth, and a thigh bone), Piltdown Man (based on a jaw bone and a portion of a skull), Nebraska Man (based on a single tooth), Flipper Man (based on a fossilized rib), and Orce Man (based on a skull cap) are just a sampling of the infamous alleged missing links of human evolutionary history, grandiosely depicted by paleoartists, that proved to be completely erroneous (cf. Harrub and Thompson, 2003; Anderson, 1983). 

Writing in Science magazine, Michael Balter discusses his interview with anthropologist Adrienne Zihlman of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who highlighted eye-opening practices of those evolutionists working to sort out human evolution. Balter said, “In her view, much of the work that human evolution researchers do today is based on conjecture as well as hard science. The paleoartists, Zihlman told Science, ‘are doing what the rest of us do. Most of what we do is part art and part science’” (2009, p. 139, emp. added).

There is no doubt that paleoartists have been extremely influential in shaping the public mind about evolution and making people believe that Darwinian evolution is factual, and yet evolutionists admit that at least part of their work is based on conjecture. 

Only part of their work is science, the other part being “art.” How much of their work can be said to be conjecture and art versus actual science? The aforementioned examples seem to indicate a large part of their work must be the former in order to make such blunders, especially since paleoanthropologists admit that typical fossil finds are comprised of only a handful of isolated bones—fragments and teeth, for example (cf. DiChristina, 2012; Wong, 2012, p. 32).

The paleoartists are not the only ones at fault. Lee Berger is the famous paleoanthropologist of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa who discovered the Australopithecus sediba fossils in 2008 (cf. Miller, 2012). Writing in Scientific American, Berger chided the standard practice in paleontology of trying to draw too much information from single, isolated bones. 

The sediba skeletons were more complete than typical fossil finds (even though the sediba skeletons were much less than 50% complete skeletons). Berger makes the point that if any of the bones he found had been found isolated, as is the typical scenario in fossil finds, completely different conclusions would have been drawn about the skeletal anatomy. He said, “Sediba shows that one can no longer assign isolated bones to a genus” (as quoted in Wong, p. 34). 

Paleoanthropologist and professor at George Washington University, as well as adjunct senior scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, Bernard Wood, agrees that Berger is “absolutely right”—that isolated bones cannot be used to predict the appearance of an animal (as quoted in Wong, p. 34). Sadly, it is unlikely that many paleoanthropologists will listen to their admonitions, since most fossils that have been discovered are indeed isolated bones that must be used to conjecture about human evolution. And yet evidence to support their admonitions continues to surface. The announcement in August, 2014 regarding Homo floresiensis highlights that truth yet again.

On August 6th scientists announced another blunder. The Huffington Post began the announcement of the latest studies on Homo floresiensis with the line, “Were scientists all wrong about prehistoric hobbits?” (Cooper-White, 2014). 

The skull that influenced the decision to place Hobbit Man in his own species was examined in two studies and found to be merely the skull of a human with Down Syndrome. His facial asymmetry, cranial volume, and skull circumference, as well as the length of his thighbones, were all found to fall perfectly “within the range for a modern human with Down syndrome” (Cooper-White). 

When measurements of the skull’s cranial volume were compared to previous figures, they were found to be slightly different.Professor of developmental genetics and evolution at Pennsylvania State University, and one of the authors of one of the studies, Robert Eckhardt, said, “The difference is significant, and the revised figure falls in the range predicted for a modern human with Down syndrome from the same geographic region” (as quoted in Cooper-White).

Consider the implications of these recent discoveries: (1) Homo floresiensis has been used as conclusive evidence of human evolution for 10 years to teach the masses, and in particular, students. All the while, the alleged evidence was simply false—even though it was advocated as truth. 

What might that imply about the other alleged evidences that are currently taught as truth? (2) Paleoartists’ depictions are in large part fantasy, should be taken with a grain of salt, and not be allowed to be used as evidence that shapes the way the population views human origins. (3)

Apparently the Down Syndrome population of the world can be mistaken by the paleoanthropology community to be a band of hobbits that are not quite human. How insulting. Would it not be advisable for one to ensure that he has his facts straight before so rashly promoting his evolutionary propaganda?

REFERENCES

Anderson, I. (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28.

Balter, Michael (2009), “Bringing Hominins Back to Life,” Science, 325[5937]:136-139, July 10.

Brown, P., T. Sutikna, et al., (2004), “A New Small-bodied Hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia,” Nature, 431:1055-1061, October 28.

Cooper-White, Macrina (2014), “Controversial ‘Hobbit Species’ Simply May Have Been Early Human With Down Syndrome,” The Huffington Post, August 6, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/hobbit-human-down-syndrome_n_5651429.html?page_version=legacy&view=print&comm_ref=false.

Dalton, Rex (2004), “Little Lady of Flores Forces Rethink of Human Evolution,” Nature, 431:1029, October 28.

DiChristina, Mariette (2012), “The Story Begins,” Scientific American, 306[4]:4, April.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Lahr, Marta Mirazón and Robert Foley (2004), “Human Evolution Writ Small,” Nature, 431:1043-1044, October 28.

Lemonick, Michael D. (2004), “Hobbits of the South Pacific,” Time, 164[19]:50-52, November 8.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “Sediba Hype Continues,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:92-93, September, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2039.

Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine (2010), Biology (Boston, MA: Pearson).

Morwood, M.J., R.P. Soejono, et al., (2004), “Archaeology and Age of a New Hominin from Flores in Eastern Indonesia,” Nature, 431:1087-1091, October 28.

Wong, Kate (2012), “First of Our Kind,” Scientific American, 306[4]:30-39, April.

---

Published April 1, 2015

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

A Warning Against Murmuring and Discontent

 There are three good reasons why we should learn to mind this warning.

1. For our own comfort. Suppose you have a long walk to take every day, but you have a thorn in your foot or a stone in your shoe. Could you have any comfort? No; the first thing to do would be to rid yourself of thorn or stone. Till this was done you could not have the least comfort. 

But a feeling of discontent in our minds is just like that thorn or stone. It will take away all the comfort we might have, as we go on in the walk of our daily duties. A bishop was once asked the secret of the quiet contented spirit which he always had. He said, "My secret consists in the right use of my eyes. When I meet with any trial, I first of all look up to heaven; I remember that my chief business in life is to get there. Then I look down upon the earth, I think how small a space I shall need in it when I die; and then I look round and think how many people there are in the world who have more cause to be unhappy than I have. And so I learn the Bible lesson, 'Be content with such things as ye have.'"

2. For the comfort of others. A contented spirit is to a home what sunshine is to the trees and the flowers. John Wesley used to say, "I dare no more fret than curse or swear. To have persons around me, murmuring and fretting at everything that happens, is like tearing the flesh from my bones."

3. The third reason why we should mind this warning against discontent, is to please God. No trials can ever come upon us in this world without God's knowledge and consent. He is so wise that He never makes a mistake about our trials, and so we try to be patient and contented, because we know that this will be pleasing to God.

(British Weekly Pulpit.)

Creation: In six days or six billion Video 34 min

 Creation: In Six Days or Six Billion Years? - Eric Lyons - YouTube

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Are you Christian, or Christian-ish?

 

Are you Christian, or Christian-ish? April 26, 2021 by Jack Wilkie Are you Christian, or Christian-ish? What’s the difference? The Christian-ish is a phenomenon I’ve grown far too familiar with in my 8 years ministering in Texas. The Christian-ish are those who will tell you they claim Jesus, but don’t show any fruit of their claim. Christian-ish people assemble with the church… sometimes.  Sundays are hard to give up though, you know? There’s so much to do, and the work week is so packed. So the Christian-ish make it when they “can.” Long gone is the concept that God gets first place on the calendar and everything else falls in line behind the time we make for Him. There’s no time for the event of “assembly,” much less the more Biblical habit of “assembling” (Hebrews 10:25). Christian-ish people show little to no visible life change.  They have the same priorities as their non-Christian neighbors. Same way of talking. Same hobbies and interests. Same dress. Same goals for themselves and their kids. Same entertainment. Being transformed by the renewing of their mind is not a consideration. No, they are still conformed to this world. Christian-ish people are not afraid to say they like Jesus.  Oddly, though, despite their unwillingness to buckle down and really follow Jesus, the Christian-ish still like to appear Christian. They post images of Bible verses or religious quotes to their social media. They like politicians, athletes, and celebrities who say positive things about God. I ran across perhaps the most extreme example of this recently – a Facebook profile of a neighbor who posted about their love for marijuana, getting drunk, and more, only to throw in the odd Bible verse and church Livestream post.  The cognitive dissonance is baffling. If asked, I’m certain they would have considered themselves “Christian.” A climate that has been positive toward Christianity, or “cultural Christianity” as it’s often called, created this cheap grace phenomenon. People could consider themselves Christians without any Christlikeness, church members without any church commitment. It’s the illusion of being a branch that has no duty to bear fruit. A child of God without any duty to one’s Father.  In fact, there was motivation to do so because nominally claiming Christianity bestowed outward benefit and (a false sense of) inward peace. All the perceived benefits, none of the sacrifice. Growing up in a region that was neutral toward Christianity, we didn’t really have people like this. They are a product of a local culture that is positive toward Christianity, a type of local culture almost exclusive to the Bible Belt.  But as my neutral hometown has now slipped into negativity toward Christianity, many of these Bible Belt areas have begun to move from positive to neutral. Christianity doesn’t have the cultural cachet it once did, and will likely have even less of it in the future. (See Aaron Renn’s useful Positive/Neutral/Negative breakdown here.) In other words, Christian-ish people aren’t going to exist within a generation. When there exists a social cost for being a Christian, the only people who will be Christians are those who are truly all-in for Christ. What that means is, time is running out to choose. The longer a person remains on the fence, the closer they inch to their inevitable abandonment of the faith. Today’s Christian-ish are tomorrow’s ex-Christians. The lukewarm Jesus will vomit from His mouth. Make your choice today. Put Jesus first. Repent of lukewarmness. Commit to your local church. Be with them every Sunday and as often as you can in between. Throw out any practices or attitudes that are contrary to God’s Word. Bottom line, don’t be Christian-ish.

 

Q&A: Number Endings in Genesis 5

ERIC LYONS, M.Min.

ALLEGED DISCREPANCIESDIFFICULT PASSAGESINSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

From Issue: R&R – March 2022

Q:

“When I read Genesis 5, the numbers appear mythical. I don’t mean in length, but the actual, statistical likelihood that there are ten zeros in the list and many fives. In fact, almost everything follows a zero. Adam lived 800 years after his son. Noah had his children at 500 years old, and the flood started when Noah was 600 years old, and he lived 350 years after the flood. Enoch was taken after 300 years. There is no deviation or variation. It’s like the author was either unable to do math, or made it too simple, or was just making it up—thus all the zeros. Can you help with this issue?”

A:

Normally, when people ask questions about the numbers in Genesis 5, the discussion centers on the long lifespans of the patriarchs (e.g., “How could Methuselah live to be 969 years old?”). This question, however, considers the likelihood of so many of the patriarchs’ lifespans, as well as their ages when they had sons, ending in 0 or 5. Are Moses’ numbers made up?

First, keep in mind that simply because something may initially seem improbable does not necessarily make it impossible or incorrect. Many Bible questions are more clearly answered once we delve more deeply into the biblical, historical, and cultural context. 

For example, in the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it. The Bible writers could truthfully equate “on the third,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” (even though such language may initially sound contradictory to us).

Second, there actually is some variation from “0” and “5” endings in Genesis 5. The lifespans of four of the ten patriarchs end in numbers other than 0 and 5. Seth died at 912, Jared at 962, Methuselah at 969, and Lamech at 777 (Genesis 5:8,20,27,31). Furthermore, the ages at which Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech had sons ended with numbers other than 0 and 5 (Genesis 5:18,25,28). 

A person may question the amount of variation within Genesis 5, but there is variation. What’s more, there is even more variation of numbers in Genesis 11 in the list of 10 Messianic ancestors between Noah’s son, Shem, and Abram (11:10-32).

Third, there obviously was some rounding of numbers up or down. Since there were no days, weeks, or months mentioned in Genesis 5, the numbers clearly include a rounding to the nearest year. Do we not often truthfully and acceptably round up or down all sorts of numbers? When someone asks (at 10:59), “What’s the time?” is it wrong to say it’s 11:00? Is it dishonest to say, “We just drove 800 miles,” when we actually drove 789 miles? Is it a lie to say a car costs $10,000 when it really costs $9,999? 

God neither lies nor approves of lying (Titus 1:2; Ephesians 5:25); however, rounding numbers (when no deceit is intended) is acceptable and often customary. In fact, the person who says, “I’m 22 years, 11 months, 28 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes, and 22 seconds old,” rather than simply saying “22” or “23,” is being excessively specific (and annoying). The rounding of numbers is often a welcomed relief.

Finally, even if all 10 patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5 did have children or pass away at an age that ended in a 5 or 0 (which was not the case), such ages would not make the numbers wrong. They might seem statistically unlikely, but how many times in human history has something happened that seemed statistically unlikely? 

Has someone ever rolled a pair of dice 10 times and 10 times in a row got a total of 5 or 10? Probably. How many times could someone roll a pair of dice and not get combinations that equal seven? In 2009, a woman did this 157 times in a row, which reportedly is a 1 in 1.56 trillion chance. Yet, it happened.

Though the numbers in Genesis 5 may seem unusual at first glance, a more thorough consideration helps to clarify the matter. In truth, the number-endings are neither impossible nor unlikely.

Endnotes

1 See Eric Lyons (2004), “Did Jesus Rise ‘On” or ‘After’ the Third Day?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-rise-on-or-after-the-third-day-756/.

2 And is technically still rounding to the nearest second (and not tenth of a second or hundredth of a second, etc.).

3 Claire Suddath (2009), “Holy Craps! How a Gambling Grandma Broke the Record,” TIME, May 29, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901663,00.html.

4 Ibid.

5 For questions pertaining to some of the different numbers given in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, see the excellent article by Dr. Justin Rogers (2020), “Can I Trust the Numbers in Genesis 5?”, Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/can-i-trust-the-numbers-in-genesis-5-5849/.

---

Published March 1, 2022

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

Questions have been raised by skeptics concerning the Bible’s reliability based on the reports of the Gospel writers regarding the interval of time that transpired between the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. As is always the case with such alleged discrepancies, further study and honest exegesis dispels the allegation. The Bible refers to this interval in four forms:

1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. 

The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”1 Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”2 

The highly respected 17th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”3 The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” 

The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave one complete day and night (24 hours) and parts of two nights (36 hours total) satisfies both the literal and idiomatic expressions. The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”4

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

2 Bullinger, p. 845, emp. added.

3 John Lightfoot (1823), Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae or Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark (London: J.F. Dove), 11:202.

4 p. 846, emp. added.

---

Published July 11, 2021

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.