Were You in The Lecture Hall?

Imagine this. You ace a class. Years of notes. Your friend takes them. He never sat in. Can he pass? Maybe. But the professor said half of it off the record. Textbooks got updated. Only attendance counts. Jewish people attended. From Adam. From Sinai. It’s important to understand the significance of Jewish Roots in this context. Three million heard thunder. You weren’t there. That matters.

The Book They Photocopied

Christianity opened the Hebrew Bible. They flipped. They nodded. They red-lined. Old names became code. Old laws got footnotes. They handed back Volume Two. Cover: New Testament. Fine print: same paper. We notice the margins. They cropped our faces. Internal link placeholder:

Saul’s armor. On David. Kings don’t lend gear to twigs. Katan b’may’alah. Small in their eyes. Not in height. In status. Jesse thought the boy was illegitimate. David wrote, I was conceived in sin. Not divine birth. Human mess. Like Tamar. Like Leah. Three righteous women. Three silent nights. Three lines that stayed.

Sinai—You Can’t Fake Memory Rabbi Singer asks, Remember Sinai?

To a Jew? Sure. To a Christian? Crickets. Collective memory is DNA. You don’t invent thunder. You don’t forget the mountain. They read about it. We lived it. Difference.

The teacher says, Page forty? Old news. Christians skip that slide. They quote translations. We quote inflection. They quote prophecy. We quote condition. If Israel keeps Shabbat, then the Messiah comes. Nobody said the clock started without us.

Judah and Tamar—Plot Twist

Owners Tamar sat on the road. Judah lost his way. One disguise later. Peretz is born. Granddad of David. Righteousness wears veils. Christianity turns veils into halos. They forget the courthouse drama. We remember the signature.

Rachel, Leah, and the Bride-Switch Code.

Jacob worked for seven years. Got Leah. Seven more. Got Rachel. Sister code. Whispers in the tent. Birthright hidden in bed sheets. Genesis doesn’t blink. Christians read romance. We read continuity. Same thread. Same loom.

The Lecture Notes They Missed in Hebrew Class

The professor leans in. David’s eighth son? Not biology. Prophecy. Jesse married twice. First wife—gentile. Second—Jewish. David came from the second. Still called eighth because the gentile kids counted. Tradition fills the gap. The Bible leaves the sketch. We paint the room. Internal link:

Not because he’s pure. Because he’s sticky. He owns the rumor. Psalm thirty-two. Not a virgin birth hymn. Confession booth. Hebrew knows the difference. English loses the rhythm.

Three Women, One Lineage: Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba.

Gentiles in the royal line. Not accidents. God’s drafts. Christianity softens the edges. Calls them foreshadowing. We call it survival.

What Happens When You Skip Class? You miss the joke. Elohim said, ‘Who told you?’ Everyone laughs. They don’t. You miss the glare. Return, O Israel. Only Israel feels the slap. You miss the shrug. David’s not the point. Obedience is. They think he’s the point. Internal link:

The Album Comes Home.

Open your Bible. Flip to the genealogy. Count. Matthew says fourteen generations. Luke says twenty-eight. We say both missed the roll call. We keep the original sheet. No commas skipped. No names dropped. Rabbi: Do you remember? Jew: Yes. Christian: Huh? That’s the gap. Not faith. Attendance. Close with this. If you search Jewish tradition, don’t stop at Wikipedia. Come sit in the lecture hall. The professor’s still talking.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

The Belittlement of David: Not Small, But Scorned

In the annals of biblical history, King David stands as a towering figure—a poet, warrior, and founder of a dynasty that shaped Jewish identity. Yet, popular interpretations, particularly in Christian circles, often paint him as a diminutive underdog, the small shepherd boy who slays giants despite his size. This view stems from a surface reading of 1 Samuel 16:11-12, where David is described as “small” or “youngest.”

But Jewish tradition reveals a deeper, more nuanced truth. The Hebrew word “katan” here doesn’t denote physical smallness; it reflects social belittlement. David was marginalized not because he was weak, but because of whispers that questioned his legitimacy. Rumors spread faster than truth in ancient Israel, labeling him a mamzer—a child of uncertain parentage.

This narrative, drawn from midrashic sources like Yalkut Shimoni and Talmudic discussions, challenges the simplistic “underdog” trope and connects to broader themes of deception, righteousness, and redemption in Jewish lore.

King David Saul’s Armour Did Fit.

Jewish tradition teaches that David’s “smallness” was in the eyes of his family and society. In 1 Samuel 17:33, Saul questions David’s ability to fight Goliath, calling him a “youth.” Yet, Saul offers his own armor to David—a gesture that implies physical compatibility.

Saul, described as head and shoulders taller than his people (1 Samuel 9:2), wouldn’t lend gear to a frail boy; it would be impractical. Midrashic texts, such as those in Pesikta Rabbati, emphasize David’s robust build. He was as strong as Saul, with the physique of a warrior honed by tending sheep and fending off lions and bears (1 Samuel 17:34-36).

King David Fitted the Armour of King Saul

The root of this scorn lay in a family secret. Jesse, David’s father, doubted his son’s paternity. According to the Talmud (Yevamot 76b) and midrashim, Jesse had separated from his wife, Nitzevet, suspecting her of infidelity or non-Jewish origins. In a moment of weakness, Jesse intended to consort with a Canaanite maidservant.

Nitzevet, in a bold act of love, switched places with her, echoing biblical stories of deception for higher purposes. Jesse awoke believing he had sinned with a non-Jew, and when Nitzevet became pregnant, he disowned the child. David grew up as an outcast, treated as a bastard by his brothers and father. This shadow followed him, explaining why Jesse presented only seven sons to Samuel (1 Samuel 16:10), omitting David as if he didn’t count.

David himself alluded to this in Psalm 51:7: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Christian readings often interpret this as a foreshadowing of original sin or virgin birth. But in Jewish exegesis, it’s a confession of the rumor that plagued his youth. David owned the gossip, transforming personal shame into poetic introspection. This verse is recited during Rosh Hashanah services, reminding us that greatness often emerges from adversity, and God elevates those the world deems unworthy.

Parallels in Jewish Tradition: Deception as Salvation

David’s story doesn’t stand alone; it’s woven into a tapestry of righteous deceptions by women who preserved Israel’s line. Consider Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29. Jacob labored seven years for Rachel, but Laban switched sisters on the wedding night. Rachel, knowing the plan, whispered a secret code to Leah so Jacob wouldn’t detect the swap. This act of sisterly mercy ensured Leah’s marriage and the birth of Judah, David’s ancestor. The midrash (Megillah 13a) praises Rachel’s selflessness, noting that it merited her descendants’ redemption.

Christianity’s Lens: Misinterpreting the Narrative

Similarly, Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 showcase deception for justice. Tamar, widowed twice by Judah’s sons, disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, securing her right to levirate marriage. From this union came Peretz, David’s forebear.

The Talmud (Sotah 10b) lauds Tamar’s righteousness; she risked burning at the stake rather than publicly shaming Judah. These stories—Leah’s switch, Tamar’s disguise, Nitzevet’s bold intervention—illustrate a recurring motif: women using cunning to safeguard the messianic line amid male doubt or failure.

Christian interpretations often romanticize David as a Christ figure—the overlooked youngest who triumphs through divine favor. The “small stature” myth aligns with Jesus as the humble carpenter’s son.

Psalm 51 is interpreted as a prophecy of original sin or the immaculate conception, ignoring its context as David’s repentance after the Bathsheba affair.

This approach overlooks Jewish oral traditions that fill textual gaps, viewing the Tanakh as a prelude to the New Testament rather than a self-contained testament.

Rosh Hashanah Reflections: Elevating the Overlooked

For instance, the “virgin birth” parallel drawn from David’s conception story distorts the midrash. In Jewish sources, it’s a tale of human error and redemption, not supernatural virginity. By reframing these narratives, Christianity universalizes Jewish particularism, claiming fulfillment where tradition sees continuity. This “supersessionism” effectively borrows the album—our sacred texts—and redraws the family tree to center Jesus, marginalizing the ongoing Jewish story.

Every Rosh Hashanah, we read David’s psalms, including those echoing his origins. It’s a reminder: God chooses the belittled. David, the “bastard king,” authored prayers recited worldwide. His crown began as a rumor, yet he unified Israel and established Jerusalem as the eternal capital. This theme resonates in our High Holy Days liturgy, where we seek forgiveness for our own “iniquities,” turning personal flaws into communal strength.

The stories of Leah, Tamar, and Nitzevet add depth. These women weren’t passive; they were saviors, using intellect and courage to preserve the lineage. Their deceptions weren’t sins but acts of piety, ensuring the messianic promise endured. In a patriarchal text, they embody divine providence, challenging readers to see strength in subtlety.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative

Jewish tradition enriches David’s story beyond biblical verses, offering lessons in resilience and redemption. By understanding “katan” as belittlement rather than littleness, we see David as a full-statured hero rising above scandal. Christianity’s adaptations, while influential, often miss these nuances, reducing complex human stories to prophetic archetypes.

For those seeking truth, delve into midrashim and Talmud—the oral “lecture notes” that breathe life into the text. David wasn’t a weakling foreshadowing a savior; he was a king forged in fire, teaching that God writes in the overlooked.

Call to Action: Ready to explore more Jewish traditions? Subscribe for weekly insights into biblical stories and their true meanings. Share your thoughts in the comments—what misconceptions have you encountered?

Hazan Gavriel ben David

Gage, W. A. (2011). Milestones to Emmaus: The Third Day Resurrection in the Old Testament (p. 24). Warren A. Gage.

What Is The Jewish Response?

This is how they play the game. They give you a phrase or a verse, and it reads exactly as they said it would. The problem is that it has nothing to do with the subject. What is that, you might ask?

Do The Three Days Speak of Jesus 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)

(Esther 4:15–16; 5:1–2 – Esther calls for a three-day, three-night fast for herself and the Jews of Susa. Then she approaches the king “on the third day” and receives mercy via the golden scepter.)

Warren Gage presents this as a striking gospel preview: Esther, raised up “for such a time as this,” risks death by approaching the king uninvited (a capital offense under Persian law). She calls for communal fasting “three days, night or day” as preparation. On the third day, she stands in the inner court and faces potential execution. However, she finds favor—the king extends the scepter, sparing her life.

This act initiates the reversal: Haman (who plotted the Jews’ genocide) is hanged on the gallows he built for Mordecai. Mordecai is exalted to Haman’s position. Letters of liberty go out to all provinces, and many Gentiles “become Jews” (Est 8:17).

Gage draws direct parallels to Christ: Esther intercedes at risk of death → Jesus intercedes and actually dies; Esther is spared after three days → Jesus rises after three days; Haman hanged on a tree → Jesus cursed on a tree; Mordecai exalted → Jesus at God’s right hand; ecumenical letters and Gentile inclusion → Gospel to the nations.

From The Tanach’s Original Hebrew Text, Historical-Literary Context

From the Tanach’s original Hebrew text, historical-literary context, and Jewish interpretive tradition, this milestone does not function as a prophetic type or foreshadowing of Jesus’ literal death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. The three-day fast is preparatory, not a period of death-like state. In fact, the narrative contains no death, burial, or resurrection.

1. The “Three Days” Refers to Fasting and Waiting, Not a Death-Burial-Resurrection Sequence

• Esther 4:16 specifies a fast of “three days, night or day” (שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לַיְלָה וָיוֹם)—a complete, intensive fast (no food or drink) as an act of repentance, supplication, and solidarity in crisis.
• Esther 5:1 states: “Now it happened on the third day” (וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי) that Esther put on royal robes and stood in the court.
• This is a three-day preparation period leading to her bold approach. She is alive, fasting, and actively planning throughout—no one dies during these days. The fast ends with her receiving life and favor, not emerging from death.
• Contrast with Jesus: actual death by crucifixion, entombment for three days (inclusive Jewish counting), bodily resurrection. Here, there is no death or entombment—only voluntary self-denial and risk of future death if the scepter is not extended.

2. Esther Never Dies or Experiences a Death-Like State—She Risks Death but Is Immediately Spared

• The threat is real: approaching uninvited means instant death unless the king shows mercy (Est 4:11).
• But the king immediately extends the scepter (Est 5:2). Esther is not executed, buried, or revived—she is granted audience and life right then.
• The deliverance is instantaneous mercy, not resurrection after a period of death. The three days precede the encounter, not follow a death event.

3. Jewish Interpretation Focuses on Courage, Providence, Repentance, and Reversal of Fortune—Not Resurrection Typology

• Rabbinic tradition (Talmud Megillah, midrashim, Rashi, Ibn Ezra) emphasizes:
  • Esther’s heroism and willingness to die (“if I perish, I perish”).
  • The power of communal fasting and prayer.
  • Purim as celebration of hidden divine providence (God’s name is absent from the book, yet sovereign).
  • Reversal (vengeance on enemies, exaltation of the righteous, Gentile admiration).
• The three-day fast is seen as a model of earnest supplication (similar to Jonah’s call in Nineveh or other fasts), not a symbolic death-and-resurrection period. No classical Jewish sources treat Esther’s approach “on the third day” as foreshadowing a messianic resurrection.

4. Typological Parallels Are Selective and Require Retroactive Imposition

• Esther risks death but is spared → Jesus actually dies.
• Haman hanged on a “tree” (gallows) → Jesus on the cross (tree of cursing, Deut 21:23).
• Mordecai exalted → Jesus exalted.
• Letters to all nations → Gospel spread. These are compelling thematic echoes in a Christian reading, but they do not hinge on a “third day resurrection” pattern. The three days are preparatory fasting, not a liminal death state. The book of Esther is a festival etiology (explaining Purim) and a story of Jewish survival in exile, not a messianic prophecy cycle.

Conclusion on Milestone 7

Esther 4–5 is a masterpiece of dramatic tension, courage, and divine reversal: a hidden providence turns genocide into deliverance, enemy into victim, and mourning into joy. The three-day fast underscores urgency, communal solidarity, and dependence on God. However, it does not depict or prefigure a Messiah who dies for sins, is buried, and rises bodily on the third day. Esther faces potential death but receives immediate mercy. The three days are a time of fasting and waiting, not death, burial, and resurrection.

Gage’s summary of the “Third Day Doctrine Thus Far” (unalterable decrees, piercing threats, substitutions, ecumenical proclamations, tree of death vs. life) is a creative synthesis of motifs across disparate narratives. However, it relies on allegorical connections rather than explicit textual signals in the Tanach itself. The patterns emerge more clearly when reading backward from the New Testament, not forward from the Hebrew Bible’s plain sense.

Hazan Gavriel ben David

How Hebrew, Torah, and Jewish Wisdom Answer Humanity’s Deepest Questions.

There is a quiet struggle at the heart of human life: the tension between action and inertia. Between seizing a moment and letting it slip by. Between movement that builds a life, and delay that slowly drains it. We often assume that motivation must come first. That clarity, energy, or inspiration will eventually arrive and carry us forward.

The Torah teaches the opposite. Energy follows action. Life is shaped not by waiting, but by movement. In this talk, Chief Rabbi Dr. Warren Goldstein explores one of the most important principles of Jewish thought and personal growth: the power of decisive action. Drawing on Torah wisdom and Pirkei Avot, he shows why procrastination is not neutral, why inertia strengthens the body at the expense of the soul, and why meaningful change begins only when we move.

There is a quiet struggle at the heart of human life: the tension between action and inertia.

This idea is crystallised in the Parsha of Bo through the symbol of matzah. Matzah is not merely bread eaten in haste. It represents spiritual clarity. The difference between matzah and chametz is delay, and delay belongs to the physical world. The Exodus revealed that material power, even at its greatest, yields effortlessly to spiritual force. That is why redemption happened with urgency. Speed itself became a spiritual statement. Pirkei Avot teaches that growth begins with action. One act leads to another.

Momentum creates strength, clarity, and purpose. Delay, by contrast, creates a quiet erosion of meaning. This world is a place for doing, not drifting. This talk is about reclaiming agency, breaking the spell of procrastination, and understanding why purposeful action is not impulsiveness, but alignment with the soul. It offers a Torah framework for building a life of depth, vitality, and inner contentment. Key Insights

• Life’s deepest struggle is not between good and evil, but between action and delay.
• Energy does not precede action; it is generated by action.
• Matzah represents spiritual momentum, not merely haste.
• The Exodus reveals the power of the spirit over matter.
• Inertia strengthens the body while weakening the soul.
• This world is for doing; rest has its place, but it is not the goal.
• Purposeful action creates momentum, meaning, and inner strength.

Unlocking the Ancient Secrets: How Hebrew, Torah, and Jewish Wisdom Answer Humanity’s Deepest Questions

In a world buzzing with scientific breakthroughs and prophetic whispers, one question echoes louder than ever: Why does the scientific community overlook the Hebrew language—the oldest traceable tongue in human history—and the profound wisdom of the Torah? As Gregg Braden unveils astonishing DNA discoveries that mirror ancient Jewish texts, and podcasters like George Noory on Coast to Coast AM probe the mysteries of existence, it’s time to turn to the guardians of this knowledge: the Jewish people.

From the Ebla tablets affirming biblical narratives to prophecies unfolding in real-time, like the Star of Jacob and the onset of Gog and Magog, the Torah declares, “I have told you the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). This blog dives deep into how Hebrew and the Torah are revealing scientific truths and prophetic realities, proving that all Gregg Braden and George Noory seek is preserved in Jewish tradition. As the Chief Rabbi’s perspective illuminates, we are here not for passive wonder, but for action—tikkun olam, repairing the world through mitzvot.

The Primordial Language: Hebrew as the DNA of Creation

Scientists widely acknowledge that the earliest reconstructed languages stem from Proto-Semitic roots, dating back over 5,000 years. Yet, they hesitate to crown Hebrew as the original, despite its unbroken chain from ancient inscriptions to modern usage. Why this reluctance? The Torah boldly claims Hebrew as the language of Hashem—the divine code through which the universe was spoken into being (Genesis 1).

In Gregg Braden’s groundbreaking video, “This DNA Discovery Is Completely Beyond Imagination,” he reveals a pattern in human DNA where the atomic masses of its bases (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) translate via ancient Hebrew letter values to “God Eternal Within the Body”—echoing the sacred name YHWH.

Braden draws directly from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formation), a foundational Jewish mystical text attributed to Abraham, which describes creation through 22 Hebrew letters and divine permutations. This isn’t a coincidence; the odds, as Braden calculates, defy random evolution. If Hebrew encodes life’s blueprint, why ignore the Bible?

Archaeological evidence abounds: The Ebla tablets, unearthed in Syria in the 1970s, contain over 15,000 cuneiform texts from 2500 BCE that reference biblical places like Sodom and Gomorrah, and even “Ya” (a form of YHWH). These artifacts corroborate Tanach narratives word-for-word, from patriarchal names to geographic details.

Yet mainstream science dismisses them as cultural artifacts rather than divine testimony. The Jewish sages, however, have safeguarded this: The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) affirms Hebrew as the holy tongue, used by Hashem at Sinai to address three million witnesses—a mass revelation unmatched by any other faith.

George Noory often explores ancient wisdom on Coast to Coast AM, asking why humanity holds such secrets. The answer lies with the Jewish people, the “seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15), tasked with guarding Torah’s light amid exile and persecution. As Braden seeks the “people who hold the secret of why we are here,” he unknowingly points to Israel—the nation that has preserved Sefer Yetzirah and Kabbalistic teachings for millennia.

Prophetic Revelations: From Zohar to Modern Fulfillments

The Torah doesn’t just explain origins; it foretells the end. We’re witnessing the dawn of Gog and Magog—the cataclysmic war of nations against Israel (Ezekiel 38-39), signaled by Damascus’s prophesied destruction (Isaiah 17:1) and global disruptions. The Star of Jacob (Numbers 24:17) emerges as a harbinger: “A star shall step forth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel.” Jewish sages interpret this as the Messiah’s advent, crushing enemies and ushering in peace. In recent years, astronomical events and political upheavals—think Middle East tensions and a figure disrupting world governments—align eerily. Could this point to leaders like President Trump, whose policies (Jerusalem embassy move, Abraham Accords) stirred global wars and divisions? Prophecy suggests a precursor who “causes the whole world to go to war or disrupt all the governments,” paving the way for redemption.

A pivotal prophecy from the Zohar demands attention, especially for the Christian world. The Zohar (Vayera 119a) describes a time when a “donkey-riding king” arrives humbly, but not as Christianity claims. Rabbi Palanov (likely referring to scholarly critiques by figures like Rabbi Tovia Singer or Rabbi Pinchas Winston) dismantles the Christian reading of Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion… your king comes to you… humble and riding on a donkey.”

Christians see this as Jesus’ triumphal entry, but the verse’s context (9:10) promises universal peace—”He shall speak peace to the nations; his dominion from sea to sea”—which was unfulfilled in Jesus’ era.

Wars persisted; no global shalom ensued. The Zohar presents this as a future Messianic king from David’s line, bringing true redemption after tribulations such as Gog and Magog. Jewish tradition holds that Zechariah’s vision cannot be Jesus, as the prophet foresees a warrior-king ending chariots and bows, not a crucified figure.

This wisdom has been “held and guarded” by Jews for generations. Why? Because Israel is the “servant” in Isaiah’s prophecies—the collective suffering redeemer.

Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant as the Jewish People

No passage stirs more debate than Isaiah 53, often co-opted by Christianity as a portrait of Jesus. Yet, the Hebrew text and context scream otherwise: “He was despised and rejected by men… he bore our illnesses… wounded for our transgressions.” The chapter describes a “servant” emerging from obscurity, shocking kings with unforeseen exaltation (Isaiah 52:13-15). Who is this? Not an individual, but Israel—the nation Hashem calls “My servant” repeatedly (Isaiah 41:8, 44:1).

The quote you shared captures it: “He grew up like a sapling before Him, like a root from dry ground… Despised and rejected… Indeed, he bore our illnesses…” (Isaiah 53:2-5). Jewish sages like Rashi explain this as the Jewish people’s exile—persecuted, afflicted, yet bearing the world’s sins through faithfulness to Torah. Pogroms, Holocaust, and inquisitions: Israel as the “man of pains” heals humanity by modeling ethical monotheism. The “wound” (chaburah) brings shalom—our survival testifies to divine providence. Christianity’s lens ignores the plural “servants” in Isaiah 52-54, where Israel collectively atones.

The second video you referenced, on Parshat Bo, underscores Judaism as the system preserving these traditions. Matzah symbolizes urgent action—leaving Egypt’s spiritual inertia. We’re here for deeds: Mitzvot transform the mundane into holy. As Mesilat Yesharim teaches, true purpose is to earn divine closeness by overcoming trials.

Answering Gregg and George: Why We’re Here—for Action

Gregg Braden asks: If DNA holds a divine message, who preserved this wisdom? George Noory probes: What’s the secret of existence? The Jewish people, history’s most resilient family, hold the keys. Despite comprising 0.2% of the world, Jews have won 22% of Nobel Prizes—testimony to Torah’s intellectual fire. Sefer Yetzirah, which Braden cites, teaches creation via letters, aligning with quantum physics’ observer effect and string theory’s vibrations.

Science ignores the Bible because it demands faith in revelation over empiricism alone. But evidence mounts: Quantum entanglement mirrors Kabbalah’s interconnected sefirot; Big Bang echoes “Let there be light.” Prophecies fulfill: Israel’s rebirth (Isaiah 66:8), ingathering exiles (Ezekiel 37), nations dividing the land (Joel 3:2)—all amid Gog and Magog’s stirrings in Ukraine, Middle East, and global alliances.

We are here for action. Torah isn’t theory; it’s blueprint. Love your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), pursue justice, awaken the divine spark. As the Chief Rabbi might say: “Hashem told the end from the beginning—now act to hasten redemption.”

In conclusion, Hebrew and Torah unveil science and prophecy as one. From DNA codes to the Star of Jacob, Jewish wisdom answers all. Ignore it no longer; embrace action. What questions linger for you?

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

“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) Table

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

How is this the meaning of Daniel? Where is the burial and resurrection?

Warren Gage offers one of his most detailed and elaborate typological interpretations in this milestone. He constructs a timeline that stretches the events of Daniel 6 into a three-day sequence:

• Day 1: Daniel prays three times, is accused, and is condemned under the unalterable decree.
• Day 2: The conspirators report him; the king labors to deliver him until evening, but cannot.
• Day 3: Daniel is cast into the den that night; the king comes early the third day, the stone is removed, and Daniel is lifted out unharmed.

Gage then draws extensive parallels to Jesus:

• Daniel’s innocence and envy-driven accusation → Jesus’ innocence and envy of religious leaders (Matt 27:18).
• King Darius bound by unalterable law → Pilate bound by higher powers.
• Daniel’s three daily prayers → Jesus’ three prayers in Gethsemane.
• Stone sealed over the den → stone sealed over Jesus’ tomb.
• Daniel emerges unharmed on the third-day morning, “lifted up” → Jesus rises on the third day.
• Accusers thrown in and destroyed → Jesus’ enemies judged.
• Daniel exalted to rule → Jesus exalted to God’s right hand.
• King’s decree to all nations → Gospel to all nations.

He even notes “not one of his bones was broken” (Dan 6:22–23; cf. John 19:36) and Daniel’s prosperity/exaltation (Dan 6:28). Gage presents this as a “remarkable preview of the gospel” and a clear third-day resurrection type.

From the perspective of the original Aramaic/Hebrew text of Daniel 6, its historical and literary context, and traditional Jewish exegesis, this milestone does not withstand scrutiny as a prophetic foreshadowing of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. The “third day” chronology is artificially imposed, and the episode lacks the core elements of death, burial, and resurrection.

1. There Is No Actual “Three-Day” Sequence in the Text—Daniel Is in the Den for Only One Night

• The text is explicit about timing: Daniel is cast into the den that night after the conspirators press the king (Dan 6:16).
• The king spends the night fasting and sleepless (v. 18).
• Very early in the morning (בְּשַׁפְרְפָרָא / b’shaprapara, “at dawn”), the king goes to the den (v. 19) and finds Daniel alive.
• Daniel is immediately “taken up out of the den” (v. 23).

This is one night (roughly 12–18 hours), not three days. Gage creates the “three days” by counting backward from the accusation/prayer day, inserting an extra day of the king’s “laboring,” but the narrative flows continuously without such a gap. The king hears the accusation, tries to deliver Daniel “until the going down of the sun” (v. 14), then immediately commands that Daniel be cast in that same evening. There is no full second day of imprisonment.

Contrast with Jesus: literal death on Friday afternoon, burial before sunset, in the tomb all of Saturday (full day + nights), rising early Sunday morning—counted as “three days” in Jewish inclusive reckoning (part of Friday + Saturday + part of Sunday).

2. Daniel Never Dies, Is Never Buried, and Does Not Rise from Death

• Daniel is thrown into a lion’s den (a pit/cave-like enclosure), not a grave/tomb.
• A stone is placed over the mouth and sealed (v. 17)—a parallel Gage emphasizes—but this is to prevent escape or tampering, not to entomb a corpse.
• Daniel remains alive the entire time; God’s angel shuts the lions’ mouths (v. 22). He is “taken up” (הַסְּקִיל / hasqil, “lifted out”) unharmed—no death or resurrection occurs.
• The phrase “not one of his bones was broken” (v. 23, implied by “no injury whatever was found on him”) is protective deliverance, not post-mortem preservation (contrast Ps 34:20 applied to Jesus in John 19:36).

This is a story of divine protection from death, not resurrection after death.

3. Jewish Interpretation Emphasizes Faithfulness, Divine Deliverance, and God’s Sovereignty—Not Resurrection Typology

• Rabbinic sources (Talmud, Midrash, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc.) highlight:
• Daniel’s unwavering prayer life despite danger (three times daily as a model for Jewish prayer).
• The king’s distress and the power of an unchangeable decree.
• Miraculous angelic intervention and the reversal of fate (accusers destroyed).
• The spread of God’s fame to all nations (Dan 6:26–27).
• No classical Jewish commentary treats the lions’ den as a “third-day resurrection” type or messianic prophecy in the Christian sense. The “morning” deliverance is immediate vindication, not a three-day motif.
• The book of Daniel is apocalyptic and exilic literature, focused on faithfulness under persecution (similar to Esther, Joseph), not explicit messianic resurrection patterns.

4. The Parallels Are Selective and Overstretched

• “Three times a day” prayer → three prayers in Gethsemane: The text says Daniel prayed three times daily “as was his custom” (v. 10)—a lifelong habit, not a special preparation for this trial.
• Stone and seals: Common ancient prison/security measures; not uniquely tomb-like.
• Exaltation and worldwide decree: Daniel is already a high official; his promotion is confirmed, but the king’s edict praises God, not Daniel personally.
• These elements make for compelling typology only when read backward through the lens of the Gospels.

Conclusion on Milestone 6

Daniel 6 is one of the most beloved and powerful narratives in the Tanach: a righteous man faces death for his faith, is miraculously preserved by God, and God’s name is glorified among the nations. It teaches profound lessons about prayer, integrity under pressure, and divine deliverance. However, it does not depict a “third day resurrection.” Daniel never dies, spends only one night in the den, and is delivered alive the next morning. The “three days” chronology is an artificial construction that the text itself does not support.

Gage’s reading continues the pattern we’ve seen across all milestones: a creative, post-resurrection Christian typology that imposes a death-burial-resurrection framework onto narratives that, in their original context and plain meaning, simply do not contain it. The Tanach here speaks of deliverance from death, not resurrection after death.

Next is Milestone 7: Esther Delivered from Death on the Third Day

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.