Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Hussain, and the Sign of Jonah

The sign of Jonah is used by many Muslim apologists to try to force an error into the mouth of Jesus to show that the NT contains a false prophecy and that we need to go to their seventh century text for the answers.  I really wish that they wouldn’t do this because it’s nitpicking.  It’s not going for the whole picture, but nitpicking at the peripherals.  Still, they’re wrong on this one.

Here’s Matthew 12: 38-40:

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”  He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!  But none will be given except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Muslims like to point out how Jesus wasn’t in the tomb three full days and three full nights.  We should remember that Jesus Christ is not talking to 21st century Muslim apologists.  He’s talking to the Pharisees who are first century Jews.  To find out what Christ means, we need to enter the world of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees studied the Old Testament and knew it well.  What does the Old Testament say about the word day.  Let’s go back to the creation.  In Genesis 1: 4-5 we read:

And God said: “Let there be light,” and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from darkness.  God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”  And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day

I’ve put the word day in bold to emphasize that it has two meanings.  The first is daylight hours and the second is the daylight and night hours combined.

Not only would the Pharisees have known the book of Genesis, but they would have known the book of Esther as well.  In Esther 4:15-17 we read:

Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, “Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day.  I and my maidens also will fast in the same way.  And thus I will go in to the kind, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.”  So Mordecai went away and did just as Esther had commanded him.

The word day is used twice.  The first used of day includes both night and day and the second one only means daylight.  If we use the same definition for both the sentence doesn’t make sense.  Those are the last verses of Esther 4.  In Esther 5:1 we read:

Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace in front of the king’s rooms.  and the kind was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace.

Verses 5 and 6 say:

Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly that we may do as Esther desires.” So the king and Haman came to the banquet which Esther had prepared.  As they drank their wine at the banquet, the king said to Esther, “What is your petition, for it shall be granted to you.  And what is your request? Even to half of the kingdom it shall be done.”

This makes absolutely no sense if you take Esther 4:15-17 literally.  However, three complete days is used as any part of the three days.  The Pharisees that Jesus was talking to were familiar with this story and knew how this type of language was used.  Jesus is simply using Old Testament language here.

Zakir Hussain has one additional argument in the above video.  He says that according to Mark 15 Jesus was buried after sunset so the first day wouldn’t have counted.  Is that what Mark 15 really says?  When we read Mark 15, it doesn’t say anything about sunset.  Here is what verses 42 and 43 say:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath).  So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.

No reference to sunset was made, only evening.  In fact if you read the whole text, they’re obviously trying to get him buried before the Sabbath begins since the Mosaic Covenant doesn’t allow them to do work on the Sabbath.  Either Hussain is lying or he didn’t read the text carefully.

We need to look at one more thing.  God almighty actually verifies that Jesus spoke no error in the sign of Jonah.  In Matthew 28: 5-6 we read:

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.  He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.  Come and see the place where he lay.

Just as he said.  Bingo!  Remember that angel’s are messengers from God so God is putting his stamp of approval on the words of Jesus in Matthew.

We have two choices.  We can go with God, Jesus, the Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking, or we can go with Zakir Hussain, Ahmed Deedat, and the Muslim who keeps compiling these ridiculous videos.  I’ll take God, Jesus, and the Pharisees.

Now there is one more thing.  Is Jesus alive in the belly of the fish or is he dead?  He was in Sheol as Dr. White pointed out in the video.  Hussain naturally quoted a commentary that plainly contradicts the text.  Well, if a commentary contradicts the word of God, then it’s not a good commentary.  I’ll take the word of God over Matthew Henry.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 thoughts on “Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Hussain, and the Sign of Jonah

  1. Quite clearly nitpicking. I am glad you mentioned this, it will provide a useful warning so that people such as myself may not be tripped up by a trick.

  2. Unrelated to this specific post, here are some ideas for future posts that I would be most interested to see from you, Allan:

    Your thoughts on the filioque controversy in the Great Schism.
    Your thoughts on why the Golden Age of Christianity (c.1000-1300) you have referred to came to an end.
    Your thoughts on the contemporary Israel/Palestine conflict.

    Also, as you know I have an interest in your posts about Christianity in North Africa, so keep them coming!

    • Hi Kent,

      The Filioque. Now there is quite a topic. It might be better if we have coffee over this one. IT’s a huge topic over just a couple of words in the Creed. Let me summarize a bit. It started as a theological opinion among Western Church fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine and a couple of others. It was first inserted into the Creed in the sixth century in Spain as an anti-Arian polemic. It was included in the English Creed in the 7th century and the French Creed in the 9th century. However, it was not included in the Creed in Rome until the 11th century. By then it’s original purpose of attacking Arianism was long gone but in defence of it they relied on the Western Fathers writing on it.

      It surfaced in lists of anti-Latin polemics in the Byzantine Empire over the next couple centuries. It was brought up at reunion councils such as Lyon and Florence. When most people think of the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy they usually think of the Pope, however back in the day things like the Filioque, the use of Unleavened bread in the liturgy, fasting on saturdays and a few other things were considered the major issues, not the Papacy.

      Maybe Orangehunter wants to give an Orthodox perspective here?

      I will do a post on the end of the Golden Age. Preview – Like most golden ages it became a victim of its own success. The Israel/Palestine issue is complex. I don’t know if I’ll do a post on that one.

      North Africa – yes! Posts coming on this one.

      God Bless Kent.

      • Well, the clash between Rome and Constantinopole started pretty much as a political quarrel, the theological aspects (as we know them today) developed much later. Good overviews of the Orthodox position can be found in Alexander Schmemann’s “The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy” and Peter Malitzky’s “History Of The Christian Church” (latter unavailable in English, unfortunately). In short, Orthodox Christians reject the “Filioque” dogma as contradicting John 15:26. Some Orthodox theologians (like Patriarch Photius) consider this teaching incompatible with the doctrine on the Trinity, for it defines two beginnings within the Trinity- the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Sure, some matters of service and liturgy added fuel to the fire, but the main controversies involved the Papacy and Filioque.

        • Hi Orangehunter,

          Thanks for your input. I haven’t read Photius in a while, but didn’t he say that the Filioque was de-facto polytheism?

          Also, have you read Siecienski’s book on the Filioque?

          God Bless,

          Allan

          • “…didn’t he say that the Filioque was de-facto polytheism?”- he did, the tone of his entire epistle is quite harsh. But we must keep in mind that the Filioque addition was still not an official doctrine of Rome. I haven’t read Siecienski’s book on the Filioque, but I guess I should do it. His book “The Papacy and the Orthodox” is in my ever-growing to-read list since the end of 2017.

  3. I favour the Wednesday crucifixion theory.

    Mainly due to John’s mention of ‘special Sabbath’ (an annual holy day, as opposed to the regular weekly Saturday) and the two Sabbaths of Luke vs Mark.

    Which also yields a full 72-hours of three days and three nights.