TECHNICAL STUSIES-- CHILDBEARTH WITH PAIN??? THREE DAYS THREE NIGHTS #1, #2, #3.

 

Childbirth with PAIN?

The Bible teaches no such idea!

CHILDBIRTH WITHOUT FEAR by Grantly Dick-Read M.D. From the 5th edition (revised and edited) CHAPTER 9 The Influence of Memory Is it unreasonable that we should pause to consider the mental picture of labor within the mind of a woman? Is it not essential that we should create by education and instruction the true and natural happiness of motherhood within the vision of her mind? The mental picture of her anticipated experience should be the image of all that is beautiful in the fulfillment of her love. For the body is only a vehicle in which and from which a child is miraculously made and produced. It is the mind of woman that knows passion and desires the fulfillment of her biological purpose. It is the mind-its receptivity and its ability to integrate the fund of new thoughts and feeling that are the physiological visitations of love and pregnancy-that molds and fashions the child. It is the mind that bears the spiritual imprint of the newborn child and around it writes indelibly the mysterious circumscription of love. Francis Galton wrote much on the importance of the mind that has been overlooked in the modern teaching of medicine.' His investigations emphasize the vividness with which images, based upon thought and association, can be reproduced in the mind. Sights, sounds, and associations, real and imaginary, imprint themselves upon the human mind to mold and influence its reactions. As Pavlov points out in his important work on conditioned reflexes, the things that give the greatest pleasure will become conditioned causes of acute fear and hatred if continually offered with a terrifying accompaniment.' Both objective and subjective associations can condition stimuli that provoke fear reactions to labor. I know single women who, their natural longing for a child obliterated from their minds, shudder when childbirth is mentioned. Associations of pain and mental pictures of agony and death have become conditioned stimuli for such fear and abhorrence that these women seek permanent refuge in virginity and spinsterhood. There are some women who have had one baby who have been known to refuse all marital relations forever after for fear they should have to experience labor again. Even love for the child cannot override the fear and pain that its arrival occasioned. What devastation to homes, husbands, and children one ill-conducted labor can bring! Owing to the nature of Pavlov's experiments, the concept of the conditioned reflex is often associated only with salivating dogs, meat, and bells. But earlier writings, such as Galton's in 1883, made it apparent that the recurrent stimulus frequently arises within the mind. The memory, or even the visualization, of an incident may surround a natural and physiological function with an aura of pain or pleasure so vivid that normal reflexes are disturbed. Just as a colored light will produce defense reactions of pain in a dog who was hurt when the light appeared, so will the words "baby," "childbirth," "labor," or even "motherhood" produce emotional states and their physical manifestations in women who suffered in parturition, and every act that leads, in a normal sequence of events, to the association of painful childbirth will give impetus to the primitive instinct to escape. Fear of childbirth, then, becomes the great disturber of the neuromuscular harmony of labor. I do not wish it to be inferred that childbirth should be looked upon as a mental process. But obviously the mechanical efficiency of this function not only depends upon the structures and forces of the body but upon emotional stimuli, and upon the integrity of the influences to which the emotions are subjected. NEGATIVE INFLUENCES Many young women from the age of puberty and even before have inquiring minds, particularly in relation to childbirth. Few hear much that is encouraging from those of their own age, but since the temptation to seek information is not curbed, again and again, drawn as if by sirens, they satiate their greed for knowledge by listening to voices that capture the imagination but utterly distort or destroy the truth. The facts of childbirth may be withheld by the mother, the logical source, for the mother may have had such unpleasant experiences herself that she has no wish to communicate them to the daughter, who she believes will also suffer in childbirth. If, in a moment of confidence, she gives any information to her daughter, it is more likely to be fear producing than a stimulus to pleasant anticipation. Thus the influence of too many mothers upon their daughters, either through the subtlety of their information or through the mystery of their silence, is a serious factor in producing a feeling of fear in regard to childbirth. We must remember, also, the influence of the friends of a woman about to have a baby. Wherever women are gathered together and the subject of childbirth arises, someone may remark that childbirth is a kind of martyrdom, the suffering during which, though probably best forgotten, is satisfactorily recalled with obvious pride. Here it must not be overlooked that those who have suffered are justified in believing in suffering. There is no blame to be laid upon those who are honest in their opinions; neither was it their fault if they suffered. This does not, however, mitigate in any way the crime of their propaganda, for to produce alarm can never assist in the accomplishment of a task, however unimportant. The influence of husbands is another potential source of anxiety concerning childbirth, if the husband has formed his opinions upon hearsay. His ignorance leads to an understandable anxiety over the welfare of his wife. Unfortunately, he communicates his anxiety to her. Apart from the more intimate sources of information about childbirth, women cannot escape the influence of the general trend of public and popular opinion. Constantly in contact with the mod ern foundations of both education and amusement, they read books, study papers, listen to radio and television broadcasts, and see motion pictures. In far too many of these the same atmosphere is found: childbirth is an ordeal, essentially painful and dangerous to the life of the mother. If the dramatist finds it necessary to increase the interest of the story by describing the events that occurred when one of the chief characters gave birth to a child, the incident is often fraught with poignancy and tension, drama, suffering, and possibly death. As a student of human nature, the dramatist well knows that nothing is more likely to gain the attention of the reader. Do we often read of a normal character experiencing any happiness in childbirth, or see such a presentation on the screen? Similarly, the tense anxiety of the husband gives the author or producer a wonderful opportunity for drama. Fortunately, this is sometimes so exaggerated as to become laughable. The daily papers are also printed in order to attract readers. The story of a straightforward birth is not news, unless it occurs in a taxicab or a telephone booth, but the story of a mother's death when a child is born is almost worthy of headlines. CULTURE VS. NATURAL LAW I have chosen the term "indigenous" below in reference to woman in her original condition, as opposed to "cultured" or "civilized." It is obvious that such a term requires explanation. I am using it to convey the idea of first or original, primary; that is, women whose tribal lives and traditional limitations of experience have not been affected by medieval and/or twentieth-century culture, compared to the "cultured" woman of today. There is very little evidence that modern woman is in any way less fitted to produce children painlessly than the woman without the influence of Western culture and civilization. Woman, indigenous or cultured, has before her no evidence suggesting that nature ever intended pregnancy to be an illness. The indigenous woman continues her work-in the harvest field, on trek, in the rubber plantation, or wherever she may be employed. The child develops while she herself lives a full and natural existence. Muscularly strong, physiologically efficient, her mechanism carries out its normal functions without discomfort, difficulty, or shame. The child then is born easily, small and firm fleshed. Among cultured women we see this too-the athletic young woman who continues her active life, who plays golf to the seventh month, who walks three or four miles a day to the full term of her pregnancy, who eats sensible food in a sensible way, who is not diverted from her normal routine by those who try to advertise special care, rest, diets, and enormous quantities of milk. Such exaggerated concern is an offense against nature; it is a presumption that natural methods require unnatural fortification, and to those of us who believe in nature it is little short of inducing a pathological state into a very perfect physiological function. Whichever of the many definitions of culture is adopted, one thing is certain, that culture is dependent primarily upon the activity of the mind. The greater the education, the more "cultured" the type. But, unquestionably, we have very largely lost many of the higher sensibilities that in the original state were essential to our personal survival. One has only to spend a few weeks with those who depend upon their wits for the supply of their food from natural surroundings to appreciate how soon we should die out if once again we were bereft of cultural attributes and were called upon to return to the original state! From this the question naturally follows: To what extent can the influences of culture have affected those functions that remain with us as natural physical functions, childbirth in particular? The mind has developed, and the enormous fund of stimulus that passes from the consciousness to the autonomic nervous system has to meet new conditions. The lives of the cultured have gradually changed as Western civilization has developed. With repression, emotions of varying intensity have found new means of expression. The physician of today looks to the emotions and sentiments of his patients when endeavoring to find the original cause for many of their physical complaints, practicing "psychosomatic medicine." Herein lies the fact of pain in childbirth. Modern woman is physically competent; modern childbirth is physically unaltered from earlier times, but our culture has brought to bear upon this function neuromuscular activities caused by intensifying certain emotions that inhibit the progress of the birth and thus create pain. Yet there is no reason why culture should be allowed to destroy all that is beautiful in the primitive. True culture should enhance original beauty and purify where contamination has crept in. If childbirth among indigenous people unaffected by Western culture still persists today as a relatively painless procedure, it is indeed a slur upon our utilization of culture that the most dramatic, the most beautiful, and the most essential of natural functions should be made unpleasant for so many. A woman may be conscious of uterine contractions for hours, but have no discomfort until she is told she is in labor. This verbal stimulus to her mental expectation alerts her attention and anxiety. Although she may appear to be quite calm, a woman in labor has an inborn alertness to danger, and evidence of anxiety, however courageously suppressed, will forewarn her attendants of the special care she may need. In anxiety, the heart beats strongly and often rapidly, breathing is quicker and sometimes irregular, and is interspersed with a series of deep, sighing respirations. The nostrils may be widely dilated to facilitate the intake of air, and not infrequently the mouth is slightly open for the same reason. If women are to be taught to anticipate childbirth with relaxed confidence, it is necessary to eliminate the tension that gives rise to pain by removing the causes for fear. Those who seek to follow as closely as possible the natural law of childbirth should do everything possible to allay a young woman's anxieties and give her confidence by simple and truthful reiteration of the facts of natural childbirth. HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES If we survey the history of childbirth in European civilization, we discover that suffering is often presumed, the minds of both men and women being conditioned to the idea of suffering as essential to childbirth. Since it is expected, it is thus caused and aggravated. For generations the necessity of pain has been accepted as a fact, even though the motivation for earlier stories and dramas may have been to concentrate on the negative in order to attract an audience, just as in our day. ANCIENT PRACTICES AND PAGAN RELIGIONS At the time of Hippocrates, four or five hundred years before Christ, we read of a different outlook. Even prior to his day, three thousand years before Christ, the priests among the Egyptians were called to assist women in labor. In many societies witchcraft was resorted to, often very successfully due to the power of suggestion, and old writings suggest that herbs and potions were used to help a woman give birth easily. In fact, it may be said with some accuracy that among the most primitive people of whom any record exists, help was given to women in labor according to the customs of the time. Hippocrates lived from 460 to 355 B.C. His aphorisms should be read by every medical man. It was he who realized that "our natures are the physicians of our diseases"; it was he who recognized in the routine care of human ailments that prevention was more important than cure. He emphasized that the daily discipline of a healthy person was to include diet, exercise, and fresh air. All the simple things of life to correct an illness were to be used before medicines, and last of all came surgery. It may seem strange to some of us that these things were written so long ago! Today in the United States, England, and many other countries, everyone who qualifies to be a doctor has to take the Hippocratic Oath, an oath of allegiance to our science. This oath is a magnificent concept, to which one who is accorded the privilege of attending patients should adhere, for it stands as fresh and noble as ever. It says in part: I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death.... If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot. Unfortunately, even today in my professional career, I have often seen only lip service paid to this oath and its tenets ignored. Yet it is upon the Hippocratic teaching that all modern medicine is based. If the principles of Hippocrates were reenacted today in all their simplicity and wisdom, they would undoubtedly alter the whole tone and tenor of our lives. Hippocrates made stern demands upon his pupils, but he always practiced what he preached. There is no authority but fact, Hippocrates taught, and deductions are to be made only from facts. Since observation, common sense, and clear reasoning are not compatible with the speculative practice of medicine, a physician should be persuaded by no influence that cannot be justified by accurate observation. True science begets knowledge, but opinion, ignorance. Hippocrates' teaching was largely based upon the laws of nature as they were understood in his time, that is, exploring the secrets of life, its origin, its maintenance, and its reproduction. He endeavored to organize and instruct midwives. He found no place for fear in childbirth except in the presence of abnormality, which may or may not have been caused by a faulty regimen in the life of the individual. Such confidence was placed in the ability of the natural law to carry out the work of reproduction that one statement was frequently impressed upon the students and doctors of that time: "We must refrain from meddlesome interference!" A statement particularly applicable to the care of women in childbirth. Indeed, it is important for us to realize that there is nothing new in the concept of natural childbirth. It is but a revitalizing and uncovering of that which conforms to the laws of nature. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) went further, and in some of his writings we find accurate and very desirable observations upon childbirth. He was probably the first man who ever urged care of the mind for a woman having a baby. A great naturalist, he was the first investigator of the development of the chick within the egg. Followed by Aristotle and other great scientists, the Hippocratic and Grecian school of medicine held sway until after Soranus of Ephesus, who, living at the end of the first and the beginning of the second century after Christ, continued the emphasis upon the high level and humane principles of Grecian obstetrics. Writing a famous treatise on obstetrics in about A.D. 79, Soranus was quite possibly the greatest of all the ancient obstetric clinicians, and must be regarded as their leading authority upon childbirth and pediatrics. He denied the truth of certain superstitions about childbirth, and he stressed consideration of the feelings of the woman herself. He makes no mention of fear, and did not expect it to occur unless some abnormality disrupted the healthy function. His writings, as true today as nineteen hundred years ago, were collected by monks and, buried in the cellars of great monasteries, were soon forgotten, not to be rediscovered for many centuries. Pain in childbirth has been recognized as far back as we can go in the history of man, but only in the presence of something contrary to the natural or physiological law, which then gives rise to fear. Fear is an emotion that, emerging from the primitive instinct of survival, is the natural protective agent prompting the individual to escape from danger. There seems to be little doubt but that the unnatural, pathological, and destructive condition of fear in childbirth is found more intensely and frequently in the European civilization than in any other. Those of us who have traveled among groups who have not yet come into contact with European civilization have found that the presence of fear of childbirth affects only a small percentage of the population, confirming what we have read in the ancient writings, and those who do suffer from fear almost invariably have a reasonable cause. The general tendency is to pass quickly from the discussion of fear to that of pain. But the origins of fear are important, because the association between fear and pain is very close. Thus it is necessary to draw attention to the influences of superstitions and religious customs, and all those things which pertain to ethical conduct and beliefs among various peoples. Fear produced by religious beliefs becomes an offense to the mental or physical integrity of childbirth. Unnecessary fear is a pathological condition. Pagan religions demand an absolute belief in an outside controlling influence over the events of one's life. That control is exercised, directly or indirectly, by one's ancestors. All goes well with the individual, so long as he obeys the rules and does not offend his or her ancestors. It is the woman who carries, hidden in her mind, the knowledge of her disobedience of this law who becomes depressed and filled with fear during labor. She is anxious not only for her own life but also for the life and fitness of the child. Pain and suffering in childbirth then becomes the corollary to "the wages of sin is death," an idea common to all ethical teachings and religions. Thus if a dead or abnormal child is born, it is considered the reward of sin and disobedience of the law. We found that some tribes in Africa go to extraordinary lengths to appease the wrath of their forefathers or their gods. When trouble arises in labor, as it surely does in the presence of this sin-born fear, free confession overcomes the trouble of a delayed or prolonged labor. This form of pain relief in difficult labor is well recognized among many tribes. In the Congo we obtained first-hand evidence of the curative influence of confession as a means of palliating the angry ancestors or gods during labor; in the absence of abnormality, the baby was usually born soon after confession. Thus the ethical beliefs of an individual, and the consciousness of sin or disobedience in respect to these beliefs, do influence the course of labor, through the emotions. THE MIDDLE AGES It was about three hundred years after Christ that a big change in attitudes came about in Western civilization, due to a distortion of earlier Judeo-Christian teachings. It is generally accepted that the institutionalized Christian Church during this period, more than any other influence in the last two thousand years, retarded the progress of medicine and medical science. One of the principles of Christ's teachings is that we should visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and heal the sick. But the priests of this middle period -interpreting any efforts on the part of man to heal the sick as being presumptuous, placing oneself on an equal with, or even preeminent over, the God of Christians - went back to pagan practices, where prayer and fastings were the total remedies. If medicines or potions were used at all, they came from the monasteries through the Church, and it was the special prerogative of the priests to prescribe and distribute them. To study and believe in the laws of nature became an offense against the authority of the Church, and all books on medicine that had been written, including those of Soranus, were seized and buried beneath the monasteries. When the Roman Empire fell, all medicine reverted to the lore of superstitions, legends, salves, poultices, and talismen. The sick were no longer healed; they either lived or died. With this as background, it is no wonder that the rites of paganism were relatively simple, pleasing, and acceptable when compared to some of the horrors to which women in medieval times were subjected, owing to the ignorance of those who were entitled to look after them in childbirth. During the thousand years up to 1520, the responsibility for childbirth was entirely usurped by the Church. No man was allowed to attend a woman in labor unless he was a shepherd or a man who looked after animals in sickness. Childbirth was considered the result of carnal sin, to be expiated by suffering in giving birth. Should the woman have trouble during labor, the Church, according to its ethics, demanded a live baby, whatever might happen to the woman in question. In fact, if a woman was dying it was not unusual for the baby to be taken from her through the wall of the abdomen, for which purpose men accustomed to castrating animals, usually hog-gelders, were employed. THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES It was not until 1513 that a German, Eucharius Roesslin, discovered the hidden writings of Soranus and others. He wrote the first obstetric book in nearly fifteen hundred years, gleaning his manu script from the works of those ancient, astute physicians, profound philosophers, and most accurate clinical observers the world has ever known. The book of Eucharius Roesslin stood as a monument upon the high road of the development of care in childbirth. Nine years after its publication a doctor in Hamburg, thinking that too little was known about childbirth except through books, decided to observe the birth of a baby. Since no man was allowed to attend a woman in childbirth and the law was extremely rigid, he dressed as a midwife and joined the midwives at a birth. His observations were invaluable. Success in midwifery had begun to be established once more, but then he was deceived by a personal acquaintance and reported to the authorities. For that crime, that heresy, Dr. Weiss of Hamburg was burned at the stake. Only four hundred years ago! It was not until 1580 that shepherds and herdsmen were prevented by law from attending women in labor, though physicians were still not permitted to assist midwives. Two hundred and fifty years ago physicians took over the work in certain cases, and later surgeons applied their skill, but even then little consideration was shown for the woman's feelings. In the so-called ages of religious faith, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in England, if there was any difficulty in labor it was the custom to baptize the child before it was born so that its soul might be saved, the holy water being introduced onto the unborn child by use of a special instrument. The fact that the mother died still called for no remark. The most important of all historical writings, and the most likely to be read, is the Bible. It is still the world's best-selling book. Many women read and study their Bibles-and many have been influenced to believe that childbirth is a grievous and painful experience because of passages in the King James Version like Genesis 3:16, which quotes the Lord as having said to Eve: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." This passage has been known as the "curse of Eve," with its assumption that misery, pain, and sorrow automatically accompany every birth. Thus many still are of the opinion today that the teaching of natural childbirth is contrary to the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth! For those who believe the translators and others who compiled the various editions of the Bible were under divine guidance no argument will be of any avail, but if the Bible had divine inspiration, it is likely that the writers of the original manuscripts were inspired, and not the translators of the various editions in different languages. Biblical scholars have carefully reexamined the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which much of the Bible was translated, and have concluded that the words referring to childbirth do not signify pain, but refer to "labor," or to "a woman in childbirth." Being interested in this subject myself for many years, I have acquired in my library a considerable collection of ancient Bibles, and find that some of the translations differ from those of the great King James Version, which was started in 1604 and completed in 1611, in the reign of James 1. Take, for example, Isaiah 21:3. I turned this up in my copy of the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, and find that the words "pain" and "pangs" were not used, but "sorrow" was repeated three times. In my copy of the Bishop's Bible, however, first published in 1568, the words "pain" and "pangs" appear, and since the King James Version was largely a revision of the Bishop's Bible and not the Geneva Bible, the same terms have been repeated by the translators. This matter was referred to Hebrew scholars, one of whom, the Reverend B. D. Glass, spent much time investigating this subject and wrote to me as follows: Quote One thing, however, that puzzled me was why the Bible referred to childbirth as such a painful and dangerous ordeal. That is how I was taught, and later on taught my pupils. After studying your book, Revelation of Childbirth,' I felt I had to search the Bible more thoroughly to find the deeper meaning concerning expressions about childbirth. I was very pleased when I read the first sentence of Genesis 3:16, where the Hebrew word "etzev" which is usually translated as sorrow and pain, has obviously been misconstrued. The words of pain in Hebrew are "keiv" (pain) "tzaar" (sorrow) "yesurim" (anguish). At no time would any Hebrew scholar use the word "etzev" as an expression of pain. The meanings of "etzev" are manyfold, i.e., labour (Gen. 5:29, referring to Noah: "The same shall comfort us concerning our labour and toil of our hands"). In Proverbs 14:13, "etzev" is used as expressing labour, e.g., "that in all labour there is profit." "Etzev" can also mean "concerned" or "anxious" as is mentioned in Genesis 6:6, where the word "grieved" is not used in its proper sense - "displeased," or "concerned" would have been more in keeping. In chapter 45 para. 5 although "etzev" is again translated as "grieved," it is used in a wrong sense, "displeased" would have suited the expression better. Again in King 11:6, the correct translation of "etzev" is given, namely, "displeased"--"and his father had not displeased him," etc. "Etzev" has yet another meaning - that "of being perturbed," as it is expressed in Samuel I 20:3, "Lest he be perturbed." I find that throughout the Bible the word "etzev" is used approximately sixteen times, and not once does it convey the meaning of pain as we are made to believe. "Etzev" can assume different shades of meaning, regarding the sense in which it is used. I think that is why the translators of the Bible in the olden times, believing in the ordeal of pain and anguish in connection with childbirth, translated the word "etzev" to imply such. None of the prophets ever used this word in their expressions regarding childbirth. They used the words "tzirim" (hinges) and "vchavalim" (threads) which mean hinges and threads, or nerves. Not being a medical man it is hard for me to explain these terms. I can, however, explain "vchavalim," which means the contractions or stretching of the muscles and fibres. In all your quotations from the Bible, the above two words were expressed and they do not really signify pain. It is only because "yeloda," which means "a woman in childbirth" is always used in conjunction with these same two words in question that the translators added on their own behalf these words as meaning "pain and travail." End Quote If we put ourselves in the place of those brilliant classical scholars of the time of James I, from A.D. 1604 to 1611, the years occupied by them in completing this translation, we can see why their negative thoughts on childbirth were expressed in their translations. They used the word "pain" because they had no reason to believe any other term was applicable. During this era, obstetrics was at a low ebb. Anesthetics and antiseptics were not discovered until two hundred fifty years later. The first English book on midwifery had been published only fifty years earlier, and although several manuscripts appeared, mainly for private circulation, they demonstrated little advance upon the works of Soranus, who flourished in second century A.D. Women died in large numbers in maternity hospitals, and the appalling conditions of the Hotel de Dieu in Paris due to epidemics of childbed fever were found to some extent in English institutions as well. Surely it was reasonable that the translators used the word "pain" in keeping with the accepted belief and experience of their time. It was not until the nineteenth century that the foundations of our present knowledge of antiseptics were laid, and there were no antibiotics for infections until the mid-twentieth century. We tend to overlook the fact that until 1847 anesthetics or pain-relievers were not even known, so that when a labor was abnormal the suffering was appalling. An investigation by Herr Ernst Burkhardt, who translated Childbirth Without Fear into German, states that the German word "Wehen" (pain) was not found in German writings before the Middle Ages: I enclose an article of mine, published recently by Die Neue Zeitung. Professor Joseph De Lee (in the preface of his Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, 1947 edition) says that since unthinkable times all races understood contractions in labour as a painful experience and accordingly spoke either of pains, dolores, dolori, douleurs or (in German) Wehen. There is no evidence for this assertion. On the contrary, it seems to be sure that these termini developed only with civilization. Our German word "Wehen" cannot be traced beyond the Middle Ages. Our frequently used painsuggesting word, "Wehmutter" ["midwife," literally, "mother of woe"], I found, had a definite artificial origin. Dr. Martin Luther invented it when translating the Bible. It does not exist before the year 1540. Dr. Rudolf Hellman of Hamburg, in his paper "Schmerz oder Erlebnis der Entbindung" (January 1959), gives additional consideration from the German Bible translations: Quote Dick-Read maintains that the underlying Hebrew word "Etzev" should not be translated as "pain" but as "toil, trouble, distress and labour." It is all a question of a predominant psychic understanding. H. Adler and other investigators I have questioned have moreover come to the conclusion that there is here no command of the Lord. Several years ago Dick-Read showed that a confinement, as a natural event, need not be, and should not be, associated with violent pains. He is convinced that it could not have been the will and intention of the Creator. In the Bible we also find references to easy deliveries, just as today they are happening in "natural births." In the Second Book of Moses (Exodus) 1:15, the King of Egypt commanded the He brew midwives Siphra and Pua to kill the sons immediately on the stools (here no doubt the reference is to the birth-stools which were in use in Luther's time). The midwives referred, however, to the easy deliveries of the Hebrew women with the words: "They have been born before the arrival of the midwife." This expression is recognized as sound. Luther, who liked to associate the birth with pain, probably invented the painful-sounding "Mother of Woe," a translation which was only discarded after 1540. Graf Wittgenstein, in his book Man Before Delivery, translated after Gunkel: "Much will I prepare your toils and groans; in labor wilt thou bear children..." Archaic, inaccurate explanations and translations were learned, in good faith, by clerics and teachers, and by children and grown-ups true to the words of books and letters. End Quote Wittgenstein also mentions in this excellent contribution that the Greeks called pain the "barking watchdog of health," and that pain occupies an important place in the extensive system of warning and protection of the organs: "...it seems to us rather senseless that it should be the alarm signal of delivery as at the same time it hinders the mother in her activities." It is forgivable that the translators of nearly four hundred years ago should interpret as they did, but I find it difficult to understand how these obviously controversial translations can continue to be accepted by many modern scholars of the classics, who copy and even intensify the mistakes, although they have many more manuscripts and advantages from which to deduce the significance of the words. But that is not all, for a woman's fears are supported by the Prayer Book, in which there had been no substantial alteration, until recently, since A.D. 1662. There was a special service known as "The Churching of Women" which was supposed to be a thanksgiving after childbirth, which ends: "Oh, Almighty God, we give Thee humble thanks for that Thou hast vouchsafed to deliver this woman, Thy servant, from the great pain and peril of childbirth." Could we still expect women to believe childbirth was to be painless, that it could be a moment of transcendental joy? When I was discussing this service with a girl of twenty-three, she said: "But you would not expect the most wonderful gift of God to come unpleasantly." Is the pride of possession and accomplishment that fills the heart of every young mother when she first sees her baby unworthy to be recalled? Is a lame apology for gratitude adequate thanks to the Almighty for the gift of a child? Yet the Church has asked her to say: "Thank you very much for having allowed ME to come through all that frightfulness unscathed; it is so nice to be alive in spite of having performed the greatest of all natural functions for which You especially built me, although You did make it dangerous and painful for me." What a travesty of the truth!!! It is not for the escape from pain and danger that women thank God. In my experience mothers are not made like that. They give thanks for their child. The Church must once again teach the beauty of childbirth and encourage confidence in normal, natural function, which is in harmony with the basic teachings of the Bible. We must not forget the significance of Christmas or the manger in the stable of a wayside inn. Millions of Catholics honor the Madonna and Child, and Protestants also recognize the spiritual implications of childbirth. In the meantime, let us assume as historical necessity the teachings of the past that emphasized the negative aspects of childbearing, keeping in mind that there can be no more horrible stigma upon civilization than the history of childbirth. THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS In 1847 a brighter picture began to emerge for women in childbirth, with James Young Simpson's discovery of chloroform, creating the beginning of the era of pain relief. Simpson was harshly criticized by the Church for giving women anesthesia in abnormal labor. A dignitary of the Church wrote in condemnation of his work: "Chloroform is the decoy of Satan, apparently offering itself to bless women but in the end it will harden society and rob God of the deep cries which arise in time of trouble." That in my father's time! But anesthesia had come to stay-and to such an extent that it was used in all labors, abnormal or not. Why always anesthesia, when in the natural state it is unnecessary? It has always been easier to utilize the pain-relieving discoveries of science than to investigate the complicated causes of pain. Since 1850 a hundred ways and means have been discovered to rid our women of the pain that has invariably attacked them, even when they most deserved the natural joy of their supreme accomplishment. Nevertheless, anesthesia has been of the greatest service to women, and an important step forward in the development of humane care during childbirth. In 1854 Florence Nightingale became the first person to make it widely known that cleanliness and fresh air were fundamental necessities of nursing. It was largely because of her work during the Crimean War that the standards of both the training and practice of nursing were raised. The gin-drinking, reprobate doctors who were found in great numbers at births both in hospitals and at home began to disappear. With their exodus, childbed fever occurred less frequently in maternity cases, but even so, women were still dying in hospitals at the rate of 12 to 15 percent of all normal labors. This means that one in every eight perfectly healthy women admitted died through childbed fever! About this same time, Ignaz Philip Semmelweis, a nervous young man who was a physician at the Maternity Hospital in Vienna, came to the conclusion that the cause might be due to something arising within the hospital. He therefore made his students wash their hands in a solution of chloride of lime before attending women in childbirth. In one year, 1858, the death rate in his wards tumbled to 3 percent and soon afterward to 1 percent. This was the first great step toward preventing the attendant from taking death to the patient; for Semmelweis had discovered what the ancients had always preached, that to interfere with the law of nature was to invite the hand of death. For his success in saving lives Semmelweis was asked, for some made-up reason, to leave the staff of the hospital. He was told he had no right to require this washing, and was sent away. He returned to his home and died, a broken man. Until 1866 there was no knowledge of asepsis. Hospitals were originally organized by priests whose humane intention was to move people from the hovels in which they lived to be cared for by doctors in hospitals. In the homes a certain number died; those who went to the hospital for safety and good treatment died in much greater numbers. It is difficult to visualize the state of affairs that prevailed when limbs were amputated, abdomens opened, and cesarean sections performed without any anesthesia and with an almost sure supervention of sepsis, giving rise to a high percentage of mortality in the simplest operations. Probably all of us, if we are wise, pause to think sometimes how much harm we do in our efforts to do good, and how much trouble we cause when conscientiously endeavoring to prevent it! In 1866, long after my parents were born, Joseph Lister first practiced aseptic surgery, and he continued to use antiseptics in spite of the opposition and ridicule of his colleagues. Then Pasteur discov ered fermentation and inoculation and Koch discovered bacteria, the two men becoming co-founders of the science of bacteriology. This is all recent change and innovation! The care of women in childbirth benefited by the advance of these other branches of medical science, but in obstetrics itself little happened. At the beginning of the twentieth century the death rate from childbirth was lower, and severe pain was relieved, but still childbirth was an ordeal for a woman to face. Much pain still remained, pain that was unexplained and could only be obliterated by unconsciousness, which carried its own dangers. Was unconsciousness safe for mother and baby? It is incredible how pain was and still is accepted by many doctors and scholars as an inevitable accompaniment of childbirth. I cannot understand anyone who says women in childbirth should not be afraid, for who among us would not have some qualms about entering into an experience that we desired above all else, but that we believed must occasion severe pain, danger, possible mutilation, and even death to either ourself or our child? We know of only a few who have no fears: there are a number of women who faithfully believe in the rightness of their God and the sanctity of their bodies, and in my opinion there are also women who have an inborn belief in the laws of nature, not by formulating them to themselves, but because they are natural in their outlook and experience. The extent and magnificence of the medical discoveries made during the last hundred and fifty years is beyond both praise and gratitude. Gradually truth has been discovered, and the safety of women in childbirth has been made an object of investigation, with results that would have been unbelievable when the mothers and grandmothers of many of us were born. But now that many of the troubles and dangers have been overcome, we must move on-not only to save more lives, but actually to bring happiness to replace the agony of fear. For although the consciousness or sensations of a woman's discomfort can now be dispelled, it is only at a price, for with it goes the awareness of birth and the joyful sensations and emotions that should accompany it. Now we must bring a fuller life, truer to natural law, to the women who are called upon to reproduce our species. It is not only that we want to bring about an easy labor, without risk of injury to the mother or the child; we must go further. We must understand that childbirth is fundamentally a spiritual as well as a physical achievement and throughout this book it must be understood that the birth of a child is the ultimate perfection of human love, the culmination of the love between a man and a woman. In the Christian ethic we teach that God is love. The blessing of sexual necessity and pleasure is but an essential part of the love God has given to man and woman. It may be that in time scientists will be able to give such complete proof of the rightness of materialism that religion will become a weapon in the hands of the psychiatrists and the Church will be replaced by the clinic. But my close association with the birth of a child has led me to believe there is a limitation to science and that the extending boundaries of human knowledge have only reached the foothills of the towering mountains of Omniscience. This philosophy of childbirth is written, therefore, in terms of a belief in God. For my own part, I stand in awe and utter humility before a woman with her newborn babe. There is so much to see and learn in their presence, so much that I am unable to understand or to explain, so much that makes me aware of the limitations of my own ability. It may be that among my colleagues there are those who feel the same. Obstetrics must be approached as a science demanding the most profound respect. One woman who had feared, because of all the accepted causes, the arrival of her child, gained confidence and understanding before her baby was due; she had a natural and happy birth. Toward the end of the labor that produced her second, and much larger, child, she worked with tireless energy. "How many more?" she asked me excitedly, as she rested between the contractions. "It will soon be here," I replied. "Why do you ask so anxiously? I hope you are not too weary." "No, no, not that - but this brings back to me so clearly John's arrival. I can hear his cry and see his fat pink body in my hands. I'm longing for that heavenly feeling again - I simply can't describe it to you. It won't be long now, will it?" Could we wish to blot out the memory of her first experience? In the natural state the emotional experience of childbirth raises a woman to such delight and thankfulness that her mind turns to spiritual and metaphysical associations to express her gratitude and joy. Materialism and atheism are not included in the makeup of motherhood; neither can a robot lead a blind man across the road. ............... AMEN to Grantly Dick-Read and to the CORRECT understanding from the Bible on the wonderful subject of natural childbirth. Keith Hunt Mat.12:40 Dr. Sanuele Bacciocchi (a late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered                                                                                    by                                       Keith Hunt                                                                             INTRODUCTION                                                                          This study has been written to answer Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi and others who hold to a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning Resurrection of Christ Jesus. My aim is to help those who hold such a view to recognize the fallacies of their interpretations and to accept the plain teaching of God's word in the matter. My aim is to show that even a young child can understand exactly how long Jesus was in the grave. Although this topic could be shown to a child (who has no pre-conceived teaching about an Easter tradition) with just a few scriptures and a basic knowledge of arithmetic, and he could come to understand the simple truth, I must take the time to be somewhat lengthy because the book that Dr. Sam (as he likes to be called) has written (called "THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE  RESURRECTION) needs to  be answered. As a seventh day Sabbath keeper I do appreciate Dr. Sam's very scholarly work presented to us in his book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY. My wish is that he would use his scholastic mind to see the errors of ELLEN G. WHITE upon whose teachings his denomination is founded. As E.G.WHITE taught a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning Resurrection, it would, I maintain be very difficult for Dr. B. to disagree with her, as this would clearly show he did not accept her as infallibly inspired. This would consequently have grave repercussions within an organization in which Dr. Sam is a paid teacher and minister. I will go through Dr. Bacchiocchi's book chapter by chapter with my comments and answers.                                                    CHAPTER ONE MAT  28:1. I see no reason not to take the KJV translation as correct. You do NOT prove there were TWO Sabbaths in the Crucifixion week  by this verse. Other verses put together correctly show two Sabbaths in the Passover/UB feast in the year Jesus was crucified. Mr.Ralph Woodrow in his book on this subject shows that to understand Mat.28:1 as the women coming late on the Sabbath to the tomb, would gives us many contradictions with other verses.   CHAPTER TWO On page 20 Dr. Sam tries to prove that the sign Jesus gave about Jonah is connected with the fact of Christ's Resurrection and not the length of time in the grave. "The book of Jonah suggests that Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites through the miraculous way in which God raised Jonah -- out of the whale's belly ....... This experience gave compulsion to Jonah to preach and conviction to the Ninevites to repent......." He also quotes Norval Geldenhuy "Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, because he appeared there as one sent by God after having been miraculously saved from the great fish (as it were raised from the dead) as a proof that he was really sent by God...." Let's take a look at the book of Jonah and see if it squares with Dr. B's and Geldenhuy's theory. Jonah (Ch. 1:3) is going to flee to TARSHISH.  Some scholars identify as TARTESSUS, an ancient city on the Atlantic coast of Spain.  He goes down to JOPPA, a town on the coast of Palestine -- see your Bible maps. Jonah was hundreds of miles from the city of Ninevah going in the opposite direction.  No Ninevite would have known what Jonah was doing or who he was! Jonah was cast into the sea - the Mediterranean sea - a fish did swallow him and he was cast up on to dry LAND (Ch. 1:15; 2:1-10). This was a fish in the SEA, not a fish in a river flowing by Ninevah. Jonah was not cast out by the city of Ninevah for all to see.  No one in Ninevah, hundreds of miles away, would have seen this event - they had no idea that Jonah had been resurrected, so to speak, from the dead. Now did this event alone give compulsion to Jonah to preach? According to Chapter 3:1,2  God still had to speak to Jonah AGAIN after this event, to get him to obey. Jonah did travel the hundreds of miles to Ninevah (verse 3) and did what? Did he tell them about this fishy experience he had had, and how he was resurrected from the dead? Did he tell them this experience to give conviction to the Ninevites to repent and as proof that he was sent by God? If he had, some would have thought it a pretty fishy story. NO!  Jonah did WHAT? He PREACHED - repent or perish! And the people of Ninevah BELIEVED God. They didn't ask for any SIGN or proof he was from God, there's nothing at all to indicate that Jonah had to tell them about his experience  inside the fish. Now turn to LUKE 11:29-30. Jesus had been doing great miracles, yet they would not believe Him to be the Son of God - they had accused Him of working by the power of Satan (v. 14-15) and others wanted some great heavenly sign.  He tells them they are evil, and no such special sign will be given - only that which Jonah did will be given, as Jonah was to Ninevah, his sign to them will be the sign Jesus will give to those around Him. Jonah's sign to Ninevah was to PREACH REPENTANCE,  not some fish resurrection story. Notice it in verse 32. The people  of Ninevah REPENTED at the PREACHING of Jonah (see again  Jonah 3:4,5), but Jesus' generation would not repent at His preaching and He was much greater than Jonah. If they would not repent when God's word was being given them, they would certainly get  no special heavenly miracle. Now THAT is what Jesus is saying in MAT. 16:4 and LK. 11:29-32.                                        A HARMONY of the Gospels shows MAT. 12:40 to be a separate incident at an earlier time than Chap. 16:4 or still another later time of LK. 11:29. While in MAT. 16 and LK. 11 Jesus only gave the sign of PREACHING REPENTANCE and God's WORD,  He did in MAT. 12:40 give the LENGTH of time in the grave as a sign -  as Jonah was 3 days AND 3 nights in the fish so He would be in the tomb.  It is true that in John 2:19 Jesus is referring to His body - death and Resurrection in three days. But this is just a statement by Jesus that even if they should kill him, He will be resurrected, and has no legitimate connection as being the same as MAT. 12:40. Jesus clearly states in MAT. 12:40 that it is the length of time in the grave that is the sign He gives, while MT. 16:4 and LK. 11:29 it is the sign of preaching God's word and JN. 2:19 is the fact He will rise from the dead. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS Dr. Bacchiocchi says the frescos of the catacombs give proof that the early Christians represented the sign of Jonah as Jesus' Resurrection by the pictorial art of Jonah being spewed out by the whale. I find this very flimsy evidence for the following reasons: 1) The writings and pictorial art of men and women OUTSIDE of the inspired word of God - the Bible - must be taken very carefully as they are FALLIBLE. 2) Those same early Christians were the ones who accepted Sunday in place of the 7th day Sabbath as Dr. B. so clearly shows in his book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY  and must therefore be viewed with caution. 3) Those same early  Christians are the ones who accepted the pagan EASTER to replace  the PASSOVER. 4) Certainly the resurrection of Jonah from death  can typify Christ's resurrection, and would be easily portrayable in ART as Jonah coming forth from the fish.  HOW would you appealingly depict a length of TIME such as 3 days and 3 nights in ART without becoming too diagramical and cumbersome.  Because the catacombs indicate that the early Christians (what kind  of Christians is another question) identified the sign of Jonah with the event of the Resurrection, does not make it so.  I have shown that it is not. Paul does not show ANYWHERE that he thought the  sign of Jonah as given in MT. 16:4; LK 11:29 was the ACT of Jesus'  resurrection. He never once brought it up in any of his letters that we  have in the NT. Paul did preach the RESURRECTION of Christ -  yes indeed. But this fact of preaching cannot be directly connected  with the above scriptures. For Dr. Sam to try to do so by quoting  ROM. 1:4 is grasping at straws to prove a point of interpretation of  these verses that does not stand the test of context or the book of Jonah. Take a look at MAT. 12:40 again.  In this place Jesus clearly stated the sign of Jonah. A child can see it! Christ said AS JONAH WAS 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS IN THE FISH so He would  be in the grave or tomb. Now if Jesus wanted us to clearly understand  this sign to be His actual RESURRECTION, He could have said,  “As Jonah was resurrected from death out of the fish, so will I be resurrected from the tomb." Or better still Jesus could have quoted from the scroll of Jonah (Chap. 2:1,10), the part which reads, "Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly" then added, something like, "so will the Son of man come forth from the tomb." But He did not quote this part of the book of Jonah. Jesus referred to Jonah's LENGTH of TIME in the fish as the sign He would give, clearly quoting from Chap. 1:17, ".. ..And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." INCLUSIVE RECKONING     Dr. Sam says the "forty days and forty nights" of MAT. 4:2 and "forty days" of MRK. 1:13 and LK. 4:2 do not necessarily mean a CALENDAR 40 day period as we would normally take it to mean and as a CHILD would understand it to mean.  If so, then HOW LONG does such expressions mean - 20 calendar days? Maybe 18 - maybe 36 or 25 or maybe 45? If we can not reckon a day as a day in the Bible, or a night as a night, or a day and night as a day and night, but only a part of each - then which part of each? What if some were whole days and others only parts - which would be the whole and which the parts, if the writer did not state? And what if he did mean 3 or 7 or 40 calendar days but simply wrote "seven days", and we think this means only 5 or 6 days? Surely the Bible is not written so we could never know for sure what LENGTH of times the writer means.  Let's look at some examples, with the understanding that a day is NOT a day, but only a part of 24 hours, only a few hours or so. #1.  Gen. 1:5 "....And the evening (night) and the morning (day) were the first day." But not a 24 hour day as the night could be only PART of a night and the day only PART of a day - according to Dr. Sam's thinking. #2.  Gen. 2:2-3 "....God. .. .rested on the seventh day.... God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it...."As a day may not be a day of 24 hours which part of this seventh day did God rest on and bless and sanctify? Maybe it was the first 5 or 6 hours of the evening part, or the hours of the morning, or perhaps the late afternoon hours are only holy. But then we see in LEV. 23:32 that the Sabbath is to be kept from one evening to the next evening (24 hours) and EX.20:8-11 shows the 7th day is the Sabbath and to be kept holy as it was made holy at creation. So we see that the "seventh day" in Gen. 2:2-3 does mean a period of 24 hours. #3   Gen. 7:4  God did not really mean "yet seven days" but something less than seven days.  He did not really mean it would rain for 40 days and 40 nights but some length of time less than that.  Likewise verse 12. The waters did not prevail upon the earth 150 days as verse 24 says but sometime less than that figure. #4   Gen. 8:6  ". . .at the END of forty days..." does not really mean forty days, but AFTER or at the END of 38 days, or 39 days and 4 hours, as the first day of the forty was only 2 hours and the fortieth day was only 2 hours. Well, something similar to this, could be thought. #5   EX. 15:22 "...and they went three days in the wilderness.."  Not really, for the first day they only travelled for 3 hours - the second, all day, but the third only the last 4 hours. Maybe the first day they travelled all day and the second and third was only for 3 hours each. Our common usage would convey that we are saying they travelled the distance into the wilderness that 3 days would take. We all understand such terminology. Were they so different in Moses' day? #6.  EX. 24:18, 34:28; MAT. 4:2  Moses and Jesus did not really fast for 40 days and 40 nights but a length of time shorter than that, as the first day they started may have been in the last few hours of the day, and the fast may have been broken in the first hour of the 40th day. Then maybe they fasted only for 20 days and 20 nights in total, as we will just pick parts of days as we wish.  After all what human could possibly fast without food and water for a full 40 days of 24 hours a day?  Human reasoning could go anywhere with such verses. #7.  2 COR. 11:25  Paul was not really a night and a day (24 hours) in the sea, but maybe only 4 or 5 hours, or 6 to 7 hours etc. Could be he was shipwrecked in the last hour of the night and pulled out of the sea within the first 3 hours of daylight, making only a 4 hour ordeal.  If so, why didn't Paul use the Greek words for numbers and hours and tell us he was 4 hours or 10 hours or 16 hours in the sea? The Greek language did have words to express such lengths of time - see JN. 11:9. The truth is, Paul is telling us that he was a whole night and a whole day, near enough as makes little difference to 24 hours in the sea after being shipwrecked. Now turn back to Gen. 7. By putting together verse 11 with verse 24 and chapter 8 verse 4, we can see that the months of the calendar in Noah's day each had 30 days. From the 17th of the second month to the 17th of the seventh month is 5 months or 150 days - exactly and literally to the day - each day being 24 hours.  Note that within this section of scripture and within this time period of 150 days, we have the expression "forty days and forty nights" (v. 12) just that - 40 days of 24 hours each. This being the case, which it is, there is no reason to take Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the fish to mean anything other than a full 72 hour period. As Jesus himself plainly tells us that there is 12 hours in a day (JN 11:9), and so of course 12 hours in a night, there is no reason to figure anything shorter than 72 hours for the 3 days and 3 nights in Mat. 12:40.  No reason to figure any less IF you are not trying to fit it into an Easter (Friday to Sunday morning death and resurrection of Christ) tradition. Unless the CONTEXT clearly and plainly shows that INCLUSIVE counting is being used there is no reason to use such reckoning for the seven scriptures we've looked at, or dozens upon dozens of more like them throughout the Bible. We are of course concerning ourselves here with the word "day" or "night and day" as used in the Bible for length of time and not metaphorically or prophetically as "day" is sometimes used in both OT and NT One verse that uses INCLUSIVE counting is found in LK 13:32.  The wording is plain and clearly shows an inclusive reckoning,  "....I do cures today, and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." But the Bible also uses EXCLUSIVE reckoning. Notice it - Nehemiah (5:14) was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that is TWELVE YEARS...." From the 20th year to the 32nd year is 12 years not thirteen years. AN ABANDONED EGYPTIAN                                       Dr. B. cites  SAM. 30:12, 13 as proving inclusive reckoning. Some length of time SHORTER than 72 hours. But there is absolutely no reason to give "three days and three nights" here any meaning except their literal meaning. So we see in this passage "three days" meaning "three days and three nights."  Suppose the young man got sick just before sunset Friday - he is found just before sunset Monday and given food and water - three days and three nights later.  He looks up and says to David that he got sick "three days ago."  Three days before sunset Monday would be sunset Friday. He would not say four days ago, because four days before sunset Monday would have been sunset Thursday. Working backward three days and three nights from sunset Monday would bring us to sunset Friday - truly that would be "three days." ESTHER'S VISIT TO THE KING (ESTHER 4:16; 5:1) Suppose Esther told the Jews to start fasting for her at the last hour before sunset Friday. The fast was to be for 3 days - night and day. Then after three nights and three days she went to the king - this would be the last hour just before sunset on Monday, not Sunday morning. Still on the third day but near enough 72 hours later as makes no difference, to when they started to fast three days earlier. Other passages such as Gen. 42:~7, 18; 1 Kings 20:29;  Chron. 10:5 are used to prove this inclusive reckoning theory.  However, none of these passages prove "three days and three nights" means two nights and one day, or two nights and two days, or three days and two nights. There is no reason to take any of these passages in any sense except their literal sense, unless one has a theory to prove and cling to. RABBINICAL LITERATURE - JEWISH PRACTICE                            The Bible is not to be understood and interpreted by Jewish Rabbis or practices. The Bible interprets itself and is written so a young child can understand the plain statements that are not symbolic or prophetic.  It is written so a child does not have to wonder whether "three days and three nights" really means two nights and one day - whether it means 72 hours or 36 hours or 32 or maybe 39 hours. ON THE THIRD DAY                                       I reproduce for you here the scriptural diagram given in Dr. Bacchiocchi's book. MARK 8:31 (after three days) = MAT.16:31 (on the third day) = LUKE 9:22 (on the third day) MARK 9:31 (after three days) = MAT.17:23 (be raised third day) MARK 10:34 (after three days) = MAT.20:19 (raised on third day) = LUKE 18:33 (on the third day he will rise) After this Dr. B. writes: "IDENTICAL MEANING. This comparison clearly indicates that Matthew and Luke understand Mark's 'after three days' as meaning 'on the third day'." To be sure there was never any doubt in the minds of Matthew, Luke, or Mark, as to how long Jesus was in the tomb before He was raised - they knew! I agree with Dr. Sam when he says the above verses have identical meaning, because they all knew what they meant to say as to the length of time Jesus was entombed, whether they said "after three days" or "on the third day." An event that takes place exactly 72 hours from a given starting point can be correctly said to have taken place "on the third day" or "after three days." What all the above verses add up to (ON, IN or AFTER three days) is precisely what Jesus Himself said in MAT. 12:40, namely that He would be 3 days AND 3 nights -72 hours - in the tomb, just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish. No contradiction here - only harmony! The expression "the third day" is very interesting.  It is used as inclusive counting by Jesus in LK 13:32, "Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected". So the third day from Friday would be Sunday. Yet if exclusive counting (which the Bible does use as we have seen) is used, then the third day from Friday is Monday. Also this expression "the third day" can, BIBLICALLY include three days and three nights as can be seen in Genesis 1:4 -13: "God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were the FIRST DAY.....and the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were the SECOND DAY.....and the evening (now three periods of night) and the morning (now three periods of light) were the THIRD DAY..."  This provides an example of how the term "the third day" can be counted up and shown to include three days AND three nights. With what Jesus said in John 11:9, 10 about there being twelve hours in a day (and so twelve hours in a night) and that He would be three days and three nights in the tomb (MAT. 12:40) together with one writer using the expression "AFTER three days he will rise" while two others used "ON the third day" we can now see why the editors of the WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY wrote:   "According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two  hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view  gives more reasonable treatment to MT. 12:40. It also explains AFTER THREE DAYS and ON THE THIRD DAY in a way that does least  violence to either " (page 984).  FIRST DAY APPEARANCE - ON THE ROAD TO EMMAUS It is pointed out by Dr. Sam that the two men, (late on Sunday) talking about Christ and all that had taken place, said, "....and besides all this, it is now the THIRD DAY since this happened" (LK. 24:21). Of course Sunday from Wednesday would be more than three days - it would be the 4th or 5th day depending on whether inclusive or exclusive counting is used. In answer to this I quote from the book BABYLON MYSTERY  RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow, pages 138, 139.  "....Because Jesus  appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (verse 13), and  this was the third day since these things were done, would this not indicate that Jesus died on Friday? This would DEPEND ON HOW  WE COUNT. If PARTS of a day are counted as a whole, Friday could  be meant. On the other hand, one day since Friday would have been Saturday and the THIRD day since Friday would have been Monday! This method of counting would not indicate Friday. On seeking to offer an explanation, I submit the following: They had talked about  'ALL these things which had happened' (verse 14) - more than just one  event.  If 'these things' included the arrest, the crucifixion, the burial  and the setting of the seal and watch over the tomb all of these things  were not done until THURSDAY.....(MAT. 27:62-66).......       'These things' were not fully completed - were not 'done' - until the tomb was sealed and guarded. This happened, as we have already seen, on Thursday of that week ....... Sunday, then, would  have been 'the third day since these things were done,' but not the third  day since the crucifixion" (emphasis mine). CHRONOLOGY OF PASSION WEEKEND                                      Under this section Dr. Bacchiocchi tries to show that there were NOT two Sabbaths (as we contend) during the Passion week.  He cites  MAT. 28:1 as a text given to support a Passion week containing two Sabbaths, "at the end of the Sabbaths." The Greek for Sabbath is in the plural.  "This," he writes, "is viewed as a 'vital text'."  Maybe to some it is - I do not view it as such, but only as additional evidence to give additional weight to the clear, easy to understand scriptures that do not need a degree in NT Greek. By itself MAT 28:1 could not prove that there were two Sabbaths in the Passion week, for as Harold W. Hoehner (that Dr. B. quotes) has correctly said, "The term Sabbath is frequently (one-third of all its NT occurrences) in the plural form in the NT when only one day is in view. For example, in MT. 12:1-12 both the singular and plural forms are used (C.F. ESP. V.5)" (Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ pp. 69-70). The two sections of scripture that clearly and simply show there was indeed TWO Sabbaths during Passion week are MARK 16:1  and LUKE 23:56.  Mark recorded the women BUYING the spices  AFTER  the Sabbath, while Luke recorded them PREPARING the  spices (must buy them first in order to prepare them) and then  RESTING on the Sabbath. With this light, MAT. 28:1 and other verses do take on special significance that cannot or should not be swept to one side.  Notice how FERRAR FENTON translates the following scriptures: MAT. 28:1, "After the Sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day following the Sabbaths."  LK 24:1,  "But at daybreak upon the first day following the Sabbaths...."  JN 19:20, "Now on the first day following the Sabbaths...." So I end my replies to Dr.Sam's first and second chapters To be continued                           ......................       Written in 1986 Three Days and Three Nights - Mat.12:40 Dr.Samuele Bacciocchi (late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered    PART TWO                                                                                                                 CHAPTER                 THREE PREPARATION                          DAY Dr. Bacchiocchi with some scholastical footwork tries to prove the Greek word PARASKEUE - Preparation, is a technical designation for FRIDAY.  "Five times" he writes, "is the term 'Preparation - PARASKEUE' used in the Gospels as a technical designation for 'Friday' (MAT. 27:62; MRK 15:42; LK 23:54; JN 19:31,42), besides the occurrence of JN 19:14".  He claims the technical terms "PARASKEUE - Preparation", and  "PROSABBATON - Sabbath-eve" are unmistakably designating what we call "Friday."  Still further, Dr. B. adds to this the Hellenistic Jews, common Greek and Aramiac societies, the Didache writings and Tertullian, as proof. In answer to this, let me say first, and once more - the Bible is not to be understood or interpreted by what Hellenistic Jews did or did not, by the world's association of certain words with days of the week, by the Didache (about 100 A. D.) which some use to uphold Sunday observance, or by a fallible man such as Tertullian. Secondly, let's look at the Greek word for PREPARATION.  It simply means - a making ready, preparation, equipping, that which is prepared, equipment, readiness. See such Bible Concordances as THAYER'S; STRONG'S; VINE'S. This Greek word has NOTHING in itself to do with ANY particular day of the week, a number, or the word "FRIDAY."  It just simply means, to prepare, make ready.  There are some "scholars" and Bible Handbooks (quoted by the Church of God,Denver) that shows Jews used this word for any day prior to a Sabbath (weekly and annually). Here are the six places in the NT where this word appears as given in the INTERLINEAR GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.   MT. 27:62, "Now on the morrow, which is after the preparation..."  MAR. 15:42,  "...since it was preparation, that is before sabbath.."  LK 23:54, "And it was preparation day, and Sabbath was coming on."  JN 19:14,  "And it was preparation of the passover..." Verse 31,  "....that might not remain on the cross the bodies on the Sabbath, because preparation it was ...." Verse 42,  "... on account of the preparation of the Jews...." None of these verses say it was the preparation before the 7th day weekly Sabbath. There were SEVEN annual Sabbaths or Feast Sabbaths also observed by the Jews - the day before them the people also prepared or made ready for its observance.  Notice how LUKE not to confuse with Mark, the account of the women buying and preparing the spices, tells us that after doing so they rested on the SABBATH DAY according to the commandment  (LK 23:56).  Mark wrote "And being past the sabbath, Mary .... bought aromatics. . . . " (Chap. 16:1). There had to be TWO Sabbath days - one on Thursday, after which the women bought spices and prepared them (this was called by Mark "the sabbath" as it was, but an annual Sabbath, the 15th of Nisan) and then as Luke wrote, they rested on the Sabbath according to the Commandment - fourth of the ten in EX. 20. The two writers wrote in such a way that when put together, knowing the facts about the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and how the 15th of the first month is a Sabbath and can fall during the week, both wrote correctly. One concerning the annual Sabbath as a bench mark, the other the weekly Sabbath as a bench mark. How easy - a child can understand!                                      John was inspired to further help us not to think that this preparation was for the weekly Sabbath by saying "And it was preparation of the PASSOVER...." (JN 19:14). This is not to be understood as Geldenhuys explains, quoted by Dr. B., as the Friday that falls during Passover week.  But it was the day many Jews got ready on, prepared themselves and their homes to partake of the PASSOVER meal, on the evening of the 15th of Nisan, just as they do to this very day. Jesus ate the Passover the evening of the 14th (MT. 26:2, 18-30), was arrested and beaten that night - crucified during the day of the 14th, when many Jews were preparing to YET EAT the PASSOVER meal. See JN 18:28. That meal was held by many on the 15th - an annual Sabbath, the first day of the Unleavened Bread feast, in accord with the teaching and practice of the Pharisees sect.  John further shows that the 15th of Nisan, the Sabbath coming was somehow different than the regular weekly sabbath by designating it "an high day" (JN 19:31). Concerning this idea put forth by Geldenhuys and others (of which Dr. Sam B. is part) that JN 19:14 is Friday of Passover week, the writer in the l.S.B.E. under "Preparation" says this: "This method of harmonizing seems to the present writer to be forced, and it therefore seems wiser to give to the words of JN 19:14 their natural interpretation, and to maintain that, according to the author of the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been celebrated at the time of the crucifixion...." (emphasis mine). It had not been celebrated by those who followed the Pharisees sect. Jesus and his followers done already observed "the Passover" at the beginning of the 14th day, as it was originally instituted in Exodus 12. That truth I have expounded fully in over a dozen studies. Thirdly.  Because the word PREPARATION - PARASKEUE,  becomes associated with the 6th day of the week, more than say  the day before the Passover (as it only happens once a year whereas  the day before the weekly Sabbaths comes 52 times a year) does that mean the word has changed its meaning, that it now means Friday or 6th day and no longer to make ready, or preparation ?  Does the popular association of this word with the day before the weekly Sabbath mean that it can no longer be used in any other setting or before any other day of rest or Sabbath? This is what Dr. B. would want us to believe it seems.  Most people associate the word "restday" with Sunday. The words themselves do not mean "first day" or "Sunday" but through common and frequent weekly use they have come to be thought of as Sunday, for that is when most people rest. Now is it wrong or improper to use this word "restday" when meaning THANKSGIVING DAY (as it is a rest for  most of us)? Of course not! Despite what some "Greek language authorities" so called, say  or claim to the contrary, the Gospel writers did use the Greek PARASKEUE - preparation, in describing the day before the 15th of Nisan Sabbath, which did not fall on the weekly Sabbath in Passion week, but on a THURSDAY, creating two  Sabbaths that week. So making it possible for the women to BUY  spices AFTER a Sabbath, prepare them on that Friday, and then rest according to the fourth commandment Sabbath, as Mark and Luke clearly tell us. All this making it possible for Jesus to be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights - a full 72 hours, from just after sunset Wednesday to shortly after sunset Saturday (this truth of "after sunset" is added here, as further in-depth study in 1998 on the word "evening" and the Greek tenses in certain verses in the gospels showed to be the correct understanding). Oh, the simple truth of God's word - so simple a child can find it. I am reminded of my young childhood (about 8-10 years old) in Sunday school, when after finding and believing ACT 1:11,  I said "Jesus is going to literally - bodily return to this earth" and  caused shocked looks from adults. You see my Church of those  days did not preach or believe in the literal second coming of Christ.  But, I knew it was so from that day on - it was so plain, so simple -  I had no preconceived ideas, just saw an easy to understand verse  and believed it. Matthew 12:40 with JN  1:9 is just as easy to read and believe. It may not square with the ideas, theories and teachings of the majority of a so called Christianity, but most of that popular religion practice and believe things that cannot be found in the Bible. Some are so filled with traditions of men and preconceived beliefs or the scholastic philosophies from theological schools, that it is practically impossible for them to acquire the simple belief of a child. It was no different in Jesus' day, that's why He said, "I thank you Father, that you have hid these things  from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes." A CEREMONIAL SABBATH Dr. Sam states the annual feast days are never designated simply as  "sabbaton" as is used in the Passion narratives of the Gospels, so the Sabbaths of Passion week cannot be any annual Sabbaths. Concerning this Greek word "sabbaton" Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words says this: "SABBATON or SABBATA:  the latter, the plural form, was transliterated from the Aramaic word,  which was mistaken for a plural; hence the singular, SABBATON,  was formed from it. The root means to cease, desist (Heb., SHABATH;  cp. ARAB., SABATA, to intercept, interrupt); the double 'b' has an  intensive force...." (p. 983). In LEV. 23:3 this plural word SABBATA is used where the singular SABBATON is meant, as the 7th day only is spoken about. Lev. 23 verses 26-32 are talking about the annual FAST-REST of the feast day of ATONEMENT, the last part of this verse is rendered into English as, "..... from evening to evening ye shall keep your sabbaths. " (THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION: GREEK AND ENGLISH -  Sir Lancelot Brenton - Zondervan publishing). The Greek for "sabbaths" is SABBATA. If the plural form is here correct, then ALL the rest days upon which no servile work is to be done in this chapter are called by the one Greek word SABBATA. If it should be the singular SABBATON then we see that the 10th day of the 7th month - the ceremonial (as some call it) Sabbath of Atonement is called SABBATON! Either way, it is quite correct to use the Greek word SABBATON for both the weekly Sabbath or the annual Sabbaths - they are all days of rest upon which no servile work is to be done - to cease or desist from such work, which is termed SABBATON in NT Greek, and which word is not intrinsically connected with only the seventh day of the week. The word is translated "week" many times in the NT., i.e. MT 28:1; MRK 16:2,9; LK 18:12; 24:1; JN 20:1,19; ACTS 20:7; 1 COR. 16:2. The word SABBATON is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew SHABBATH which is the intense form of SHABATH, which in turn  is a root, meaning REPOSE, desist, cease. The OT was written in Hebrew NOT Greek. Let's take a look at the word SABBATH/S.  The most common one used is SHABBATH, number 7676 in STRONG'S CON. which is the intensive form of SHABATH (#7673 in STRONG'S) which as previously stated is a primary root, meaning CEASE, desist, rest. Also used a few times in the OT is SHABBATHON (#7677 in Strong's) which is from #7676 - a Sabbatism. All three are basically the same when applied to a day on which no servile work is to be done.                                      The word SHABBATH is used in EX. 20:10 with reference to the 7th day of the week. This same word is used in LEV. 23:32 with reference to the annual day of ATONEMENT Sabbath, "from even, unto even shall ye celebrate your SABBATH". Here is what the THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OT says about the word  SHABBATON: "In addition to designating the Sabbath (EX 16:23),  this word may apply to the day of atonement (LEV. 16:31; 23:32);  to the feast of trumpets (LEV. 23:24); and the first and eighth days of tabernacles (LEV. 23:39). The ending - ON is characteristic of abstract nouns in Hebrew...." (Vol.2, p.903). The Hebrew for "the sabbath of rest" in EX 35:2 and EX 31:15 is SHABBATH SHABBATHON. Here the weekly seventh day is being mentioned. In LEV. 16:3,1 the annual feast day of ATONEMENT is called in Hebrew SHABBATH SHABBATHON  Again in LEV. 23:3 the weekly Sabbath is called SHABBATH SHABBATHON and so is the day of ATONEMENT  (verse 32). The Hebrew in the last part of verse 32 for "shall ye  celebrate your sabbath" is SHABATH SHABBATH. We can see how the Hebrew is applied to BOTH the weekly Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths. I refer you to the ENGLISHMAN'S HEBREW AND CHALDEE CON. of the OT,  pages 1234, 1235.  All of God's REST days (weekly or annually) are SHABBATH - SHABATH days. All of God's days upon which no servile work is to be done are SHABBATHON (Sabbath observance) days. God's weekly Sabbath and God's seven annual Sabbaths are all SHABATA (Hebrew) Sabaton (Greek) days - days upon which we CEASE or REST from our regular secular work. In Ezekiel 20, God is telling us how He chose Israel - brought them out of Egypt, and told them to cast away their abominations and keep His statutes. God tells us He gave them "my SABBATHS" (v. 12,13,16,20,21,24). The Hebrew is SHABBATH while the Greek is SABBATA (Sabbaton. When God brought Israel out of Egypt did He only give them the seventh day of the week Sabbath? Oh, NO! He gave them His FESTIVALS with their seven annual REST - cease to work (SHABATH, Hebrew - SABATON, Greek) days, see EX.  12:15-16; 23:14-17; 16:22-30; Deut. 16:16; LEV. 23. When Israel rebelled in the wilderness against God's statutes and judgments - when they greatly polluted His Sabbaths (Greek - SABBATA), did they only pollute the seventh day weekly Sabbath while keeping the annual Sabbaths? I think NOT! They polluted all the rest days God gave them to cease servile work on. All the rest days God gave Israel in the wilderness are classified under "my SABBATHS" in Ezekiel 20. The one word SHABBATH (Hebrew) SABBATON or SABBATA (Greek) is used for both the weekly and annual Sabbaths.                                      It would be difficult for someone like Dr. Bacchiocchi or the Adventist organization which he is part, who do not observe the seven annual REST days of God, to understand or appreciate the use of the Hebrew word SHABBATH or the Greek word SABBATON with a rest day other than the weekly Sabbath, as the 7th day of the week is the only day they associate the word SABBATON with.  (This was written before Dr. Sam came to see the truth of observing the Festivals of God as listed in Lev.23. I am very pleased he now observed those wonderful festivals). This was not the case with the true Christians of the first century A. D. or the writers of the Gospels. Neither was it the case with most Gentiles of that time who were quite familiar with the fact that the Jews had other SABBATON days other than the seventh day of the week. It is certainly not the case with those of us today who keep all of God's holy rest days. If the 15th of Nisan (first annual Sabbath day of the feast of Unleavened Bread) should fall on a Thursday one year, and I was to meet one of my fellow church brothers on the following Friday, I may say to him (if we were together) on the Wednesday of that week something like, "Well John, I'll meet you at city hall after the Sabbath at 11.  He would completely understand that I was meaning the Sabbath of the 15th of Nisan -Thursday that year. I would not have to say to him, "Well John, I'll meet you... .after the first Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread." I may say to my wife on the Monday of that week, "Honey, I'd better get my suit in to the cleaners today so I can get it dry cleaned and back by Wednesday, before the Sabbath comes."  She knows I'm speaking about the 15th of Nisan Holy day. I do not have to say to her, "Honey I'd better get my suit to the cleaners today so I can get it back before the first Holy rest day of the Unleavened Bread feast comes." It may be the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan - the Wednesday in our explanations I've been using. I may have a plumbing problem at home that I'm busy repairing - a church brother calls on the phone and in part of the conversation I may say something like, "I'm rushing to get this plumbing back together again before the Sabbath starts." He knows I mean the 15th of Nisan Sabbath - I do not have to say "....before the first Sabbath of the Unleavened Bread feast" or "before the holy rest day of Nisan 15th." Those of us who keep God's festivals know that the day before the 14th of Nisan (the Passover) and the day before each annual Sabbath is "PREPARATION" day. We may very well use this word  when talking to each other before and coming up to any one of God's seven annual holy days. Even close relatives who are not part of our faith but know what we practise, may say to another relative not familiar with the days we keep, "Oh, it may not be the best to visit sister today, as she will be very busy - she uses this day as a preparation day for the feast of Trumpets that she and her family observe tomorrow." We who observe the festivals of Lev. 23 and others who do not, but are close friends or relatives familiar with our practices, know that the words SABBATH AND PREPARATION are not  intrinsically tied to just the seventh day and sixth day of the week.  It was no different for the Jews, early Christians and many Gentiles  of the first century A. D. HIGH DAY ?                                     Dr. B. points out by referring to Israel Abrahams, a noted Jewish scholar that there is no instance before JN 19:31 of the use of the term 'high day' or 'Great Sabbath' in Rabbinical literature.   In doing this he also destroys any argument he may have  for believing this phrase means a "special weekly Sabbath," (as he claims it does because he believes the 15th annual Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath fell together in the year Jesus died) because what can be shown by later Rabbinic use and literature of the term "Great Sabbath" or "high day" can have no bearing on the way John used it. And further, terms such as "Good Friday" or "Holy Saturday" coined by the Roman Catholic church much later than John, can also bear no proof in supporting the belief that "an high day" in JN 19:31 means special weekly Sabbath, special because the 15th of Nisan Sabbath is believed to have fallen upon the weekly Sabbath. Exactly what John had in mind by calling the Sabbath that was coming a "GREAT DAY" or "High Day" we may have to wait  until the resurrection to ask him. But here is one thought. As  most of the Jews and their religious leaders did not eat the Passover meal until the evening of the 15th (as the Jews do to this day) as shown in JN 18:28, the start of the first annual Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened Bread, it may be that John  was merely saying that the coming Sabbath was great because the Jewish society had fused the Passover meal and annual Sabbath into one, whereby making that particular Sabbath "great" in their eyes. Since the first writing of this reply to Dr. Sam in 1986 (now editing in 1998), the Church of God, 7th Day, out of Denver have discovered some interesting and enlightening facts. Quoting from their booklet on the subject: ".......In JN.19:31......The NIV renders the tow Greek words 'megale hemera' as 'special.' The KJV and many other translations render 'megale hemera' as 'high day.' The Greek words 'megale hemera' literally means 'great day.' ....... there is Biblical evidence to support the argument that the reference to this sabbath as a 'great day' (megale hemera) is a reference to a festival.....sabbath..... In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (Greek translation of the OT - Keith Hunt) Isaiah 1:13 uses the phrase 'great day' to refer to the festival sabbaths. The latter part of verse 13 says, '....I cannot bear your evil assemblies.'  In the Hebrew text, the word from which 'assemblies' is translated is 'atsarah' which means 'solemn assembly.' ....... In the Greek version of Isaiah 1:13, the word 'atsarah' is translated is translated as 'hemeran megalen' which means 'great day.'  Thus the Greek text of Isaiah 1:13 uses the same reference for an annual Jewish festival sabbath as does John in John .....19:31.  The meaning assigned to 'assembly' ('solemn assembly' in Isaiah 1:13) is recognized as a reference in general to the festival sabbaths of Israel. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible indicates Isaiah's reference to 'atsarah' is a reference to any festival or holiday, and not to the Passover Sabbath alone." The context of Isaiah 1:13 and the very verse itself would prove Strong's Con. to be correct. This Greek phrase 'megale hemera' includes ANY special day - any Sabbath of God (weekly and annual) as well as New Month day. God is telling Judah (and He is speaking to Judah in Isaiah chapter one, see verse one) that when they call any "great day" (megale hemera) to meet upon, He cannot bear with them for they continue to do evil, there is no repentance and no real desire to do His will, notice verses 15-20. To be perfectly honest with the Scriptures, this Greek phrase we are looking at, can refer to the weekly Sabbath as well.  The context of Isaiah 1:13 includes the weekly Sabbath also. The Church of God (7th Day), Denver, do not understand the truth of John 7:37, where this Greek 'megale hemera' is again used. They think verse 37 refers to the 8th day coming after the seven day Feast of Tabernacles, and so believe once again that this Greek phrase is used only for annual Sabbaths. But the truth is that John 7:37 is concerning the last or 7th day of the Feast of tabernacles, which had become a special day with the Jews, in how they observed it with certain rituals and ceremonies concerning the use of "water."  Hence Jesus taking the opportunity to talk about the true fountain of living water.  All this is fully explained in another study I have called "The Truth about John 7:37." So, the Jews used this Greek phrase 'megale hemera' for ANY special day, whether a Sabbath or not (the 7th day or last day of the feast of Tabernacles is not a Sabbath day as Lev. 23 shows). It may also be true that this phrase used by John was simply borrowed from Isaiah 1:13 and was not in common use among the Rabbis of his time. It may be peculiar to John. To John the Sabbath coming the day following the death of Jesus was a "great day." By itself it cannot prove this was used only for an annual Sabbath, or for a day when an annual and weekly Sabbath came together on the same day. John's use of "an high - great day" cannot prove by itself that an annual Sabbath is meant, then on the other hand it cannot prove it was a special weekly Sabbath either, as this phrase is not found in Rabbinical literature before JN 19:31. The only way to understand what Sabbath was coming as Jesus was put into the tomb, and what "preparation" day for the Passover it was, and how the women could buy spices AFTER the Sabbath, prepare them and then rest on the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment, is by believing Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant in MAT 12:40 in that He would be 3 days AND 3 nights in the tomb, and that there was then TWO Sabbaths in that Passover week, one on a Thursday (the 15th of Nisan Sabbath, the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread) and then the weekly Sabbath on the following Saturday. We shall study more later about the two Sabbaths of Passover week. PREPARATION OF THE PASSOVER I do not teach that the Greek "Preparation of the Passover"  is used as a technical designation for the day before the Passover. As I've stated before, it is merely a Greek word that means - make ready, prepare, equip, and has no intrinsic connection with FRIDAY or any specific day. The day before any weekly or annual Sabbath or the day before the 14th of Nisan, was "preparation" as it is in Jewish homes and those who keep God's festivals today. This word PARASKEUE is used only 6 times in the NT (MT. 27:62; MRK. 15:42; LK 23:54; JN.19:14,31,42). Because people do not believe Jesus knew how many hours there was in a day (which he did - JN 11:9) and because they do not believe Jesus meant 3 days and 3 nights (72 hours) but two nights one day and part of a second day, in Mat. 12:40. Because they do not believe Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the fish but some length of time less than that. Because they will not see the Sabbath following the preparation in the above cited verses, was not automatically meaning the weekly Sabbath at all. Because they will not see that there were TWO Sabbath days during Passion week. Because of all this, they assume the Sabbath after "preparation - PARASKEUE" is SATURDAY and that PARASKEUE used as the  preparation day before MUST BE "Friday". Do you see the CIRCLE of their reasoning? PARASKEUE used in  these six places must mean Friday as the Saturday Sabbath was coming, and as the Sabbath following PARASKEUE was Saturday then PARASKEUE - preparation, must mean "Friday" at all times. This circle of reasoning, based on false assumptions based on a false pagan festival of EASTER (that was adopted by the Roman Catholic church in place of the PASSOVER) based on the false assumption that Jesus rose Sunday morning (there is not ONE verse that says Christ's resurrection took place on the morning of the first day) has led some to write, "The fact must be faced that no example of the use of PARASKEUE is cited for any day other than Friday,"  (Leon Morris, THE GOSPEL  ACCORDING TO JOHN). Now I do  not see the word "Friday" in the NT at all - so the burden of proof rests with Leon Morris and others like him to prove to me that the Sabbath following PARASKEUE was Saturday and that PARASKEUE  is equivalent to the word "Friday" at all times. With my child-like belief in what Jesus said in MAT. 12:40 with JN 11:9 Leon Morris, Dr. Sam, and other so called "scholars" will never prove it, for it is  not provable. Again let me repeat, you do not need a degree in Greek or Church History to understand the plain teachings of God's word. You do need to read ALL of the scriptures on a particular topic, let the Bible interpret itself and have a little child's belief. UNDISPUTED TRADITION Dr. Bacchiocchi writes "....Christian tradition has unanimously held to the Friday - Crucifixion/Sunday - Resurrection chronology."  I answer to this,  that so called Christian tradition has, since about 150 A. D. held to an EASTER tradition in place of the PASSOVER celebration. Christian tradition has held from about the same time or earlier, to a Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath. This same traditional Christianity has held from about the 4th century, to a December 25th birthday of Christ. There are other long held customs and beliefs of traditional Christianity that are just as unfounded Biblically as those mentioned above.  If traditional Christianity can be so wrong on the above, it certainly can also be on the length of time Jesus was in the tomb.  Dr. B. acknowledges that some early Christian writers did place the Last Supper on TUESDAY evening and not Thursday evening, but then goes on  to say regarding the Crucifixion  "no early Christian writer ever disputed or doubted its occurrence on Friday." What does Dr. Sam think those early Christian writers were doing that placed the Last Supper on Tuesday evening?  Does he think they were teaching Jesus partook of the Passover meal on Tuesday evening but was not put on the cross until Friday? Does he think they were teaching that the events recorded in the Gospels from the Passover meal to Jesus being put on the stake lasted from Tuesday evening to Friday morning? Surely it should be obvious to any logical thinking person that a writer claiming Jesus partook of the Last Supper on Tuesday evening is at the same time claiming Jesus was not crucified on a Friday but on a Wednesday.  As to Dr. Sam's statement, "The absence of any early Christian polemic regarding the day of Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, offers, in our view, an overwhelming proof of the trustworthiness of the traditional chronology of the Crucifixion and Resurrection," I will repeat that those early Christian writers who maintained Jesus ate the Last Supper on Tuesday evening, were putting forth the argument that Jesus was NOT crucified on a Friday.  Even those early Christian writers who adapted Sunday as the Lord's Day in place of the seventh day Sabbath, did not emphasis Christ's resurrection on Sunday as number one proof for the change of day, (see Dr. Bacchiocchi's book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, pp. 270-273).  I submit that the belief that Jesus had risen Sunday morning had not yet cemented itself in Christianity at large, and that there were many who still knew in those early days, that Jesus ate the Passover meal on Tuesday evening and was hence crucified on Wednesday and resurrected 3 days and 3 nights later. You can find early writings in defense of Sunday observance but where do you find early writings to counter this and uphold Sabbath keeping and answer the claims (one being the Resurrection of Jesus on Sunday) being put forth by Sunday observing theologians, outside of the Bible. There is just a little here and there to show that God's people continued to keep the Passover and not Easter, and that Jesus ate the Passover on Tuesday evening. But in the main, the extra Biblical writings of God's true servants in response to "those who taught Sunday and Easter observance, and the idea that Jesus was crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday morning"  was diabolically destroyed by a religious force that claimed to be Christian but was in reality the power and working of the Adversary - Satan the Devil, that God says has deceived the whole world (Rev. 12:9) and made the inhabitants of the world spiritually drunk on her spiritual fornications and lies (Rev. 17: 1-5). It is the pagan Easter observers and their theory of a Sunday morning Resurrection (there's not one single verse that says Jesus rose on the MORNING of the first day of the week in the NT) that is based on human fantasy, who teach Christ died on a Friday (Dr. Sam is one exception, not being an Easter observer)  and not those of us who believe what Jesus clearly said in MAT. 12:40. CHAPTER FOUR - THE DAY OF THE RESURRECTION      LATE OR AFTER? I completely (and have always so, believed and taught) agree with Dr. Sam's study and conclusion of how MAT. 28:1 should read.  I can do no more than quote him, ".......in the light of the above considerations on the language and context of Matthew 28:1, we conclude that this passage offers no support whatsoever to the view of a late Sabbath afternoon....... visit of the woman to the sepulchre. The indications submitted have amply established that the plain sense of MAT. 28:1 is: "After the Sabbath, as dawn on the first day of the week......" (NIV). The internal evidence of the other Gospel writers, the very context of the verses that follow MAT. 28:1, and the fact that there is no hint whatsoever anywhere in the NT that the women came to the tomb TWICE (once late on the Sabbath, and again early on Sunday morning), leaves know doubt that the Greek word under dispute in MAT.28:1 should be understood and translated as "After" and not as "Late on." I refer the reader on this particular point of out topic to both Dr.Sam's book and to the book on the same subject (The 3 days and 3 nights) by Ralph Woodrow.  While I disagree with their overall teaching about 3 days and 3 nights, they are quite correct on this one point.  The Church of God(7th Day), Denver, are very incorrect here in their stand that MAT. 28:1 should read, "Late on the Sabbath...."  I will take the time to quote from the booklet by Woodrow: "......MAT. 28:1: In the end of the Sabbath.......The context mentions a great earthquake, an angel descending 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 ......all of these things, took place 'in the end of the Sabbath,' we are told, so not on Sunday morning at all! ....... So, 'in the end of the sabbath.' or 'late on the sabbath' (as some translate it), was when the resurrection took place. One writer....... 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?' .......  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 sepulchre/'  (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' (MAT. 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? (JN. 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! ........." Very logical questions as we look at all the accounts of the four Gospels.  There is no way around it, the only conclusion is that MAT. 28:1 should not be taken as "late on the sabbath" but "after the sabbath" or "ending the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards......"  Matthew is telling us the same as the other three Gospel writers, that the Sabbath ENDING, after it was over, and as it was BEGINNING to DAWN TOWARDS the first of the week  (there is only one dawn in any 24 hour day), as John was inspired to write "while it was yet DARK" (more darkness than light yet the sun was on its way up, maybe a red yellow skyline where the sun would come up), the ladies came FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY  TIME to the tomb to anoint the body of Christ, with the spices they  had BOUGHT after the Sabbath (and prepared them after that 15th  of Nisan Sabbath), then rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment (7th day Sabbath). Being excited to do this anointing work they left their homes very early the night of the first day, coming to the tomb while it was still yet dark, wondering who would roll away the stone from the entrance. It was already rolled away. An angel was already there to tell them Christ was not there for He had already risen from the dead, as He said  He would. TWO SABBATHS OR NOT? I must comment on how Dr. Sam tries to synthesize MRK. 16:1  with LK. 23:56. He outrules the women buying the spices on  Saturday night, but, he says, "....... the women could easily have  gone out to purchase spices early Sunday morning....... " and he further surmises and theorizes, ".......according to Luke the women had already started to prepare 'spices and ointments' on Friday afternoon (LK. 23:56). Thus, it is possible that the women went out very early Sunday morning to buy only those missing ingredients and then they went back home to finish the mixing, before hastening to the tomb. According to Mark, 'they went to the tomb when the sun had risen' (MRK. 16:2) ......." (emphasis mine). I must give Dr. B. credit for trying and coming up with an ingenious theory - most of his colleagues will just ignore MRK. 16:1 and LK. 23:56. But that is all I can give him credit for - an imaginative theory. First, we are to believe the women FORGOT some ingredients on Friday when buying the spices. There were THREE women doing  this buying (MRK. 16:1; LK. 23:55-56) at least, and we are to believe they all still forgot some of the things they would need. Secondly, we are to believe the stores were open very early Sunday morning (none of these women had any of the forgotten ingredients at home with them or any friend to borrow them from it seems) so these women could buy the forgotten items, return and finish preparing the spices and get to the tomb " as it began to dawn towards the first of the week " (MT. 28:1) and "when it was yet dark "  (JN 20:1). Thirdly, we understand Mark's statement "when the sun had risen" by the question, "how much had it risen" which is answered by Matthew and John in that it was BEGINNING to dawn TOWARDS  the day but was still "yet dar." There was still more darkness than light when they ARRIVED at the tomb.  Have you ever arose early in the morning when the sun was still down over the horizon but light was beginning to break forth, yet it was still more dark than light? I have. This was the time of day or night (whichever way you want to look at it) that the woman arrived at the tomb - it is only by putting Matthew's and John's account with Mark's that a clear picture is formed. To quote only Mark is nice for those who would like 3 or 4 hours after sun rise, so the women could get to the store, buy the items they had all forgotten on Friday, return and finish preparing them, and still get to the tomb during the morning of the first day to see the resurrection of Christ. But the plain Biblical fact is NONE of those who went to the tomb that early morning  SAW Jesus being resurrected - when they got there Jesus was already gone -  the stone was already rolled away and Christ was not there. THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE IN THE  NT THAT SAYS JESUS WAS RESURRECTED ON SUNDAY  MORNING! You try to find it. Yet those who speak of Christ being resurrected on a Sunday teach it as if it is a Biblical FACT, although they cannot show one verse that says He was. And still they want to say that those of us who believe Jesus to have been in the grave for three days and three nights as He said He would be, base our belief "on human fantasy and not on a Biblical fact."  At least I can give you the reader, the fact of MAT. 12:40 to back up by belief Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, where can they give me a verse that says Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning? The gospel writers tell of several different visits made by the disciples to the tomb on that first day of the week.  In EVERY instance, they found the tomb EMPTY! An angel said,  "He is not here: for he is risen, as he said" (MAT. 28:6). The angel did not say "He has just a few minutes ago risen" or "He rose an hour after sun up this morning" or "He was resurrected earlier this morning on the first day of the week."  The first day of the week was WHEN the disciples DISCOVERED  that he was risen, but nowhere does the Bible actually say this was the time of the resurrection. The only verse which seems to teach a Sunday morning resurrection is MRK  16:9, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene....... "  But this verse does not say that early on the first day Jesus was "rising" or that he "did rise" at that time.  It says that when the first day  of the week came, he "WAS RISEN" - past perfect tense in the Greek. An action having taken place in the past but continuing in the present. Since there were no punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts from which our NT is translated, the phrase "early the first day of the week" could just as correctly be linked with the time Jesus appeared to Mary. By simply placing the comma after the word risen , this verse would read: "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene."   The following verses show Mark is recording some of the  APPEARANCES of Jesus and not explaining on which day Jesus was resurrected. The Greek is very revealing in LUKE 23:54,56.  The definite article "the" DOES NOT appear in verse 54. It reads in the Greek, "And day it was preparation and Sabbath was coming on" (Berry Interlinear).  Verse 56 reads, "And having returned they prepared aromatics, and the Sabbath remained quiet, according to the commandment" (Berry Interlinear). The definite article "the" is in the Greek in verse 56. A small but somewhat meaningful point. One Sabbath (the 15th of the first month - first day of the Unleavened Bread feast) is just  "Sabbath" but when they rested according to the commandment Sabbath it is "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath according to the commandment" - the fourth commandment of the big ten - the 7th day weekly Sabbath. A little more proof the writers of the Gospels knew there were TWO Sabbaths during the Passover week when Jesus was put to death. And in passing (will say more later on this point) the Greek word for "was coming on" in verse 54 is in the IMPERFECT tense.  The Sabbath HAD come and was continuing.   It is time for all people who call themselves after Jesus Christ to,  "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Those who have the greater knowledge of God's word and are in positions of leadership need to STAND STRONG and LEAD in example and teaching.                                      I call on Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi to KEEP and observe the 14th of Nisan PASSOVER as the early first century true Christians did.   I call upon him to observe the FESTIVALS of God as the early Christians did.  I call upon him to strongly stand up and denounce  the pagan festivals that his denomination is practicing. I call upon him to acknowledge the errors of E.G. White and to shout out loud and clear to the leaders and members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church that it is IDOLATRY to base their religion on the so call "inspired" writings of ELLEN WHITE. Yes, it may cost Dr. Sam his job he may find himself  "put out" of the Adventist organization.  But then he'll be "put into" the true body of Christ. Since all the above was written (back in 1986) it is a pleasure to state that Dr. Sam has indeed accepted the truth that the Festivals of God (as outlined in Lev.23) should be observed. He is busy promoting them, and for that courageous stand  I praise the Lord. He does not hold E.G. White as infallible, and he does denounce the false pagan festivals such as Xmas and Easter. TO BE CONTINUED                            ..................... Written in 1986 Mat.12:40 Dr. Samuele Bacciocchi (a late SDA minister) says Jesus was not in the tomb for 72 hours. His arguments are answered  Part Three                                                        OTHER ARGUMENTS ANSWERED Over the past 25 years I have encountered a number of arguments trying to uphold a Friday Crucifixion and Sunday morning Resurrection. Probably the Seventh Day Adventist organization has written more articles and booklets than any other Christian group to defend this popular tradition.  I maintain that they have done so in order to uphold their teaching that ELLEN WHITE was an infallible Prophetess - to prove her wrong on one point (there are many other things she wrote that are contrary to Scripture besides the Friday Crucifixion/Sunday Resurrection) would smash the Adventists theological foundation. DECOMPOSITION THEORY Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has perhaps presented us with some of  the most scholastic arguments in parts of his book, that I have seen to date. But his Adventistism did shine through loud and clear, in the last half of his thesis, and especially in concluding with a quote from Ellen White. A colleague of Dr. B. by the name of Harry Lowe wrote on the same subject back in 1970.  He found another problem with believing Jesus to have been 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb - he wrote, "To keep an unembalmed body for over seventy-two hours, from Wednesday afternoon until after Saturday night, was not possible in a climate where decomposition would have set in before that." My answer to this argument is: 1) Jesus was embalmed - see JN 19:38-40. "ALOES....... a substance which dissolved in water and added to myrrh, was used by the ancients in their highly perfected art of embalming (JN 19:38-40)."  Pictorial Bible Dic. p.661. 2)  The coldness of a hillside tomb (much like a cave) even in a hot climate as Palestine, has a preservation quality to it to some degree.                                      3)  Jesus had lost all His blood through the scourging He underwent and having a spear thrust in His side (JN 19:33,34), hence He would not decompose as quickly as Lazarus was doing after being dead for four days (JN 11:17). About a hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes was used on Jesus (JN 19:39). 4)  Besides all these physical facts, we have the sure promise and miracle power of God the Father that, "neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption" (PS. 16:10). Jesus was foreordained to be resurrected and not to decompose at any time before that event. RESURRECTION WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED THEORY Some have claimed that the rolling back of the stone (more like a "boulder") over the entrance to the tomb, was so the women could witness the Resurrection and Jesus could come out. My answer: 1)  Jesus did not need the entrance opened as He could after His resurrection PASS THROUGH physical matter - see JN. 20:18-20. 2)  The stone was rolled away so the women and disciples could enter the tomb and see that Jesus was NOT THERE - see MRK. 16:1-4; LK. 24:1-12; JN. 20:1-10. 3)  The disciples on entering and seeing the angels were told Jesus HAD RISEN (LK. 24:6; MRK. 16:6; MT. 28:6 - AORIST tense, i.e. "has risen") already. The "aorist" is single action done in the past. INCLUSIVE COUNTING (LK.13:32,33) You can use PORTIONS of the day rather than 24 hrs. You can use the day you are speaking on as a full day, the morrow would be the 2nd day, part of the next day would be the 3rd day. This can prove INCLUSIVE counting and less than 72 hrs. This may be true within a certain CONTEXT as Luke 13:32,33.  I have said that the Bible does use INclusive counting AT TIMES!  But, I have also proved the Bible uses EXclusive counting also at times. The phrase "the third day" is used in Gen.1:13 to add up to 72 hours as shown by reading verses 3 - 13.  John 11:9 shows us:   12 hours in a  day, obviously meaning the daylight portion of a 24 hour day, hence also 12 hours in the night portion of a whole 24 hours day. MATTHEW 12:40  is VERY SPECIFIC!  Jesus was being very  specific. At other times He just said He would rise the "third day" or "after three days" or "in three days" but here in Matthew 12:40 He nailed it down to specifics. He said He would be in the heart of the earth (the tomb) for three days AND three night - for 72 hours! THE WAVE SHEAF ON THE 1st DAY - LEV. 23:9-11 As Jesus was typified by the sheaf of the firstfruits and as this sheaf was waved on the morning of the first day then it is argued,  Jesus rose on the morning of the first day. My answer:   1. The passage in Lev. says nothing about WHEN the wave sheaf was cut.  The instruction there has to do with WHAT must be done with the wave sheaf, before WHOM and WHEN.   Jesus fulfilled this symbolism when He presented Himself before the Lord(Father) of heaven on the first day (John 20:1-18).  This wave sheaf represented the RISEN Christ and the work He had to do on the first day before the Father, NOT when He rose. 2. There is some evidence from Jewish historical writings to show that the wave sheaf was cut on the evening that we call Saturday evening. The evening after sunset on Saturday. Actually the Pharisees we know from history cut the "wave sheaf" just after the Sabbath of the 15th of the first month, just after the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread had ended, and waved it before the Lord the morning of the 16th day.   The Sadducees, who were the official Temple priests during the time Christ lived, DISAGREED with the Pharisees over this matter of WHEN to cut and wave the firstfruit sheaf before the Lord. They waved it during the morning of the first day of the week that usually fell during the Unleavened Bread feast. The CUTTING of the firstfruit sheaf is probably what typified the time of Christ's RESURRECTION, and it was from what we can gather from Jewish history, cut just shortly AFTER the Sabbath. It was NEVER cut ON the Sabbath!  THE THIRD DAY SINCE ALL THESE THINGS WERE DONE   LUKE 24:21 It is argued that the third day from Wednesday could not be a Sunday, but the third day from Friday would be a Sunday. My answer: The third day from Friday would be a Sunday IF and only if Luke was using inclusive reckoning. If Luke was using exclusive counting then MONDAY and not Sunday would be the third day from Friday. The men talked about "all these things which had happened"  (verse 14).  All these things would include the making sure the disciples could not roll away the stone and steal the body of Jesus. This was made impossible by the sealing of the tomb and placing guards at the entrance for three days (see Mat.27:62-66). This being done as we believe on a THURSDAY, Jesus' death and  burial was now as far as these chief priests and Pharisees were  concerned - sealed tight and sure. And the disciples probably  thought it was all over as well. As they would talk about all these  things that were done to their Lord, to cut them off from His life  and body, it would have to include the sealing and guarding the tomb  on the Thursday. The third day from when all these things were done  on a Thursday is a SUNDAY!! THREE "DAYS" (FIRST) AND THREE NIGHTS THEORY As day is given first before night it is argued Jesus did not fulfill this saying of His in a literal sense, because the night came first as He was buried just before sunset. My answer: To answer this please note Gen.1:3-5.  God puts the name of light first and the name of night second. Darkness was already on the earth, but nevertheless as a speech pattern God says He "called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Jesus said, "are there not twelve hours in a day" but because He did not mention the night in relation to hours, did not mean it had less hours than the day time part of a full day.  By His mentioning the day (or light) part before the night part did not mean that a day had less than two egual parts of 12 hours each, nor did it mean that we should start the day at sunrise - counting the first hour of the day at sunrise. FOR when God in Gen.1:5 was instructing us on when to start counting the hours of the day He said, "the evening and the morning were the first day."                                      On keeping the Sabbath God says, "from even unto even shall you celebrate your Sabbath" (Lev.23:32). The phrase "three days and three nights" is a figure of speech that conveys a length of time ONLY.  It is not designed by Bible writers to tell you to count the hours of a day from sunrise, but ONLY to give you a length of time - length of hours. It is a FIGURE of speech as far as which comes first, the word day or the word night. It is not a figure of speech as to the specific LENGTH of time the phrase is meant to convey to the mind. It is said that Jonah was "three days and three nights" in the belly of the great fish. But we are not told WHEN Jonah was cast into the sea. He was fast asleep when the storm came and they had to awake him. Could this have been at night when the storm hit? Maybe and maybe not - we are not told, nor does it matter.  The point the writer wants you to get is not WHEN - at what time of day or night Jonah was cast into the sea and swallowed by the fish, but HOW LONG he was in the fish's belly - three days and three nights . Whether Jonah was swallowed at sunset, sunrise,  10 a.m. or 3 p.m. is immaterial to the massage that the writer wants you to understand. The length of time is what he wants you to get - 72 hours in Jonah's case.  He is not concerned with his use of such a phrase for you to understand WHEN to start counting the first hour of a 24 hour day. That is not his point or teaching  he is trying to convey to you. His teaching is length of time  regardless as to when that time begins. In Jonah's case he was "three days and three nights" - 72 hours - in the fish's belly from the time he was swallowed. In Jesus' case He was "three days and three nights" in the grave from the time He was put into the tomb. We do not know when Jonah was swallowed by the great fish - the Bible does not tell us. But we do know from the Scriptures of the NT that Jesus  died between 3 and 4 p.m. (the third hour, which last for....yes, an hour) and placed into the tomb shortly AFTER sunset (see my later comments proving Jesus was not placed in the tomb before sunset as many believe). And three days and three nights later He was resurrected from the dead to immortality and glory. When Paul was shipwrecked at some time he said he was, "a night and a day" in the deep (2 Cor.11:25). He mentions night first and day second, for what reason? To tell us he entered the sea at the beginning of the night or sunset? Maybe, but not necessarily.  If Paul had wanted us to know the very hour he was cast into the sea  he could have easily used such language as, "the sixth hour" -   "the tenth hour" - or  " the second hour of the third watch" etc.   It was not the hour that he was cast into the sea that Paul was  concerned with his readers knowing, as to the length of time -  the number of hours that he suffered floating about in the sea.  And in this case Paul chose to use the phrase "a night and a day"  as opposed to "a day and a night" to express to the readers that he  was 24 hours adrift in the sea. As there are 12 hours to the daylight part of a day and 12 hours to a night part of a day, what does it matter if one says "day and night" or "night and day" - both convey the same message in length of time. We today have phrases that are slightly different but mean the same thing! We may say "it's two forty-five" or we may say "it's fifteen till three" or even "it's quarter to three." Some people always  use the first type of expression while other always the second, and  still others the third way of saying the same thing. Then some use  both ways to relate the time to others - interchanging the expressions.  I am of the later - I may say,  "it's two forty-five" to one person and say,   "it's fifteen till three" to the next person who asks me the time. The expressions "three days, night and day" (Esther 4:16) and "three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17; Mat.12:40) are different expressions that both add up to 72 hours. They are expressions to convey length of time NOT start of time.                                      JESUS AS JONAH - MAT.12:40 Taking the expression "three days and three nights" as literal we have this argument: Jonah was an Israelite who preached to the people of Israel. He was swallowed by the fish for three days and three nights, after which he was resurrected to life again outside the belly of the fish to go and preach to the Gentiles in the city of Nineveh. Likewise Jesus was an Israelite who preached to the Jews of Israel. He stopped His preaching to Israel on Thursday of Passion week, was put to death on Friday and resurrected Sunday morning. The reasoning continues like this. As Jonah did not preach for three days and three nights and then continued his preaching to Gentiles, so Jesus did not preach from Thursday to Sunday - three days and three nights - then continued to preach to Gentiles. My answer: This argument for explaining the "three days and three nights" of Mat.12:40 is made invalid for the following reasons: 1. Although Jonah was an Israelite there is absolutely NOTHING  in the book of Jonah to show that he ever preached ONE WORD  to the peoples of Israel. Jonah was called to go and preach to the Gentile people of the city of Nineveh - to no other people but those  dwelling in the town of Nineveh!! 2. Jesus preached to Israelites and some Gentiles before His death. After His resurrection we see Him appearing to His disciples - talking to them - preaching to them - but there is not one word about Him preaching or talking to any Gentile. 3. Not only can we not find any word about Jesus preaching to Gentiles after His resurrection, but the disciples themselves did not preach the Gospel to the Gentiles until a number of years  after the New Testament Church was started. This can be seen  by reading Acts chapter one to chapter eleven, verse nineteen.            WHEN WAS JESUS PLACED IN THE TOMB? The Bible is the most wonderful book ever written. One of its many wonders is that you can take all your life time reading and studying its pages, and still you will not have found all its various little truths hidden here and there. It is of course THE WORD of the Eternal God of the universe. That word tells us to study, to prove all things, to love the truth, to hunger and thirst after righteousness, to grow in knowledge, to be willing to be humble and to be willing to to corrected. All this is a life long process, to the very day we fall asleep in death. Often, we come across more truth somewhat accidentally in a sense, and the sense I mean is that we may be studying a certain subject and find a truth we were not expecting or looking for. I have experienced that a number of times over my 55 years of life to date (editing this study in 1998).  The most recent time to experience this blessing was this past year of 1998. I was doing a full and indepth study on how the NT uses the word "evening."  I had never undertaken such a study  before, not so complete from the NT. I was looking up every place in the NT where the word "evening" was used and letting the Scriptures interpret themselves as to how it it used by that section of the Bible. It was a rewarding study indeed.  Briefly, the study shows a four way use of this word. 1) Evening = sunset.  2) Evening = period of time from after 6 p.m. or as the NT puts it, from the 12th hour on.  3) Evening = a time after sunset on into an amount of time (not specified in any specific way) covered by darkness.  4) Evening, can be part of the day that precedes it. As I was studying this topic concerning "evening" I was also studying the last 24 hours of the life and death of Jesus.   I came across a verse that hit me like a ton of bricks. Actually two of the Gospel writers bring it out (Matthew and Mark).   In Matthew the verse is 57 of chapter 27. In Mark we find it in  chapter 15 verse 42. These two men tell us very plainly that Joseph of Arimathaea did not come to Pilate UNTIL EVENING!  Putting aside all ideas of  men or traditions of men and societies and only using the NT to interpret the use of the word "evening" for us, Joseph did not come to Pilate until at least 6 p.m. As the Passover was in the Spring of the year (our late March or April), sunset in Jerusalem,  Palestine, at that time would also be around 6 p.m.  When we understand that the word "even" or "evening" can be connected with the previous daylight portion of the day just preceding that evening, we can understand why Mark says it was preparation before Sabbath (chapter 15 verse 42).  When we understand that no Gospel writer tells us the exact time, down to the minute, when Jesus died, and that from what is given it was sometime between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.   When we understand that although the Jewish leaders wanted the three men dead before the Sabbath came, they certainly had no intentions to remove and bury Jesus themselves.  When we understand that those Jewish leaders would have been too busy with the utter confusion that would have erupted in the Temple when the curtain that divided off the "most holy place" was split asunder, to worry about who would take down the body and this Christ and bury it. When we understand that none of the physical brothers and sisters of Christ (half brothers and sisters that is) came to take care of the body of Jesus.  When we see and understand that not even one of the twelve disciples came to take down the body of their leader.   When we understand that everyone close to Christ was thinking that someone else but themselves was surely looking after the job of taking Jesus down from the cross and burying Him somewhere.  When we understand all this, then we can see why it took a few hours from Christ's death for Joseph to finally realize NOBODY was going to remove Jesus and bury Him. And by the time he realized this it was "even." The sun had set. He made a fast move to Pilate and begged for the body of Christ.   How long would it have taken to then go and take Christ down  from the stake, use the 100 pounds or so of aloes that Nicodemus brought (as John tells us),  wrap the body and take it to the tomb?   We know the tomb was close at hand, as that is told us.  All of this  probably would have taken at least an hour and a half, if not two hours. It is now dark, oh, yes, maybe still could be classified as "evening"  by the way the NT uses the word. Maybe could use the word "even"  as belonging to the previous day, as the Bible does use that concept  from time to time (as I show in my study article on the word "evening"),  yet, as used in the Bible, and in the NT, it is now the evening of the  Sabbath, it is now the beginning of the Sabbath of the 15th day of the  first month - the first day and first Sabbath of the feast of Unleavened  Bread. Jesus was put in the tomb at the beginning, during the first few hours of the Sabbath of the 15th day of Nisan.The women (a few of them) we are told watched as Joseph and Nicodemus performed all this and they saw where they laid Him. A job had to be done, this was an ox in the ditch situation, no matter the work involved,  and the Sabbath having come, the task of putting Jesus to rest in  the tomb in the correct Jewish manner had to be completed. Now, there is one verse left to explain.  On the surface it would be thought that this verse would clearly demolish all I have said above. But, to the contrary, when we understand the Greek tense used for the critical words in this verse, it becomes another huge proof to what I have stated. The verse is Luke 23:54.  It would seem to say (according to the KJV) that the Sabbath "drew on" - was yet to arrive, and Joseph had already laid Jesus in the tomb. Someone whose native tongue was Greek, would have had little trouble understanding what Luke REALLY said. The word "drew on" as in the KJV, is in the Greek, in the IMPERFECT tense, not the FUTURE tense, but the IMPERFECT tense. What does the imperfect tense signify? The book "Essentials of New Testament Greek" by Ray Summers, lesson 13, pages 55,56 has this to say:  ".......The imperfect tense indicates CONTINUOUS action in PAST time. Contrast 'I am loosing' (present) with 'I was loosing' (imperfect) and the significance is clear......Always it represents CONTINUOUS action in PAST time.......The 'repeated' or 'iterative' imperfect shows action repeated in past time. It would be represented by a broken line (- - - - - ) rather than a continous line (______) which would represent the descriptive imperfect......." Ah, now we can understand what Luke really was saying in chapter 23:54.  Talking about all the things Joseph and Nicodemus had done and finished, including the placing of Christ in the tomb,  the Sabbath HAD COME in the past, at a past point of time and did continue. It was a kind of period of time that could be understood as belonging to the previous day, hence still preparation for the Sabbath (especially under the ox in the ditch situation), yet was also the time that belonged to the Sabbath, hence the Sabbath HAD come and was continuing by the time Jesus was placed in the tomb. It may sound a little odd and a little contradictory, but when we look at how the word "evening" was used in the NT and when we see the truth of the specific Greek tense that Luke chose (under inspiration) in verse 54, we are left with no other conclusion but to realize the NT Scriptures tell us that Jesus was not placed  in the tomb until AFTER the "evening" had come, and AFTER the Sabbath had already arrived. Three days and three nights later from a few hours into the evening of the annual Sabbath of the 15th of Nisan, a Wednesday evening, brings us to a few hours after the weekly Sabbath, or Saturday evening, for the RESURRECTION of Christ! Close to when the Wave Sheaf was cut as the Sadducees (priests of the Temple) taught and observed (the first of the firstfruits), ready to be presented to the Lord the next morning, a Sunday morning.  So the whole typology of the Passover lamb and Wave sheaf was completely fulfilled in Christ, even to the typology of Jonah being three days and three nights in in the whales belly, was fulfilled by Jesus being three days and three nights in the tomb.   END NOTES Perhaps the number one reason that has been put forth over the centuries, for keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, has been the teaching that Jesus was resurrected the morning of the first day of the week. This teaching is not only unscriptural but contrary to a number of Historical sorces. The Didascalia, an early Christian work which is preserved in Syriac, supports a Wednesday crucifixion day. In this work the apostles are quoted as saying that it was on Tuesday evening that they ate the Passover with Jesus, and on Wednesday that He was taken captive and held in custody in the house of Caiaphas. Epiphanius, a post-Nicene writer, gives Tuesday evening as the Last Supper (A.Gilmore, "Date and Significance of the Last Supper," Scottish Journal of Theology, Sept. 1961, pp. 256-259, 264 - 268). Victorinus of Pettau, worked out a chronology that arrives at the conclusion that Jesus was arrested on a Wednesday. Loc.cit. There is a certain amount of evidence found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers for the Last Supper having taken place on the 13th of Nisan, i.e., Tuesday evening. Loc.cit.                                      The Dead Sea Scrolls.  Writing in "Eternity" magazine, its editor, Donald Grey Barnhouse cited evidence from the scrolls which would place the Last Supper on Tuesday. He also quoted from a Roman Catholic journal published in France that "an ancient Christian tradition, attested to by the Didascalia Apostolorum as well as by Epiphanius and Victorinus of Pettau (died 304 A. D.) gives Tuesday evening as the date of the Last Supper and prescribes a fast for Wednesday to commemorate the capture of Christ" (Eternity, June, 1958). Though strongly holding to a Friday crucifixion, The Catholic Encyclopedia says that not all scholars have believed this way. Epiphanius, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours are mentioned as rejecting Friday as the day of the crucifixion  (Vol.8, p. 378, art. "Jesus Christ."). The Companion Bible, published by Oxford University Press, in its Appendix 156 explains that Christ was crucified on Wednesday. Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Finis Dake has said on his note on Matthew 12:40: "Christ was dead for three full days and for three full nights. He was put in the grave Wednesday just before sunset and was resurrected at the end of Saturday at sunset.... No statement says that He was buried Friday at sunset. This would make him in the grave only one day and one night, proving his own words untrue" (p 13). The error in believing Jesus was crucified on a Friday has largely come about by thinking that the Sabbath that followed "the preparation" of Mt.27:62 and Jn. 19:31 was the weekly 7th day Sabbath instead of the first Passover Sabbath. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says, "The day after the preparation (ASV). Usually explained as Saturday...... However, this preparation day was the day before the Passover Feast day (John 19:14,31), which feast may have occurred that year on Wednesday night. Perhaps this accounts for Matthew's not using the term 'Sabbath' here, lest it be confused with Saturday. According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view gives more reasonable treatment to Mt.12:40. It also explains 'after three days' and 'on the third day' in a way that does least violence to either" (page 984). The answer is all resolved when it is understood that there were TWO SABBATHS in the last week of our Savior's physical life. Ferrar Fenton (a wealthy Englishman, for about 50 years avoided reading the BibIe in any but the original languages, that his own translation of the Bible might not be influenced by other translations), renders the first part of Mt.28:1 as, "After the SabbathS.." He states in his foot note that the Greek original is in the PLURAL. Fenton translates Lk.24:1 as," But at day-break upon the first day following the Sabbaths, they proceeded to the tomb......"    Again in Jn.20:1, "Now on the first day following the SABBATHS...... " And his footnote says that this is literally as the Greek reads. The Greek is very significant in LK.23:54 - 56. In verse 54 Luke was inspired to write, "A preparation day, and A Sabbath " but in verse 56 the definite article "the" is used with "Sabbath" showing  that this Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, thus making a difference  between the two Sabbaths, and showing there was indeed TWO  Sabbath days during  that Passover week, leading up to the first day or Sunday. Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on a Tuesday evening. He was arrested during that night and crucified during the daytime of Wednesday. At between 3 and 4 p.m. in the after- noon (the third hour) He died. His burial was shortly after sunset. At sunset the high day Sabbath for the feast of Unleavened Bread began. It lasted till sunset the next day - Thursday. This was ONE night and ONE day in the tomb. Friday, a work day before the weekly Sabbath, followed. Now we have TWO nights and TWO days that Jesus lay in the grave. The night of the weekly Sabbath was the THIRD night, and the daylight part of that Saturday was the THIRD day. After a full 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb, the heart of the earth - Jesus rose from the dead, just after sunset - as the wave sheaf was cut (being the first of the firstfruits) exactly 72 hours after being put into the tomb. It was a first day of the week resurrection but not on a Sunday morning. LUKE and MARK give us the final proof. Luke tells us, "And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). They had and prepared these spices BEFORE the Sabbath. But notice what Mark tells us, "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought spices, that they might come and anoint him"(Mark 16:1). They bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath was past! Putting the two Gospel accounts together, it would have been impossible for them to purchase the spices after the Sabbath, and then to prepare them before the Sabbath, and rest on the same Sabbath. The conclusion is inescapable. There were two Sabbaths that week, and when properly harmonized, everything fits in place. A note on Mark 16:9. Someone is bound to say that this verse plainly says that Jesus rose on the morning (sunrise) of the first day of the week. In the Greek the phrase"early the first day of the week" can be grammatically connected either with the words "having risen" or with the words "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." The Expositor's Greek Testament says the phrase "early the first day of the week" may be either "connected with (having risen), indicating the time of the resurrection, or with (appeared), indicating the time of the first appearance." We have seen that it could not refer to the time of the resurrection.  Mark 16:9 should have been translated, "Now having risen, early  the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." It is rendered this way in the Montgomery translation.              ................................ First written 1986 Edited and revised July 1998 All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published, e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Holy Spirit. Mr. Hunt trusts nothing will be changed without his consent.