Three Days and Three Nights

The message of Easter is much more important than its chronology. Still, people often ask me questions about chronology in the Gospels. In my earlier post, I answered questions related to the date of Easter and the apparent difference between the chronology found in John and in the Synoptic Gospels. Today, I answer a few questions related to the "three days and three nights."

Why is the resurrection described happening after “three days and three nights”? If Jesus died on Friday afternoon, and the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, isn’t that only a day and a half?
To read more, click here.

Chronology of Easter in John and the Synoptic Gospels

The exact chronology of Easter is not the most important thing to think about during Easter week, but students often ask me questions about chronological issues in the Gospels. Here are some common questions:

What is the probable date of Jesus’ crucifixion?
Calculating ancient dates gets complicated for a number of reasons: Jewish months all started at the new moon; they had two “new years” per year; they added in leap months as needed; days started at sunset, not sunrise; ancient people often used imprecise designations for years, and not everyone was using the same calendar system in the first century.   To read more, click here.

Easter according to Basic Instructions

Ok, it's Easter, and I know I ought to post something either scholarly or pastoral... but I couldn't resist posting this comic about Easter from Scott Meyer's Basic Instructions.

Yes, there is an eerie resemblance between me and the comic's main character, who is also Scott Meyer, the author. But that's mainly because any two bald haole guys with goatees look about the same.

For a fee, Scott Meyer will convert a photo into the kind of art you see in the comic, and my friend Rich bought one for me for my birthday - see my avatar at right on my blog under "about me."

The Rolling Stone

Question: How do we know the stone [on Jesus’ tomb] was too heavy for anyone to roll away? How did they get it there in the first place? (posted by Anonymous, 4-13-09)

Many tombs in first-century Israel were blocked by a stone, either square or round. Rolling stone tombs have a large disk-shaped rock door that rolls in a stone slot, usually sloped downward. Rolling stones recovered by archeologists are 4-6 feet across and a foot thick, and weighed a ton or more (my calculation, but seems to match the estimates given by others). They were thus very hard to open, but easy to close. Presumably several men would roll the stone up the slot and wedge it in place when the tomb was needed, and then it could be easily closed by removing the wedge. Such tombs were designed to hold entire families, so they needed to be reopened occasionally. In between openings, they were often sealed with clay, although Jesus’ tomb probably had not yet been sealed in this fashion. Rolling stone tombs were mainly used by wealthy families, matching the gospels’ account that Jesus was placed in tomb space donated by Sanhedrin member Joseph of Arimathea.

Matthew and Mark record that the stone was too big for the three women to move (see Mark 16:1-5) and that it was "very large." One later Christian document says that twenty men were needed to roll away the stone, but this is probably exaggeration.

Why does the weight of the stone matter? In the past few centuries, skeptics have claimed that Jesus was not really dead (also an unlikely claim), and that he awoke in the tomb and rolled away the stone. Others have claimed that the women stole the body. The size of the stone makes both claims historically unlikely.

If you watch these video clips of resurrection expert William Lane Craig, you can hear why such conspiracy theories are not accepted by reputable historians. Even more important, Craig correctly points out that almost all Jesus scholars, whether they are Christians or not, agree that Jesus really died, that his tomb was found empty, and that the disciples had some experience that convinced them that Jesus was alive.

Nerd note on the weight of the stone: Archeological records list rolling stone size as radius 0.7-0.8 m and width 0.3-0.4 m. That produces a volume of about 0.5 cubic meters (pi*r^2 *w). Workable stone such as granite weighs about 2500 kg (5500 lbs) per cubic meter, giving a weight of at least 2750 lbs.

The picture: Another rolling stone tomb outside Jerusalem. Jesus' tomb was covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre centuries ago, and the opening was destroyed.

Roman Soldiers at the Tomb

Question: How do we know Roman guards were posted at [Jesus’] tomb? Why would the Romans put guards there? (from Anonymous, posted 4-13-09)

This is an important question, since it serves as part of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. First, let me highly recommend a series of video clips from one of the best experts on the resurrection of Jesus, William Lane Craig. If you want the short version, just look at this clip, but I encourage you to watch the whole playlist (I tried to post one of the clips on this blog, but Blogger does not support their format).

How do we know that Roman guards were posted at the tomb? First, because Matthew records it (see Matt 27:62-66, 28:11-15). The chief priests had heard at least one claim that Jesus would rise from the dead, so they asked Pilate to post a Roman guard contingent to prevent the disciples from tampering with the evidence. Although some people might discount Matthew's testimony, it is important to remember that most historical facts are based on single documents, often not even based on eyewitness. In this case, Matthew is a document based on eyewitness accounts written within 30 to 40 years of the event; and both Matthew and Luke reveal evidence that they relied on documents even closer to the date of the resurrection.

Second, Matthew's claim is historically plausible. Some of the biggest political problems in first-century Israel were violent uprisings backed by messianic claims (at least eleven occasions from AD 6-140). The chief priests and the Roman governor had to quell these movements quickly to avoid civil disorder or open war (see John 11:47-53). On one occasion, Pilate sent cavalry to attack a Samaritan messiah-figure and his followers who were trying to dig up their lost temple artifacts. This event proves that the Roman government would use force to deal with religious beliefs.

The Roman government in Judea was on alert every Passover because of political and religious tensions - after all, Passover celebrated God’s rescue of Israel from Gentile oppressors. Every Passover, the Roman governor left the Roman regional capital in Caesarea Maritima and brought a cohort of soldiers to Jerusalem to deal with potential problems.

By this period in Pilate's career, he also had to try to placate the Jewish authorities. Jewish leaders had complained to the emperor about Pilate, and the emperor had warned Pilate that he would be removed if there were further incidents. So it makes sense that Pilate would accede to the request of the chief priests to guard the tomb.

The picture: The Resurrection, from a Chinese Bible from the 1800s. Note the soldiers with Chinese weapons and the seal on the tomb door.

Harrowing of Hell?

Question: I recently heard Tony Campolo mention the Apostles' Creed and how basically it was an almost perfect summation of the right "stuff" to believe as an Evangelical. Upon seeking it out and reading the different versions for myself there was one part included in some versions that didn't sit well with me... "he descended into hell." Is this true? Did Christ really descend into hell between his crucifixion and resurrection? - K.L.

Many Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus went to hell during the three days after his death, either experiencing full punishment for our sins, or preaching to the damned, or releasing OT faithful from imprisonment (the so-called "harrowing of hell"). However, the four gospels say nothing about where Jesus was during those three days.

Why do some people believe in Jesus' descent to Hell? First, some later versions of the Apostles' Creed include the phrase "He descended into Hell," but the earliest versions don't include that phrase. (The phrase first shows up in the seventh version of the creed, in the works of Rufinus of Rome in AD 390.)

Second, some interpret 1 Pet 3:18-20 to mean that Jesus was in Hell; but most NT scholars don't think that's what Peter meant. It's a very difficult passage to understand, but it has several possible interpretations. When Peter says "He preached to the spirits in prison," it may be referring to spirits who are now in prison, but were not when he preached to them. We also don't know if he is referring to human spirits or demonic spirits. Other passages describe the cross as a proclamation of victory against the evil powers (Eph 3:10, Col 2:15). Peter may even be referring to the Spirit of Christ being preached through Noah, as he earlier said in 1 Peter 1:10-11.

Third, some people think that Ephesians 4:8-10 refers to Jesus' descent to Hell. But the passage, read carefully, probably refers to Christ's descent to earth, not Hell (note how the NIV and NLT correctly translate this passage).

So what's the bottom line? The idea that Jesus descended into Hell does not have firm scriptural support, although some believe in it based on 1 Peter 3:18-20. We should normally avoid building significant doctrines based on a single difficult passage. Whichever way you believe on this issue, this is a relatively minor issue, not one that Christians should fight over. Christ's victory on the cross and at the empty tomb is far more important than what happened during the three days between them.

The picture: Descent of Christ to Limbo, Andrea da Firenze, 1365.

Three Days and Three Nights

Earlier this week I posted on the meaning of Jesus' three days in the tomb. Here are some other random thoughts on the three days:

• Some sticklers notice that Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is only a day and a half, not three days. Greek writings, especially those written by Jews, used three phrases interchangeably: "three days and three nights" "after three days" and "on the third day." All mean something like "the day after tomorrow." I have seen the phrases used interchangeably in the Gospels, in Josephus, and in Esther 4:16-5:1.
• Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days (John 11:17); mentioning the four days shows how certain it was that Lazarus was dead. In the same way, Jesus' three days in the tomb shows the certainty of his death. (Later rabbinic documents show that some Jews believed that it was possible to raise someone from the dead, but only in the first three days; that might be interesting, but we have no idea if Jews at the time of Jesus believed that).
• Many Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus went to hell during the three days, either experiencing full punishment for our sins, or releasing OT faithful from imprisonment, or preaching to the damned (the so-called "harrowing of hell"). However, the four gospels say nothing about where Jesus was. Some interpret 1 Pet 3:18-20 to mean that Jesus was in hell; but most NT scholars don't think that's what Peter meant.

The picture: "Descent to Hell" by Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1308. Jesus is shown trampling Satan and helping Adam and Eve up.

Why Three Days?

Why do the Gospel accounts emphasize that Jesus was dead three days? By my count, there are 26 references to the three days of Jesus' death in the New Testament. In Matt 12:40, Jesus gives us a hint about its significance: "For just as 'Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,' so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," quoting Jonah 1:17.

Another hint can be found in Luke 18:33, where Jesus says "they will kill him, and on the third day, he will rise." The phrase in italics is almost identical to Hosea 6:1-3 (in the LXX, the Greek Old Testament): "the Lord... has seized and he will heal us, he will strike and he will bandage us. He will heal us after two days, on the third day we will rise, and we will live before him."

These two Old Testament passages have something in common. Both of them, read in their orginal contexts, describe how God brought wrath on someone, but then rescued. Jonah cries out "I cried for help from the depth of Sheol [the grave]; you heard my voice... the earth with its bars was around me forever, but you have brought up my life from the pit" (Jonah 2:2-9). Hosea 6 in a similar way describes God's restoration of his people who experienced his wrath.

Jesus picks up this theme in his predictions of his death and resurrection. Like Jonah, Jesus would experience God's wrath, but after three days he would come up from "the depth of Sheol;" like Israel in Hosea, Jesus would be healed by the God who wounded. Jesus' prediction of "three days" was thus designed to recall these OT examples of faith that God would deliver; it probably also teaches that Jesus would suffer the wrath of God before his vindication and resurrection.

The picture above is a portrayal of the women at the empty tomb. It comes from The Brick Testament - a very interesting website, but occasionally rather warped.

Jesus' Post-Resurrection Teachings and Gnosticism

The only ancient documents that speculate much about Jesus' post-resurrection teaching are the Gnostic gospels, written one to three centuries after his death. Gnosticism began in the second century AD; it was a religious system that incorporated beliefs from many religions, including Christianity. However, its basic beliefs about God, Jesus, and salvation were incompatible with the message found in the New Testament. The solution that many Gnostics found was to write their own accounts of Jesus' teachings in which Jesus sounds more like a Gnostic. In order to seem more authentic, these gospels were falsely attributed to people like Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Philip, Peter, and others. In many of these gospels, these Gnostic beliefs were only communicated by Jesus secretly to a few of his disciples in the days after his resurrection.

So it is probably a mark of the genuineness of the NT accounts that they do not record any post-resurrection teaching of Jesus that is fundamentally different from his earlier teaching. Jesus had already taught about his coming death and resurrection, the founding of the church, and his return; after the resurrection, he added little (for more on these themes, see posts here and here). Perhaps Jesus did not need to to add much; after all, almost everything that the apostles wrote about is a development of these three themes.

The picture above shows Jesus appearing to Peter and John; it is found in a book entitled Das Plenarium oder Ewangely Buoch (a set of gospel readings for masses), published in 1516.

What Did Jesus Teach After the Resurrection? (Part II)

In the last post, I summarized Jesus' post-resurrection teaching. Jesus taught about:

• his death and resurrection
• the church
• his return

The NT authors left us only a few significant summary statements about each of these topics, although Acts suggests that Jesus taught on more than one occasion over the 40 days after the resurrection. He did not teach constantly, however, as the limited list of resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) suggests. We do know that he talked for a few hours on at least one occasion (Lk 24).

However, it is not unusual for the NT authors to summarize Jesus' teachings. Jesus' entire early preaching ministry is summed up with a single sentence, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news" (Mk 1:16). Even the Sermon on the Mount is probably a summary of a much longer sermon. It can be read aloud in less than twenty minutes, yet we know that Jesus routinely taught all day (Mk 6:34-35). The gospel writers were comfortable giving accurate summaries of Jesus' teachings. It is reasonable to guess that Jesus did not say anything else of great significance beyond what is recorded in the NT, or one of the eyewitnesses would have recorded it.

As you celebrate Easter, meditate on what Jesus thought was most important before he ascended: his death and resurrection, the meaning of the church, and Jesus' return. These three themes also dominate our celebration of the Lord's Supper: as one body, we share in the cup and the bread (1 Cor 10:16-17) and we "proclaim the Lord's death until he returns" (1 Cor 11:26).

The picture above is from a Chinese Bible of the 1800s; it portrays Jesus' appearance to the disciples in the locked room.

What did Jesus Teach After the Resurrection?

My friend wrote me a question about Jesus' post-resurrection teaching (by the way, feel free to post other questions and I will try to tackle them). Why is it that we have so much of Jesus' teaching before his death, but very little after his resurrection? First, let's list what we know about Jesus' teaching during those approximiately forty days:

• Instructions to inform other disciples about his resurrection (Mt 28:10; John 20:17-18)
• Demonstration that the resurrection was in a new body - thus showing that the new covenant age had begun (Lk 24:38-43; John 20:27)
• Explanation of how Jesus' death and resurrection fulfills the OT prophecies (Lk 24:25-27, 44-46)
• Blessing on those who believe in his resurrection (John 20:29)
• Foundation of the church with people from all nations as disciples (aka the Great Commission) (Mt 28:19-20; Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8; John 20:21, 23)
• Promise of the Holy Spirit and/or giving of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5, 8; John 20:22)
• Restoration and re-appointment of Peter (John 21:15-19)
• Unspecified teaching about the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)
• Unknown time of the fully restored kingdom (Acts 1:6-7)
• Promise to be with his disciples to the end (Matt 28:20)

Notice three basic categories. Jesus teaches about

1. his death and resurrection (its nature, significance, and connection to the OT)
2. the founding of the church (its nature, its source of power, and its human leadership)
3. Jesus' return (the unknown time, the restoration of the kingdom, and Jesus' presence until then).

I'll post more on this topic in the next few days. I'd love to finish now, but my sons are informing me that it's time to begin a sacred Maundy Thursday ritual. It will be held at the Hawaiian Waters Adventure Park. :)

The picture above is a stained glass depiction of Jesus' appearance to Mary Magdalene. It is displayed in Trinity Church, New York, and was designed by by Sir Edward Burne-Jones in the late 1800s.

Enough of Eutychus Already

One of my friends asked if my blog would be about something besides Eutychus. "But why?" I asked. "Everything you need to know about life you can learn from Eutychus." All Eutychus, all the time.

OK, maybe not. But one more post on Eutychus will help provide the final touches to the story. To understand the heart of the story, read the last post on the topic. But there are some other interesting side notes to the story that make it come alive even more.

• It was the Easter season (Acts 20:6, "Unleavened Bread"). Quite likely, Paul was preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ before Eutychus died and was raised.
• The church was meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This is perhaps the first reference to the Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday. At first, Christians worshipped on the Jewish Sabbath, which is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Christians increasingly began to worship on Sunday, apparently to have a weekly celebration of the resurrection of Christ. They also met during the week in people's homes (Acts 2:46).
• Since it was Sunday, that means Eutychus and the rest of the church had worked all day. Jews and Christians originally rested on the Friday/Saturday Jewish Sabbath. Pagan Romans and Greeks did not keep a weekly rest day (in fact, they sometimes mocked Jews for this practice). However, Roman law protected the Jewish right to observe the Sabbath. There was not yet a Sunday rest custom, and Roman law would not have granted it. This probably explains Eutychus' sleepiness - he worked all day, and then listened to Paul teaching in a warm room for several hours.
• The Christians at Troas met "to break bread." This probably included both a meal together and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, much like Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. Paul condemned the practice in Corinth only because they were misusing it - some going hungry, some overeating and getting drunk.
• Eutychus is described as a "young man" (Greek neanias) and "boy" (pais). It was common to use the second term to describe a boy aged 10-14 (although it can be used in other ways).
• When Paul goes downstairs to find Eutychus dead, he stretches himself out on the dead boy and embraces him (Acts 20:10). Why? Paul is imitating Elijah and Elisha from the Old Testament (1 Kings 17:21, 2 Kings 4:34). In both cases, Elijah and Elisha felt personally (although unintentionally) responsible for the death of a boy. In both cases, they stretched out on the dead boy, embraced him and asked God to raise him. In the middle of Paul's distress over the death of Eutychus, he took a step of faith and acted like Elijah and Elisha. That also took a great deal of boldness, since Elijah and Elisha were great heroes - not necessarily the sort of men just anyone can imitate!

OK. Now look at the tools we used to interpret the Eutychus story:

• Far context: looking at the themes and purposes of the book of Acts, we saw that Luke included this story to show the vitality of the early church (see Eutychus, Part II and Eutychus, Part III).
• Near context: looking at the nearby story in Acts, we saw that the story of Eutychus showed Paul as a model apostle (see the end of Eutychus, Part III).
• Historical-cultural context: in this post, we saw how knowledge of the history, culture, and Old Testament background can add significantly to our grasp of the story.