Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (pp. 43–45). Warren A. Gage.

Milestone 16: The Third Day as the Day of Life and Death Decision for the United Monarchy in the Days of Rehoboam the King “the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.’ So he said to them, ‘Depart for three days, then return to me.’ And the people departed (1 Kgs 12:3–5). “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘come back to me the third day.’ Then the king answered the people roughly … ‘My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke’ ” (1 Kgs 12:12–14). “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kgs 12:19). 1 Kings 12:1–19 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king. So it happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard it (he was still in Egypt, for he had fled from the presence of King Solomon and had been dwelling in Egypt), that they sent and called him. Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed. Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, and he said, “How do you advise me to answer these people?” And they spoke to him, saying, “If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.” But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. And he said to them, “What advice do you give? How should we answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, ‘Lighten the yoke which your father put on us’?” Then the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, “Thus you should speak to this people who have spoken to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us’—thus you shall say to them: ‘My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!’ ” So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, “Come back to me the third day.” Then the king answered the people roughly, and rejected the advice which the elders had given him; and he spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!” So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the Lord, that He might fulfill His word, which the Lord had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Now when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying: “What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Now, see to your own house, O David!” So Israel departed to their tents. But Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah. Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was in charge of the revenue; but all Israel stoned him with stones, and he died. Therefore King Rehoboam mounted his chariot in haste to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day. After the death of King Solomon, a delegation of Israel’s northern tribes appealed to the son of Solomon against his father’s “yoke,” for Solomon, like the Pharaoh of the oppression, built treasure cities (1 Kgs 10:19; cf. Exod 1:11). The new king asked for three days to consider their petitions. Rehoboam was advised by his elders to serve the people by granting their petition and relieving their grievances. They advised him to speak kindly to the people, securing their affections forever. The youths, however, advised the king to defy the grievances of the petitioners. “Tell this people, ‘My father gave you a heavy yoke, but I will add to your yoke!’ ” (1 Kgs 12:11). On the third day, the day of fateful decision, Rehoboam took the part of the younger men and defied the people, speaking harshly to them as the young men had counseled. The northern tribes, having seen that such a king ruled over them, rejected Rehoboam as king. “What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse!” (1 Kgs 12:16). The kingdom was irretrievably broken by the folly of the king. The unity of God’s people died that day. The chronicler concluded his account, however, by suggesting that the revolt, although it was ordained (1 Kgs 12:24) was not approved. “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kgs 12:19). In the fullness of time the Son of David came as the rightful King of Israel. Jesus came with a wisdom greater than Solomon, a grace greater than Rehoboam. No king had ever served the people as he did, suffering three days in the grave of death for them, all to rise in glory to be the Servant of the Lord on their behalf. “Take my yoke upon you,” he had said, “… for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt 11:29–30). And although he spoke kindly to them on the third day, Israel rejected their inheritance in the Root of Jesse, and has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (pp. 43–45). Warren A. Gage.

Luke 24 (the Road to Emmaus) is the exact passage Tony Robinson and many Messianic/Hebrew Roots teachers always started with. Jesus appears to the two disciples, rebukes them for being slow to believe, and then says:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Later, he explicitly says he fulfilled what was written: “that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead” (Luke 24:46).

The Core Issue: Our Torah Is Different

This is the foundational claim Gage builds his entire book upon — that the Tanakh contains clear prophecies of a suffering, dying, buried, and third-day-rising Messiah. Tony Robinson used chiastic structures and “third day” patterns across the Hebrew Bible to try to show this.

But when we apply the method in my book, Adam, The Blueprint of Creation and the Tree of Life — going back to the raw original text, looking at the full picture, and checking for rewrites — the receipts are missing.

What the Tanakh Actually Shows (Plain Reading)

• There is no single clear verse in the Torah, Prophets, or Writings that says the Messiah must die for the sins of the world and rise on the third day.
• The “third day” passages Gage highlights (Joseph, Exodus, Benjamin, Rehoboam, etc.) are narrative timing — travel, battle, consultation, decision points — not a unified resurrection doctrine.
• The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is best read in Jewish tradition as Israel collectively (the servant who suffers for the nations), rather than as an individual dying-and-rising Messiah.
• The Torah teaches that humanity was created “very good,” with access to the Tree of Life through teshuvah and obedience. It never teaches inherited total depravity requiring a blood sacrifice.

Jesus’ statement on the road to Emmaus is powerful rhetoric, but it assumes the very interpretation it claims to prove. When we go back to the original Hebrew documents and read them in context (peshat), the pattern Gage and Robinson see is not there in the text itself — it is read into the text through later Christian typology.

This is exactly the “rewrite of the blueprint” my book exposes: taking the original Hebrew story and overlaying a new narrative that the raw sources do not clearly support.

2. Where the “Fictional” Claim Comes From

The parts that are theological and not historically verifiable are:

• The virgin birth
• The miracles (walking on water, raising the dead, etc.)
• The bodily resurrection on the third day

These are faith claims. Historians cannot prove or disprove miracles — they lie outside the tools of historical

1 Kings 12 records one of the most tragic moments in Israel’s history. After Solomon’s death, the northern tribes asked Rehoboam to lighten the heavy yoke of taxes and forced labor. Rehoboam asked for three days to consider their petition. On the third day, he rejected the elders’ wise counsel to serve the people and instead followed the arrogant advice of the young men: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke.” The northern tribes revolted, declaring, “What share have we in David?” The kingdom split permanently, and the chronicler concludes: “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19).

Warren Gage presents this as another “third day” life-and-death decision, foreshadowing Jesus as the greater Son of David who offers an “easy yoke” (Matt 11:29–30) and triumphs through resurrection despite rejection.

Applying the Method from Adam, the Blueprint of Creation, and the Tree of Life

We examine the raw, original Hebrew text — the full picture, not just selected parts that support a later theology.

Question 1: What does the plain text actually say? The “third day” is straightforward narrative timing. Rehoboam needed time to consult advisors. There is no death-and-resurrection sequence. No burial. No rising. The “death” is the permanent fracture of the United Kingdom. The story is about leadership failure, arrogance, and the real consequences of ignoring wise counsel. The snake (yetzer hara) is not at work here — human choices are.

Question 2: Does the full context support a resurrection type? No. This is political history. The split fulfills Ahijah’s prophecy due to Solomon’s earlier sins, but Rehoboam’s folly accelerates it. Jewish tradition (Rashi, Radak) reads it as a cautionary tale about kingship and unity — not a hidden prophecy about a future Messiah dying and rising on the third day. The text never mentions suffering-glory, a dying-rising figure, or an “easy yoke” replacing the Torah.

Question 3: Was there enough time/continuity for this interpretation? The original Hebrew blueprint preserved by the Jewish people for over 3,300 years does not contain this reading. The “third day” passages Gage highlights are consistently about travel, waiting, battle timing, or decision points — not a unified resurrection doctrine. Christianity’s typological overlay developed centuries later, much like the later doctrines of Original Sin and the full Trinity.

Question 4: Does the rewrite match the original blueprint? No. The Torah presents humanity as created “very good,” with the Tree of Life still accessible through relationship and obedience (Proverbs 3:18 calls the Torah itself a Tree of Life). The path of tzedakah u’mishpat was never lost. Gage’s reading requires inserting a death-and-resurrection pattern that the original text does not contain — a rewrite of the blueprint, just as scientists once rewrote the genome data to claim humans are “99% the same” as chimpanzees while ignoring the full picture.

The Preserved Blueprint

Modern genetics (including the Kohanim marker traceable to Aaron’s line) confirms the Jewish people preserved the original Abrahamic lineage and the textual blueprint. The same people who guarded the Hebrew Scriptures for millennia never read these “third day” passages as resurrection prophecies. The evidence — textual and genetic — matches the original story: humanity remains fundamentally good, repair is always possible, and the Tree of Life was never taken away.

Verdict on Milestone 16

Rehoboam’s third-day decision is a tragic record of human folly that split the kingdom. Gage turns it into a foreshadowing of Jesus’ resurrection and easy yoke. The raw Hebrew text provides no such support.

The pattern is consistent across Gage’s milestones: a numerical coincidence (“third day”) is elevated into typology, while the original context emphasizes human responsibility and national consequences.

The original blueprint stands. The Tree of Life remains. The path was never lost — only sometimes ignored.

The silence when asked for clear verses from the Tanakh speaks for itself.

Hazan Gavriel ben David