Today, as we declare the new month, this is the section of Tanach we read from. I will share with you in a later article about why we celebrate the New Moon.

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4)

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (p. iv). Warren A. Gage.

Milestone 5: David Delivered from Death on the Third Day
(Primary reference: 1 Samuel 20:18–19, 35 – Jonathan’s plan for David to hide in the field for three days during the new moon feast, with the signal on the morning of the third day.)

In Warren Gage’s framework, this episode in David’s fugitive life serves as another “third day” deliverance from a death decree. David faces Saul’s murderous intent (Saul has already tried to spear him multiple times in 1 Sam 18–19). Jonathan devises a test. David absents himself from the new moon feast. He claims he is going to Bethlehem for a family sacrifice.

David hides in the field “until the third day at evening” (1 Sam 20:5, 19), and on the morning “of the third day” (v. 35), Jonathan goes out to shoot arrows as a signal. The outcome confirms Saul’s rage. Therefore, David must flee for his life. Yet he emerges safely from hiding on the third day. In doing so, he “rises” from his concealed place of peril to continue his anointed path.

Gage sees this as typological. David (anointed king, type of Christ) faces a death threat and descends to a hidden/low place. On the third day he “rises” to safety, with weeping reunion (vv. 41–42) echoing resurrection themes.

How does this match?

Some Christian typological readings (independent of Gage) amplify this: David hides by a “stone heap” (Ezel, v. 19), “descends” to the place, remains hidden, and “rises” on the third morning (v. 41 uses “rose” or “arose” in some translations for David’s emergence), paralleling Jesus rising from the stone-sealed tomb.

From the Tanach’s original Hebrew text, historical context, and Jewish interpretive tradition, this milestone does not hold up as a prophetic pattern or foreshadowing of Jesus’ literal death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. The “third day” is a practical waiting period. Furthermore, the episode lacks essential elements of the resurrection.

1. The “Three Days” Is a Strategic Hiding Interval for Safety Testing, Not a Death-and-Resurrection Sequence

• Jonathan instructs David to hide “three days” (שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים) so the absence can be observed at the feast without immediate suspicion (vv. 5–6, 19). It’s a calculated timeframe for Jonathan to gauge Saul’s reaction without endangering David prematurely.
• On the morning of the third day (v. 35), Jonathan performs the arrow signal, confirms the danger, and David flees. No death occurs—David is alive and in hiding the whole time. He simply avoids detection.
• The verb in v. 41 (וַיָּקָם / wayyaqom, “he arose/rose”) describes David standing up from his hiding spot to embrace Jonathan—not a resurrection from death. It’s everyday language for getting up after waiting (similar to “arise” in many non-theological contexts).

Contrast with Jesus: actual crucifixion death, burial in a tomb sealed for three days, divine bodily resurrection. Here, there’s no death, no burial, no revival from the dead—only evasion of a threat.

2. The Threat Is Ongoing Persecution, Not a Realized Decree of Death Followed by Revival

• Saul’s hatred is real (he attempts to kill David repeatedly), but in this specific episode, David never faces execution—he preempts it by hiding.
• The narrative focuses on covenant loyalty between David and Jonathan (vv. 12–17, 42), Jonathan’s self-sacrifice (risking his father’s wrath), and David’s anointing as future king. It’s about human friendship, political intrigue, and divine protection of the anointed one—not resurrection typology.
• Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi, Radak, Malbim) emphasizes themes of loyalty, the tragedy of Saul’s jealousy, and David’s righteousness. The three days are logistical, not symbolic of death-to-life. In classical rabbinic sources, this is framed as a resurrection motif.

3. Typology Is Highly Allegorical and Relies on Selective Parallels

• Gage (and similar interpreters) highlight “descent” (to the field/stone), hiding (like in a tomb?), and “rising” on the third day with tears (like post-resurrection encounters). These are stretched: hiding in a field ≠ burial; standing up after waiting ≠ , rising from death.
• The Tanach frequently uses “three days” to refer to short absences, tests, or transitions (e.g., travel, preparation). It’s a conventional biblical interval, not inherently resurrection-coded without New Testament application.

Conclusion on Milestone 5

This story beautifully illustrates covenant faithfulness, the cost of loyalty in crisis, and God’s preservation of His chosen king amid danger—profound lessons in their own right. However, it does not depict or foreshadow a Messiah who dies for sins, is buried, and rises bodily on the third day. The “third day” is incidental timing for a covert test, not a deliberate eschatological pattern. Gage’s reading continues the pattern we’ve observed: retrofitting numerical matches into a resurrection template, where the text itself provides no internal evidence for death, burial, and resurrection.

The chain of milestones remains consistent in its approach—strong on creative typology, but the plain reading of the Tanach doesn’t support the claim that Jesus’ third-day resurrection is explicitly “according to the Scriptures” in these passages.

Hazan Gavriel ben David.

Milestone 4: The Gibeonites Delivered from the Sword on the Third Day
(Joshua 9:15–27, with emphasis on vv. 16–17: “At the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, they heard that they were their neighbors… And the sons of Israel set out and reached their cities on the third day.”)

Warren Gage presents this episode as another link in his chain of “third day” deliverances from a decree of death. In his reading, the Gibeonites face imminent destruction by the sword of Israel (as Canaanite inhabitants marked for ḥerem, or holy war devotion), but through deception and a hastily sworn covenant, they are spared execution. The discovery of their trick occurs “at the end of three days,” and on that third day Joshua confronts them, curses them, but ultimately confirms their lives—they become servants (woodcutters and water carriers) rather than corpses. Gage interprets this as a third-day deliverance from death to life, with the Gibeonites’ submission foreshadowing Gentile inclusion in salvation through mercy rather than judgment.

From the perspective of the Tanach’s plain text, original context, and Jewish interpretive tradition, this milestone provides no substantive support for a typological foreshadowing of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. The “third day” reference is purely logistical, and the episode lacks the core elements of death, burial, and rising.

1. The “Three Days” Is Travel and Discovery Time, Not a Death-to-Life Transition

• Joshua 9:16–17 describes the sequence: Israel makes the covenant (v. 15), then “at the end of three days” (מִקְצֵה שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים) learns the Gibeonites are nearby neighbors who deceived them. The Israelites then travel and arrive at the Gibeonite cities “on the third day” (בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי).
• This is narrative pacing: the Gibeonites came from nearby cities (Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, Kiriath-jearim—about 20–30 km from Gilgal), so three days is realistic for the deception to be uncovered and the delegation to arrive.
• No one is in a death-like state for three days. The Gibeonites are alive and well throughout; the threat of death is potential and future (what Israel might do upon discovery), not realized.

2. No Actual Death or Burial Occurs—Only a Commuted Sentence

• The leaders of Israel are furious at the deception but feel bound by their oath sworn in Yahweh’s name (v. 18–19). They cannot kill the Gibeonites without violating the covenant and risking divine wrath.
• Joshua pronounces a curse of perpetual servitude (v. 23), but explicitly preserves their lives: “None of you shall be cut off from being slaves” (v. 23 implies ongoing existence). They become temple servants (v. 27), a role that continues into the time of David (see 2 Sam 21).
• Jewish tradition views this positively in some respects: the Gibeonites’ fear of God leads them to seek mercy, and their integration shows the power of an oath and Yahweh’s protection of the covenant. Midrashim (e.g., in Talmud Yevamot 79a) note their descendants include notable converts or temple workers. Nowhere is the episode framed as a resurrection motif.

3. The Theme Is Deception, Oath-Keeping, and Mercy Despite Fraud—Not Resurrection Typology

• The primary lesson in the text is caution in decision-making (Israel failed to inquire of the Lord, v. 14) and the inviolability of oaths, even when sworn under false pretenses.
• The Gibeonites’ deliverance comes from human covenant fidelity, enforced by the fear of God, not a divine third-day intervention that reverses death.
• Contrast with Jesus: actual execution, literal burial in a sealed tomb, supernatural bodily resurrection on the third day. Here, there is no execution, no tomb, no rising from death—only a legal reprieve from a threatened sentence.

4. Continued Pattern of Numerical Coincidence Over Prophetic Substance

• As in previous milestones, a mundane “three days” (travel/reporting delay) is elevated into a resurrection template.
• The Tanach uses “three days” frequently for short journeys or intervals (e.g., Abraham to Moriah, spies in the hills, Joseph’s brothers in custody). It is a standard biblical time marker, not a coded resurrection signal until New Testament authors apply it christologically.

Conclusion on Milestone 4

The Gibeonites’ story is theologically rich: it illustrates the binding nature of oaths, the possibility of mercy for Canaanites who submit, the dangers of acting without divine inquiry, and Yahweh’s sovereignty over human plans. However, it does not depict or foreshadow a Messiah who dies for sins, is buried, and rises bodily on the third day. The “third day” here is incidental chronology, not eschatological pattern. Gage’s typology requires reading the text through a post-resurrection lens that imposes resurrection imagery where the Hebrew text itself gives no warrant.

The pattern we’ve seen across the first four milestones holds firm: creative allegorical connections built on the recurrence of the number three, but lacking the essential sequence of actual death → burial → resurrection that Paul claims is “according to the Scriptures.”

Next is Milestone 5: David Delivered from Death on the Third Day.

Hazan Gavriel ben David. Beit Hashoavah YouTube Channel Hazan Gavriel ben David.

The reason for these studies is to show how Christianity has fallen into what my Rabbi calls the “Lullaby Effect” (Read the “Rock A BABY IN THE TREE TOP”). As a hint, pay attention to the caps.

I would like to present as evidence in a court of law, “Heaven and Earth,” that the algebra does not add up. The verse in the Christian Bible says: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4).

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (p. iv). Warren A. Gage.

This verse does not exist in our Tanach, and I will prove it to you over the next 30 lessons. My goal is not to prove that I am right and you are wrong. Rather, it is to help you and me understand why we are on different paths regarding our Tanach. The sources do not belong together. So let us reason together, my friend.

My goal is to help the world understand one thing. We, the Jewish people, have been, throughout our history, a light to Hashem. Hashem is everyone’s Father and breathed his lifeinto them. They were made good, special, and unique, with a purpose, and Hashem needs them to show Himself in the world. Hashem needs you, my friend.

The”Lullaby Effect”

Warren Gage continues his pattern of identifying “third day” episodes as typological previews of resurrection: deliverance from imminent death threat on or after three days. In Joshua 2, Joshua sends two spies into Jericho. Rahab the prostitute hides them on her roof under flax stalks when the king’s men come searching. She lowers them by rope through her window (her house is on the city wall). Then she instructs them to flee to the hills, and tells them: “Hide there three days until those who are pursuing you return; then afterward you may go on your way” (Joshua 2:16). The text notes they hid in the hills for three days (v. 22). As a result, they evaded capture, and then returned safely to Joshua.

Gage likely frames this as the “faithful spies” facing a decree of death (pursuit by the king of Jericho, who wants them executed as threats). But on the third day (after the hiding period), they are delivered alive—symbolizing a resurrection-like escape from death. Rahab’s faith and scarlet cord are included as redemptive elements foreshadowing salvation through Christ. This fits his broader typology of Joshua (Yehoshua = “Yahweh saves,” akin to Jesus) conquering a “great city” (Jericho, paralleling end-times judgment). Moreover, the spies act as witnesses delivered on the third day.

The Tanach and The Proof

From the Tanach’s original context, language, and Jewish interpretive tradition, this milestone does not support a prophetic pattern of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. In fact, the connection is superficial and numerological rather than substantive.

The “Three Days” Is a Practical Hiding Period for Evasion, Not a Death-and-Resurrection Motif

• Joshua 2:16 and 2:22 use “three days” (שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים) as a realistic timeframe: the king’s search party would pursue for a few days, then give up and return to the city. The spies wait until it’s safe, then proceed.
• This is tactical advice from Rahab to ensure escape—no death occurs, no burial, no revival. The spies are alive and hidden the entire time; they simply avoid detection.
• Compare to Jesus: actual death, entombment for three days, bodily resurrection. Here, there’s no equivalent to death or burial—the “three days” is precautionary waiting, not a liminal state between life and death.

2. No Actual Threat of Immediate Death Realized; It’s Pursuit and Potential Capture, Not Execution Followed by Revival

• The king seeks to seize the spies because they pose a threat to Jericho (v. 2–3), but Rahab’s quick action prevents their capture. They are never arrested, imprisoned, or executed.
• The narrative emphasizes Rahab’s faith (she confesses Yahweh as God, v. 11), covenant-making (the scarlet cord as a sign of protection, v. 18–21), and mercy—classic themes of Gentile inclusion and redemption through faith.
• Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi, midrashim such as Numbers Rabbah, or later sources) highlights Rahab’s conversion, her merit in saving the spies, and her place in Israel’s lineage (she marries into the line leading to David and the Messiah). The three days are rarely, if ever, emphasized as symbolic of resurrection; they’re logistical.

3. Typology in Gage’s Framework Is Highly Allegorical, But Lacks Textual Anchors for Third-Day Resurrection

• Gage often draws parallels between Joshua and Revelation (e.g., the conquest of Jericho as judgment on a “great city,” two spies as two witnesses). This is creative but not directly tied to resurrection here.
• The “faithful spies” are delivered because of Rahab’s faithfulness, not a divine third-day intervention. The three-day mark is the end of danger, not emergence from death.
• Broader Tanach patterns: “Three days” appears in many contexts (travel, waiting, purification—e.g., Gen 40:20 with the cupbearer; Exod 3:18 for request to Pharaoh). It’s a common biblical interval for completion or transition, not inherently resurrection-coded unless the apostles apply it christologically (e.g., Jonah 1:17 cited by Jesus in Matt 12:40).

Conclusion on Milestone 3

This episode powerfully illustrates themes of faith in crisis, the divine protection of the faithful (even outsiders like Rahab), and the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan—profound truths in their own right. However, the “three days” is incidental safety protocol, not a foreshadowing of a Messiah who dies for sins, is buried, and rises bodily on the third day. Gage’s reading retrofits the number into his template. The text provides no internal warrant for seeing death → burial → resurrection here.

The pattern persists: a casual mention of “three days” is amplified into eschatological typology. But the details (no death, no burial, no rising from the dead) don’t match the core claim in 1 Corinthians 15:4.

Next up is Milestone 4: The Gibeonites Delivered from the Sword on the Third Day (likely Joshua 9, where the Gibeonites deceive Israel into a treaty, and on the “third day” their trick is discovered—Joshua 9:16–17). Shall we proceed there, or do you have specific thoughts, adjustments, or additional angles for this one? This is shaping up into a solid, scripture-centered critique for your blog!

Milestone 2: The Tribal Patriarchs of Israel Delivered from Death on the Third Day
(Likely centered on Genesis 42:17–18, in the Joseph narrative: Joseph’s brothers imprisoned for three days, then addressed by Joseph “on the third day.”)

Gage builds on his overarching theme here. He treats the Joseph story as a prophetic preview of Jesus (a common typology in evangelical circles, with Joseph as a “type” of Christ—betrayed by brothers, exalted to save many). In Genesis 42, the ten brothers (excluding Benjamin initially) come to Egypt during the famine to buy grain.

Joseph recognizes them, accuses them of being spies, imprisons them all together for three days (v. 17), and then, on the third day (v. 18), releases most of them with grain, while holding Simeon hostage and demanding that they bring Benjamin back.

Another Third Day: Addressing Christian Claims.

Gage interprets this as another “third day” deliverance. The brothers face a “decree of death” (imprisonment under threat, echoing their past guilt over selling Joseph). But on the third day, they are granted life and freedom (with conditions). This, for Gage, symbolizes resurrection from peril.

He likely ties this to the “suffering followed by glory” pattern. He sees Joseph’s testing as a shadow of Christ’s passion. The imprisonment is a death-like state, and the third-day release is resurrection-life granted to the “tribal patriarchs” (the future tribes of Israel). As a result, this fits Gage’s broader claim that the Tanach is filled with third-day motifs pointing to Jesus’ resurrection.

From a careful reading of the Tanach in its original context and within Jewish hermeneutical tradition, this milestone also fails to substantiate a direct prophecy of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. Here’s a structured breakdown:

1. The “Third Day” Here Is a Short Imprisonment for Testing, Not a Death-and-Resurrection Sequence

• Genesis 42:17 explicitly states Joseph “put them all together in custody for three days” (וַיַּאֲסֹף אֹתָם אֶל־מִשְׁמָר שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים). This is a brief detention period—common in ancient Near Eastern legal/customary practices for interrogation or reflection—not a burial or literal death.
• On the third day (v. 18), Joseph speaks: “Do this and live, for I fear God” (עֲשׂוּ זֹאת וִחְיוּ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים אֲנִי יָרֵא). The brothers are released to return home with grain (provision/life), but one (Simeon) remains bound as surety.
• No one dies, is buried, or is revived. The brothers are alive the whole time; the “death” threat is psychological and conditional (if they don’t comply, future consequences). It’s a test of character and repentance for their past sin against Joseph—not a resurrection event.
• Contrast with Jesus: literal death on the cross, burial in a tomb for three days, bodily resurrection. The parallel is forced; the numerical match (“three days”) is stretched to fit the template.

2. Context Is Reconciliation and Testing Within Family Dynamics, Not Messianic Prophecy

• The entire Joseph cycle (Genesis 37–50) focuses on themes of divine providence (“you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” – Gen 50:20), forgiveness, family restoration, and survival during famine.
• The three-day imprisonment serves narrative purposes: it gives the brothers time to reflect on their guilt (they confess among themselves in v. 21–22, linking it to Joseph’s suffering), heightens tension, and allows Joseph to observe their honesty.
• Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi on Gen 42:18) emphasizes Joseph’s fear of God as motivation for mercy, and the brothers’ conscience awakening. Midrashim explore their remorse, but none frame the third day as a resurrection motif or link it to a future Messiah rising from death.
• No internal textual signal (like explicit language of “rising,” “life from death,” or prophetic foreshadowing) points beyond the immediate story.

3. Typology Overreach: Joseph as Type Is Valid in Some Ways, But Not for Third-Day Resurrection Here

• Joseph prefigures aspects of Jesus in Christian tradition (betrayed for silver, exalted to save, provides bread of life in a famine).
• But this specific “third day” episode doesn’t align with resurrection. Elsewhere in Joseph’s story, the three days are more prominent with the cupbearer and baker (Gen 40: the baker executed, cupbearer restored “on the third day” – v. 20). Some link this to crucifixion/resurrection duality. Gage may blend these, but Milestone 2 targets the brothers’ imprisonment.
• Even the cupbearer/baker parallel is about judgment and vindication (one to death, one to restoration), not collective deliverance from death on the third day.

4. Broader Pattern in Tanach: “Third Day” as Narrative Device, Not Unified Resurrection Doctrine

• As with Milestone 1, “third day” often marks completion, transition, or divine action (e.g., preparation periods, recoveries). It’s not inherently eschatological or resurrection-coded in the Tanach itself.
• Paul in 1 Cor 15:4 appeals to “the Scriptures” for the third-day rising, but Jewish interpreters (ancient and modern) see no such unified doctrine. The apostles’ reading is a post-resurrection, Spirit-guided christological lens—not the plain peshat meaning.

Conclusion on Milestone 2

This is another instance where an incidental “third day” reference (a three-day hold for interrogation and moral testing) is retrofitted into a resurrection typology. The text teaches about repentance, providence, and family healing—powerful themes in their own right. However, it does not prophesy or pattern a Messiah who dies for sins, is buried, and rises bodily on the third day.

The Joseph narrative is rich with messianic echoes in Jewish thought too (e.g., Messiah ben Joseph in some traditions). But those focus on suffering servant/redeemer roles, not specifically the third-day resurrection from this episode.

Gavriel, this continues the pattern we saw in Milestone 1—strong on creative typology, weak on textual warrant from the Tanach’s own voice. Therefore, it invites deeper reflection on how we approach “according to the Scriptures”: through an apostolic midrashic lens (valid for NT believers) or through the original Hebrew context (which doesn’t demand these connections).

Ready for Milestone 3 (The Faithful Spies of Jericho Delivered from Death on the Third Day – likely Joshua 2, Rahab hiding the spies for three days)?

Hazan Gavriel ben David YouTube Channel, Synagogue Beit Hashoavah – House of the Water Pouring.

Does the Torah Speak of Yeshua’s Death and Resurrection

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4)

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (p. iv). Warren A. Gage.

Milestone 1: Isaac Delivered from the Knife on the Third Day (Genesis 22:1–14, with focus on verse 4: “Then on the third day Abraham raised his eyes and saw the place afar off.”)

Warren Gage presents this as the first major “milestone” in his argument. He argues that the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) repeatedly foreshadows Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. In his framework, the Akedah (Binding of Isaac) serves as a typological preview. Abraham’s journey to the site of sacrifice takes three days. Isaac is essentially “offered” (facing death), but is dramatically spared and “received back” alive on the third day.

As a result, Gage sees this as a pattern of suffering/death threat followed by deliverance/glory on “the third day.” This, in his view, mirrors Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Furthermore, he connects it to Hebrews 11:17–19. There the New Testament says Abraham “received [Isaac] back as a type” (or figuratively, “in a figure,” ἐν παραβολῇ), implying a resurrection motif.

This is a classic Christian typological reading, and it’s not unique to Gage. Many evangelical scholars and early church fathers (like Origen) have drawn similar parallels. However, when we examine the text of Genesis 22 in its original context, language, and Jewish interpretive tradition, this connection to a literal “third day resurrection” does not hold up as a direct prophetic pattern.

In fact, here’s a step-by-step breakdown of why it doesn’t fit as evidence for Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection “according to the Scriptures.” This is what Paul invokes in 1 Corinthians 15:4.

1. The “Third Day” in Genesis 22:4 Is Simply Travel Time, Not a Theological Marker of Resurrection

• The phrase “on the third day” (בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי / bayyom hashlishi) describes the duration of Abraham’s physical journey from Beersheba to Mount Moriah. That is a distance of roughly 50–70 km, realistic for a three-day walk with servants and a donkey.
• It functions as a narrative detail to build suspense and emphasize Abraham’s obedience over an extended period. There’s no indication in the text itself that the number three carries symbolic weight here related to death and revival.
• The actual near-sacrifice and deliverance happen immediately upon arrival—no additional “three days” of death-like state or burial occur. Isaac is never killed, buried, or resurrected; the knife is raised and stopped in the same moment.

In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection follows a literal three days in the tomb (death → burial → resurrection). The Akedah has no equivalent sequence.

2. No Actual Death or Resurrection Occurs—Only a Threat Averted

• Isaac faces imminent death but is spared by divine intervention, which substitutes a ram for him. Importantly, the text explicitly states: “Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son” (Gen 22:13).
• Hebrews 11:19’s phrase “figuratively speaking” (or “in a parable/figure”) refers to Abraham’s faith that God could raise the dead if needed (v. 19: “He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead”), but it does not claim Isaac was actually dead and resurrected. Therefore, it’s about Abraham’s mindset, not a historical event.
• Jewish tradition (midrashim in Genesis Rabbah and elsewhere) sometimes explores imaginative ideas of Isaac’s ashes or momentary death, but these are later interpretive expansions, not in the biblical text itself. The plain reading (peshat) is clear: no death occurs.

3. Jewish Interpretation of the Akedah Focuses on Faith, Obedience, and Merit—Not Resurrection Typology

• In rabbinic sources, the Akedah is central to Rosh Hashanah liturgy, invoking Abraham’s (and Isaac’s) merit for atonement and mercy on Israel. The ram’s horn (shofar) recalls the ram offered in place of.
• Some medieval texts (e.g., influenced by midrash) speculate on Isaac’s willingness or even symbolic death, but mainstream Jewish exegesis (e.g., Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam) rejects literal sacrifice or resurrection ideas as contrary to the text.
• The “third day” is rarely, if ever, highlighted in Jewish commentary as a resurrection motif here—it’s practical journey time.

4. Broader Biblical Use of “Third Day” Lacks Consistent Resurrection Theme

• “Third day” appears frequently in the Tanach for various reasons: preparation (Exod 19:11–16, Sinai revelation), travel, recovery (Hos 6:2 is poetic/national revival, not literal individual resurrection), or narrative pacing.
• While some Christian interpreters see a pattern of “suffering then glory on the third day,” this is a retrospective reading. The Tanach itself does not present a unified “third day resurrection doctrine.” For instance, Jonah 1:17 (three days in the fish) is the closest Jesus explicitly cites (Matt 12:40), but even that is about deliverance from peril, not death-and-resurrection in the full sense.

Conclusion on Milestone 1

Gage’s claim relies on a strong typological/allegorical lens. He sees Christ’s shadows everywhere, even where the text gives no internal signal. From the perspective of the Tanach’s original language, context, and Jewish hermeneutics, Genesis 22 teaches profound lessons about faith, obedience, divine provision, and the rejection of human sacrifice.

However, it does not prophesy or typify a Messiah who dies, is buried, and rises on the third day. Instead, the “third day” here is incidental travel, not a deliberate foreshadowing of resurrection.

This pattern repeats in many of Gage’s milestones. A surface-level numerical match (“third day”) is elevated into a prophetic template. But the textual details (no death, no burial, no rising) don’t align with the core elements Paul references in 1 Cor 15:3–4.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

In an era when science fiction meets ancient wisdom, Rabbi Ephraim Palvanov’s lectures offer a mind-bending bridge between Torah teachings and modern theories such as the simulation hypothesis and time travel. Drawing from Kabbalistic sources, he unpacks the 50,000-year Cosmic Jubilee—a grand cycle of creation, destruction, and renewal. This blog dives into five videos that connect biblical concepts with quantum physics, ancient anomalies, and even timeline manipulations from classified projects. If you’re searching for “Cosmic Jubilee Torah Simulation Time Travel,” you’re in the right place.

The Cosmic Jubilee: A 49,000-Year Cycle of Creation and Reincarnation

Rabbi Palvanov’s “The Cosmic Jubilee” (video 1) explores a 50,000-year cosmic framework mirroring the biblical Jubilee (Leviticus 25). The Torah’s command to count 49 years and sanctify the 50th with a shofar blast extends to universal scales: seven 7,000-year Shemitot (Sabbatical cycles) totaling 49,000 years, followed by a Jubilee reset.

Each Shemita corresponds to a Sefirah (divine emanation): Chesed (kindness), Gevurah (severity), Tiferet (harmony), Netzach (victory), Hod (majesty), Yesod (foundation), and Malkhut (kingship). Palvanov argues that we’re in the fourth (Netzach), explaining the global influence of Torah and technological advances such as electricity. Ancient sites like Göbekli Tepe (12,000 years old) and the Sphinx’s water erosion (indicating a pre-desert era) are remnants of prior cycles.

Reincarnation (gilgul) is central: souls evolve across cycles for tikkun (rectification). Palvanov quotes Rabenu Bahya: “The seventh millennium is the Sabbath of delight.” This aligns with science’s 15-billion-year-old universe, using “divine years” (Psalm 90: “A thousand years in Your sight are like a day”).

Torah Simulation Theory: The World as a Divine Matrix

In “Torah Simulation Theory”, Palvanov posits the world as a simulation, echoing Plato’s cave and The Matrix. Quantum physics supports this: particles are probabilities until observed (the observer effect), like a video game rendering only what’s visible. Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger’s quotes highlight the “crazy” nature of reality.

The Torah’s “Olam HaSheker” (world of lies) and Zohar’s “Bereshit” anagram (head of the house) suggest creation is in God’s “head”—a conscious simulation. Repentance (teshuva) as “return” erases sins as if they never happened, like rewinding code. Miracles are glitches, reincarnation levels in a game. Palvanov notes Max Planck’s “conscious mind behind matter,” tying to “God is One.”

Time Travel in the Torah: Biblical Relativity and Visions

“Time Travel in the Torah” shows time as relative, per Einstein. Biblical anomalies like plants before the sun are not chronological; there’s “no before and after in the Torah.” Moses time-traveled to Rav Akiva’s class (Talmud Menachot 29b), seeing future teachings. Adam’s 930 years were 80 personal years at near-light speed, explaining long lifespans via divine light garments.

Palvanov connects free will to the block universe theory, which holds that all time exists simultaneously. The Jewish calendar’s variability reinforces the relativity of time. Repentance is spiritual time travel, undoing past actions.

Project Looking Glass and Timeline Convergence

The “Interview They Tried to Stop” reveals classified Project Looking Glass (from ancient seals) for timeline prediction. By 2012, all timelines converged to one outcome, making choices inconsequential—a “bottleneck.” Elites panicked, possibly using CERN to alter it. The Mandela Effect (e.g., the Fruit of the Loom logo) is a glitch caused by timeline shifts. Belief shapes reality; devices were placebos unlocking human potential.

Timeline Mess-ups: Majestic 12 and Future Humans

“They Messed Up Our Timeline” details time-travel paradoxes involving Majestic 12 and future humans (P45 from 45,000 years in the future, P52 from 52,000). They sought “Lotus” for genetic stability. Looking Glass showed branching realities, but 2012 locked futures. Simpsons “predictions” (e.g., the Trump presidency) hint at leaks of a timeline.

Palvanov ties this to Torah: cycles reset anomalies, gilgul repairs souls. These videos suggest that our reality is a simulation with manipulated timelines, aligning ancient wisdom with modern conspiracy theories.

Implications for Today: Awakening and the Next Jubilee

These lectures challenge linear history, proposing a cosmic simulation in which time travel and reincarnation refine humanity. Ancient anomalies like Göbekli Tepe are pre-cycle remnants; modern glitches like Mandela Effect signal shifts. As we near the Jubilee, awakening to this could hasten “Shabbat”—harmony before reset.

Next Blog: Dive into the Mandela Effect, Majestic 12 leaks, and how Torah predicts timeline glitches in “Mandela Effect in the Torah: Proof of Altered Realities?”

Trump as Modern Cyrus: Rabbis Proclaim a Divine Mandate for a New Era of Governance and Redemption

Dedicated to Rabbi Chaim Richman for his profound commentary on Parashat Shemot, illuminating the timeless lessons of faith and courage, and to Hillel Richman for unveiling “The Exodus Before the Exodus” – a groundbreaking exploration of Israel’s hidden history from the Book of Chronicles.

In the swirling currents of global politics, where ancient prophecies intersect with modern headlines, a chorus of voices from rabbis in Israel and America echoes a profound declaration: Donald Trump is the modern embodiment of Cyrus the Great, anointed by Hashem as a messiah-like figure to usher in an era of redemption. This isn’t mere rhetoric; it’s a spiritual framing rooted in biblical precedent, amplified by recent events as of January 15, 2026.

With Trump’s second inauguration looming and Iran’s internal upheavals intensifying, even Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, invokes the “Time of Cyrus” alongside the “Time of Trump,” envisioning a transformative alliance that could reshape the Middle East.

This blog delves into these connections, portraying Trump not just as a political leader but as a divinely appointed catalyst for a new way of governing—one that mirrors Cyrus’s tolerant empire, emphasizing sovereignty, alliances, and moral clarity over imperial overreach.

The Biblical Blueprint: Cyrus the Great as Hashem’s Anointed

To understand the fervor surrounding Trump, we must first revisit Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who ascended to power around 559 BCE. Cyrus wasn’t Jewish, yet the Book of Isaiah (45:1) strikingly refers to him as Hashem’s “anointed” (mashiach in Hebrew, often translated as messiah).

“Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held—to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the doors, the gates not to be closed.”

This divine endorsement followed Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE, ending the Jewish exile imposed by Nebuchadnezzar. He issued the Edict of Cyrus, allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Second Temple, funding the project from Persian treasuries.

Trump Is Not Like the other Kings

Cyrus’s governance was revolutionary for its time. Unlike the brutal Assyrian and Babylonian empires that preceded him, Cyrus adopted a policy of tolerance and decentralization. He respected local religions, customs, and autonomies, integrating conquered peoples into a vast, multicultural empire stretching from the Mediterranean to India.

This “new way of governing” fostered loyalty through benevolence rather than fear, enabling economic prosperity and cultural flourishing. Historians like Xenophon in his Cyropaedia praised Cyrus as a model ruler, emphasizing his strategic alliances and ethical leadership. In Jewish tradition, Cyrus is celebrated not as a conqueror but as a redeemer, a gentile instrument of Hashem’s will, paving the way for messianic fulfillment.

Fast-forward to today: Rabbis and scholars draw direct parallels, seeing Trump as fulfilling a similar role in a world fraught with threats to Israel and global stability. As Rabbi Elie Mischel notes in The Israel Bible, Trump’s actions echo Cyrus’s edict, positioning him as a divine agent in the redemptive process.

Rabbis in Israel and America: Proclaiming Trump as Cyrus Hashem’s Messiah

The acclaim for Trump as a modern Cyrus isn’t fringe; it’s widespread among religious leaders in Israel and the diaspora. In Israel, billboards proclaim “Cyrus the Great is Alive!” alongside Trump’s image, crediting him with potential resolutions to ongoing conflicts like the Gaza war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2018, explicitly compared Trump to Cyrus during a White House visit, thanking him for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—a move akin to Cyrus’s temple decree. Netanyahu’s brother-in-law, Dr. Hagi ben Artzi, amplified this, citing Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights and Judea-Samaria settlements as legal, declaring him “greater than Cyrus” for his proactive stance.

The Rabbis look to the Torah

Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Tzfat, blessed Trump on his 2025 inauguration day, stating, “The Holy One, blessed be He, chose him and put it in people’s hearts to choose him, and he has a divine mission.”

Bible code expert Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson uncovered hidden connections in Leviticus, where “D. Trump” and “president of the USA” appear adjacent to “Koresh” (Cyrus) and “Moshiach.”

The Nascent Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, minted a coin in 2017 featuring Trump and Cyrus, symbolizing his role in the rebuilding of the temple. In a 2025 letter, they urged Trump to establish an International Divine Court, viewing him as Cyrus’s successor in uniting believers.

In America, Messianic Jewish leader Rabbi Jonathan Cahn and evangelical preacher Lance Wallnau liken Trump to Cyrus and King Jehu, emphasizing his anointing despite his non-Jewish status.

Esua and The Redemption

Rabbi Mendel Kessin frames Trump as the reincarnation of Esav (Esau), embodying a redemptive return, with the gematria of his name (424) matching “Moshiach ben David.”

A group of Religious Zionist rabbis from Torat Ha’aretz HaTova declared Trump “God’s emissary in the global battle against evil,” praising his support for Israel and moral governance.

These proclamations intensified post-2024 election, with Trump’s “RELO Plan” for Gaza drawing Sanhedrin praise for biblical hints. As Rabbi Yosef Berger notes, Trump’s actions align with prophecies in Isaiah 45, where Cyrus rebuilds Jerusalem—mirroring Trump’s embassy move and accords. This isn’t blind adulation; it’s a recognition of Trump as a gentile mashiach, a facilitator for the ultimate Jewish Messiah.

The Prince of Iran: Reza Pahlavi on the Time of Cyrus and Trump

Adding a poignant layer is Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s exiled Crown Prince, whose statements evoke the “Time of Cyrus” alongside Trump’s era. In January 2026 interviews and statements, Pahlavi envisions a “free Iran” immediately recognizing Israel and expanding the Abraham Accords into the “Cyrus Accords”—uniting Iran, Israel, and the Arab world. This nods to Cyrus’s Persian heritage, positioning post-Islamic Republic Iran as a partner in peace and echoing ancient ties in which Cyrus freed the Jews.

Pahlavi communicates directly with the Trump administration, praising Trump’s “strong leadership” in supporting Iranian protesters. In a Wall Street Journal piece, he rejects U.S. military intervention, emphasizing Iranians’ agency while invoking Cyrus as a symbol of liberation.

“The real Iran is a different Iran—a beautiful, peace-loving and flourishing Iran,” he states, drawing parallels to Cyrus’s tolerant rule. Trump’s skepticism about Pahlavi’s domestic support notwithstanding, their dialogue underscores a shared vision: dismantling tyranny through maximum pressure and alliances, much like Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon.

Pahlavi’s “Cyrus Accords” framework aims to end Iran’s nuclear program, normalize relations, and foster regional cooperation—mirroring Cyrus’s empire-building through diplomacy. As protests rage in Iran, Pahlavi’s calls align with Trump’s “America First” yet alliance-focused approach, heralding a “time of Trump” as a modern echo of Cyrus’s redemptive era.

Trump Leading a Cyrus-Like Kingdom: A New Way of Governing

Trump’s leadership embodies Cyrus’s innovative governance: decentralized, alliance-driven, and morally grounded. Cyrus governed through satrapies, granting local autonomy while ensuring loyalty—a model Trump emulates with his “America First” policy, prioritizing national sovereignty amid global partnerships. Unlike isolationism, Trump’s Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and Arab states, fostering economic ties without cultural erasure, akin to Cyrus’s respect for diverse faiths.

A New Way of Governing

Trump’s “new way” challenges globalist overreach, emphasizing bilateral deals over multilateral bureaucracies. His recognition of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights subdued symbolic “nations” opposing Israel, opening “gates” for peace. Post-2024, Trump’s RELO Plan for Gaza hints at temple-related prophecies, with red heifers from Texas symbolizing purification rites. Benjamin Netanyahu, the “Son of the Right Hand,” collaborates with Trump as a modern Joshua, advocating Third Temple sovereignty.

The Third Temple

This governance shifts from endless wars to strategic deterrence, as seen in Trump’s Iran strikes and support for protesters. Like Cyrus, Trump subdues threats (e.g., nuclear deals) while enabling rebuilding—potentially the Third Temple. Rabbis see this as Hashem’s plan: Trump as a gentile messiah who will facilitate the ingathering of exiles and universal peace.

Yet, challenges persist. Critics decry the messianic hype as blasphemy, noting Trump isn’t Davidic. Biblical echoes warn: after Cyrus came trials. As Purim 5787 (2026) approaches, Trump’s era may test Israel’s faith, turning global hatred into redemption.

In this narrative, Trump isn’t just president; he’s Cyrus reborn, leading a kingdom of renewed alliances and moral revival. Those standing with Israel, like Batyah’s allies, extend arms amid cries to “kill the Jews.” Hashem’s gift unfolds: a leader for turbulent times, rebuilding not just walls but hope.

(Word count: 1,456)

Outbound Links:

• Rabbi Chaim Richman’s Podcast on Shemot
• Hillel Richman’s “The Exodus Before the Exodus”
• Dr. Doug Petrovich on Joseph in Egypt
• The Israel Bible on Trump as Cyrus
• Reza Pahlavi on Cyrus Accords
• Book of Isaiah – Bible Gateway

• Series: Part II That Which You Have Not Heard.
• Hashem’s Timeless Lesson: Truth Over Jealousy in the Bible, From Eden to Gaza
• How Could The Word Of GOD be Untrue
• Who Rejected Messiah? It Is Not Who You Think.
• The Bias of Torah. Then and Now.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Jewish People and Teach Freedom to the World

In a world where nations like Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine, Nigeria, Syria, Turkey, China, and Russia each champion their governmental systems as the ultimate model for humanity, one truth stands out—they often overlook the profound lessons from the Bible and the role of Hashem’s people, Israel. These countries, amid their pursuits of power and ideology, ignore the divine narrative that ties the Jewish people inextricably to the Land of Israel. Drawing from Rabbi David Fohrman’s insightful teachings on Shavuot and the Covenant, this blog post explores how the Land of Israel is not just soil but a maternal embrace waiting for all her children. As part of our series, “Hashem Told Us the End from the Beginning,” we’ll see how ancient prophecies reveal modern battles, where enemies of Israel—like the resurrected “five kings” symbolized by Britain, Denmark, France, Canada, and Sweden—rise for a final confrontation. Israel, through its biblical freedoms, offers the world a blueprint for true liberation, free from subjugation to earthly powers.

The Jubilee’s Call: Returning to Where We Belong

At the heart of Rabbi Fohrman’s Shavuot lesson lies the Jubilee (Yovel) year, described in Leviticus 25:10: “You shall return every man to his possession, and you shall return every man to his family.” This isn’t mere legal jargon; it’s a profound restoration. Slaves return to their families, and sold lands revert to the original owners. But why? Fohrman explains that people and land “belong” together in a familial bond that transcends economics.

Imagine the land as a parent—nourishing, sheltering, and protecting. As the Ramban notes, when God created Adam from adamah (earth), He partnered with the land: “I’ll contribute the soul, and you, land, contribute the body.” This makes the land our existential mother, providing home and sustenance. In times of debt, one might sell land to avoid personal slavery, but this act is tragic, like selling a family member. The land, “enslaved” to a stranger, yearns for reunion.

Fohrman draws from John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, where Tom Joad clutches soil and declares, “We were born on it, worked on it, died on it. That’s what makes it ours.” This echoes the biblical view: ownership isn’t paper-deep; it’s life-deep. The Land of Israel, then, isn’t a commodity—it’s family, waiting for her Jewish children to return.

Shmittah and Yovel: Reprieves from Bondage

Every seven years, Shmittah offers a taste of freedom. Fields lie fallow, becoming “no man’s land.” Debts are canceled, providing respite for the landless and indebted. Yet, it’s temporary—true freedom arrives with Yovel every 50 years, proclaiming “liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (Leviticus 25:10).

In Yovel, slaves reunite with families, and lands with owners. It’s a “great homecoming,” mirroring Sinai’s revelation. At Sinai, amid thunderous shofar blasts, God declared, “For the earth is Mine” (Exodus 19:5, echoed in Leviticus 25:23). Israel, fresh from Egyptian slavery, experienced no-man’s-land in the desert but found security in God’s embrace—manna from heaven, water from rocks.

Fohrman connects this to Jericho’s conquest: after seven-times-seven circuits, shofar blasts topple walls, reclaiming ancestral land. Yet, Jericho remains off-limits, symbolizing, “The land is Mine.” Humans are mere “sojourners” (gerim v’toshavim), not owners. This teaches the world: true freedom isn’t domination but stewardship under Hashem.

Shavuot: Celebrating Revelation as Homecoming

Shavuot fuses biblical agriculture with rabbinic revelation. Biblically, it’s a harvest festival (Chag HaKatzir), but through Yovel’s lens, it’s a commemoration of Sinai. Count seven weeks after Pesach—echoing seven-times-seven to Yovel—and rejoice in God’s presence.

On Shavuot, bring first fruits (bikkurim) to the Temple, acknowledging the land’s sanctity. Then, feast with family—but expand it: include servants, Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows. Why? They’re landless, yet family under God. Share bounty “as God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 16:10)—not charity, but equality. This emulates Sinai, where God gathered slaves into His family, feeding them from “heavenly fields.”

For modern Jews, Fohrman suggests: Dedicate talents—art, business—to God. Gift a housekeeper, recognize shared humanity. Shavuot reminds Us That People and land are sacred, not assets. Israel’s model? Freedom through divine connection, not earthly kings.

The Covenant: Chiastic Clues to Eternal Ties

In the Covenant transcript, Fohrman unveils a chiastic structure in Genesis 17—the Brit Milah covenant. This “Atbash” pattern mirrors sections, converging on a center: the covenant’s primacy.

• Outer: Abraham falls on his face (twice).
• Next: Father/mother of nations.
• Name changes: Avram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah.
• Multiplication vs. nullification: Children form nations, but covenant-breakers are cut off.
• Everlasting covenant in flesh.
• Mini-chiasms: God for you/children, land gift; circumcision as a sign.

Centers reveal: Nationhood and land depend on the covenant. Without brit, no people, no land. Joshua circumcises before entering Canaan—land ties to obedience.

This mirrors Yovel: God claims His children (people) and His land. Abraham fought five kings (Genesis 14) for freedom; today, symbolic “five kings” (Britain, Denmark, France, Canada, Sweden) resurrect as foes, pressuring Israel. Yet, prophecy foretells: Enemies gather for the last battle, but Hashem prevails, proving Israel’s God is supreme.

Israel Teaches Freedom: A Message for Nations

Nations crave freedom but chase ideologies, ignoring biblical truths. Israel exemplifies: Not subjugated to five kings, but to Hashem. The Land calls her children home, as a mother awaits. In exile, Jews yearned; today, ingathering fulfills prophecy.

Hashem told the end from the beginning: Sinai’s shofar echoes in Yovel, Shavuot, and Jericho. The world watches—Venezuela’s socialism, Iran’s theocracy, Russia’s authoritarianism—failing without a divine foundation. Israel, tied to land and covenant, demonstrates: True freedom is returning to the source, under God.

As Isaiah prophesies, nations will say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord” (Isaiah 2:3). Israel’s bond teaches: Land isn’t conquered; it’s inherited through faithfulness. Our motherland waits, arms open.

Conclusion: The Last Battle and Eternal Homecoming

Next: Deeper into prophecies. Share thoughts below—how does this resonate? For more, explore Aleph Beta’s resources on Rabbi Fohrman.