Eamon Younis: From Slight Peg To Cornerstone To Capstone: The Resurrection Of Christ On “The Third Day” According To The Scriptures

By Stephen G. Dempster

[Stephen G. Dempster is Professor of Religious Studies at Crandall University in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. This article is a revised version of a paper he presented in the biblical theological section of the ETS meeting in Milwaukee, Wis., November 2012.

The author dedicates this article to an esteemed friend: “I would like to dedicate this essay to a real pioneer in the field of Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, and most of all a personal friend and a brother in Christ: John Sailhamer.”]

The NT evidence suggests that in its earliest texts Jesus was to be raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that his resurrection is inextricably bound up with the resurrection of his people. For example, Paul, writing to the Corinthians in the mid first century, states: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4).[1] This text reads very much like an early creed and is thus probably based on one of the oldest documents of the Christian church.[2] Threaded through the later NT texts is the belief that the death and resurrection of Jesus was linked to a three day time period,[3] and this was regarded as not being a surprise, aberration, or twist in the divine plan but something which at its very heart was grounded in a reading of Israel’s Scriptures. But the question remains as to what Scripture text is being considered by the NT authors since none is ever explicitly identified. It is true that Jesus likened his own death and resurrection to the person of Jonah and his experience of deliverance from the belly of the great fish, but there is no specific prediction in this “sign of Jonah” (Matt 12:38–42; 16:1–4; Luke 11:29–32).[4] It is also true that many interpreters from as far back as Tertullian believe that Hos 6:2 functions as the prediction that the resurrection of Christ fulfills: “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.”[5] But in the memorable words of Douglas Hill, “This seems a very slight peg to hang so great a weight on.”[6] And in the frank words of another scholar, the peg is invisible and “cannot be the source of the three-day theme inasmuch as the New Testament is completely silent about it.”[7]

Coinciding with the resurrection theme is also significantly a temple theme, associated again with OT prophecy. Paul describes the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) and the temple of the living God (1 Cor 3:16, 17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21), and the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor 15 cannot be separated from the resurrection of believers. After all, the resurrection of Christ is the first fruits, the promise of the resurrection of believers to come (1 Cor 15:20). The further bond between the resurrection and the temple is underscored in the accusation at the trial of Jesus before his crucifixion, namely, his claim to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58). John corroborates the accuracy of this claim when he depicts Jesus cleansing the physical temple and stating afterwards that he would destroy it and rebuild it in three days. To the objection by the audience that Herod’s temple had taken forty-six years to build, John remarks that Jesus had spoken about his body, and that the disciples were enlightened about this fact after the resurrection when they read about this in the Scripture (John 2:20–22). The singular reference to Scripture may be a reference to the entire sweep of Israel’s sacred documents, but here probably means that John had a particular text in mind, although not necessarily an isolated one. Nonetheless, it is clear that Jesus’ resurrection is connected with a temple theme as well as the three day motif. In the OT the temple is primarily where God’s presence is located, and it is the source of everlasting life, as many of the Psalms clearly show (Pss 23:6; 26:8; 27:4; 36:8; 84; 133; 134).[8]

To give at least Douglas Hill his due, the aim of this article is to consider the NT evidence again as well as the scholarly assessment of the evidence, and then to think through the question of the OT basis of the resurrection by looking at the narrative sweep of Israel’s Scriptures, to see if a different picture emerges of passages like Hos 6:2. This is really an exercise in biblical theology, which is experiencing a recovery as a means to understanding the Scriptures as an organic unity.[9] It is my desire to see if this can be a fruitful method for shedding light on a notorious crux in interpretation. To anticipate the argument, Hos 6:2 is not so much “a slight peg to hang so great a weight on,” but rather it is a cornerstone in a building of a great temple of texts, whose capstone is the resurrection of the Son of God himself.[10]

I. The New Testament

Although the NT never explicitly identifies a prophecy from the OT that the resurrection of Christ fulfills, the fact that the resurrection on the third day fulfilled Israel’s Scriptures is everywhere apparent. As mentioned before, it is completely interwoven through the NT witness. Perhaps nowhere is it more clearly presented than in Luke’s two-volume history. In the very middle of his work, Luke puts an exclamation mark on the resurrection as the fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures. Cleverly he shows that the risen Jesus is seen in the flesh when eyes are attuned to him first in Israel’s sacred writings—not as some historical aside but as their climactic goal (Luke 24:15–53). It is no coincidence that Jesus appears incognito to two of his disciples on his resurrection day—the third day after his death—on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:21). But the two disciples cannot really identify their travelling guest because their vision is impaired. They express their amazement at this strange traveller’s ignorance of current events surrounding the death and reported resurrection of their former Master. But it is the unknown visitor who wastes no time in expressing his amazement at their failure to see the real significance of the recent events:

“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25–27)

Their travelling guest locates their failure to perceive the significance of the recent events and his own identity in their inept inability to read the Scriptures properly. They recognize this later, and Luke presents a nice word play which shows their the eyes were opened to see Jesus when the Scriptures were opened to them by Jesus:

Then their eyes were opened (διηνοίχθησαν) and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened (διήνοιγεν) the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:31–32)

When Jesus next appears, it is to the rest of the disciples who also have a problem with vision, not this time with recognizing him in the flesh because they have already been alerted by the other two disciples who have been convinced (Luke 24:35–49). Yet they do not really believe the reality of the person before their eyes until they also see him in the Scriptures. Their doubts have been alleviated not only by seeing Jesus eating food—he is thus no mere apparition—but also by the fact that, like his previous hosts on the Emmaus road, their minds have also been opened to understand the Scriptures of Israel (τότε διήνοιξεν αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν τοῦ συνιέναι τὰς γραφάς [Luke 24:45]). They have been introduced to the same “crash course in biblical theology” that their two fellow disciples were taught, and the “third day” has been an essential part of the curriculum.[11] Jesus, the Master Exegete, has helped his disciples to understand the Scriptures. Jesus has connected what have seemed like all the independent “dots” of the OT—the stories, the tales, the laws, the blessings and curses, the prophecies, the hymns and laments, the genealogies and lists, the proverbs and chronicles—and has shown how everything makes sense: “The whole story of Israel builds to its narrative climax in Jesus, the Messiah, who had to suffer before entering into his glory. That is what Jesus tries to teach them on the road.”[12] And once they have seen Jesus in their Bible, how else could it in fact be?

But Jesus is not just the Master Exegete who opens the Scriptures to the disciples; he is the Lord of Glory who is worshiped in community—thus the temple theme—when he breaks bread with his disciples. Luke notes twice—hardly a coincidence—that the disciples’ eyes were opened to recognize the resurrected Jesus “in the breaking of bread” (Luke 24:30–31, 35). Thus it is that the risen Jesus serves communion to the first gathering of his church. There is probably also in this text an allusion to the eyes of Adam and Eve being opened to a new world of brokenness, alienation, sin, and death as a result of eating the forbidden fruit.[13] Eating the bread at the table of the Eucharist reverses that curse, for now the eyes of the disciples are opened in a new way to see their resurrected Lord and a new world of unity, healing, faith, and, above all, life. They can now re-enter Eden; the veil of the inner sanctuary of the temple has been ripped apart (Luke 23:45; cf. Matt 27:51; 15:38). The resurrection means new life with God. They are then encouraged to wait for the promise from above, which will constitute them as a living temple, inhabited by God himself (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:1–8). They then can go into the entire world to bring the mighty river of God’s life of blessing to the nations, thus fulfilling the promise of blessing and life to Abraham that in his seed the entire world would be blessed. Perhaps here is that temple predicted by the prophets to which the nations will come and finally become one genuine “United Nations” under God (Isa 2:1–5; Mic 4:1–5).

II. The “Third Day” In New Testament Interpretation

The problem of course for the disciples before their crash course and for many scholars since is the same problem of vision. Jesus seems to be seeing different things in his Bible—at least as far as the third day is concerned. There have been a number of ways of dealing with this evidence. First of all is the denial of the claim. There is no problem finding an OT text because the claim was never made by the NT writers; scholars reached such a conclusion based on a faulty interpretation. For example, in the first text we looked at above, 1 Cor 15:4, it is claimed that the stress is not so much on the time of the resurrection but on the fact of resurrection, not so much “based on any Old Testament scripture but historical fact.”[14] The third day is simply when it happened. As Harvey McArthur explains it: “Jesus rose from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures, and—as we remember—this occurred on the third day.”[15] But this is difficult to square with the evidence in the text in which the relevant phrase is clearly parallel with the same phrase in the previous verse:

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς

καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

In both parts of the parallelism the phrases “according to the Scriptures” clearly qualify each of the statements they follow. McArthur argues convincingly that the text is to be understood in the following way: “The Scriptures taught us that Jesus would be raised from the dead, and they taught us also that this would occur on the third day.”[16] Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence in the later NT texts supports this understanding.

Secondly, some claim that the evidence from Israel’s Scriptures was hermeneutically hijacked by Christians rather than honestly interpreted with its intended meaning,[17] the result of an imposition of a christological paradigm upon the scriptural data,[18] an unconscionable distortion of the original meaning of the OT.[19] But this is really difficult to prove concerning this particular issue since the NT writers never specifically cite any text predicting a third day resurrection.[20]

Thirdly, in the absence of any explicit evidence cited from the OT until a later time in church history,[21] some have conjectured that the tradition arose on other grounds and was later attributed to Scripture, those other grounds being the contemporary “widely prevalent view that spirits of the dead lingered about three days near the body or the tomb before finally going away to Hades.”[22] Martin Pickup in a recent article has collected the evidence in later Judaism for the corollary view that the dead body only begins to decay after three days, arguing that such a Jewish conceptual background can be traced back to the first century a.d.[23] This explains, for example, Mary’s remark to Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus that to unseal it would produce an unbearable odor since the corpse was already four days old (John 11:39).[24] The fact that Jesus was raised on the third day meant that his body did not suffer corruption and therefore that he was sinless and could atone for the sins of others.[25] However, the problem remains that it is difficult to accept that a belief in a contemporary practice would become the sole basis for Christ’s resurrection, which is explicitly mentioned as the fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In a variant view of the third position, some have argued that the OT evidence for a third day resurrection is therefore implicit.[26] Peter’s sermon at Pentecost is based on the LXX of Ps 16:10 (LXX 15:10), and he argues that Ps 16 is about David’s messianic descendant of whom David prophesied that his body would not experience “corruption” (Acts 2:24–36). The LXX reads with the contemporary NIV: “. . . because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.” On the other hand, the Hebrew reads with the RSV: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” The LXX is obviously interpreting the Hebrew, and thus the early church could interpret this as a prophecy of resurrection in three days because of the belief that flesh only begins to decay after three days. Therefore, since Jesus was not dead for three complete days, the psalm is a depiction of his resurrection on the third day.[27] But there are too many unknowns about this belief and too many logical leaps in interpretation to reach the conclusion that Ps 16 is the prophecy about third day resurrection. Psalm 16 is clearly used as a prophecy of resurrection and certainly resurrection after a short time period, but it is silent about the exact time of resurrection.[28]

Fourthly, there are some scholars who claim that the reference to the Scriptures refers back to the predictions that Jesus made in the Gospels regarding the third day, and that these sayings themselves had the status of Scripture. But this is difficult to square with the fact that by the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians, there were no definable texts which could be considered Scripture, except perhaps Testimonia, collections of texts from the OT and presumably early oral traditions of Christ’s teachings which would later form a substratum of the Gospels. But these latter would not have been elevated to the status of Scripture at this early time. Moreover, those predictions of Jesus about his resurrection were obviously understood by him to be rooted in the OT. On the road to Emmaus Jesus was clearly referring to the fact that the resurrection on the third day was found in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Jacques Dupont rightly describes this fourth view as an “indefensible hypothesis.”[29]

Fifthly, there is the belief that such early Testimonia would have contained the exact references in the OT Scriptures to the resurrection on the third day, but such references have now disappeared, and so one can only guess.[30] This, of course, does not answer the question of the identity of the relevant passage(s). It only says that once upon a time the early church knew.

Finally there is the view that the third day refers to “the day after the Sabbath” after the Passover in Lev 23:10–11, when the first fruits of the barley harvest are to be offered.[31] Thus, if the crucifixion occurred on Passover (Friday), the day after the Sabbath after Passover would be the third day (counting part of the day on Friday as a day). This would be an apt harvesting link with the theme of 1 Cor 15 with the resurrection being a type of first fruits of the final resurrection. But it would depend on a number of factors, one being that this would only work if the Passover was the day before the Sabbath, so it could hardly be a prediction. Moreover the expression “the third day” is conspicuously absent from the Leviticus passage.[32]

All of which leads to the main OT text that is cited from the early church up to the modern period by those who believe that the resurrection is prophesied in the Scriptures of Israel. It is Hos 6:2: “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” (RSV). But Douglas Hill’s memorable comment about this text being such a slight peg on which to hang so great a weight obviously presents a formidable obstacle to such an interpretation. Many also feel that it is just not the most natural interpretation since it refers to the nation and not to the Messiah.[33]

To be sure, if Israel’s Scriptures are read in a certain way, Hos 6:2 is clearly a slight peg indeed, isolated and detached from all of the Scriptures around it, and perhaps the only explicit text to connect third day and resurrection. Indeed, Alexander Samely speaks of the proverbialization of Scripture in ancient Jewish interpretation, in which texts are read not as integral parts of an organic unity but rather as independent entities—a sort of ancient equivalent of “proof-texting.”[34]

But Jesus on the Emmaus road is clearly reading the Scriptures as an all-encompassing story in which there is not one slight peg but numerous ones, and the reference to the third day and resurrection in Hosea probably functions as a linchpin bringing many texts together, or to switch the metaphor, more like a cornerstone in a building into which many textual stones are set in place. Thus, if astute readers were paying attention to the storyline of Israel’s Scriptures, they would be conditioned by such a structure to expect a final signal event of God’s salvation for his people to be on the third day—a sort of capstone for the temple. As for the text from Hosea referring to the nation and not to the Messiah, that is not really a problem since the nation and its Messiah are bound together inextricably. The fate of the king, for example, is often the fate of his people.[35] We see this principle in effect when Matthew applies a text referring first of all to the nation of Israel’s exodus from Egypt to signify Jesus’ departure from Egypt as God’s greater Son in whom all the hopes of the nation resided.[36]

It is this particular angle that Karl Lehman explored in his ground-breaking study more than four decades ago.[37] Lehmann demonstrated that there is a fundamental motif and pattern throughout the OT for deliverance and salvation after a period of three days or on the third day.[38] For example, Abraham’s son Isaac is spared on the third day on Mount Moriah, and Israel is “spared” its terror on the third day at Sinai. Thus the particular text in Hosea fits into this general pattern. Lehmann also examines the thirty references in the LXX in which “on the third day” occurs in the Greek, a phrase which surprisingly had not been the object of any special study.[39] His conclusion after surveying all these passages is that

the third day brings about the turn to something new and better, when God’s mercy and justice create a new “era” of salvation, life, and victory; the third day brings about a state of affairs decisively to its final, historical resolution through God’s saving action.[40]

Similarly Edward Bode writing just after Lehmann and in dependence on him, argues that the “answer to the vexing problem . . . lies in the general Old Testament notion enforced by targum and midrash, that the third day is the day of salvation and deliverance.”[41] He claims that this interpretation found in these later extra-biblical works is early since

it would seem strange to us that such an explicit development of the third-day salvation theme would have developed only after the Christian preaching of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. Such a post-Christian emphasis would only add to the strength of the Christian cause.[42]

Bode concludes then that the tradition cited in 1 Cor 15:4 regarding resurrection in three days

has its source in the Old Testament literary motif of the third day as the day of salvation, deliverance and divine manifestation. A fortiori, God would not leave the just man, his only begotten and beloved son, in distress for more than three days. He had not done so in the cases of Abraham and Isaac and the long line after them. Moreover, on the third day God manifested himself at Sinai. On the third day he also manifested his son as the risen Lord.[43]

Although described as a “bomb” dropped on the field of NT studies, the explosive power of Lehmann’s excellent work was contained to a great degree by the fact that he relied heavily on Jewish exegetical work in the Targums and Midrash, which are demonstrably late, at least in their written form. However, one would think that this “late” exegesis would never have arisen given the theological ammunition it would provide for Christians.[44] Moreover, the fact of the matter is that the texts which led to the exegesis are found in the Scriptures themselves, revealing “an idea which makes perfect biblical sense.”[45] To use a mining analogy, the gold is there no matter who extracts it.[46]

Michael Russell, in an insightful recent study, develops the arguments of both Lehmann and Bode further by showing the distinctiveness of the third day pattern as over against other numerical patterns, thereby indicating that the time period has an important semantic function to define the necessary time limit to prove something, that is, the elapsing of “sufficient time for certainty.”[47] “Three days is a period which represents a ‘safety margin.’ Events can be considered firmly established once they have been established for three days.”[48] This is the case, e.g., in establishing someone’s faith (Abraham in Gen 22), the permanence of a plague (Pharaoh in Exod 10:22), a person’s permanent departure (Elijah in 2 Kgs 2:17), or, in the case of Jesus, the certainty of his death (Matt 10:19; 27:63). Thus, Russell concludes that “while any time margin is significant, ‘third day’ time margins are doubly significant.”[49] Moreover, his analysis of the data observes “that the most striking element of the ‘third day’ passages is the idea of ‘death threat removed,’ or ‘climactic reversal from death to life.’”[50] He also concludes that the one passage in the OT where resurrection and three days coincide (Hos 6:2) shows that “the OT narrative associations of the third day come to rest in this passage.”[51]

N. T. Wright’s recent and stimulating comprehensive work on the resurrection largely ignores this line of research, perhaps because of the historical focus of his own project. Possibly the focus on the prediction of the resurrection in the OT might suggest too easily that the resurrection was more of a theological datum than a historical one.[52] At various times in his work Wright suggests the fruitfulness of a biblical theological study, particularly in reference to the “slight peg” of Hos 6:2:

Where the Masoretic text has ‘After two days he will revive us, on the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his presence,’ the Targum has ‘He will revive us for the days of consolation which are to come; on the day of the resurrection of the dead he shall revive us and we shall live in his presence.’ This is one of several Jewish texts, from the Bible through the second-Temple period and beyond, which speak of the ‘third day’ as the time when Israel’s god will accomplish his work of salvation and/or resurrection.[53]

And while Wright makes it clear that Paul is not “proof-texting” in 1 Cor 15, he does not seem to follow up the importance of the resurrection on the third day by showing its development as the goal of the entire sweep of biblical narrative, except in a general way.[54] His work remains a masterpiece of historical argumentation but might profit from a more biblical theological framework.[55]

III. Third Day And Resurrection: Building The Temple

The works of Lehmann, Bode, Russell, and Wright cry out to be fleshed out with a richer biblical theological description. The work of the first three scholars draws attention to the many individual texts that focus on the number “three,” and in the last there is concern for the proof of the resurrection as well as suggestive development for it as the climax of Israel’s history. But missing from the studies is a connection with the theme of temple—the experience of worship in the manifest presence of God as an important element of this complex. In this study I wish to take up the matter again and connect the disparate pieces by looking at the narrative sweep of Israel’s Scriptures through a biblical theological lens. The first explicit text to bring the motifs of resurrection, the third day, and the people of God together in an explicit way is Hos 6:2, and it is the argument of this study that this text functions more like a cornerstone mined from a rich quarry of texts dealing with either resurrection or the three day motif, which are used to construct a temple that awaits the capstone of completion.

To look for a precedent for a biblical theological method is to look no further than the Master Exegete himself on the Emmaus road, who traced the whole sequence of the events of his life and death, culminating in his “life after life after death.”[56] The Hebrew canon that he used is structured in a story-like manner as it has a core of poetry framed within a large narrative sweep.[57] And when this three-tiered structure is studied it will be seen that at extremely strategic points in Israel’s history, the nation or one of its leaders is delivered from death on the third day, and that at times the temple and worship are involved in significant ways, so much so that this typology of deliverance becomes transformed into a powerful eschatological hope connected with resurrection and temple.

Before considering the story, it should be pointed out that the issue of canon is not at stake here. The problem was not that Jesus used a different set of texts than his disciples or that his disciples used a different set of texts than the contemporary Judaisms of their day; the problem was that somehow they did not see what Jesus saw. The various groups and sects virtually all used a canon whose limits and authority had been settled.[58] In my judgment that is one of the underlying reasons for a closed canon by the time of the first century a.d. No one argued the boundaries of the canon. Rather, the issue was a hermeneutical one: how do we read the canon that everyone has in common?[59] As Seitz sums up the “dictum” of Hans von Campenhausen:

In the early church the problem was not how to square faith with an Old Testament regarded as outmoded but the reverse. How, in the light of Scripture everywhere regarded as an authoritative and a privileged witness to God and His truth, could it be said that Jesus was in accordance and was one with the Father who sent him?[60]

1. The Torah: Laying The Foundations Of The Temple

As one begins this study it should be pointed out that not every third day reference carries a theologically significant meaning. For example, in Numbers the leader of the tribe of Zebulun brought an offering to dedicate the altar on the third day, and his offering was no more significant than all the others (Num 7:24).[61] There are other similar examples. At the same time, it is remarkable how often the use of the third day/three days/resurrection motif has important biblical theological significance.

The place to begin this study on the resurrection and the third day is “in the beginning” where God is depicted as the great life-giver par excellence in Gen 1 and 2. In the beginning God’s transcendent word pushes back the darkness of tōhû wābōhû with his creative light and then on the third day commands the limitless ocean to retreat so that ground can emerge from its watery grave and vegetation spring to life (Gen 1:2–3, 9–13).[62] Three days later on the sixth day of creation humanity is planned in the divine heart and is created in God’s very image to rule and give life (Gen 1:26–28).[63] Read in conjunction with Gen 2, this image takes the form of the man being shaped from the ground and being inspired by the divine breath—a type of resurrection. For the woman to be created, the man must be mortally wounded and “die” as the divine surgeon induces him into a deep sleep. From his body is extracted a bone which is crafted into a female partner.[64] Just as the man (Adam) emerges from the ’ădāmâ Eve emerges from the same ’ădāmâ via Adam, and Adam “wakes up” from his sleep to enter into marriage with his wife. To summarize, the creative word of God gives life, particularly on the third day in each triad of the days in Gen 1.

The theme of temple is also pervasively present in this text as has been shown by recent study. Creation itself is likened to a grand temple which is furnished with God’s image on the sixth day, and is completed on the seventh day when the divine rest occurs on a day which is uniquely blessed and sanctified.[65] Similarly, the Garden of Eden where the first couple make their home has many symbols associating it with the holy sanctuary of the temple.

But corresponding to this note of life there is also the prominence of the tragedy of death in the ensuing chapters following the fateful events of Gen 3. In particular there is the curse of death for the violation of the prohibition in the Garden, and humanity becomes subject to death after this time, returning to the dust from which it came. This death is poignantly depicted not only in these physical terms but also in all the suffering entailed in alienation from each other, from the earth, but most importantly, exile from God’s presence (Gen 2:17; 3:19, 24.).[66] They are banished from the sanctuary which is now guarded by the cherubim with a flaming sword (Gen 3:24). It is impossible to miss an allusion to their expulsion as a banishment and exile from the primal temple of the Garden, whose precincts are guarded by the cherubim. Outside of this “holy of holies” all humanity eventually dies physically—that is the point with the ages given in the early genealogies—with the exception of Enoch, who is “taken” (lāqah) from the power of death (Gen 5:24), and whose name is associated with the later dedication of the tabernacle and temple (Num 7:10, 11, 84, 88; 1 Kgs 8:63=2 Chr 7:5; Ps 30:1), and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 12:27[2x]). Enoch, life, and temple become integrally linked. There are no actual literal examples of resurrection after death in the text of the Torah except towards the end where resurrection is associated with the transcendent power of God (Deut 32:39).[67]

But if a cue can be taken from other texts and the work of scholars such as Jon Levenson, Othmar Keel, and Byron Wheaton, the ancient Israelite conceptions of death and life should not be viewed in a reductionistic manner as the mere termination of physical existence, a view associated more with notions in modern, western medicine.[68] In my judgment this is the major problem with the predominant view of scholarship which argues that belief in resurrection was an extremely late development in the OT.[69] It constructs the theoretical net of resurrection belief in a certain western way so that it is only able to catch a certain type of “fish,” and then it concludes that other smaller examples of the same fish that have slipped through its mesh do not exist. The problem of course is with the mesh, not the existence of the fish.

The biblical view, however, is far more dynamic. Thus, there is a sense in which the world before the flood is a world filled with violence and curse, death and exile, and it is buried under the waters only to be reborn after its baptism by deluge (Gen 6–8). The call of Abraham and Sarah is really a promise to bring new life into the world of the dead as five times in three short verses the word blessing resounds, and what is this but a point by point reversal of the five-fold curse heard in the previous chapters? The secret to blessing and life for a dead world is found in Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:1–3; cf. Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25).[70] As if to underline the universal significance of this promise, the particular promise that the entire world will experience blessing through Abraham is repeated four more times in Genesis, for a total of five occurrences of this promise (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14).[71] Is this not a form of resurrection for a dead and cursed world?

One of the most important acts of Abraham when he reaches the land of promise is to build an altar and worship Yahweh (Gen 12:7). This becomes a practice as he journeys throughout the land (Gen 12:8; cf. 13:4; 13:18). Yahweh appears to him in a special way at these altar sites. This will later culminate in the old patriarch building an altar on the future site of the temple no less—on the third day (Gen 22:9)! If the promise involves life, the worship of Yahweh is clearly involved in that life.

At the same time there are huge obstacles standing in the way to the fulfillment of this promise: the sterility of the matriarchs (Gen 11:30; 15:2–4; 16:1–2; 18:12; 25:19–21; 30:1–2) and and their endangerment (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:7–11), a battle against Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14), the genocidal oppression of Egyptian bondage (Exod 1–2), the near disaster of Israel at Sinai in its own original sin (Exod 32–34),[72] the sudden death of Israelite priests as they represent the people before the bronze altar of the tabernacle (Lev 10), and the death of the people in the wilderness after the debacle at Kadesh-Barnea (Num 14)—all of these obstacles are forms of the powers of death working their destructive force in opposition to the blessing of life. But conversely, the overcoming of sterility in new life with the birth of children (Gen 21; 25:21–26; 29:31–30:35), the protection of the matriarchs from harm (Gen 12:10–20; 20:1–18; 26:7–11), the victory over the Mesopotamian despots (Gen 14), the liberation from Egyptian bondage (Exod 1–15), the intercession of Moses at Sinai (Exod 32–34) and at Kadesh Barnea (Num 14:13–24) as well as the renewal of the covenant on the plains of Moab (Deut 1–34) are all forms of the conquest of these powers of death, and signs of, well—resurrection! In fact this is a point underlined by Paul when he speaks of the birth of Isaac as a form of resurrection:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. (Rom 4:16–21)

Indeed, Westcott states, commenting on the claim in Hebrews that Abraham had faith enough to believe that God would even resurrect Isaac from death if he had been killed, “because the very birth of Isaac some years before had been a ‘resurrection’ since the body of Abraham and the womb of Sarah were considered to be ‘dead.’”[73] Moreover, Levenson, citing Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, mentions how the latter viewed the exodus from Egypt not only as a redemption from Egypt but as “a prototype of an ultimate redemption.” To which Levenson aptly comments, “Beneath this last transformation lies a conviction that so long as human beings are subject to death, they are not altogether free: resurrection is the ultimate and final liberation.”[74] This is an insight to keep in mind as Israel’s story unfolds against the backdrop of the larger story of humanity and a world that is subject to death.

As the storyline of Scripture proceeds, the third day, resurrection, and temple motifs are underlined powerfully as the life-giving promise to the “dead” bodies of Abraham and Sarah is placed in dire jeopardy. Isaac receives a death sentence in the context of a severe test for Abraham (Gen 22:1–19). Will he, the one in whom the promise to bless the world resides, offer up the child of promise—his beloved son—in a sacrificial death on Mount Moriah? Remarkably on the third day after the initial announcement, Abraham passes the critical test and in a sense receives his son’s life back again—and in a sense also his own. The place is of no small consequence as it will later emerge in the biblical story as the place where animals are sacrificed for Israelite sins, on the altar of the temple (Gen 22:1–3; 2 Chr 3:1). A later editor feels the need to underline this important point just in case any obtuse reader or hearer misses the obvious: “By the way [if you hadn’t noticed] we still call this place today the place where the Lord provides [such sacrifices] for us.”[75] Nevertheless, the fact is that a life-and-death ordeal occurs on the third day and a mission is accomplished. God gives back the life on the third day that he had commanded to slay three days before—at the future site of the temple.[76] Perhaps it is the case that “by delivering Isaac from the knife Yahweh promised Abraham that his seed would rise from the dead.”[77]

Thus creation, in more of an implicit manner, and the beginning of the nation of Israel, in an explicit manner, indicate the importance of the third day and new life with the presence of God as the biblical story begins. The idea that should not be missed is the importance of the Abrahamic narrative, for it occurs on a mountain, the future site of the temple, where sacrifices are made. Death and resurrection will in a sense become institutionalized here ritually as the death of lambs provided by God will result in the “resurrection” of Israelites who bow down and worship him. Which Israelite would not see himself or herself in this ancient story? Every future Israelite is surely present in Isaac.

Other such incidents of three day ordeals in Genesis may not be as dramatic for the nation but some of them are quite significant for individuals. In the Joseph story, after the recently imprisoned butler and baker report their dreams to Joseph, their dreams are realized three days later—one is restored to his position while the other is executed (Gen 40). It is the “resurrected” prisoner who leads eventually to Joseph’s being freed from his prison to become a leader in Egypt. Later Joseph tests his brothers by imprisoning them for three days, and then on the third day he releases them to return for Benjamin, and eventually it is their release which brings new life to the entire family (Gen 42:17–18).

In the Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers complex, the three day motif not only frames the basic storyline but has a central place within it. The Israelites have gone down to Egypt where they suffer in the death throes of Egyptian bondage (Exod 1–2). It is no accident that salvation from Egypt later is described frequently in the OT as “going up” (Gen 50:24–25; Exod 20:2; Hos 1:11 [MT 2:2]; 12:14; Mic 6:4). Could “going up” mean more than just departure from the physical location of Egypt? The prophets will have something to say about this later, for example, when Ezekiel “ramps up” this exodus language and uses it to describe Israel “going up” from the grave of exile to worship in a new temple whose river gives life to the world. But that is to move ahead too quickly in the storyline.[78]

In Exodus in Moses’ first appearance to the Pharaoh, he demands that the Israelites be granted a three day journey into the wilderness, specifically to engage in worship—to offer sacrifices to Yahweh (Exod 5:3). A three day distance from their Egyptian prison will give the Israelites the appropriate “space” to worship Yahweh. Pharaoh’s refusal to release them will not ultimately preclude them from worshiping Yahweh on the third day. For the moment this may happen, but later at Sinai, the Israelites will eventually worship their Lord on the third day.[79] When Pharaoh refuses to release them, the forces of death are unleashed upon his country in three triads of plagues whose ninth plague of darkness lasts for three days (Exod 10:23). The tenth plague, which follows “after three days,” is the decisive act of liberation as the Israelite firstborn are granted life because of the death of a lamb, and the Egyptian firstborn are slain (Exod 6–13). Despite the dissimilarities between this event and Isaac’s “resurrection” on Mount Moriah, it remains a fact that every firstborn Israelite son of the nation is spared because of the death of a Passover lamb, whose blood has been spattered upon the “altars” of Israelite dwelling places. The typology is not very subtle.[80]

After deliverance from the waters of the Red Sea—a type of resurrection—the Israelites’ first journey in their new freedom is, of course, nothing less than a three day journey without water. It is Yahweh who once again “comes through” on the third day by providing life in the form of Moses casting a stick into polluted water and thereby purifying it (Exod 15:22–26). Like the test of Abraham, Yahweh tests the Israelites here and promises them “resurrection”—freedom from the sicknesses of Egypt if they follow his laws (Exod 15:25–26).

These events lead up to and culminate in the story of Mount Sinai, which is remarkably also like the story of Abraham on Mount Moriah, as Walter Moberly has observed, for it is only here that the words “testing” and the “fear of God” are found in a theologically significant context in the OT.[81] But there are other noticeable similarities, too. It is particularly on the third day—the day of testing—that God appears at Sinai, a point emphasized four times (Exod 19:11[2x], 15, 16); the people are terrified by the theophany in the thunder and lightning (Exod 19:17; 20:18–19). An intercessor—not an angel this time as in the story of Abraham and Isaac, but Moses—“saves” them on the third day by becoming their mediator, and he saves them later when they sin by constructing and worshiping a golden calf (Exod 32–34). One could almost say that the Israelites get their life back again on the third day from Moses the first time and then again from Moses the second time. An astute insight linking Moriah with Sinai is offered by Mackay who sees the remarkable parallel between a “beloved son returned to life on a third day” and “his seed’s fresh start on Sinai’s third day.”[82] To which might be added the tenth plague, wherein a beloved son was spared after three days of darkness.

The focus on worship is conspicuous in this text as the zones of space on the mountain and surrounding area between the people and God are structured in a three-tiered way like the later tabernacle and temple.[83] The base of the mountain represents the precincts of the tabernacle, the mountain itself the temple proper, and the top of the mountain, the holy of holies. Thus the people as a whole must wait at the base of the mountain, the elders and leaders can ascend the mountain, but only Moses is granted access to the peak. The priestly and temple atmosphere of the whole text is emphasized more by the nation being constituted as a royal priesthood, the blood of sacrifices being spilled on the people and the altar, and the reading of the covenant stipulations. After all of the preparations are complete, the people’s seventy representatives ascend the mountain, have a covenant meal, and see God!

Just as the Israelites journeyed three days in the wilderness after the exodus to experience relief from thirst, and just as they met God on the third day at Sinai and survived, now they leave Sinai for the first time for Canaan, and their first journey takes three days, a fact noted twice (Num 10:33). The ark of the covenant leads the way on this their first journey of three days after Sinai to secure them a place to rest—it is after three days that they will experience rest. The ark specifically—the presence of the footstool of the divine throne—provides guidance through the wilderness of death into rest. No enemies will be able to withstand such leadership (Num 10:33–36).

The people also get their life back again with the intercession of Moses in the wilderness wanderings on the verge of Canaan (Num 13–14). This time it is the second generation that is spared the death sentence; and when they are on the plains of Moab, they hear the old Moses warn them that they will surely succumb to a backsliding heart, exile, and death in the future. Nonetheless, Moses predicts that God will surely remember his covenant. If they truly repent in exile, they can be restored once they have experienced judgment in the “latter days” (Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10). Deuteronomy 32, the song Moses gives as a witness against the people of Israel, presents their entire history in concise form, the birth and prosperity of the nation, its rebellion, its judgment and exile, and finally its ultimate redemption and atonement during the “latter days” (Deut 31:29; cf. 30:1–10). Near the conclusion of this text, when Israel has utterly exhausted its resources after experiencing God’s judgment, God declares that he will again have compassion on his people. To a world that might doubt that Israel could ever be rescued from its hopeless plight, God speaks in the first person describing himself as omnipotent. And the supreme evidence of omnipotence is resurrection—no one, nothing, not even death can deliver from his hand:

See now that I myself am He! (ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא)

There is no god besides me. (ואין אלהים עמדי)

I put to death and I bring to life, (אני אמית ואחיה)

I have wounded and I will heal, (מחצתי ואני ארפא)

And no one can deliver out of my hand. (ואין מידי מציל) (Deut 32:39)

His transcendence is particularly characterized by the ability to resurrect the dead. This is a clear description of his “uncontested sovereignty,”[84] and the equally clear implication is that he can raise Israel from the dead if need be and finally make atonement for the land (Deut 32:43). Here death and resurrection are associated with divine transcendence, and the consequence is atonement.

In summary, what can be said about the evidence from the Torah? God is at work to reverse the forces of death that have entered the world—this is clear with the story of Abraham and Sarah and his called-out people. God himself seems to be the agent of death in judgment of his own people, and in a future with disobedience he may kill them with exile but with repentance he will resurrect and restore them in the latter days. Secondly, there is an emerging pattern of a three day period of testing. The last day of the test—the third day—is a critical time since the test is drawing to a close. It appears in dramatic times in Israelite history, such as at the conclusion of the Abrahamic narrative, and it frames the exodus and Sinai narratives. In a number of dramatic examples such a test is highlighted on a mountain in the context of worship, where Isaac or the people as a whole seem to get their life back because of someone’s great faith or intercession.

2. The Prophets: Further Construction And Laying The Cornerstone

In the Former Prophets there are not many examples of literal death and resurrection, but again the dynamic relationship between life and death should not be overlooked because, particularly in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, literal resurrection is seen as a dramatic climax to the miraculous life-giving power of the prophets which is used against the forces of death. Interestingly, as the Midrash observes, Elijah performs eight miracles in his ministry, and his successor, Elisha, who is granted a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, accomplishes sixteen miraculous wonders.[85]

Miracles of Elijah and Elisha[86]

	Elijah	Elisha
1	Drought prediction (1 Kgs 17:1–7)	Passing through Jordan (2 Kgs 2:19–22)
2	Enduring supply of flour and oil for widow of Zarephath during drought (1 Kgs 17:8–16)	Purification of water of Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19–22)
3	Resurrection of widow’s son (1 Kgs 17:17–24)	Mauling of 42 boys by two bears (2 Kgs 2:23–26)
4	Fire and rain on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:36–46)	Supply of oil for widow and her two sons (2 Kgs 4:1–7)
5	Surviving on food for 40 days (1 Kgs 19:8)	Birth of son for Shunamite woman (2 Kgs 4:8–17)
6	Fire of judgment on officers (2 Kgs 1:8–12)	Resurrection of son of Shunamite woman (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
7	Passing through Jordan (2 Kgs 2:8)	Purification of stew (2 Kgs 4:38–41)
8	Translation to Heaven—double portion of spirit to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:12–14)	Miracle of loaves (2 Kgs 4:42–44)
9		Naaman’s leprosy cured (2 Kgs 5)
10		Axe head floats (2 Kgs 6:1–7)
11		Reveals battle plans of Syrian king (2 Kgs 6:8–10)
12		Blinding of Syrian army (2 Kgs 6:18)
13		Curing of blindness of army (2 Kgs 6:20)
14		Relief from famine (2 Kgs 6:24–7:20)
15		Defeat of Syrian armies three times (2 Kgs 13:14–19, 24–25)
16		Resurrection of corpse (2 Kgs 13:20–21)

While Elijah produces one resurrection, Elisha accomplishes two. But the point is that these resurrections should not be seen as differences in kind from all the other miracles but rather differences in degree. Resurrection reveals a life-giving power at work in all the miracles whether relief from drought, a supply of oil and flour in a famine, purification of water and food, a supply of bread for a great number of people, the curing of disease, or victory in war. As Nachman Levine describes the situation, the miracles of these two prophets stress the keys of the kingdom of God, and those are “the keys of the womb, the grave and the rains—to cure the barren, make the dead live and bring rain (life, death and the sustaining of life).”[87] This is all life-giving power which is climactically expressed in resurrection from death. Thus it is no accident that the last miracle of Elijah is deliverance from the power of death as he is taken (lāqah) to be with God just like his predecessor in the Torah, Enoch (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 9, 10; Gen 5:24). And the last miracle of his disciple, Elisha, is the resurrection of a corpse hastily tossed down on the dry bones of his skeleton. Significantly the actual description of this resurrection reads:

Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life (ויחי) and stood up (ויקם) on his feet.( 2 Kgs 13:21)

As the verb forms make clear, the corpse is revived first and then, lest there be any doubt in the matter, rises to its feet! Even in death, the prophet can make a dead man rise up and walk out of a grave.

The song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2 merits consideration because it elaborates on the theme of Deut 32, which closed the Torah on a note of death and resurrection as the parade example of God’s “uncontested sovereignty,”[88] showing how it will manifest itself in the future history of Israel. Hannah’s song recorded in 1 Sam 2:1–10 is the OT equivalent to the Magnificat in the NT (Luke 1:46–55), and is a remarkable poem praising God’s power in history in elevating the humble and abasing the proud. The thanksgiving hymn is sung in honor of Yahweh’s action in generating life from the “dead” womb of Hannah to produce the first kingmaker of ancient Israel. Hannah sees in the birth of Samuel the clue to the meaning of history and at the center of these cataclysmic reversals is the motif of death and resurrection (1 Sam 2:6):

קשת גברים חתים ונכשלים אזרו חי4

שׁבעים בלחם נשכרו ורעבים חדלו עד5

עקרה ילדה שבעה ורבת בנים אמללה

יהוהממית ומחיה מוריד שׁאוֹל ויעל6

יהוה מוריש ומעשיר משׁפיל אף־מרומם7

מקים מעפר דל מאשפת ירים אביון8

להושיב עם־נדיבים וכסא כבוד ינחלם

4 The bows of the warriors are broken, but those who stumbled are armed with strength.

5 Those who were full hire themselves out for food, but those who were hungry hunger no more.

She who was barren has borne seven children, but she who has had many sons pines away.

6 The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.

7 The Lord sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts.

8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap;

he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.

(1 Sam 2:4–8)

Yahweh’s killing and resurrecting power consists of the central bicola in the unit of seven, whose ultimate aim is to establish the lowly and poor on a throne of glory. Consequently, it is no accident that the poem concludes with the establishment of divine rule to the ends of the earth (2:17). Resurrection means divine enthronement. And it is no coincidence that Hannah sings this thanksgiving song at the tabernacle as she performs a thanksgiving sacrifice.

No sooner are these words uttered than the mighty leadership of Israel under Eli and his corrupt sons collapses, and the young Samuel is raised up (1 Sam 3–4). The Philistine Dagan collapses and is decapitated and dismembered before the lowly Ark of the Covenant (1 Sam 5:1–5). Later, the lowly David is chosen over his older, taller, and stronger brothers to be king in the place of the tall Saul (1 Sam 16:1–14). This small, young boy distinguishes himself in battle by bringing down the gargantuan Goliath with a stone taken from a brook (1 Sam 17). And then the spirit of Samuel is literally resurrected from the grave to pronounce judgment on the arrogant, and tall king Saul’s mighty frame collapses when he hears the ominous news of his coming demise (1 Sam 28:11–20). The collapse is a foreshadowing of his collapse on the battlefield the next day on the heights of Gilboa, after which he meets the same fate as Dagon and the Philistine giant, also losing his own head (1 Sam 31:1–10). When the news of Saul’s death is heard we soon hear the woeful lament of David echoing Hannah’s celebratory song: “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam 1:19, 27).

David’s own response at the end of the book of Samuel in 2 Sam 22 to Hannah’s song in 1 Sam 2 celebrates Yahweh’s deliverance and particularly his powers to overcome death. He summarizes his life with poetic “overkill” as being “encompassed by the waves of death, the torrents of Belial, the cords of Sheol, and the snares of death,” but God heard his cry and lifted him out of the many waters, as he did Moses and the people of Israel years before (2 Sam 22:5–7). David himself is a prime example of the defeat of the forces of death by the resurrecting power of God. It is as if death had wrapped its lethal tentacles around the king, and at the last moment Yahweh snatched him from their grasp.

But what about the matter of the temporal duration of three days in the Former Prophets, and in particular the third day? Does the evidence cohere with the Torah in which a three day period provides a general period of time for an important test or mission, and in particular the third day as the critical day in the testing period? And are there any associations with death and resurrection and the temple?

In the very first account in the Former Prophets, the Israelites are to prepare for the conquest of the land by re-enacting the crossing of the Red Sea into the land of Canaan within three days (Josh 1:11; 3:2). Like the sacrifice of Isaac, the Passover, the exodus, Sinai, and the march into the wilderness, the gift of the land—the conquest—comes after a three day period. In the next account, Rahab tells the spies of Jericho to hide in the mountains for three days until the danger of their discovery is passed (Josh 2:16, 22).[89] After the spies return there is a focus again on crossing the Jordan in three days (Josh 3:2). After the crossing of the Jordan, which took place after three days, the Israelites celebrate the Passover three days later (see Josh 4:19; 5:10). So at the beginning of the Former Prophets, the three day motif is accentuated before another major event in Israel’s salvation history.

In Judges, the tribe of Benjamin is finally defeated on the third day of an important battle when the identity of Israel is being questioned (Judg 20:30). In the next book, Samuel, in a crisis in David’s life where his own life is threatened, he discovers on returning from a journey on the third day that his camp has been pillaged by the Amalekites, and three days later he is able to defeat them and recover the captured families of his men (1 Sam 30).

Additionally, there is a remarkable parallel to the story of Abraham’s sacrifice on Mount Moriah, and Israel at Sinai, which escalates this development dramatically in the storyline of Scripture (2 Sam 24). If Abraham’s three day ordeal culminating in sacrifice of the ram and resurrection for the son is the first such act which later provides the basis for sacrifice in Jerusalem, the story in 2 Sam 24 supplies the basis for the purchase of the site for sacrificial provisions. When this site is actually chosen for God’s provision for Israel, David rescues the land and people from severe judgment brought because of his flagrant sin in recording a census in Israel. When confronted with the various alternatives of judgment, David chooses a three day ordeal at the hand of God specifically because he would thus fling himself into the hand of the living God whose chief quality is that “his mercies are many” (2 Sam 24:14). On the third day of the plague, David has a vision of an angel about to strike Jerusalem and volunteers to give human sacrifices—himself and his house—to stand in the place of the sheep, his people. The Lord directs him to buy the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which becomes the later site for the altar of the temple, the place where God provides for his people. Thus it is not humans who will die, David and his dynasty, for the sheep, the people; but it will be literal sheep for the metaphorical sheep as the former will be offered at this temple site. Not lost on the careful observer is that all of this is a manifestation of the many mercies of Yahweh and that it happens on the third day (2 Sam 24:14)!

Though it is true that the scourge struck the people and seventy thousand men died from Dan to Beersheba, it is no less true that the third day was for the survivors a day of salvation and liberation, since it was the end of the punishment.[90]

The book of Kings which follows offers some critical third day periods. The united kingdom is split into two on the third day after Rehoboam gave the northern tribes a three day period to accept his kingship (1 Kgs 12:5, 12). The third day thus marks the beginning of the kingdom of Judah alone. Another third day crisis marks both personal and national fates, as King Hezekiah has been afflicted with a lethal illness, and so has his nation as the Assyrians are about to apply the coup de grace and destroy Jerusalem, which is the last line of defense for the country of Judah. It is uncertain whether the “illnesses” happen at the same time, but if they are separated chronologically, in the narrative they have been telescoped together. After Hezekiah’s personal prayer for deliverance, the word comes to him from the prophet Isaiah:

Go back and tell Hezekiah, the ruler of my people, “This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.” (2 Kgs 20:5–6)

As one scholar points out it is hard not to recognize that the anointed ruler—the “Messiah”—is healed on the third day from death (2 Kgs 20:8).[91] But it is his “resurrection” that coincides in the text with Judah’s resurrection! Crisis, third day, salvation, mountain (Zion), and the temple of the Lord: the themes all intersect.

In the Latter Prophets there are a number of instances of resurrection. In Isaiah, in the middle of the Little Apocalypse which speaks of world judgment (Isa 24–27), there is the announcement of world salvation on Mount Zion; a huge banquet will be prepared there and death will be swallowed up forever (Isa 25:1–7). Here it seems that Mount Zion has become the place of salvation for all peoples—not just Isaac, the people at Sinai, Jerusalem, Hezekiah, and Judah.

This event points to the removal of the curse of death—the veil which shrouds all peoples—and this final act of world redemption will take place on this mountain! In Isaiah this mountain is the mountain of the house of the Lord, which now towers over all competitors (Isa 2:1–5). Closely following Isa 25 there is reference to a coming day of judgment at the end of which there will be a resurrection: the earth will give birth to its dead (Isa 26:19). The word pair in this particular text that describes resurrection has been seen before in the raising up of the corpse which touched Elisha the Prophet’s bones.[92] But here it is as if Israel is a dew, alighting upon the ground of death (“falling upon the land of the dead”),[93] and the resurrected corpses are viewed as grass sprouting up (Isa 26:19b). In this text, God’s resurrection of his people is poignantly contrasted with the idols which will not live and never rise again (Isa 26:14). This final act will reveal and avenge all the innocent blood hidden under the soil of the earth. The resurrection of these corpses will decisively occur, and this coincides with Yahweh’s use of his lethal sword to destroy Leviathan, the sea monster (Isa 27:1).

In the second half of Isaiah, in the classic Suffering Servant songs there is the gradual emergence of a servant named Israel who will bring God’s salvation to Israel, the exiles, and the world (Isa 42:1–6; 49:1–6; 50:3–9; 52:11–53:12). We learn that this individual does not cry, “Father, the fire and the wood but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” because he doesn’t open his mouth since he himself knows the identity of the lamb (Isa 53:7). But like Isaac, he offers no protest. He dies as he is cut off from the land of the living (Isa 53:8), but the text indicates his vindication as he is later able to see his seed and prolong his days, which suggests that he is alive (Isa 53:10).

In Ezekiel, there is a description of a national resurrection which precedes the battle of Armageddon and the construction of the new temple from which healing waters flow to give life to the entire land, even turning the Dead Sea into a burgeoning source of fertility and life (Ezek 37–48). This is the famous text of the valley of dry bones which represents the destitute condition of the Israelites, living in exile with no temple nor land to return to (Ezek 37:1–14). It is this vision of sheer hopelessness which becomes transformed into a life-affirming vision of the future by the vehicle of the word of God. When these bones come into contact with the prophetic word of God, they become a new humanity, living and moving and having their being in God, in a remarkable escalation and multiplication of the Elisha story in which one corpse was revivified by touching an old prophet’s bones. Israel “going up”—from not just Egypt or Babylon, but the grave—is regarded as a type of new Adam. What is more amazing is that this new Israel will be led by a new David, perhaps also a resurrected David, since the old David is dead (Ezek 37:24).

There is a similar idea of resurrection from exile in Hosea, the first book of the Twelve, and here explicitly there is a connection with a three day ordeal. In this book there are important connections with Deuteronomy, a new exodus, and the latter days. Deuteronomy had predicted that in the latter days a disobedient and chastened Israel would repent in exile and return to the land and experience a type of “resurrection.” After all, God could do the impossible for he has the ability not only to kill but to resurrect—no one can deliver from his hand (Deut 32:29). The literary frame which introduces the book of Hosea describes a period of prolonged exile, after which Israel will return and seek David their king and worship Yahweh in the latter days (Hos 3:5). Later in the oracles of the book, this theme of repentance and return from exile is developed. In Hos 5–6 there is a description of two figures—an Adam who has broken the covenant (Hos 6:7),[94] an Israel who has broken the covenant and is now in exile having been judged by the divine lion who has torn it apart with no one to deliver, and the prospect of a future repentant Israel that can be raised from the dead. The overtones with Deuteronomy and seeking God repentantly in exile during the latter days are very strong (cf. esp. Hos 3:4–5; Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10; 32:36–43). In the aftermath of judgment, the people will turn and seek Yahweh’s face, and either they compose a liturgy of repentance or, more likely, the prophet gives one to them. This liturgy is based not only on Deuteronomy and the restoration of the exiles, particularly Deut 32, but also on the entire historical trajectory of the importance of the three day motif of salvation. The liturgy reads,

1	Come, let us return to the Lord. (לכו ונשובה אל־יהוה)
	He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; (כי הוא טרף וירפאנו)
	He has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. (יך ויחבשנו)
2	After two days he will revive us; (יהינו מימים)
	On the third day he will restore us, (ביום השלישי יקמנו)
	that we may live in his presence. (ונחיה לפניו)
3	Let us acknowledge the Lord;
	let us press on to acknowledge him. (ונדעה נרדפה לדעת את־יהוה)
	As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; (כשחר נכון מוצאו)
	he will come to us like the winter rains, (ויבוא כגשם לנו)
	like the spring rains that water the earth. (כמלקוש יורה ארץ) (Hos 6:1–3)

The resonances with Deuteronomy are patent:[95] The repentant exiles will experience ultimate vindication, and there will be atonement for the land because Yahweh is sovereign, not only having the ability to kill but also to resurrect, not only the ability to wound but to heal since no one can deliver from his hand. Thus they can be confident that Yahweh will resurrect them after two days; on the third day they will live in his presence. The resonances with 2 Kgs 13:21 and Isa 26:14, 19 are also striking as this text contains the only other example where the word pair revive and rise is used to indicate the certainty of literal resurrection.[96]

The prophet does not argue with the theology of this liturgy but with the nature of his people’s repentance. Just mouthing these words of the prophet will not mean anything. There has to be genuine repentance. If the certainty of Yahweh’s resurrection power is like the rising sun and the winter rains, it will not happen, says Hosea. Deliverance will not happen if Israel’s hesed is like a morning cloud that passes and like temporary dew, for this is, after all, why they have been killed by the words of the prophets. But the point is that if God gets true repentance and true hesed and not just sacrificial ritual and legal observance, things could be different. There could be resurrection for Israel on the third day. Instead, Israel is like Adam who has transgressed the covenant, and “there,” that is, in Israel, they have been guilty of murder, treachery, defilement, and whoredom (Hos 6:7, 10). Thus for the liturgy to have any effect, there must be true hesed.

It is worth noting the covenantal nature of hesed. The meaning of the term has long been considered by scholars, and various English equivalents have been given: lovingkindness, loyalty, steadfast love, mercy, and others. But perhaps the person who comes closest to defining precisely the meaning of hesed when Hosea uses this word is Katherine Doob Sakenfeld. This word, she says, summarizes the covenant and what God expects of his people: the word as employed in Hosea “is used as a summary term for Israel carrying out covenant commitment, both of exclusive worship to the Lord and communal justice; that is, hesed represents the entire Decalogue in a single word.”[97] Thus the covenantal failure of Israel could not be clearer.

By the end of the book there have been a few developments. Yahweh will return Israel from exile based on his hesed and love for Israel (Hos 11:9–11). At the conclusion of the book, salvation comes when true repentance and therefore true hesed are found. If Israel will utter these new words sincerely there will be true repentance:

Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips. Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount warhorses. We will never again say “Our gods” to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion. (Hos 14:2–3)

This time God saves them because their repentance is real and their hesed is lasting, and he “resurrects” them. Although the explicit language of resurrection is not used, there are remarkable parallels to the text in Hos 6 and allusions to Isa 26, indicating that the liturgy used in Hos 6 will be fulfilled. The language of God healing a repentant people is used, as is the language of the Lord being like life-giving dew to Israel as opposed to their description as transient vapor. Instead of striking to kill, Yahweh’s dew strikes to establish the roots of the plant of Israel, and those who live in the shadow of the growing plant will rise again like grain and sprout up like the vine (Hos 14:6–8). In the future with true repentance will come resurrection on the third day. As Adam had failed and died in exile, Israel has done the same; and there is hope that a truly repentant and hesed-seeking Israel will be resurrected from the grave of exile in some future “third day.”

The last example in the Latter Prophets is that of Jonah where he is delivered from the tomb of the great fish after three days and three nights. From there the repentant prophet is sent to announce judgment to Nineveh, a city whose size required a three day journey to traverse (Jonah 2:1, 3:3). Here Jonah’s personal resurrection after a three day burial in the depths of the sea leads to a Gentile city being saved from divine judgment upon repentance after his three day journey of preaching.[98] Both are critical situations. Jonah is “resurrected” after three days, and the city is “resurrected” after a three day journey of preaching. Again, the idea of a test, mission, and crisis is associated with three days in both of these instances. And in both instances there is something of a resurrection, even if metaphorically understood.

In summary, the Latter Prophets continue the theme of a three day period for a test or a mission in a crisis and the significance of the third day. There is also a focus on resurrection and the removal of the curse of death as well as a national resurrection associated with true repentance and return from exile. Remarkably, there are some explicit associations of resurrection of the people on the third day—a resurrection from the death of exile, a resurrection of a prophet, and a resurrection of a Gentile nation. But what seems to be required for resurrection to happen as for Jonah and as for the Gentiles is a lasting hesed and a true repentance. Israel can experience such a resurrection in the last days if the nation is marked by a genuine and enduring hesed. It is not certain how all of this plays out, but perhaps there are hints in someone from David’s house suffering judgment on Mount Moriah for his people and saving his people on a portentous third day.

3. The Writings: The Temple Virtually Finished—Waiting For Resurrection

There are few examples of literal resurrection in the Writings but if we begin with one of the oldest Hebrew orders of the Writings, we find that the first book, the book of Ruth, commences with a focus on Davidic ancestry.[99] The book begins with destitution and death and ends with replenishment and life. Naomi and her faithful daughter-in-law, Ruth—a woman particularly marked by hesed—are the keys to restoring the brokenness in the Davidic line, a brokenness caused by death.[100] Their pathetic entry into Bethlehem in front of the wailing women who are shocked at the appearance of Naomi is turned to joy at the end as the newborn child revives the dead line of Elimelech (Ruth 4:13–17).

The psalms to follow, which were produced in their final form long after there had been no king in Israel or Judah, still celebrate that Yahweh will restore his king to the throne in the language of birth on Mount Zion: “Today I have begotten you—ask of me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance” (Ps 2:7). This psalm is the only place in Israel’s Scriptures where the words “King,” “Son,” and “Anointed One” occur together,[101] and here at the beginning of the Psalter it shows a clear hope in a deliverer whose installation is viewed as being given new life—a birth. As such it is an answer to other psalms like 89 which lament the fact that there is no Israelite king on the throne and the covenant seems over.[102] It is also a prism through which to understand what is happening in many individual laments when the king has been saved at the last minute from death,[103] or has experienced incredible suffering and death only to be delivered and experience worldwide dominion—one thinks of Ps 22 specifically. Two psalms in particular link up with earlier biblical texts and suggest by the use of the verb “to take” a deliverance from death. Psalm 49 is a wisdom psalm which provides a meditation on death. No one is able to ransom from its power except Yahweh, and the psalmist exclaims: “Surely God will ransom my life from the power of Sheol, surely he will take me [kî yiqqāhēnî]” (49:16). Psalm 73 is another wisdom psalm which provides a perspective on the sufferings of the psalmist who has been righteous, while the wicked have prospered. The psalmist seems to be suffering immensely both in body and in mind. But his mental suffering is resolved with a new vision as a result of a visit to the temple (v. 17). The psalmist is not granted any physical healing, for at the end of the psalm his body is still very weak (v. 26). But he has a new vision of God who is leading and guiding him in this life and “afterward you will take me to glory [’ahar kābôd tiqqāhēnî]” (73:24). Significantly the repetition of the relevant verb (to take) echoes earlier texts in the Torah and the Prophets where both Enoch and Elijah were delivered from the power of death (Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 9, 10).

As one continues through the Writings there is mention of literal resurrection in the book of Daniel in ch. 12 where, after a time of severe oppression of the people of God, the present order comes to an end and a new order dawns with a resurrection of the just and the unjust (Dan 12:3). This resurrection, like the resurrection in Hosea, will happen in the last days. There are direct allusions to the Servant of Yahweh from Isa 53 in this passage, so much so that some consider it to be the first biblical interpretation of the Servant Song.[104] But the use of this passage in Daniel does not require the elimination of an individual interpretation of Isa 53. It is far more natural to see the many who justify in Daniel to be the result of the individual servant who has risen to justify many. At the end of the age his “resurrection” has now been experienced by his righteous martyrs and they will prosper, justifying many and taking their place as stars, ruling forever. But surely this resurrection and rule cannot be isolated from the earlier text where the saints of the Most High have been brutally oppressed for three and a half times and then given relief when the divine court sits and the Son of Man is given authority to rule (Dan 7). Read in the light of Isa 25–26 and Hos 6 and 14, the idea of an eschatological resurrection of Israel becomes reinforced. Israel awaits a great resurrection in the future.

As one proceeds to Esther, another book which deals with a crisis of the Jewish people, it is noteworthy that the impending death of the nation is arrested by a three day fast, and it is on the third day that Esther successfully intercedes for her people and they are eventually saved (Esth 4:16). Haman then swings from the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. In the book of Ezra, as the exiles make their exodus out of Persia their journey is framed by three day intervals. They wait for three days before they leave, and when they arrive they rest for three days, before presenting offerings in the temple (Ezra 8:15, 32).

With the closing of Chronicles Israel’s Scriptures seem to point to two distinct entities—David as a future hope and the temple. All of the genealogies end when David arrives, and as his story begins it becomes the story of Israel. There is something about his story which holds the key for the nation’s future. When the temple is built by Solomon, it is specifically noted for the first time in the Bible that it is built on Mount Moriah where the Lord had appeared to David and he bought the threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Chr 3:1). There is a link established between Abraham’s appearance on the mountain on the third day and David’s purchase of the threshing floor on the same mountain on the third day of the plague ravaging the land. But it is instructive to compare the Chronicler’s version of the same events with those reported in Samuel because the comparison between David and Abraham is drawn out even further. The angel which is about to destroy Jerusalem now has a drawn sword in his hand, and when Araunah’s sons see it they run for cover (1 Chr 21:16, 20). Here the link between Abraham and his drawn knife and David is sealed. And thus at the beginning of the Tanak and at the end, there is a link established between Mount Moriah, Abraham, and David.[105]

Chronicles brings the story of Israel to a seeming end with the destruction of the temple and the exile of the people and their Davidic king. The book’s final words, however, present Cyrus releasing the Jews from exile, to rebuild the temple. This might evoke all kinds of imagery, not least of which is the ancient statement in Gen 22, “To this day it is still said, On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.’” It is not without interest that the last word of the HB is, “Let him go up!” (2 Chr 36:23). There has been an earlier exodus from the graveyard of Egypt, and here is one from the graveyard of Babylon. But perhaps there is a nuance in this text—the great Davidic hope and the temple combine. The coming David is the one who truly has God with him, and the command comes for him—to go up to build the temple![106]

Finally, if the HB is viewed as a book, exactly at the mid-point and at the end there is a theme of resurrection, resurrection of the house of David—a descendant—and resurrection of the house of God—the temple. The last four verses of Kings complete the first half of the HB (2 Kgs 25:27–30). The covenant seems over as the Hebrew king is in prison in exile in Babylon. The Davidic line is in shambles. Isaiah regards it as nothing but a chopped down and burnt out stump (Isa 6:13; 11:1). But remarkably, the Babylonian king has mercy and liberates Jehoiachin, investing him with new clothes and therefore a new status, and exalting him to the highest position among the captive kings in Babylon. This is nothing less than life from the dead, a lightning rod for hope in the Davidic house, understood as a line of descendants.[107] The last half of the HB closes with another image of David’s house—the temple—in shambles. But the last words are a call for the one whose God is with him to go up to build the temple!

IV. Conclusion: The Capstone—The Missing Piece

What then of the references to death and resurrection in the NT particularly on the third day? It is not without significance that the idea of death and resurrection is prominent throughout the OT. One can limit this evidence with a reductionist definition of life and death, but this also distorts the biblical view of life and death which are not the static concepts of modern, western medicine but the lived realities of human experience from the ancient Hebrews. This movement “from sterility to miraculous childbirth, from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the promised land, from exile to return” is but the nascent realization of resurrection.[108] But if death and resurrection are prominent in the OT in this form, it is also true that so is the time designation of three days for a mission or test, and particularly the deadline for the completion of the test, the third day. The temple as the place of worship completes this picture, for life is pre-eminently associated with God and his presence.

A central part of the NT message is the time of fulfillment when God implements his promise to undo the work of death and reverse the curse.[109] Adam is a failure, and Israel was going to provide the means by which the Adamic mission could be rescued. But much of Israel also turns out to be a failure, yet God keeps the project going using dramatic measures at times.

Isaac escapes the knife on the third day as a testimony to Abraham’s faithfulness on Mount Moriah (Gen 22), Israel is tested at Mount Sinai on the third day and Moses becomes her mediator (Exod 19–24; 30–32), and later her intercessor when judgment is impending. Repeatedly throughout the text the reference to three days beats like a drum stressing escape from enemies (Josh 2), death (Judg 20), starvation (1 Sam 31), disease (2 Kgs 20:5–6), and judgment (Jonah 2:1; 3:3). Later in Jerusalem, Israel is again spared the knife because of Davidic intercession on the third day which results in the purchase of an altar on Mount Moriah to substitute sacrifices in her place (2 Sam 24, esp. vv. 13–15). Moreover, looking to the future, Israel in exile will be resurrected from death on the third day, but only if her repentance and faithfulness are true and lasting (Hos 6:1–3). And a final day of resurrection will take place for the whole world on Mount Zion at the end of history when the cosmos is renewed (Isa 25:1–7; cf. 26:17–27:1).

Even in the Writings the idea of the third day as a test and relief for the Jewish people is escalated. Esther saves her people from annihilation on the third day (Esth 4:15–5:4). Similarly, there is the expectation of great resurrection for humanity in the last day for salvation and judgment. The closing of Israel’s Scriptures reemphasizes these themes of resurrection particularly as applied to the line of David and the house (the temple) that he wanted to build.

But in some ways the return from exile under Cyrus seems a far cry from the expectations fueled by the Scriptures themselves. What is needed is a truly repentant and hesed-seeking Israel who will be resurrected from death and resurrect the nation from death before finally resurrecting the cosmos.

During his ministry Jesus cites Hos 6:6 twice—“I will have hesed and not sacrifice”—in polemical discussion with religious leaders who first criticize his fraternization with sinners and secondly condemn his disciples’ violation of the Sabbath when they pluck stalks of grain to satisfy their hunger (Matt 9:13; 12:7). His answer to his critics reveals that he is embodying an Israel which is seeking to realize hesed as a permanent character trait rather than a transient one like dew on the morning grass or like a passing cloud in the afternoon.[110] It is difficult to believe that Jesus would have been unaware of the larger context of this passage, especially the failure of Israel (Hos 5:8–14), the liturgy of repentance (Hos 6:1–3), and the failure of Adam (Hos 6:7). Perhaps this is also part of the background of his temple saying in John’s Gospel when he tells the religious establishment—again in a polemical context in which he drives out the buyers and sellers from the temple—that if the temple is destroyed he will raise it up in three days (John 2:19–22). The current temple represents the place of sacrifice but not the place of hesed, thus a new temple is needed which will become pre-eminently the place of hesed.

From the time Jesus was a young boy three days marks his life. At the celebration of Passover he goes missing from the family and is found three days later, where else but in the temple—his father’s house (Luke 2:42–52, esp. v. 46). In fact, Jesus can summarize his whole mission as consisting of three days:

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:31–33)

Here Jesus speaks as if his climactic goal is to die in Jerusalem on the third day, understood more figuratively.

John uses the third day motif as bookends of Jesus’ miracle working ministry. When Jesus does his first miracle—the beginning of the revelation of his glory—he does so at a wedding in Cana of Galilee which is celebrated on the third day (John 2:1). There he turns a major social disaster into celebration par excellence by turning water into wine (John 2:1–11). John suggests—not too subtly—that Jesus is going to do something so radically new in Judaism that it will be like turning bland water into the best tasting wine. Surely as the author is writing this story he is also thinking of the communion wine which is used to celebrate the Eucharist in his community, in which the third day was a great triumph forever, turning old into new, death into life, and water into wine. That point is certainly confirmed in the very next story in John when Jesus enters the temple and cleanses it, defending his actions when asked by what sign he did such things. He states that if they destroyed this temple, he would raise it in three days (John 2:12–25, esp. 19–22). The miracle which begins his ministry on the note of the transformation of water into wine on the third day will transform death into life on the third day.[111]

At the end of Jesus’ “ministry” the tomb is empty on the first day of the week (John 20:1), which is on the third day after his death. The distraught Mary looks for Jesus inside the tomb but sees only two angels on each side of the stone bench where his body had lain. The angels are positioned where the head and feet of the corpse would have been. Jesus had earlier predicted that if the temple was destroyed he would rebuild it in three days. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the ark of the covenant in the empty tomb, the footstool of God’s throne, in a new holy of holies, marked by life. But the life is nowhere to be found, and then he appears breathing life into his distraught disciples, inspiring their “dead” bodies with his Holy Spirit and the announcement of forgiveness to the nations (John 20:22). The inspiration of Adam’s lifeless body in Genesis with the gift of life and the resurrection of the exiles in Ezekiel with the Spirit of God are echoes of this development in John, perhaps also even the outworking of Hosea as well.[112]

On Golgotha, not far away from the Temple Mount, this latter day Isaac, this beloved son (cf. Gen 22:3; Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), met his fate. There was no intervention of angels to save him; only their intercession to help him carry out his task (Luke 22:43). Unlike the first Isaac he was not kept in the dark about the project, and his questions to his Father were filled with anguish but finally submission. Like the first Isaac he also carried the wood up the hill (John 19:17), but unlike the first Isaac he knew the identity of the sacrifice. At the last moment there was no reprieve from the death sentence as this Father, like Abraham, “did not withhold his only son but delivered him up for us all” (Rom 8:32; cf. LXX of Gen 22:12, 16).[113] This latter-day David finally gets his wish that the angel’s sword would fall on him and his house so that his people would be spared. And like those old stories, a miraculous salvation occurs on the third day. The capstone event of the resurrection of the Messiah completes the temple of OT texts.

The fact that Hos 6:1–3, the only text to explicitly associate resurrection and three days, is not directly cited in the NT is therefore apparent. It is not because it is one slight peg on which to hang so great a weight, but rather it is a cornerstone in a great number of stones which have been assembled into the form of a great temple which awaits one more event to complete the great house of God. Major turning points in the biblical narrative distributed among lesser events, focusing on the accomplishments of missions and miraculous deliverances at points of crisis, escalate and carry with them a force that develops a clear expectation for divine rescue. The increasing acceleration of this particular typology in the Hebrew Scriptures finally reaches its zenith in the death of the Messiah and his resurrection on the third day on Mount Calvary. A new temple concerned for hesed is established, a new Israel is raised from the grave, and people engrafted into this new Israel experience an initiation rite in which they die and are raised back to new life, in anticipation of a final resurrection when their mortal bodies will put on immortality. Temple and people are now marked by hesed, and resurrection has happened on the third day. Thus Anthony Thiselton sees clearly the dynamic of this trajectory in his comments on 1 Cor 15:4:

It would amount to unintended reductionism and constraint if we seek to isolate some specific individual text (e.g. Ps. 2:7; 16:9, 10; or Hos. 6:2) rather than understanding the resurrection of Christ as the witness to a climactic fulfillment of a cumulative tradition of God’s promised eschatological act of sovereignty and vindication in grace.[114]

But Thiselton fails to see the importance of a text like Hos 6:2, which functions as a cornerstone for the assembled texts. Thus the events that happened to Jesus Christ on the third day are not to be hung on a slight peg which cannot bear so great a weight in Israel’s Scripture, but rather all the hopes are brought together and arranged around a cornerstone that speaks of resurrection as “the ultimate and final liberation.”[115] It is this fact that the resurrected Jesus is trying to get his dull disciples to see on the Emmaus road: “The whole story of Israel builds to its narrative climax in Jesus, the Messiah, who had to suffer before entering into his glory. This is what Jesus tried to teach them on the road.”[116]

N.T. Wright speaks of the OT expectation as one of expecting resurrection at the end of history, in one great eschatological act. That is clearly what early Jewish interpretation of Hos 6:2 had in mind. Similarly the LXX reinforced the concern for resurrection with its translation of the Hebrew:

After two days he will heal us: in the third day we will be raised up [ἀναστησόμεθα!], and we will live before him, and shall know him.

The focus on the resurrection of the people is reinforced with this translation, where the translator makes the point that “we will be raised up and live before him and shall know him.” The NT helps resolve the great problem of the final day. Resurrection happens not just at the end of history but right in the middle of history on the third day, to an Israel that embodied hesed as a way of life and was able to make an incredible repentance for not only the sins of Israel but the sins of the whole world. Jesus as the ultimate High Priest is able on their behalf to confess all these transgressions.[117] Those who repent of their sins and seek to embody hesed will also be raised on the last day. For the present they experience an existential resurrection which translates them from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13) and makes them living stones in a new and final temple (1 Pet 2:5).

I would like to dedicate this article to a great OT scholar who certainly has walked the Emmaus road and learned from his Savior and Lord how to understand the Bible. It is no secret that John Sailhamer, a lifelong student of the OT canon—and thus the narrative sweep of Israel’s Scriptures—has been affected by a debilitating illness. But he knows that this is not the last word. The last word is Resurrection.

John was deeply concerned about how to read the OT not in isolated events but as part of one great story in search of completion.[118] He surely got it right when he saw the deeper, eschatological significance of the ending of Israel’s Scriptures on the notes of temple and resurrection.[119] Cyrus’s command for “the one whose God is with him,” to go up to Jerusalem to build the temple, on one level meant the command for every serious Jew to do this (2 Chr 36:23). This is clearly what it means in Ezra 1:1. But on another level in its form in Chronicles at the end of this major arrangement of the Scriptures, it becomes a command for that greater David, the one on whom the book of Chronicles centers, and the whole HB, to come and to build a true temple, and thus the last word of Jesus’ Bible was, “Let him go up!”[120]

Notes

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are from the NIV.
Cf. Robert Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 90-91. Virtually all scholars agree with this assessment.
“The historical designation (as also ‘under Pontius Pilate’) belongs to the oldest Easter testimonies and is one of the basic elements of the primitive Christian confessions in 1 Cor. 15:4 and Acts 10:40 (cf. Mk. 8:31, 9:31, Lk 10:34, 24:7, 46)” and occurs eighteen times in the NT (see Gustav Stählin, “‘On the Third Day’: The Easter Traditions of the Primitive Church,” Int 10 [1956]: 292-93).
For a history of the various possible interpretations of this sign, see A. K. M. Adam, “The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View,” Semeia 51 (1990): 177-91. Cf. Eugene Merrill, “The Sign of Jonah,” JETS 23 (1980): 23-30; George M. Landes, “Jonah in Luke: The Hebrew Bible Background to the Interpretation of the ‘Sign of Jonah,’” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays in Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 133-63.
Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13.23 (Hos 6:1-2). For a succinct history of interpretation, see Jacques Dupont, “Ressuscité ‘Le Troisième Jour,’” Bib 40 (1959): 742-59.
Douglas Hill, “On the Third Day,” ExpTim 78 (1967): 266.
Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (AnBib 45; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), 125.
See esp. the incisive work by Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997).
See, e.g., the following important works: T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Leicester: InterVarsity,  2000); Scott J. Hafemann, ed., Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002); Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); James K. Mead, Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House, Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012).
I am alluding to the massive book by N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). Surprisingly, Wright does not deal very much with the OT evidence of resurrection in terms of an overarching story.
The terminology comes from Professor Richard Gaffin’s famous course on biblical theology which he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for many years.
Richard B. Hays, “Reading Scripture in the Light of the Resurrection,” in The Art of Reading Scripture (ed. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 229.
See, e.g., Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 652.
F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 93.
Harvey McArthur, “On the Third Day,” NTS 18 (1971): 81. Bruce M. Metzger (“A Suggestion Concerning 1 Cor 15:4b, ” JTS 8 [1957]: 120), argues for this position, and has been followed by many others.
McArthur, “On the Third Day,” 81. See also Bode, First Easter Morning, 117. For a comprehensive discussion of the issues presenting both sides of the argument, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1193-97.
Commentators often suggest that interpretations like these were the result of scripture twisting and “showed how desperately early Christians searched the Scriptures to find proof for the things happening among them” (S. Vernon McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” JBL 80 [1961]: 143-48).
Richard T. Mead, “A Dissenting Opinion for Context in Old Testament Quotations,” NTS 10 (1964): 279-89. See also Seitz’s description of this position (a position with which he does not agree): “The New hears what it hears because of the overtones supplied by Christian confession, and so ‘reads into’ the Old Testament something that is not there” (Christopher Seitz, “The Canonical Approach and Theological interpretation,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation [ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al.; Scripture and Hermeneutics 7; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011], 83).
“The authors of the New Testament do unconscionable things with the Old Testament” (Peter J. Leithart, Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009], 35). To be fair to the author, though, I am in fundamental sympathy with his program for exegesis, and I am certain he would not share the views of many other scholars who believe that the NT authors are twisting the Scriptures.
“Although attributing ‘on the third day’ to Scripture, neither of these [biblical] writers mentions the scripture that he has in mind” (S. Vernon McCasland, “The Scripture Basis of ‘On the Third Day,’” JBL 48 [1929]: 131). The allusion to Jonah in Matthew (12:39-40) is an example utilizing the three day motif typologically. McCasland concludes that “it is the only Old Testament scripture used in the New Testament to establish the three days motif,” but since it is viewed as entering into the tradition late “this was not the passage in the mind of Paul, Luke or John, upon which belief in ‘on the third day’ was based” (ibid., 130).
As noted above, the earliest church father to find an explicit OT text for the “third day” was Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 13.23).
McCasland, “Scripture Basis of ‘On the Third Day,’” 135.
Martin Pickup, “On the Third Day: The Time Frame of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection,” JETS 56 (2013): 511-42.
See, e.g., Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003), 14-15. See also Pickup, “On the Third Day,” 524 n. 56.
This interpretation relies on a certain interpretation of 1 Cor 15:4 in which “died for our sins” is parallel to “raised on the third day,” thus inferring that atonement and freedom from decay are parallel concepts. But the point is surely that both events are “according to the Scriptures.” See Pickup, “On the Third Day,” 535.
Jacques Dupont, “L’utilization apologétique dans l’Ancien Testament dans les discours des Actes,” ETL 26 (1953): 289-327.
Pickup, “On the Third Day,” 536-37.
Pickup has made the best case for this particular position, and I would argue that it is not incompatible with the position argued in this article, but its Achilles heel is the lack of OT evidence. In my judgment the evidence provided by the OT is the determining factor.
Dupont, “Ressuscité,” 749; my translation.
Ibid., 747. Among others Dupont cites Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (2d ed.; London: MacMillan, 1935), 35.
J. Edwin Wood, “Isaac Typology in the New Testament,” NTS 14 (1968): 588-89. See also Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002): 416-19; Kermit Zarley, The Third Day Bible Code (Austin, Tex.: Synergy Books, 2006).
Dupont, “Ressuscité,” 746 n. 3. Dupont cites in particular for this view B. W. Bacon, “Raised the Third Day,” Expositor 26 (1923): 426-41.
Bruce, Paul, 91-93.
Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 49-50, 117-20.
Cf., e.g., the Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in Dan 7. See also the last part of Ps 89.
See the masterful studies on this text by Dupont, “Ressuscité,” 756-59, and Leithart, Deep Exegesis. See also the recent treatment by G. K. Beale, “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: One More Time,” JETS 55 (2012): 697-715. I think Beale is correct that Hosea 11:1 is a type of the greater exodus described as a prophecy in 11:10-11. As a type it is considered to have prophetic power typifying how God will act in the future. By mentioning the exodus, Hosea is saying that God has provided a great salvation, which is itself a promise of a greater salvation.
Karl Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift: Früheste Christologie, Bekenntnisbildung und Schriftauslegung im Lichte von 1 Kor. 15, 3-5 (QD 38; Freiburg: Herder, 1969).
These are clearly correlative expressions. Cf., e.g., Gen 42:17-18; Esth 4:16-5:1. Those who find a “contradiction” between the resurrection happening “after three days” and it happening “on the third day” need first to understand the Semitic way of thinking and speaking. See, e.g., McCasland, “The Scripture Basis of ‘On the Third Day.’”
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ.This identical expression is found in Luke 18:33 and 1 Cor 15:4 in the NT in the context of the resurrection. It also occurs in John 2:1. For the occurrence of this phrase in the OT see the last note in this article below.
Lehmann, Auferweckt am Dritten Tag, 181: “Der dritte Tag bringt die Wendung zum Neuen und Besseren, Gottes Barmherzigkeit und Gerechtigkeit schafft eine neue ‘Zeit’ des Heils, des Lebens, des Sieges; der dritte Tag bringt eine Sache von Entscheidung durch Gottes Heilstat zur endgültigen und Geschichte schaffenden Lösung” (my translation).
Bode, First Easter Morning, 119.
Ibid., 123. At the same time it is clear that these texts are much later than the early Christian period, a point emphasized by William Lane Craig. The absence of this type of exegesis from earlier texts, however, does not militate against this understanding of the OT. It is clear, as I hope to demonstrate, that a biblical theological reading of Israel’s Scriptures shows the importance of this third day motif in Israel’s story itself. Also, this in no way pits theology against history, which is part of Craig’s concern with Lehmann’s study. That is, Lehmann is not concerned with the third day as an historical event but a theological one. But the two do not have to be at odds with each other. See William Lane Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” NTS 31 (1985): 39-67.
Bode, First Easter Morning, 123-24.
This is exactly the point made by Bode (ibid., 123).
B. de Margerie, “Le troisième jour, selon les Ecritures, il est ressuscité,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 60 (1986): 163: “une idée de la plus grand intelligibilité biblique” (my translation).
See the pertinent comments by Margerie (ibid., 72-73).
Michael Russell, “On the Third Day, According to the Scriptures,” RTR 16 (2008): 8.
Ibid.
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 14.
Ibid., 16.
See, e.g., Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb.”
Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 199. However, this concept is never really developed. Note also the absence of Lehmann’s important study from Wright’s bibliography.
Ibid., 320-22.
Scott Hafemann (personal communication). Having said this, there is only so much a person can do! The book is 740 pages. A popular book with a lot of insight but overly influenced by popular millennial eschatology and a literalist hermeneutic is Zarley’s Third Day Bible Code. There are stretches in logic which assume relationships between “thousand year principles and third day motifs.” While the author has seen clearly a third day motif in Scripture, the question of a thousand year principle as well as a relationship between it and the motif of three days includes an unnecessary logical leap. Similar is his calculation of the general time for the Second Coming of Christ (a.d. 2073-2240).
The phrase, of course, is Wright’s (Resurrection of the Son of God, 31, 108).
It is most probable that the description of Jesus’ Bible here contains the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. For a particular study of this passage and its relation to canon, see Stephen Dempster, “From Many Texts to One: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible,” in The World of the Aramaeans 1: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 36-38. For the story-like structure of the Tanak, see John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 20-25; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 37-50.
See, e.g., Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.8.
For the canon debate the literature is voluminous. For a recent assessment of the evidence, see Stephen G. Dempster, “Canons on the Left and Canons on the Right: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate,” JETS 52 (2009): 47-77; there is a wealth of literature noted there. See further Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); J. M. Auwers and H. J. De Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003); Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 1995); Lee M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen, 2007); Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002).
Christopher R. Seitz, Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 65.
See further, e.g., Gen 30:36; 34:25; Num 29:20; Josh 9:16; Judg 14:14. For all OT and NT references to three days and the third day, see the final note below.
Concerning the theological significance of the third day in Genesis Mackay remarks concerning Jonah and this day, “This unites third day resurrection to the upsurge of life in the seed and so to the day when first the earth produced vegetation, the third day of creation” (Cameron Mackay, “The Third Day,” CQR 164 [1963]: 292). The Book of Jubilees develops some similar thoughts, and J. Christensen extrapolates a bit too much from these to argue that this is the basis of Paul’s understanding of the third day. See Jens Christensen, “And That He Rose on the Third Day According to the Scriptures,” SJOT 2 (1990): 101-13.
Some may regard this interpretation as fanciful, but I think it is significant since it is clear that the two sets of triads for the days of creation are parallel. And the second triad intensifies the first, so that the life of humanity being raised from the ground on the last day of the second triad represents the climax of creation. So too the creation of Eve from the “death of Adam” represents the climax of the creative act in Gen 2. For some theological discussion of the third day which includes these texts, see Mackay, “Third Day.”
I owe this insight to Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/1: The Doctrine of God: The Knowledge of God; the Reality of God (trans. T. H. L. Parker et al.; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 118-20.
See among others recently John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009); the seminal work on this had been done in ancient Jewish literature. See also Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden,” Proceedings of the World Conference of Jewish Studies 9 (1986): 19-25; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004).
It thus seems in my judgment quite naïve to argue that the serpent was right because the first couple did not immediately die physically after they ate from the tree. This is to understand death in a woodenly literalistic way. See, e.g., James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 8-14. Similarly Barr views death as natural. There is a sense in which this became true, but to make this argument is to read the Bible in a myopic way. Such an argument makes totally incomprehensible other passages of Scripture such as Isa 25-26. Barr’s need to react against criticism of his views is both telling and revealing and demonstrates in my judgment the importance of exegetes to take far more seriously the significance of biblical theology. In the words of another famous Englishman, “Methinks he (Professor Barr) protesteth too much.” See James Barr, “Is God a Liar? (Genesis 2-3)—And Related Matters,” JTS 57 (2006): 1-22.
See the discussion below.
Jon Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 61-176; Byron Wheaton, “As It Is Written: Old Testament Foundations for Jesus’ Expectation of Resurrection,” WTJ 70 (2008): 245-53. See also Hans Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 162-68; Bernhard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 121-32.
E.g., see John J. Collins, Encounters with Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 32. For a recent study of this theme with complete bibliography and an outline of the various positions, see the recent dissertation by Mitchell L. Chase, “Resurrection Hope in Daniel 12:2: An Exercise in Biblical Theology” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013).
I owe this insight to H. W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Yahwist,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (ed. Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 54-55.
For this particular insight I am indebted to Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 46-47.
For the golden calf incident as Israel’s original sin, see Leivy Smolar and Moshe Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature,” HUCA 39 (1968): 91-116, esp. 106; cf. Dominique Barthélemy, God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2007), 96-102.
Edwin Wood, “Isaac Typology in the New Testament,” NTS 14 (1968): 588. The relevant reference is Heb 11:17-19. Wood also notes that Paul already sees the birth of Isaac as a type of resurrection.
Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, 27-28.
Gen 22:14b, my translation. The importance of Abraham therefore authorizing this site for the future temple is shown in 2 Chr 3:1-2. This is a point underscored in an important article by Jean Louis Ska, but his conclusion that this story is later than the Chronicler is unnecessary. See Jean Louis Ska, “Genesis 22: What Question Should We Ask the Text?,” Bib 94 (2013): 257-67.
“It was on the third day that Abraham’s obedience was consummated, Isaac’s sacrifice was accepted, and the promised heir given back to the Patriarch as one alive again from the dead” (Wood, “Isaac Typology in the New Testament,” 589). Some later Jewish exegesis concluded that Abraham had actually killed Isaac, or that Isaac had died of fright. Nonetheless a resurrection occurred. See the texts cited in Léopold Sabourin, “Isaac and Jesus in the Targums and the New Testament,” Religious Studies Bulletin (1981): 37-45.
Leithart, Deep Exegesis, 44.
Note the pervasive exodus theme in Ezek 37:12-14; 40-48.
See below.
Some may think the typology is subtle, but it is telling that later Jewish exegesis equated Isaac with the Passover lamb and viewed the Aqedah as happening on the same day as Passover. See the literature cited by Sabourin, “Isaac and Jesus in the Targums.”
R. W. L. Moberly, “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” VT 38 (1988): 304-5.
Mackay, “Third Day,” 291. There is one other possible allusion to the third day in the Torah. The flesh from a sacrifice cannot be eaten on the third day since by that time it has become defiled (Lev 7:17-18; cf. 19:6-7). Zarley (Third Day Bible Code, 108) argues that this might have reference to the third day in the NT since the resurrection on the third day prevented the body from corruption, but this text would probably count as evidence against such a view.
Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel (New York: Schocken, 1996), 200-204; John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 295-99.
Robert Martin-Achard, “Resurrection (OT),” ABD 5:681.
Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. 4: From Joshua to Esther (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 239. See also in particular the Hebrew text of Sir 48:12-14.
The lists are not enumerated in the Midrash. For various lists see, e.g., the literature cited in Roger David Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Studies in Judaism; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2012), 28-29. My lists correspond to his but there could be variations; e.g., not enumerated above is Elijah’s superhuman feat of outrunning Ahab’s chariot (1 Kgs 18:46). See p. 29 n. 126 of Aus’s book.
Nachman Levine, “Twice as Much of Your Spirit: Pattern, Parallel and Paronomasia in the Miracles of Elijah and Elisha,” JSOT 85 (1999): 25. I am grateful to my colleague Keith Bodner for this reference and also for providing me with his forthcoming (since published) and stimulating monograph on the Elisha stories, Elisha’s Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Martin-Achard, “Resurrection (OT),” 5:681.
Thus the issue is whether there were two three day periods before the people crossed the Jordan, necessitated by the three day period of the spies having to wait for three days after completing their assignment. See the various commentators. For my purposes, this is not as important as the emphasis on the three days.
De Margerie, “Le Troisième Jour,” 161: “S’il est vrai que ‘le fléau frappe la peuple et soixante-dix mille hommes du peuple moururent depuis Dan jusqu’à Bersabee,’ il n’est pas moins vrai que le troisième jour fut pour tous les survivants un jour de salut et de libération, en étant celui de fin de châtiment” (my translation).
Note Mackay’s comments (“Third Day,” 291): “the christos who on the third day was healed at death’s door.”
Cf. 2 Kgs 13:21, hāyâ qûm.
Literally “you fall upon the land of the Rephaim.”
There is quite a bit of controversy about this passage with many commentators understanding this as a place name rather than a personal name, in which case they have to emend the preposition from “like” to “in,” admittedly a rather simple error to make. The major evidence for this emendation is the reference to the locative pronoun “there” in the next part of the verse: “As [in] Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.” Consequently, the antecedent of the locative pronoun is said to be Adam, the village along the Jordan river (cf. Josh 3:16; 22:11). But this is to ignore the heavily covenantal context, and the locative antecedent does not have to refer to an obscure place which is no longer known. It most likely refers to the house of Israel as it clearly does in 6:10. The entire context has been about covenant faithlessness in Israel, and thus the locative pronoun is found at the beginning of this section and at the end.
Many commentaries recognize this fact, but in particular see the study by E. M. Good, “Hosea 5:8-6:6: An Alternative to Alt,” JBL 85 (1966): 284-85. Good’s entire article is a “good” counterbalance to the historical reductionism of Alt, who saw in this text political and military movements of the Syro-Ephraimite war. See Albrecht Alt, “Hosea 5:8-6:6. Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; 3d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1964), 2:163-87.
See above commentary on Isa 26.
Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, “Love (OT),” ABD 3:378. For this reference I am indebted to Mary H. Edin, “Learning What Righteousness Means: Hosea 6:6 and the Ethic of Mercy in Matthew’s Gospel,” WW 18 (1998): 355-63.
Cf. Charles Halton, “How Big Was Nineveh? Literal Versus Figurative Interpretation of City Size,” BBR 18 (2008): 193-207.
Beckwith, Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. See also Timothy J. Stone, “The Compilational History of the Megilloth: Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings” (Ph.D. diss.; University of St. Andrews, 2010); Stephen G. Dempster, “Ruth’s Place in the Canon: A Wandering Moabite,” in The Shape of the Ketuvim: History, Contoured Intertextuality, and Canon (ed. Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone; Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).
On Ruth and hesed, see esp. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., “Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Hesed and Change,” Austin Seminary Bulletin 105 (1990): 64-74. For the brokenness of death see Ruth 1:3-5.
James Luther Mays, Psalms (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 44. See also the fact that the rare use of the Aramaic term for “son” (bar) in this psalm may anticipate the heavenly man of Dan 7 (Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 217).
On the issue of kingship as a construct for the Psalter, see in particular Gerald Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1985). Although Wilson downplays the issue of messianic kingship in the final form, this is hard to maintain, given the prominence of the Davidic psalm titles in books 4 and 5 as well as the presence of Pss 101, 110, and 132 in their respective places. For relevant discussion, see David C. Mitchell, An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTSup 252; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997).
E.g., Ps 18. On this development see, e.g., Scobie, Ways of Our God, 404-5.
H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 400-404; J. Day, “Da‘at ‘Humiliation’ in Isaiah 53:11 in the Light of Isaiah 53:3 and Daniel 12:4, and the Oldest Known Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 30 (1980): 97-103.
This is technically not completely accurate as the twin third day references happen in Gen 1 and the last reference in Chronicles is the divided kingdom (2 Chr 10:12).
John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, 25-37.
There is a great debate whether these verses represent the last historical footnote that the Deuteronomistic historian(s) had at his disposal (Noth) or whether they are a manifestation of messianic hope (von Rad). A recent work has in my judgment decided in favor of von Rad. See James R. Critchlow, Looking Back for Jehoiachin: Yahweh’s Cast-Out Signet (Africanus Monograph; Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2013). See also the basic positions: Martin Noth, Überlieferungs-Geschichtliche Studien: Die Sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2d ed.; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957), 108; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (trans. David Stalker; 2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1:342-46.
Hays, “Reading Scripture in the Light of the Resurrection,” 234.
For the classic recent treatment of this idea of reversal, see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God.
“Demonstrating both mercy and faithfulness, Jesus loves the way God loves, and Jesus loves the way Hosea announces that God intends God’s people to love” (Edin, “Learning What Righteousness Means,” 362).
See in particular Sydney Palmer, “Repetition and the Art of Reading: καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, ‘On the Third Day’ in John’s Gospel,” in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (ed. Gilbert Van Belle, Michael Labahn, and Petrus Maritz; BETL 223; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 403-17.
In the LXX of Gen 2:7 and Ezek 37:9 the same verb is used for “inspiration” as in John 20:22.
For more possibilities and a survey of the Jewish literature in which Isaac is considered a sacrifice, see Sabourin, “Isaac and Jesus in the Targums and the New Testament.” While some of Sabourin’s parallels between Isaac and Jesus are similar to mine, others are not.
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1195 (emphasis in original).
Thus the fact that some gospel writers speak of Jesus’ being in the tomb three days and others of his being resurrected on the third day is inconsequential (McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures”). The three days is just a general time period for a mission. The important day is the third. Concerning the mission of God, see the important work by Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006).
Hays, “Reading Scripture in the Light of the Resurrection,” 229.
Cf. also Matt 3:14-15. I would like to thank an anonymous referee for help in expressing this point.
As indicated in his magnum opus, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 228. In particular he was concerned about the traditional method of understanding the Messiah in the OT. The prophetic books were viewed as more like large scrapbooks containing fragments of once whole works of art by Michelangelo and Rembrandt. The task of the scholar was to reassemble the pieces into a whole portrait of the Messiah. It was only after this arduous task of assembling the broken pieces was completed that one could understand the whole.
Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology,” 36-37. Sailhamer argued that there were two main competing arrangements of the HB circulating in Jesus’ time, one which ended with Ezra and one with Chronicles. The latter one was more eschatological while the former was more ethical, stressing the law. Early Christians within the Jewish community formed one of the more eschatological groups.
wĕyā‘al. Cf. 1 Chr 17:11 and 2 Sam 7:12. The following is a complete list of references to the phrases “third day” and “three days” in the Bible. The verses in which appears the exact Greek phrase “on the third day,” which is found in 1 Cor 15:4, are listed below in bold print: Gen 1:13; 22:4; 30:36; 31:22 ; 34:25; 40:12, 13, 18, 19, 20; 42:17, 18, Exod 3:18; 5:3; 8:23; 10:22, 23; 15:22; 19:11, 15, 16; 7:17, 18; 19:6, 7; Num 7:24; 10:33; 19:12(2x), 19; 29:20; 31:19; 33:8; Josh 1:11; 2:16, 22; 3:16; 9:16, 17; Judg 14:14; 19:4; 20:30; 1 Sam 9:20; 20:5, 12, 19; 30:1, 12, 13; 2 Sam 1:2; 20:4; 24:13; 1 Kgs 3:18; 12:5, 12(2x); 2 Kgs 2:17; 20:5, 8; Hos 6:2; Amos 8:4; Jonah 2:1; 3:3; Esth 4:16; 5:1; Ezra 6:15; 8:15, 32; 10:8, 9; Neh 2:11; 1 Chr 21:12; 2 Chr 10:5, 12(2x); 20:25; Matt 12:40; 15:32; 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:40, 63, 64; Mark 8:2, 31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 2:46; 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; John 2:1, 19, 20; Acts 9:9; 10:40; 25:1; 27:19; 28:7, 12, 17; 1 Cor 15:4. In the LXX the expression is also found in 1 Kgs 12:24 and 1 Macc 11:18.

I would like to thank Raymond Johnson who painstakingly made the exhaustive appendices for an earlier version of this article. He also provided the information in the final footnote. His work was surely a work of supererogation if ever there was one. I would also like to thank Andrew Marshall, the librarian at Crandall University, for his efforts in tracking down articles for me, and for the criticism of Professors Peter Gentry and Don Carson. Thanks are due to the Reverends David Ngole and Ervais Fotso, exegetes at the Cameroon Association for Bible Translation and Literacy, who helped me with this article while I was working with them in Yaoundé.

Eamon Younis

Tuesday 14 December 2021

From Slight Peg To Cornerstone To Capstone: The Resurrection Of Christ On “The Third Day” According To The Scriptures

No comments:

Post a Comment