Skeptics and Bible critics frequently accuse the Bible of containing discrepancies and contradictions that, if true, would militate against its being the inspired Word of God. One such instance centers on two passages in the New Testament that deal with Christ’s resurrection.

In Luke 24:46, Christ stated: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day.” Paul echoed Christ’s words when he spoke of the fact that Christ “was buried; and that He hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). To the Christian, these verses represent the reason for our hope of life beyond this Earth, and sum up Christ’s earthly mission “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). The greatest single declaration of love came when Jesus Christ endured the pain and torture of crucifixion and bore our iniquities. This also is the answer we are to offer “to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). To the critic of the Scriptures, however, the passages in Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:4 represent a “sticking point” in regard to the harmony and unity of the Bible, and it is at this time when we need to step forward to provide answers to those who have asked us concerning our hope.

The question presented is this: Did Jesus err when He alluded to certain prophecies concerning His resurrection on the third day? This question centers on the phrases “thus it is written” and “according to the scriptures.” The critic asks where in the Scriptures the prediction of Christ’s third-day resurrection can be found? The fact is, there are no specific passages in the Old Testament that speak directly of the Lord’s resurrection on the “third day.” However, there are other options available to acquit the Lord of the charge of having erred.

(1) The prophet Hosea wrote: “After two days will He revive us: on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him (6:2). Although the passage does not speak specifically of the Messiah’s resurrection on the “third day” it could have reference to Christ. Two views on this verse are prevalent. In his commentary on the book of Hosea, Burton Coffman discussed both of them. (a) First, he suggested that the message of the verse was “viewed as the expectation of the people who supposed that their quick and easy repentance would result in their complete and immediate restoration” (1981, p. 110). This idea takes the words of the prophet as an “immediate application” to rectify the terrible situation in which the children of Israel once again found themselves. [The fact that they were facing God’s wrath and needed to repent is evident from chapter 5, verses 10 and 11: “I will pour my wrath upon them like water…because he was content to walk after man’s command.”] (b) This verse also could be seen, not as an immediate “revival” or “raising up” of the nation, but as a prophecy pointing to the “new life” found in Jesus Christ that would yet rise out of the old Israel (Coffman, p. 110). This concept evinces a “remote fulfillment” of Jesus’ death and resurrection on the third day, through which “we may live in His sight” (Hosea 6:2).

(2) Another possibility could be that Jesus, in referring to the Scriptures, was not referring to one particular passage, but was referencing the whole body of Old Testament prophecies about His suffering, death, burial, and resurrection. “The point of Jesus’ words is not that such-and-such a verse has now come true, but that the truth to which all of the Scriptures point has now been realized!” (Green, 1997, p. 857). As we examine chapter 24 of Luke, we twice see Jesus expound upon the Scriptures. Before teaching the apostles in Jerusalem, He told them that “all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). All through this section, Christ spoke of the Old Testament in its entirety, rather than referring to any specific passage. Thus, there is a contextual precedent, so that when Jesus stated “thus it is written,” it would be reasonable to associate this with the whole of the Scriptures pointing to His last days. When Jesus said that it was “necessary for the Christ to suffer,” He referred back to something Isaiah had predicted many years earlier.

> He was despised, and rejected of men; man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:3-5).

Following His suffering and death, He was indeed “to rise from the dead” as can be seen from the prophecy in Psalm 16:8-10: “I have set Jehovah always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: My flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.”

(3) A further possibility in regard to the passage in 1 Corinthians could be that Paul, while writing to the church at Corinth, was referring to the works written by some of his contemporaries, in particular Matthew or Luke’s gospel account(s). Some might wonder how this could be, since in that day and age, travel and communication were by foot or animal, and thus were very slow. It is not possible to speak with dogmatism about the exact dates of the circulation of the some of the New Testament books, but we do have a precedent for this type of reference within Scripture. Actually, we have this exact scenario between Paul and the gospel according to Luke—in the first epistle the apostle wrote to Timothy. In it, Paul, after discussing the qualifications of elders, quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and referred to both verses as “Scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18). Another example where a contemporary’s work is considered Scripture can be found in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Here, Peter acknowledged that Paul’s wisdom was given to him by God, and further classified Paul’s epistles as possessing the same kind of inspiration as the “other scriptures.” Thus, Paul could have been referring back to Luke, or he could have been speaking of Matthew 12:40, where Jesus compared His time in the tomb with Jonah’s “three days and three nights in the belly of the fish.”

Each of the suggestions offered above represents a viable option as a response to the critic’s suggestion that the passages in Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:4 represents some kind of “discrepancy” within the biblical text.

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus as prophesying that He would arise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). What’s more, while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp. added). The fact is, however, Jesus also taught (and Mark recorded) “that the Son of Man” would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). Furthermore, Jesus elsewhere prophesied that He would be in the heart of the Earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). So which is it? Did Jesus rise from the dead on the third day or after three days?

While to the 21st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “on the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact day.

The Scriptures contain several examples which clearly show that in Bible times a part of a day was often equivalent to the whole day.

-
According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?

-
In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).

-
In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.

-
When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).

-
Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”

-
From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

Even though in modern times some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions frequently are used today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Consider also the guest at a hotel who checks in at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, depending on the context, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients could be in calculating time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory centers around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “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” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.

The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave do not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.