Someone asked me about the Old Testament high priest ministering in the temple and having a rope tied around his ankle to drag him out of the Holy of Holies in case he had dropped dead because of his sin. It turns out that the story is somewhat apocryphal (kind of like a Christian urban legend). There are a number of sources that have helped perpetuate this legend – particularly the NIV Study Bible note on Exodus 28:35.
34 The gold bells and the pomegranates are to alternate around the hem of the robe. 35 Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the LORD and when he comes out, so that he will not die.
The rope is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture or other ancient Jewish literature. The earliest reference to this tradition seems to be a 13th century A.D. Jewish work, the Zohar (don’t mess with the Zohar) where he states:
A knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the holy of holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope.
The Zohar is not necessarily a reliable source. In fact, wearing such a rope would probably be a violation of Leviticus 16:3-4, which gives clear directions on what the high priest is to wear on Yom Kippur:
But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on. (ESV)
It’s doubtful that many of the NIV scholars had been reading the Zohar, so I suspect that they get it from some Protestant commentary, such as John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (An Exposition of the New Testament, 3 vols., 1746–8, and An Exposition of the Old Testament, 6 vols., 1748–63). John Gill lived from November 23, 1697 to October 14, 1771, and the anecdote appears in his remarks on Hebrews 9:7:
Hebrews 9:7
Ver. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone, once every year,.... Though this is not expressed in so many words in Le 16:2 only it is said that "Aaron came not at all times into the holy place within the vail"; yet it is the constant and generally received sense of the Jewish writers, in agreement with the apostle here, that the high priest went into the holy of holies but once a year {q}, on the day of atonement, which was on the tenth of the month Tisri, and answers to part of September; not but that he went in more than once on that day, for he went in no less than four times {r}; the first time he went in to offer incense; the second time with the blood of the bullock, to sprinkle it; the third time with the blood of the goat; and the fourth time to bring out the censer {s}; and if he entered a fifth time, they say he was worthy of death; wherefore Philo the Jew {t} seems to be mistaken when he affirms that, if he went in three or four times on the same day, he suffered death, nor was there any pardon for him; and as it was but one day in a year he might enter, so when he did, no other man, either Israelite or priest, might go in along with him; he went in alone without any attendance:
the Jews say {u}, that a cord or thong was bound to the feet of the high priest when he went into the holy of holies, that if he died there, the rest might be able to draw him out; for it was not lawful for another priest to go in, no, not an high priest, none besides him on the day of atonement. Pausanias {w} makes mention of a temple of Minerva into which the priests entered once every year; which very likely was observed in imitation of this custom of the Jewish high priest; who in it was a type of Christ, and of his entrance into heaven, and of his constant and continued intercession there:
not without blood; for he went in with the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat; which was typical of the blood of Christ, by which he entered in once into the holy place, into heaven, when he had obtained eternal redemption by it, Heb 9:12 which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people; the bullock was offered by the high priest for himself and his family; and the goat for the sins of the people of Israel, even all their iniquities, transgressions, and sins, Le 16:11, but Christ the antitype having no sin, had no need to offer for himself, only for the sins of the people; See Gill on "Heb 7:27".
{q} T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 42. 4. & 43. 1. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 86. 1.
{r} Bemidbar Rabba, sect 7. fol. 188. 4. Maimon. Biath Hamikdash, c. 2. sect. 3. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 303.
{s} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misna Celim, c. 1. sect. 9.
{t} De Legatione ad Caium, p. 1035.
{u} Zohar in Lev. fol. 43. 3. & Imre Binah in ib. {w} Arcadica, sive l. 8. p. 531.
Thanks to The Gypsy Scholar, Christian Answers and Bible Places Blog for some help on this one.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
On the Third Day
I have rewritten an earlier Hillschurch post about some of the controversy over the Good Friday - Easter Sunday conundrum that some people have in regards to three days and three nights mentioned in Scripture. I got some help from Keith Schooley here. I actually lean towards a Thursday crucifixion because it seems to incoporate all the expressions used to describe the third day/three day issues.
The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.) It seems clear that (at least on the surface) there is a conflict between these four expressions. If indeed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" after his crucifixion, it is impossible that he spent "three days and three nights" in the tomb; conversely, if he did spend "three days and three nights" in the tomb, it would seem necessary that he rose on the fourth day, not the third. While "in three days" could be reasonably accommodated to either scheme, "after three days" would seem to support the idea of three full days and nights in the tomb.
These slightly different wordings either all mean the same thing (which I think is true) or they all mean different things. If they each mean different things that would also make both Jesus and the Gospel writers somewhat unclear on their facts and possibly even liars - which is why people have difficulty with this concept.
Just to summarize the Scriptures, we have at least five readings with slightly different wordings (but unlikely to have different meanings):
- in three days (6 times) (Mt 26:61 ;27:40; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19,20)
- after three days (4 times) (Mt:27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; Lk 2:46;)
- three days later (1 time) (Mk 10:34)
- three days and three nights (1 time) (Mt 12:40)
- on the third day (9 times) (Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Ac 10:40; 1Cor 15:4)
And possibly a sixth from the road to Emmaus
- this is the third day since all this took place (Lk 24:21)
Another interesting passage is the one where the chief priests command that the tomb be guarded "until" the third day in Matthew 27:64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.
As I mentioned above, for most of the passages in the Bible, this issue is not really a problem because Sunday is the third day after Friday (including Friday and Sunday). However the problem comes with passages like Matthew 12:40 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.
The simplest explanation is that all these terms essentially mean the same thing and cover the same period of time.
In Matthew 27:62-64, the chief priests and Pharisees ask for "the tomb to be made secure until the third day," because they remember his claim that "after three days I will rise again." The formulation "after three days," occurs immediately in context with the formulation "until the third day"; i.e., we seem to have here an explicit equating of the two expressions, "after three days" and "until the third day," which would reconfirm the idea that according to Jewish inclusive reckoning, "after three days" would mean "until the third day," and not "until the fourth day," as it would naturally mean in modern English.
I don't think the context, the culture of the time nor the text "requires" or specifies an exact 72-hour period. Neither does it absolutely rule it out. However, the phrases "on the third day" and “this is the third day since all this took place” would seem to indicate that it was somewhat less than 72 hours.
Because the text(s) doesn't make it absolutely clear one way or the other, the reasons to affirm one position or another rely mostly on people’s personal theological preferences (i.e. what do they want to try and prove) rather than historical grounds. It also doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference to our faith or the accuracy of Scripture to adopt one theory or another.
This is the simple answer and pretty much settles the matter. However ...
If you want to continue reading and continuing studying …
John’s gospel mentions a High Sabbath, which might mean the actual day of Passover (which would have been a special Sabbath and gives us a number of interpretation options). John 19:31 says
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
It also says in Mark 15 that Jesus died on the Preparation Day. 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph 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. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
and in 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
and Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
So the information that we have is that Jesus died on the Preparation day and rose again after the Sabbath on the first day of the week (or at least the women discovered the empty tomb on Sunday morning). It also talks about being raised on the third day like in Luke 24 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"
However we might also be able to explain three days and three nights with a more unusual explanation. This is where this concept of the “double Sabbath” comes in. The Passover meal (seder) is usually celebrated on “Erev Pesach” or the evening before the Passover. Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. But given that he was arrested later that night it is possible (even probable) that he did not eat it on Erev Pesach, but that he actually ate it with them two nights before Passover because the trial never would have happened on a Sabbath and it says he died on the "Preparation Day." Every Sabbath has a preparation day – but it may be significant that there were special preparation days for the feast Sabbath days (like Passover where they needed to sweep clean the house to remove all leaven). So Jesus had supper with his disciples on the eve (which was Wednesday evening - keep reading) of the Preparation Day before Passover.
That same evening he was arrested, tried and the next morning brought before Pilate, beaten, made to carry the cross and then crucified. He was placed in the tomb later that afternoon or evening perhaps after Passover began (at Thursday sundown - the start of the special Sabbath) and then was in the tomb on Passover (a High Sabbath - Friday) then also on the Saturday Sabbath and then on the third day (Sunday) he rose from the dead. That gives you three days (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and three nights (Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night). It also allows Sunday to be “the third day” (Friday, Saturday and Sunday – even though he was crucified on a Thursday). Although Scripture does not specifically mention two back to back Sabbaths in that week, I know of no Scriptures that would explicitly eliminate that possibility.
The Jewish community would never move the celebration of Passover to the Saturday so as to only have one Sabbath. Also the women would not have come with the spices on a Sabbath (ie they would not have been allowed to do the work of carrying them and preparing the body - also touching a body and defiling themselves on a Sabbath). So Jesus must have risen on the Sunday morning - and the Scriptures also say it was the first day of the week (the Sabbath is the seventh - the day God rested) that he rose.
The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.) It seems clear that (at least on the surface) there is a conflict between these four expressions. If indeed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" after his crucifixion, it is impossible that he spent "three days and three nights" in the tomb; conversely, if he did spend "three days and three nights" in the tomb, it would seem necessary that he rose on the fourth day, not the third. While "in three days" could be reasonably accommodated to either scheme, "after three days" would seem to support the idea of three full days and nights in the tomb.
These slightly different wordings either all mean the same thing (which I think is true) or they all mean different things. If they each mean different things that would also make both Jesus and the Gospel writers somewhat unclear on their facts and possibly even liars - which is why people have difficulty with this concept.
Just to summarize the Scriptures, we have at least five readings with slightly different wordings (but unlikely to have different meanings):
- in three days (6 times) (Mt 26:61 ;27:40; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19,20)
- after three days (4 times) (Mt:27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; Lk 2:46;)
- three days later (1 time) (Mk 10:34)
- three days and three nights (1 time) (Mt 12:40)
- on the third day (9 times) (Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Ac 10:40; 1Cor 15:4)
And possibly a sixth from the road to Emmaus
- this is the third day since all this took place (Lk 24:21)
Another interesting passage is the one where the chief priests command that the tomb be guarded "until" the third day in Matthew 27:64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.
As I mentioned above, for most of the passages in the Bible, this issue is not really a problem because Sunday is the third day after Friday (including Friday and Sunday). However the problem comes with passages like Matthew 12:40 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.
The simplest explanation is that all these terms essentially mean the same thing and cover the same period of time.
In Matthew 27:62-64, the chief priests and Pharisees ask for "the tomb to be made secure until the third day," because they remember his claim that "after three days I will rise again." The formulation "after three days," occurs immediately in context with the formulation "until the third day"; i.e., we seem to have here an explicit equating of the two expressions, "after three days" and "until the third day," which would reconfirm the idea that according to Jewish inclusive reckoning, "after three days" would mean "until the third day," and not "until the fourth day," as it would naturally mean in modern English.
I don't think the context, the culture of the time nor the text "requires" or specifies an exact 72-hour period. Neither does it absolutely rule it out. However, the phrases "on the third day" and “this is the third day since all this took place” would seem to indicate that it was somewhat less than 72 hours.
Because the text(s) doesn't make it absolutely clear one way or the other, the reasons to affirm one position or another rely mostly on people’s personal theological preferences (i.e. what do they want to try and prove) rather than historical grounds. It also doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference to our faith or the accuracy of Scripture to adopt one theory or another.
This is the simple answer and pretty much settles the matter. However ...
If you want to continue reading and continuing studying …
John’s gospel mentions a High Sabbath, which might mean the actual day of Passover (which would have been a special Sabbath and gives us a number of interpretation options). John 19:31 says
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
It also says in Mark 15 that Jesus died on the Preparation Day. 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph 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. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.
and in 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
and Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
So the information that we have is that Jesus died on the Preparation day and rose again after the Sabbath on the first day of the week (or at least the women discovered the empty tomb on Sunday morning). It also talks about being raised on the third day like in Luke 24 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"
However we might also be able to explain three days and three nights with a more unusual explanation. This is where this concept of the “double Sabbath” comes in. The Passover meal (seder) is usually celebrated on “Erev Pesach” or the evening before the Passover. Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. But given that he was arrested later that night it is possible (even probable) that he did not eat it on Erev Pesach, but that he actually ate it with them two nights before Passover because the trial never would have happened on a Sabbath and it says he died on the "Preparation Day." Every Sabbath has a preparation day – but it may be significant that there were special preparation days for the feast Sabbath days (like Passover where they needed to sweep clean the house to remove all leaven). So Jesus had supper with his disciples on the eve (which was Wednesday evening - keep reading) of the Preparation Day before Passover.
That same evening he was arrested, tried and the next morning brought before Pilate, beaten, made to carry the cross and then crucified. He was placed in the tomb later that afternoon or evening perhaps after Passover began (at Thursday sundown - the start of the special Sabbath) and then was in the tomb on Passover (a High Sabbath - Friday) then also on the Saturday Sabbath and then on the third day (Sunday) he rose from the dead. That gives you three days (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and three nights (Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night). It also allows Sunday to be “the third day” (Friday, Saturday and Sunday – even though he was crucified on a Thursday). Although Scripture does not specifically mention two back to back Sabbaths in that week, I know of no Scriptures that would explicitly eliminate that possibility.
The Jewish community would never move the celebration of Passover to the Saturday so as to only have one Sabbath. Also the women would not have come with the spices on a Sabbath (ie they would not have been allowed to do the work of carrying them and preparing the body - also touching a body and defiling themselves on a Sabbath). So Jesus must have risen on the Sunday morning - and the Scriptures also say it was the first day of the week (the Sabbath is the seventh - the day God rested) that he rose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
