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.