The Sign of Jonas

Justin Martyr, a second-century Father and apologist, recalls in his Dialogue with Trypho the Lord’s answer to those who asked for a sign. He says that, spoken obscurely, it was to be understood as a promise of rising on the third day after the crucifixion. It bears on the literal sense of the sign.

And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah.’ And since He spoke this obscurely, it was to be understood by the audience that after His crucifixion He should rise again on the third day.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and Father of the Church, cites Jonas in Against Heresies: cast into the deep and swallowed, he was by the command of God thrown out safe upon the land. He treats it as an event in which God preserved a man, and so bears on the literal sense.

If, however, any one imagine it impossible that men should survive for such a length of time, and that Elias was not caught up in the flesh, but that his flesh was consumed in the fiery chariot, let him consider that Jonah, when he had been cast into the deep, and swallowed down into the whale’s belly, was by the command of God again thrown out safe upon the land.

Tertullian, in On the Resurrection of the Flesh, argues that Jonas came forth uninjured from the fish in both flesh and soul, though three days would have sufficed to consume him. He takes it as a proof of divine power over the body, and so affirms the literal event.

Now I apprehend that in the case of Jonah we have a fair proof of this divine power, when he comes forth from the fish’s belly uninjured in both his natures—his flesh and his soul. No doubt the bowels of the whale would have had abundant time during three days for consuming and digesting Jonah’s flesh, quite as effectually as a coffin, or a tomb, or the gradual decay of some quiet and concealed grave; only that he wanted to prefigure even those beasts ( which symbolize ) especially the men who are wildly opposed to the Christian name, or the angels of iniquity, of whom blood will be required by the full exaction of an avenging judgment.

Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, notes that the sign given was in its way a sign from heaven, though asked by those who tempted him. He joins the three days of Jonas to the three days of the Son of man in the heart of the earth. It bears on the literal sense of what sign was given.

But the sign of Jonah, in truth, according to their question, was not merely a sign but also a sign from heaven; so that even to those who tempted Him and sought a sign from heaven He, nevertheless, out of His own great goodness gave the sign. For if, as Jonah passed three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so the Son of man did in the heart of the earth, and after this rose up from it,—whence but from heaven shall we say that the sign of the resurrection of Christ came?

Ambrose, Doctor of the Church, writes in his Exposition of the Christian Faith that a sign is given not of the Godhead but of the Incarnation, and cites the prophet’s word to the king, “Behold a Virgin shall conceive.” It bears on the literal sense of what kind of sign was given.

A sign of the Godhead then is not given, but only of the Incarnation. Thus when about to speak of the Incarnation the prophet says: “Ask thee a sign.” And when the king had said: “I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord,” the answer was: “Behold a Virgin shall conceive.”

Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church, says in his homily on Matthew that the Lord did not speak openly of his rising, since they would have mocked, but intimated it so that they might believe he had foreknown it. It explains in the literal sense why the answer was veiled.

Thus, He said not indeed openly that He should rise again, since they would have even laughed Him to scorn, but He intimated it in such manner, that they might believe Him to have foreknown it. For as to their being aware of it, they say to Pilate, “That deceiver said,” these are their words, “while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise again;” and yet we know His disciples were ignorant of this; even as they had been beforehand more void of understanding than these: wherefore also these became self-condemned.

Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church, is cited in the Catena Aurea of Aquinas. He explains that the three days and three nights are not whole days in hell but part of the preparation day, the whole sabbath and part of the Lord’s day. It settles the literal reckoning of the three days.

Not that He remained three whole days and three nights in hell, but that this be understood to imply a part of the preparation day, and of the Lord’s day, and the whole sabbath day.

Jerome, in the Catena Aurea, compares the preaching of Jonas with that of Christ: the Ninevites repented, and one greater than Jonas is here. He notes that on the Septuagint reading Jonas preached three days. It explains the comparison the Lord draws, in the literal sense.

Not by a sentence of judgment, but by the comparison of their example; as He adds, “For they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.” This word ‘hic’ is to be taken as an adverb of place, not as a pronoun. Jonas (according to the LXX) preached for three days, I for this so long time; he to the Assyrians an unbelieving nation, I to God’s own people the Jews; he preached with his voice only, doing no miracles, I, doing so many wonders, am falsely accused as Beelzebub.

Augustine, Doctor of the Church, answers in his Letter 102 an objection to the story of Jonas: either all miracles wrought by divine power are incredible, or this one may be believed. He joins it to the resurrection on the third day. It defends the literal sense.

To this I reply, that either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed. The resurrection of Christ Himself upon the third day would not be believed by us, if the Christian faith was afraid to encounter Pagan ridicule.

Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, takes the Lord’s words about the sign of Jonas in the Summa Theologiae to mean that they received no sign such as they sought from heaven, not that none was given. He cites Chrysostom. It bears on the literal sense of why a sign was both refused and given.

These words, "a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas," mean, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.), that "they did not receive a sign such as they sought, viz. from heaven": but not that He gave them no sign at all. Or that "He worked signs not for the sake of those whom He knew to be hardened, but to amend others." Therefore those signs were given, not to them, but to others.

Lapide, on Matthew, explains the three natural days as parts of days: the end of Friday, the whole of Saturday and the beginning of the Lord’s day. He cites the Hebrew way of reckoning sacred days. It works out the literal count of three days and three nights.

You must consider these three natural days to be not whole days but parts of days, namely, the latter part of Friday; when Christ being taken down from the Cross, was laid in the sepulchre, the whole of Saturday, and part of the Lord’s day. For although the Hebrews reckoned their civil days from one sun-rise to another, like the Chaldeans and the Persians (Beda de ration. temp.), yet they computed their sacred days, such as the Passover, from evening to evening.

Challoner’s annotation on the verse says that the three days and nights are not complete, but parts taken according to the Hebrew way of counting, from evening to evening. His annotations accompany the Douay-Rheims Bible. It gives the short answer on the literal count.

Not complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights, viz., from evening to evening.

Haydock’s annotation on Jonas, citing Calmet, observes that the term for the fish is given to any great sea monster, and that the species matters little provided the miracle be admitted. It sets aside, in the literal sense, the question of what creature it was.

But that term is given to any great sea monster. Yet it is not of much importance what species of fish be meant, provided the miracle be admitted. (Calmet)

Haydock’s annotation on Luke renders the Lord’s answer: instead of a prodigy in the heavens, one in the bosom of the earth, more wonderful than that of the prophet who came out alive from the belly of the fish, and a return alive three days after death. It states what was promised as the sign.

Instead of a prodigy in the heavens or in the air, I will give you one in the bosom of the earth, more wonderful than that of the prophet Jonas, who came out alive from the belly of the fish, which had swallowed him. Thus I will return alive from the bosom of the earth three days after my death.