ON CHRIST’S THREE DAYS IN THE TOMB
[40v]
1 I was going to finish here, most eminent François, had it not suddenly occurred to me that it was not only the number of these three holy women that made many people uncertain about the way in which the Gospel should be understood, but also the three days of the death and entombment of CHRIST. And that some people1, overwhelmed by the difficulty of the problem, struggled so much to understand this that they claimed that the Gospellists had said conflicting things, and, unable to find any agreement, they resorted to the view that Mark’s testimony should not be accepted, and that part of his Gospel should be cut out; but none of this do I consider to be true, or necessary in order to unravel the difficulty of the question. And it seemed to me not inappropriate either to explore this too while we were about it (inasfar as the Lord may enlighten us in this matter, for we are darkness, and can do nothing by ourselves alone).
Firstly therefore we shall quote the words of the Gospellists, in which the Lord predicts that he will rise on the third day. For Matthew says: “Then
charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was JESUS the CHRIST. [41r] From that time forth began JESUS to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” And again in another place he presents the Lord addressing his disciples in these words:
“Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.”
And Mark says of the Lord:
“For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”
And Luke on the same also has a similar expression, introducing the Lord questioning his disciples, and admonishing them, in this way: “But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The CHRIST of God. And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” And again in a different place, he introduces the Lord addressing the disciples thus: “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished, for he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated and spitted on: [41v] and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” Behold, from Matthew, Mark and Luke, how the Lord most clearly rose on the third day from his execution, which was immediately followed by his burial on the same day before the Sabbath in the evening.
2 But some people will bring up against us arguments from the writings of certain authors, which however are of little value, especially if they seem to contradict, in however trifling a manner, the intelligence of the gospel spirit. And firstly from Ambrose, defending the position that the Lord rose at night, in his exposition of this: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week”2. “Firstly, therefore, we must investigate how it is that it is written: ‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week’”. And he adds: “For he did not rise on the day of the Sabbath (for they rested on the day of the Sabbath, according to the commandment), but after the day of the Sabbath, and indeed at night.”3
3 Here we firstly say that it is not written that the Lord rose “in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week”, but that the women came then to see the tomb. For this is what Matthew says: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Although even if the Lord had risen in that night which follows the Sabbath, this does not mean that he would not have risen on the third day, for the custom of the Hebrews is to start their natural day from the beginning of the night, and night, [42r] for the Hebrews, precedes the created day, as it is written: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” And so in this way, since the Lord died on the day before the Sabbath, and since he lay in the tomb for the whole of the Sabbath,
if he had risen in the night which followed the Sabbath, which is the beginning of the third day, without doubt he would have risen on the third day.
1 - Probably a reference to Erasmus' 1516 Annotations on Mark 16. 14, referring back to Mark 16.9 (Reeve I, pp. 147-148; ASD VI-5, p. 434), where Erasmus had cited Jerome in his Letters to Hedibia [Ad Hedibiam iii, Epistularium II, ed.cit., p. 481; cf. Erasmus’ Jerome edition, vol. IV, fo. 64r-v). Jerome had noted doubts about the authenticity of the last part of Mark 16, and alternatively suggested punctuating Mark 16. 9 in such a way as to separate the Resurrection from the appearance to Mary Magdalen. For Erasmus’ comment see above, Introduction, p. 56, n. 176. Several points in the De Triduo can be read as replies to Erasmus (cf. above, p. 56 sq.), for example, below, p. 263, n. 6; p. 299, n. 51; p. 303, nn. 63 and 64; and also in the Disceptatio Secunda, below, p. 449, n. 38. Lefevre may also have been thinking of the De Triduo Christi of Paul of Middelburg - see above, p. 54.
(SA note: some of the material to check is p. 176 of this book, and the Paul of Middelburg material, and the Erasmus Annotation from the Anne Reeve book.)
2 - Matthew 28. 1.
3 - Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam, x, ca. 150, ed. cit., p. 388. For Lefevre’s arguments for and against Ambrose in this passage in his pamphlets on the Magdalen, see above, p. 199, n. 45, and below, p. 475 sq.