It is kind of nice being able to correspond with a priest here on the OCF
It's alittle surprising to me that our celebration of the crucifixion on Wednesday evening is because
the entire cycle of services from Palm Sunday afternoon through Holy Saturday afternoon has been shifted by 1/3 to 1/2 a day forward. Thus, in the divine services we celebrate the events of Holy Thursday morning/afternoon on Holy Wednesday evening; Holy Thursday evening on Holy Thursday morning; Holy Friday morning/afternoon on Holy Thursday evening; Holy Friday evening on Holy Friday afternoon; etc.
It makes sense that "We call it celebrating "in anticipation." Whatever it is, it is how we celebrate at present."
But I don't know why "We call it celebrating in "God's time.""
or really why we make a 1/3 or 1/2 day shifts in celebration.
It seems that if an event occurred at a certain moment in the calendar, then we would celebrate it at that moment. And if it's in anticipation of the moment, then it suggests that God's time is somehow anticipatory.
Holy week is an interesting mix like you say, particularlyacross the globe. It seems like the calendar-celebration shift you mentioned might explain why in Jerusalem they celebrate the Paschal "Sabbath of Lights" on a Saturday. That is, the "Sabbath of Lights" seems to be a festival related to the Resurrection of Saturday-night / Sunday-morning, but it's celebrated Saturday afternoon. I was confused about this when I was writing my blogpost about the Sabbath of Light (rakovskii.livejournal.com)
What do you think?
It takes some effort to keep straight in my head the events of Holy Week, the celebration of those events, and the service-shifts you mentioned together with the fact that the Holy Land in the 1st century had an opposite order of day-night.
But it seems like it makes things messier that "Vespers for Friday (the traditional evening service on Thursday night that marks the beginning of the Friday Liturgical Day) takes place Thursday morning",
because Such a shift seems to actually be the opposite of the trend of a shift in services that you mentioned.
Although it's true that "there is a bit of consistency borne out in the choice of hymns and Gospel readings: even though the Vespers for Friday takes place in the morning on Thursday, the hymns are for Thursday evening, not Friday. So in some ways (by the solar cycle) Holy Thursday evening begins our celebration of Holy Friday. In some ways (by a "traditional" liturgical cycle) Holy Thursday morning begins our celebration of Holy Friday."Father, Bless.
Thanks for sharing what you were told. It is funny how sometimes things we were told turn out to be rarely-known and valuable, and other times, apparently invented.
It's actually true that the Friday Crucifixion, celebrated Thursday night in the normal way of counting, is:
technically celebrated on Friday, since the day ends Liturgically at sunset... (typically Vespers) So even though today we call the day "Thursday" back in the days of the Early Christians, it would be considered Friday (or rather, the beginning of Friday).
Perhaps one problem is that, as Fr. George
pointed out, we celebrate the events of "Holy Thursday evening on Holy Thursday morning; Holy Friday morning/afternoon on Holy Thursday evening", at least one of which would cut across the early Christians' days-counting system you mentioned.Peace.
Hello, you have some good knowledge about early Christianity.
Regarding my statement "One reason I accept a Sunday resurrection is because Saturday was the day of rest, so it seems Jesus would have "slept" that day.",
you pointed out:
"But Jesus did often have a different interpretation of the day of rest - he performed miracles, etc. on the Sabbath."
That's a good point. The rule was that the Sabbath is a day of rest, but Jesus did miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus' miracles were good deeds, and it seems that morally speaking, Jesus wouldn't have to abstain from good deeds on the Sabbath. Plus, he also picked wheat or grain on the sabbath.
Still, it seems more likely that if Jesus was going to pick a day on which to rest, it seems more likely that he would choose the Sabbath on which to sleep.
I share your sentiments that "I guess we can't really know exactly when he arose - and I am not sure if that detail really matters? We know that it happened.",
except maybe we could get a time machine and find out.
However, I doubt that simply knowing that the early Christians celebrated the Divine Liturgy on Sunday is enough. It's possible that they weren't sure if it happened on what date, or simple chose to have the DL on a different date than the one on which it happened. Rather it would be alot better to know that they had the DL on Sunday and that they also believed that the day they celebrated the DL was the day of the Resurrection.
On the other hand, Gospels said that the resurrection was on the first day, which means Sunday:
Mark 16:9 (KJV) says "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
IMO, an assertion that this means "the first day after the [any] Sabbath",
and then to propose that this wasn't a normal first day is less likely.All the Best
PeterTheAleut and lizzyd,
Well, I'm sure you guys have a better handle than I do on them.
But still, they throw quotes around so much that I am doubtful that protestants who would deny that Sunday was the day of Resurrection "base their doctrine on the day of the week the Resurrection occurred on calculations not based on anything found in the Scriptures."
On the other hand, the contrary evidence is so strong, and such a view is such a rare one, I think they're mistaken that Sunday wasn't the "first day" described as the Resurrection day.Peace