Introduction
Ulrich Luz (2001) said “The little pericope of the sign of Jonah , vv. 38-40, is extremely difficult and controversial” (p. 215). It would only take a brief overview of published scholarship to prove his comment. Luz himself maintained that the idea of the resurrection is present in 12:40 even though Matthew does not mention it. He felt that there is no tension between the “three days and three nights” and the “third day” which is Matthew’s usual expression for the time of the resurrection (pp.215-18). However, these are large assumptions that have yet to be proven.
A.K.M. Adam (1990) launches from Stanley Fish’s reader-response theory. He wittily calls this theory “a Fish-eye view.” This approach attempts to expose the hermeneutical assumptions behind a proposed interpretation. It calls attention to the context of both the producers and receivers of an interpretation. Adam says:
At the heart of a Fish-eye view of interpretation, then,
is the proposal that there is no objectivity in either the
method or the object of interpretation, so that we
necessarily judge interpretations on the basis of our
own interests and commitments (pp. 177-78).
We, therefore, cannot claim that our interpretation is “scientific” or “objective” in comparison to some other interpretation. Such a claim would be no more than “a mask for personal and community interests, a whitewash for one particular group’s ideology” (p. 178).
Adam disagrees with Fish’s argument that “there is no text,” assuming that by “text” Fish means “a constant stable entity to which differing interpretations both appeal.” Adam thinks that it is better to concede to the existence of the “text,” but deny that it has any “functional efficacy.” We must therefore give up the idea of a single, correct interpretation of a text (pp. 179-81).
Adam focuses primarily on Matt 12:38-40 (while acknowledging Matt 16:1-4 and Luke 11:29-30). This passage was the focus of the earliest attempts to explain “the sign of Jonah” probably because it pointed to the resurrection of Jesus. Adam offers an instructive overview of patristic, medieval, Reformation, and twentieth century exegesis of the text, but only to demonstrate that this variety of treatment has produced no consensus on the meaning of the sign (pp. 182, 185).
In the course of his survey, Adam observes a “serious problem” in the Matthean version, “inasmuch as Jesus did not spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (p. 182). Earliest interpreters tried to resolve the difficulty by omitting the time interval, substituting “on the third day” for the problematic clause, counting the darkness at noon as a night and the afternoon as a day, identifying the time interval as a synecdoche in which parts of a day were counted as whole days and nights, and turning the expression into a non-specific colloquialism. After acknowledging that Luke’s version of the Jonah saying offers little or no help, Adam remarks “so to this day, curiosity about the sign of Jonah is unabated” (pp. 183,185).
Adam concludes on the basis of divergent, conflicting interpretations that there is no correct interpretation of the sign of Jonah (p. 187). Of course, Adam seems to think that he is “correct” that there is no correct interpretation. Even though his argument by virtue of itself must also be “non-scientific” and “non-objective,” he certainly does not present it that way. Adam calls attention to the illusionary character of both literary and historical-critical objectivity, but that does not stop him from forcefully arguing his own literary-critical case. Some might say that Adam objectifies “non-objectivity” and absolutizes the “non-absolute.” He draws us into a paradox that invites us to believe and disbelieve him at the same time. If he is correct, we can do neither; but if he is correct he has contradicted himself. I, for one, would rather believe that some interpretations are more accurate than others; and even though none of us may ever arrive at the complete truth, our critical dialogue and mutual exchange will bring us closer to the truth than we would otherwise be.
Reed Lessing (2007) wishes to call attention to the “judgment aspect” of “the sign of Jonah,” particularly as it relates to Lutheran “baptismal theology” and the motif of death preceding life. The reference to Sheol in Jonah 2:3 MT indicates that the judgment of God was upon the prophet. Lessing compares Jonah’s “three days and three nights” to a similar interval in the Sumerian myth of the goddess Inanna. Here she descends into the underworld where she dies at the hands of another goddess. “After three days and three nights” Inanna returns to life with the help of other divine beings. This time interval only covered Inanna’s travel to the underworld, not her time there. Similarly, “three days and three nights” in Jonah 2:1 MT is not the time it took for Jonah to descend into the depths; it was the time it took for “the great fish” to return the prophet from Sheol to dry land. Lessing says, “Whether this refers to a span of seventy-two hours or only to parts of ‘three days and three nights’ is an issue of greater concern for modern commentators than it was for the ancient narrator” (pp. 13-15).
Lessing argues that “the sign of Jonah” in Matt 12:39 is not only the resurrection of Jesus, but the experience of judgment as well. For Lessing, the interval “three days and three nights” signifies judgment for Jesus as it did for Jonah (pp. 15-16). It is this meaning that concerns Lessing rather than any chronological difficulty. Lessing struggles to make the sign of Jonah both the resurrection and the suffering of Jesus. He says, “both Jonah and Jesus go down toSheol before they are brought up and saved by God” (p. 17). Notably, Lessing places greater emphasis on the sign of Jonah as the suffering of Jesus which was witnessed by both opponents and followers of Jesus. The “heart of the earth” like “the heart of the sea” (Jonah 2:4 LXX) refers to Sheol . When Jonah says, “I went down to the earth” (Jonah 2:7 LXX) he is again referring to Sheol(pp. 19-20).
There are a few problems with Lessing’s argument. It is not clear from Lessing whether Jesus’s descent into Sheol begins at his burial, his expiration on the cross, or at the point where he says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46) (p. 21). Another problem is that there is nothing in the text of Jonah nor Matthew that indicates travel time to or from Sheol . Given the aims of his study, Lessing may be justified in not diverting attention to the chronological problem posed by “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” nevertheless, the problem remains.
Dominic Rudman (2004) sums up the situation well in regard to previous scholarship on Matt 12:39-41:
Superficially, this passage comparing the experiences of Jonah and
Jesus appears straightforward. Yet it has nevertheless been the subject
of much speculation by biblical scholars on account of the ‘three days and
three nights’ chronology on which the comparison partly rests. While
Jonah did indeed spend this period of time inside his fishy host (Jonah 1:17
[Eng. 2:1]). Jesus spent only one full day and two nights in his tomb.
Rudman continues with a helpful summary of attempts to resolve the matter:
Modern scholars typically deal with the problem in one of two ways.
The first is to argue that ‘three days and three nights’ may stand for any
portion of three calendar days. The second is to see in the whole
chronological discussion a classic case of modernist nit-picking, which
not only disallows Matthew any poetic license, but also ignores the
broader theological issues raised by Jesus’ use of the comparison (p. 325).
Rudman seems to think that these arguments are a “partial resolution to the chronological issues.” He furthermore commends recent scholarship for not being “distracted by minor interpretative issues” and allowing the biblical text to speak on its own terms. Rudman nevertheless warns that recent scholarship may be neglecting important exegetical issues. The particular issue he takes up is that of affirming the parallel drawn between Jonah and Jesus. The problem is that Jonah did not die in the belly of the great fish, but Jesus did literally die. Rudman must therefore clarify the exact nature of the comparison, and then show the validity of the experiential parallel drawn between Jesus and Jonah. Rudman proceeds to show that Jonah’s time in the watery deep was a type of death. On this basis he argues for a stronger parallel than previously realized between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the submersion and emergence of Jonah (pp. 325-28).
However, there are issues that remain. Is the chronological problem that Rudman cites really only a “minor interpretative issue”? Is our concern with it really “modernist nit-picking”? Have we really come to a “partial resolution” of the chronological problem? It is true that “three days” may stand for any portion of three calendar days, but to include “three nights” in this synecdoche is a deal-breaker even from a Matthean perspective. Moreover, to simply dismiss concern with the passage as “modernist nit-picking” is not only evasive, but it ignores other problems as well. It is not clear whether Rudman thinks this concern is “modernist nit-picking,” but he nevertheless does not confront the charge.