Three days and nights in the tomb...
Posted by James Bennett (jimb) on 6/13/06
After the persecutions in the Sasanid Empire began, Aphrahat wrote Demonstration XII, On the Passover Sacrifice. Aphrahat was apparently addressing some in the Christian community, perhaps converts from Judaism, that were concerned whether the Passover festival should be observed and perhaps when. During this demonstration Aphrahat makes many statements and provides many "proofs" that I will comment on as we go. For today, I would like to examine his statements trying to resolve the chronology of Jesus in the tomb for three days.
This is a problematic text. For if Jesus was executed on Friday before the passover began, then a ressurection of Sunday is clearly problematic. The statements that Jesus made and that Aphrahat is addressing are taken from Matthew 12:39-41. For reference purposes, I'll provide a quote:
Jesus states that he will be in the grave for three days and three nights. I have read many ways of trying to resolve this passage with the facts reported later that: Jesus was executed on Friday before the passover began and was resurrected on Sunday. I find none of them convincing and personally take this as a Christian "mystery" that we must trust. However, Aphrahat is often a literalist in much the same vein as Fundamentalist Christians today and, incidentally, quite different from the many symbolic interpreters of his day. The passage from Demonstration XII addressing this follows (when presenting Aphrahat's text I will use a translation from the Ph.D. dissertation of Adam Lehto unless I need to translate myself and then I will note that I provided the translation):
The reason that I bring up this passage is because Aphrahat provides an explanation that I at least had not seen before. It may have been used, but I have not researched yet to see if this is original with Aphrahat or not. Apharahat resolves the text through portraying the death of Christ as not on the Cross, but symbolically (in some ways unusual for him) when he provided the eucharist as a "type" or representation of his death. Since night had already begun we have Thursday Night, Friday mid-day (the three hours of darkness), and Friday night are the three nights. Friday morning, Friday afternoon (after the three hours of darkness), and Saturday during the day are the three complete days. Saturday night does not count as a new or complete night for Aphrahat because, though the seal for the tomb was rolled away and the angel appeared as the new day was dawning, scripture, which is central to Aphrahat, does not say that Jesus rose at this time and Aphrahat presumes that He rose sometime before dawn.
So, what do you think? Is it valid to interpret the three days symbolically here? If it is, and this interpretation is valid, what does that mean for the eucharist? Does it undermine the view of many (especially non-liturgical) Protestants that communion is just done "in rememberance"? Does it provide a foundation for the interpretation that the eucharist is more than showing respect for Christ's command to "do this in rememberance" but is rather a "type" of His Body and has some spiritual significance? Note that I am avoiding the term "transubstantiation" because the sacramental view of the eucharist is viewed somewhat differently across the sects of the Christian faith that view the eucharist as sacremental.
This may be one of Aphrahat's least controversial interpretations of scripture, but I thought it might ease some into exploring the view of this fourth-century ascetic.
This is a problematic text. For if Jesus was executed on Friday before the passover began, then a ressurection of Sunday is clearly problematic. The statements that Jesus made and that Aphrahat is addressing are taken from Matthew 12:39-41. For reference purposes, I'll provide a quote:
But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!
Jesus states that he will be in the grave for three days and three nights. I have read many ways of trying to resolve this passage with the facts reported later that: Jesus was executed on Friday before the passover began and was resurrected on Sunday. I find none of them convincing and personally take this as a Christian "mystery" that we must trust. However, Aphrahat is often a literalist in much the same vein as Fundamentalist Christians today and, incidentally, quite different from the many symbolic interpreters of his day. The passage from Demonstration XII addressing this follows (when presenting Aphrahat's text I will use a translation from the Ph.D. dissertation of Adam Lehto unless I need to translate myself and then I will note that I provided the translation):
Now show us, O sage, what these three days and three nights were in which our Saviour was among the dead! We see the three hours on Friday, and the night when the Sabbath dawned, and the whole day, and [then] during the night of the first [day] of the week he rose. Define for me what they are, these three days and three nights! Take note that although the day and the night were completed, our Saviour spoke truly when he said, "Just as Jonah son of Mattai in the stomach of a fish for three days and three nights, so too will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth." Thus, from the time when he gave his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, there were three days and three nights. It was night when Judas left them, and the eleven disciples ate the body of our Saviour and drank his blood. Now take note: [this was] one night, when Friday was dawning. And take note [that the time] up to the sixth hour, when they judged him, [was] one day and one night. [Then] there were three hours that were dark, from the sixth hour to the ninth, and there were [also] three hours after the darkness. Take note [that this makes] two days and two nights. [Then] the night when the Sabbath dawned was completed, as well as the whole day of the Sabbath. Thus our Lord completed three days and three nights among the dead, and during the night of Sunday he rose from among the dead.
The reason that I bring up this passage is because Aphrahat provides an explanation that I at least had not seen before. It may have been used, but I have not researched yet to see if this is original with Aphrahat or not. Apharahat resolves the text through portraying the death of Christ as not on the Cross, but symbolically (in some ways unusual for him) when he provided the eucharist as a "type" or representation of his death. Since night had already begun we have Thursday Night, Friday mid-day (the three hours of darkness), and Friday night are the three nights. Friday morning, Friday afternoon (after the three hours of darkness), and Saturday during the day are the three complete days. Saturday night does not count as a new or complete night for Aphrahat because, though the seal for the tomb was rolled away and the angel appeared as the new day was dawning, scripture, which is central to Aphrahat, does not say that Jesus rose at this time and Aphrahat presumes that He rose sometime before dawn.
So, what do you think? Is it valid to interpret the three days symbolically here? If it is, and this interpretation is valid, what does that mean for the eucharist? Does it undermine the view of many (especially non-liturgical) Protestants that communion is just done "in rememberance"? Does it provide a foundation for the interpretation that the eucharist is more than showing respect for Christ's command to "do this in rememberance" but is rather a "type" of His Body and has some spiritual significance? Note that I am avoiding the term "transubstantiation" because the sacramental view of the eucharist is viewed somewhat differently across the sects of the Christian faith that view the eucharist as sacremental.
This may be one of Aphrahat's least controversial interpretations of scripture, but I thought it might ease some into exploring the view of this fourth-century ascetic.
Posts
Leave a reply