Return to Christianintro.net home
Download this project in pdf form
“The project is a thorough
examination of a real issue and offers a distinctive and largely convincing
solution” –
Brian Rosner, well known New Testament scholar
Contents Page
Towards a Solution:
Bolstering Lehmann’s Approach
Other themes suggested for ‘the third day’ or ‘three days’
Survey of OT References to ‘Third day’ and ‘Three days’
Passages which involve the
time margin ‘three days’
Passages
which involve the time margin ‘third day’
The theme of ‘three days’:
‘Sufficient time for certainty’
The two themes are not mutually exclusive
‘Third Day’ is not the only device used to narrate life and death events
‘The Second Day’ and ‘Two Days’
‘The Fourth Day’ and ‘Four Days’
Further consideration of ‘the third day’
The Resurrection of the Christ on the Third Day
The problem addressed stems from 1 Cor
15:4b. To which Scriptures is Paul
referring when he says that the Christ ‘was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures’? Our focus
is on the ‘third day’.
It is established that
scholarship does not provide a satisfactory answer. We follow Karl Lehmann, who attempted to show
that there was a theme in the ‘third day’ references within the OT. Lehmann’s suggested theme was the day of
salvation. We nuance his theme, and
suggest the ‘day of resurrection’. This
theme is derived from the fourteen narrative and the one prophetic reference
which speak of ‘the third day’. Within
the narrative examples, the first element of the pattern is the recurrence of a
climactic reversal on the third day. The
second element is the prominence of reversals from death to life. The third, less prominent element is the
pattern of reversals from life to death.
The fourth, speculative element is the hint of a judicial nature to such
deaths.
We consider separately the
twenty-four references to ‘three days’ which do not also speak of ‘the third
day’. The time margin ‘three days’ is
seen to convey the idea of ‘sufficient time for certainty’.
From these findings, we
argue that it is fitting that the Christ should be raised on the third day,
since it is the day of resurrection in the OT.
We also find that Christ’s ‘three-day’ period ‘in the heart of the
earth’ represents sufficient time to be sure that he was dead, and underlines
the amazing nature of his escape. Our
major conclusion in 1 Cor 15:4b is that Paul has the Scriptures in general in
mind, with a special focus on Hosea 6:2.
Implications from this study are drawn for apologetics, for the
book of Esther, and for our understanding of the relevant OT passages.
How
might we explain Paul’s contention that Christ was ‘raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures’? (1 Cor 15:4b)
To which Scriptures might he be referring, regarding the ‘third day’?
The Nicene Creed says that ‘on the
third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures’. Millions of Christians affirm this about
Jesus, and have done so for centuries.
But perhaps we do it without much thought. What does it mean?
The reference of course is
1 Cor 15:4b. At this point in 1
Corinthians, Paul is coming to the end of his argument. He gives a summary of his gospel (1 Cor
15:3-11), which leads to a climactic argument concerning the resurrection (1
Cor
For our third point is that this text is the subject of difficulty for scholars. The difficulty lies in finding the referent of ‘according to the Scriptures’. It is an obvious difficulty. How can Paul claim that Christ rose on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures?’ To which Scriptures is he referring? This is the big question which our project will seek to address, our focus being directed toward ‘the third day’.
It is a question which despite its difficulty has received relatively little scholarly attention. The commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Luke[3] are forced to say something, but have added little for many years. This dearth of material explains our sparse and somewhat dated bibliography. It would be an understandable dearth if a convincing consensus had been reached, but the reality is that there is no real consensus, and no suggestions which are without difficulty. Thus our present project seems overdue, especially since no one has attempted an exhaustive survey of the relevant OT data.
We will enter the discussion with the help of Gordon Fee, who surveys five approaches regarding ‘according to the Scriptures’ in 1 Cor 15:4b: (a) that it modifies ‘on the third day’, and not ‘he was raised’,[4] and it refers to some specific OT texts, most frequently Hosea 6:2;
(b) that it refers either to early Christian attempts to write passion and resurrection narratives or to Testimony Books containing OT citations that were interpreted prophetically as referring to the third day; (c) that it reflects a popular Jewish belief that corruption set in only after the third day, so that Jesus was raised on the third day to fulfil Ps. 16:9-11 (LXX) that his body would not suffer “corruption”; (d) that it modifies only the verb “he was raised” and does not include “on the third day”; and (e) that it has the same force here that it did in 1 Cor 15:3, asserting that the OT as a whole bears witness to the resurrection on the third day.[5]
Regarding (a), this position raises the question as to which OT Scriptures speak of the ‘third day’. This is the major question for the present project.
Regarding (b), Fee correctly writes that ‘even if such books existed, this scarcely removes the difficulty, since one must still find appropriate OT texts that might have been included.’[6] This position suggests that Paul means something other than the OT, when he speaks of the ‘Scriptures’ in 1 Cor 15:4b. But even if this is the case, Jesus himself sees his resurrection on the third day predicted in the Scriptures (Luke 24:46-47), by which he must mean the OT. So there is still the difficulty of which OT Scriptures attest to a third day resurrection.
Regarding (c), this view can explain why Jesus had to rise ‘at
least by the third day’ – the argument here shows that if Jesus were still
dead on the fourth day, he would have ‘seen decay’ (Ps 16:9). But this view can’t explain why Jesus had to
rise precisely on the third day. For the first or the second days can’t be
ruled out by reference to Psalm 16. But
in the sayings of Jesus which almost certainly produced the 1 Cor 15:4b tradition[7]
(e.g. Matt
Regarding (d), B. Metzger provides
the alternative translation: ‘and that he was raised in accordance with
Scriptures, on the third day’[8] But the view that
‘according to the Scriptures’ modifies the entire preceding phrase is more
consistent than Metzger’s alternative.
Verse 3 tells us o[ti Cristo.j avpe,qanen u`pe.r tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n
kata. ta.j grafa.j, ‘that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures’. So in
verse 3, ‘according to the Scriptures’ clearly modifies all that has gone
before. The grammatical construction is
identical in 4b o[ti
evgh,gertai th/| h`me,ra| th/| tri,th| kata. ta.j grafa.j ‘that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’. Thus consistency argues that ‘according to
the Scriptures’ in 15:4b modifies ‘on the third day’, the phrase which
immediately precedes it.
Further, while Metzger’s translation
is grammatically possible,[9]
it is not preferable. Paul chose to directly connect the two phrases
‘according to the Scriptures’ (kata. ta.j grafa.j)
and ‘on the third day’ (th/| h`me,ra| th/| tri,th|),
when he could have separated them. For
example the Greek could have been ordered thus: ‘he was raised, according to
the Scriptures, on the third day’, or thus: ‘according to the Scriptures, he
was raised, on the third day’. Both of
these would separate ‘on the third day’ from ‘according to the Scriptures’, and
lean a little towards Metzger’s translation.
But Paul chose neither of these possibilities. So if Paul is careful in his grammatical
construction, then we should lean away from Metzger’s view.
What is more, if there
were a teaching in the OT about a ‘third day’ resurrection, this would be very
significant in defending the Christian claim.
This would explain why Paul would consider a resurrection on the third
day so important.[10] However, Metzger’s view appears to be that
the day of Jesus’ resurrection is not of particular importance, even though
Jesus himself prophesied that he would rise on the third day. In Metzger’s understanding, the emphasis is
not so much on the day it occurs, but on the event itself. The date on which it happened contains no
particular biblical or theological weight.
But why then did Paul bother inserting the phrase ‘on the third day’ in
this seminal section, if it is not important?
It becomes a footnote which has strayed onto the contents page. Metzger’s translation cannot well answer the
question as to why ‘on the third day’ appears at all.
Even if Metzger is accepted, this still begs
the question of Paul’s inclusion of the phrase.
If we can find a stream of OT tradition that lends weight to positions
(a) or (e), we should set aside Metzger’s proposal as unnecessary.
Regarding (e), the
position holds that ‘according to the Scriptures’ modifies ‘he rose from the
dead’ and ‘on the third day’. As with position (a), ‘according to the
Scriptures’ modifies ‘on the third day’.
Our discussion of positions (b) through (d) should have made it clear
that this is the preferable grammatical position. But this conclusion has historically
presented exegetical problems. Broadly
speaking, commentators have struggled to determine the Scriptures to which Paul
is referring.
Of those who seek to find biblical support for the assertion that Christ was raised on the third day, many turn to Hosea 6:2 as the sole Scripture in mind: ‘After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence’.[11] Confronted with the reality of an apostate Israel, Hosea promises that one day Yahweh will renew his people. However the people at this point are Israel, and not the Christ. So in isolation from the completed OT canon, it is not clear how the Messiah might be in view as the one who will be raised on the third day. Nevertheless, C. Evans points to this verse as Paul’s sole source. He dismisses Jonah 1:17 on the basis that the three-day sojourn of Jonah is probably a late addition, and Matthew’s use of the story is ‘ad hoc’ (Matt 12:40).[12] C. H. Dodd is also dismissive of Jonah as possible background.[13] He attempts to identify the Christ with the people of God, thus linking the Christ to the prophecy of Hos 6:2.[14] Whether he is successful is beyond the scope of this project. But in brief, the question can be raised as to whether an identity can be forged that makes predictive prophecies about Israel by necessity also predictive prophecies about the Christ. That aside, the fact that neither Dodd nor Evans embrace Matthew 12:40 is grounds enough to look for a more complete answer.
Other scholars suggest 2
Kgs 20:5 (the promise of healing to Hezekiah, ‘on the third day you shall go up
to the house of the Lord.’)[15] But this and the Jonah reference are less
convincing than Hos 6:2, since both occur in historical narratives, rather than
in predictive prophecy. As such, the
human authors do not look to be predicting a future event at all, much less the
resurrection of the Messiah. It is only
when one considers the narratives in the context of the OT in which they sit
that these verses gain greater persuasive power for our ends.
With this in mind, it is
Karl Lehmann who has the most persuasive approach. He sees a pattern
of divine action on the third day in such passages as Exod 19:11, 16 (cf. also
Gen 22:4; 2 Kgs 20:5, 8; Esth 5:1; Hos 6:2), and argues that this pattern is
the substance of Paul’s thinking in 1 Cor 15:4b.[16] His suggestion for the pattern follows
certain rabbinic writers who treat Hosea 6:2 and other passages (e.g. Gen 22:4,
42:18, Esth 5:1, Jonah 2:1) as teaching that ‘The Holy One […] never leaves the
righteous in distress more than three days’.[17]
The third day is thus the day of salvation for the righteous in this view. This strand of rabbinic teaching has been
traced by H. McArthur to at least the second century AD.[18] However, for its strengths, the theme
suggested by Lehmann and the rabbinic writers has the problem that the examples cited are
arbitrarily chosen, and ‘others can be found where the third day is the day of
disaster, or where God’s intervention comes after a longer or shorter time.’[19] Under the weight of this critique, most
scholars reject Lehmann’s position.
But where does that leave us? C.
K. Barrett writes,
Hos vi. 2 is not very convincing; Jonah ii 1 f. is used in Matt. xii. 40, but no other New Testament writer shows a similar interest in Jonah and the whale; 2 Kgs xx. 5; Lev. xxiii. 11 are not more helpful […] The story of the resurrection of Jesus has no exact parallel or explicit forecast in the Old Testament, but early Christian writers found some passages (e.g. Ps. xvi. 10; Isa liv. 7) relevant. It is probably best here too to suppose that the resurrection experience and faith came first; then the conviction that the resurrection must have been foretold; then the documentation.[20]
That is, Barrett, like
many NT scholars,[21]
finds no convincing OT prediction or set of OT predictions which demonstrate an
awareness of the Messiah’s resurrection on the third day.
All told, the scholarly
world is in disarray on this subject.[22] H. Richards shows wisdom when he includes
this question in a list of ‘Difficulties Remaining’.[23] What is more, because of the placement of
Paul’s ‘third day’ claim within his ‘things of first importance’, this problem
is of a high order in current Christian thought. Even if the reader is unpersuaded of our attempt
to solve the problem (which will follow below), we hope that the need for more
work to be done on this subject has been successfully conveyed.
Can we find a way through
this mess? We believe that Lehmann’s
approach can be harnessed to find a solution.
First, we will defend the approach of looking for a ‘theme’ in the
‘third day’ narratives, as Lehmann did.
Second, we will question whether Lehmann chose the right theme.
So first, to defend Lehmann’s
method, consider a science experiment, repeated twenty times. If the conditions of the experiment are the
same each time, and the result is the same, then given similar conditions, one
can predict, with a degree of accuracy, what the result will be. In the same way, should an expression appear
with considerable regularity in the OT, in circumstances which bear numerous
common characteristics, after a while, the term itself carries those
characteristics with it. The thesis of
this paper is that this very thing is the case with ‘the third day’.
Second, we need to perform an exhaustive survey to
assess and perhaps improve on Lehmann’s theme.
We therefore intend to survey all the passages which mention ‘three
days’ or ‘the third day’ in the OT. The
data will be divided into two categories.
First, those passages which involve the time margin ‘three days’. Second, those passages which involve the time
margin ‘third day’.
There is
no one consensus theme in the scholarship for an event on the ‘third day’ or
for a period of ‘three days’. Rather,
there are numerous views, often supported with no more than a pure
assertion. They are found in both the NT
and OT scholarship, and as such they rarely interact with each other. In fact, even those suggested in OT
scholarship rarely interact by means of debate.
We will survey six such views, before progressing to argue for a particular
conclusion.
Considering
the three day duration, J. B. Bauer drew conclusions from his 1958 study of the
temporal implications of the words ‘three days’, as they are used throughout
the OT. His conclusion was that the
phrase ‘three days’ implies either a
longer (Josh 2:16, 1 Sam 20:5, 19, Jonah 3:3, 2 Chron 20:25), or shorter (Josh 1:11, 2 Sam 20:4, 2
Kgs 20:8, Hos 6:2, Ezra 8:32, Neh 2:11) time
span, depending on the particular circumstances in the context.[24]
G. M.
Landes’ 1967 study ‘The “Three Days and Three Nights” Motif in Jonah 2:1’
emphasizes the journey motif behind
the ‘three days’ theme. The Scriptures he presents are Exod 3:18, 5:3, 8:27,
15:22, Num 10:33, Gen 22:4, Josh 9:17, 1 Sam 30:1, Josh 2:16, 2 Sam 20:4, 2Ki
2:17, Ezra 10:7-9 and Jonah 3:3.[25] After identifying this motif, he discusses
the Numerian myth, “The Descent of Inanna to the Nether World”, where the words
‘three days and three nights’ are intended to denote the time taken to travel
the ‘chthonic depths to the underworld.’[26]
His
introduction (presumably based on this evidence, although this is not stated),
contends that ‘the expression “three days and three nights” reflects the
conception that death is permanent only after a body has shown no signs of
animation for a period of three days, the idea being that until that time had elapsed, the soul was conceived as still lingering
near the individual, encouraging the hope of revival.’[27]
G. Wenham gives a third view, with the following
comment on Gen 22:4: ‘Three days is a
typical period of preparation for something important.’[28] He cites Gen 31:22, 40:20, 42:18, Exod 3:18
and Exod 19:11, 16 as evidence. V.
Hamilton comments on the same verse, and associates the phrase ‘the third day’
with ‘some ominous event’[29]. He cites Gen 34:25, 40:20, 42:18 and Exod
19:11, 16 for his evidence. J. Durham
says of the phrase ‘on the third day’, that it is ‘nearly always […] used with a sense of rising anticipation.’[30] He gives no evidence for this assertion. We saw above the suggestion of rabbinic
writers that the third day represented the day
of salvation for the righteous. Evidence
for this view included Hosea
6:2, Gen 22:4, 42:18, Esth 5:1, and Jonah 2:1.
Our problem with these suggestions
is that they have not considered all the OT data. Wenham and Hamilton confine themselves to
Genesis and one passage in Exodus. For
their purposes (commentaries on Genesis), this is understandable, although
having included Exodus, they might have gone further. For our purposes, we want to consider the
whole OT, so we need to consider additional data. Durham gives us a pure assertion. Landes’ position is argued in more depth than
these first three, but he is still not broad enough in covering the biblical
data. Landes’ link to the Sumerian myth
is highly speculative. Therefore an
exhaustive survey may provide a more persuasive synthesis of possible ‘third
day’ and ‘three days’ themes.
Our first
survey will consider the OT references which involve the time margin ‘three
days’. This will be followed by a survey
of references which involve the time margin, ‘third day’. Some controls will then be introduced by
surveying references to ‘second day’, ‘fourth day’, and finally ‘next day’.
There are
69 verses in the OT which speak of the third day, or of three days.[31] (Gen
1:13, 22:4, 30:36, 31:22, 34:25, 40:12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 42:17, 18; Exod 3:18,
5:3, 8:27, 10:22, 23, 15:22, 19:11, 15, 16; Lev 7:17, 18, 19:6, 7; Num 7:24,
10:33, 19:12, 19, 29:20, 31:19, 33:8; Josh 1:11, 2:16, 2:22, 3:2, 9:16, 17;
Judg 14:14, 19:4, 20:30; 1Sam 9:20, 30:1, 30:12, 13; 2 Sam 1:2, 20:4, 24:13; 1
Kgs 3:18, 12:5, 12:12; 2 Kgs 2:17, 20:5, 8; 1 Chron 12:39, 21:12; 2 Chron 10:5,
12, 20:25; Ezra 8:15, 32, 10:8, 9; Neh 2:11; Esth 4:16, 5:1; Hos 6:2; Jonah
1:17, 3:3).
These
verses may be divided into forty-three separate units or passages. Twenty-four
of these involve the time margin, ‘three days’.
1. In Gen 30:36, Laban puts a ~ymiêy" tv,l{åv. %r<D< ‘three-day journey’ between himself and Jacob after making the deal regarding speckled and spotted lambs (30:32).
2.
Exod 3:18, 5:3, and 8:27 speak of
the coming Israelite three-day journey into the desert, where the Israelites desire
to ‘sacrifice to the LORD our God’ (3:18).
All of these verses use the phrase %r<D< ~ymiêy" tv,l{åv. ‘three-day journey’ to
describe the desired excursion.
3.
In Exod
10:22 and 23, Moses brings the plague of darkness on Egypt for three days. The phrase used in both 10:22 and 10:23 is tv,l{ïv. ~ymi(y" ‘for three days’.
4.
In Exod 15:22, Israel ‘traveled
in the desert without finding water’ for three days. The phrase used is ~ymi²y"-tv,l{)v.
‘(for)
three days’. It seems that their lives
were in danger, so that they ‘grumbled against Moses, saying “what are we to
drink?”’ (15:24) Moses cried out to Yahweh, and
God answered by showing him a way to make the water sweet. Note also that Num 33:8 recalls this same
story.
5.
Lev 7:17 and 18 are a little
different in that the genre is law rather than historical narrative. The law in question regards the fellowship
offering. In 7:17, if any meat of the
sacrifice is left yviêyliV.h; ‘~AYB; ‘on the third day’, it must be burned up. In 7:18, if
any meat is eaten yviyliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day’, it will not be accepted. ‘The person who eats any of it will be
responsible’ (7:18). In Lev
19:6-7, we find out that the punishment for this crime includes expulsion from
the people.
6.
In Num 10:33, the ark of Yahweh
is searching out a resting place for the people by means of a ~ymi_y" tv,l{åv. %r<D<Þ ‘three-day
journey’.
7.
In Josh
1:11, the Israelites are preparing to cross the Jordan River into the promised
land. The phrase used is ~ymiªy" tv,l{åv.
dA[åB. ‘yet three days’. The preparatory aspect of the three days is
seen in the instruction to ‘get’ the ‘supplies ready’ (1:11). The end of the three days is promised to be
the time when the Israelites will ‘cross the
Jordan here to go in and take possession of the land the LORD your God is
giving you for your own’ (1:12).
8.
In Josh 3:2, an event is recounted three
days after the Israelites arrived at the banks of the Jordan. The phrase used is ~ymi_y"
tv,l{åv. hceÞq.mi ‘at the end of three days’. The
event is that ‘the officers went throughout the camp’, telling the people to
follow the ark of the covenant when they see it. The people are told to ‘consecrate’
themselves, ‘for tomorrow the LORD will do amazing things among you’ (3:5).
9.
In Josh 2:16 and 2:22, the two
spies are trying to escape from Jericho.
They were told by Rahab the prostitute to hide for three days, until
their pursuers return, and only then to go on their way. In both 2:16 and 2:22, the phrase used is ~ymiªy" tv,l{åv. ‘(for) three days’. The spies heed Rahab’s advice,
and they escape. The conclusion is that
‘they stayed […] until the pursuers had searched all along the road and
returned without finding them’ (2:21).
10. In
Josh 9:16, it is three days after the Israelites made a treaty with the
Gibeonites, that the Israelites find out the Gibeonites are neighbours. The phrase used is ~ymiêy" tv,l{åv.
‘hceq.mi ‘after three days’.
11. In Judg
14:14, the Philistines cannot answer Samson’s riddle tv,l{ïv. ~ymi(y" ‘(for) three days’. On the fourth day, the Philistines threaten
Samson’s wife with death, if she will not explain the riddle to them.
12. In Judg 19:4, ~ymi_y" tv,l{åv. ‘three
days’ are mentioned in passing, as the Levite man stays with his father-in-law,
first for three days, and then for two more days. On the fifth day, he sets out with his
concubine, and his concubine is raped and killed that night. No significant events occur during the three
day period.
13. In
1Sam 9:20, Kish’s donkeys had been lost ~ymiêY"h;
tv,l{åv. ‘~AYh; ‘three days ago’ (a strange construction), when Saul
meets Samuel. Verses 5-7 make it clear
that Saul and his servant were in trouble by this time – ‘the food in our sacks
is gone’ (9:7), and ‘my father
will stop thinking about the donkeys and start worrying about us’
(9:5). But this potentially terminal
moment is resolved: Saul is informed
that the whole desire of Israel is focused on him and his father’s family. The implication of the narrative is that Saul
has been declared future king of Israel.
14. In 1 Sam
30:12 and 13, an Egyptian slave of an Amalekite is found three days after he
was abandoned by his master. In 30:12,
he had not eaten or drunk tAl)yle hv'îl{v.W
~ymiÞy" hv'îl{v. ~yIm;ê ‘for
three days and three nights’. In 30:13,
the Egyptian himself says that he was abandoned when he became ill hv'(l{v. ~AYðh; ‘three
days (ago)’. The slave had been part of
an Amalekite raid on the Negev and on Ziklag (30:1), which had carried off the
families of David and his men. That his
life is in danger is clear from verse 15, where he begs David: ‘Swear to me before God that you will not kill me or
hand me over to my master’. He agrees to lead David to his master in
exchange for his life.
15. In 2 Sam 20:4, all the men of Israel had just deserted
David to follow Sheba son of Bicri.
David told Amasa to summon the men of Judah within ~ymi_y" tv,l{åv. ‘three days’, and to be present
himself. But Amasa took longer than the
three days set (20:5). As a result he
was killed by Joab, seemingly for this disobedience (20:10).
16. In 2 Sam
24:13, three days is the duration of plague that David selects as God’s
retribution. The phrase used is ~ymiîy" tv,l{’v. ‘three days’. For God
demanded retribution after David took a census of the people. At the ‘end of the time designated’, seventy-thousand had died
(24:15). Then David sacrificed burnt offerings and
fellowship offerings on the altar he had bought (24:25), God withdrew his hand
of punishment, and the plague stopped.
Note that this story is repeated in 1 Chron 21:12.
17. In 2
Kgs 2:17, ~ymiÞy"-hv'(l{v. ‘three
days’ is the duration of the search for Elijah after he was taken in the
whirlwind. Elijah is not found, because
he is gone.
18. Ezra 8:15 describes the hv'_l{v.
~ymiäy" ‘three days’ of rest
which Ezra’s men took at the canal that flows towards Ahava. Ezra 8:32 mentions a rest of hv'(l{v. ~ymiîy" ‘three days’ at Jerusalem for the same men. The latter rest is described immediately
after a verse where Ezra praises God for protecting the men ‘from enemies and
bandits along the way’ (8:31). They were
carrying articles of silver and gold of great value (8:26-27), so safe passage
is the main thought in this narrative.
19.
In Ezra 10:8-9, three days are allotted for all the exiles within Judah and
Jerusalem to assemble. The phrase ~ymiªY"h; tv,l{åv.li ‘within three days’ is used in
both 10:8 and 10:9. The purpose of the assembly is to
deal with the problem of marriages to foreign women. Anyone who does not appear within three days
‘would forfeit all his property, in accordance with the
decision of the officials and elders, and would himself be expelled from the
assembly of the exiles’ (10:8).
20. In Neh 2:11, Nehemiah sets out after staying in Jerusalem ~ymiîy" hv'(lv. ‘three days’.
21. In 1 Chron 12:39, there are hv'êAlv. ~ymiäy" ‘three days’ of eating and drinking for David and his men, after they came to Hebron determined to make David king over all Israel.
22. In 2 Chron 20:25, Jehoshaphat and his men take hv'²Alv. ~ymióy" ‘three days’ to collect the plunder after defeating the men of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir who were invading Judah. There is an event recorded on the fourth day (20:26).
23. Jonah 1:17 has Jonah in the
belly of the fish for hv'îl{v.W ~ymiÞy" hv'îl{v. tAl)yle ‘three days and three
nights’. Jonah prays to God at an
unspecified time during his time in the fish, and he describes his location as
‘the depths of the grave’ (2:2). The
language is that of imminent death: ‘the earth barred me in forever’ (2:6), ‘my
life was ebbing away’ (2:7). Yet he is
confident that he will return to God, and sacrifice at the temple: ‘I, with a
song of thanksgiving, will sacrifice to you’ (2:9). Jonah is proven right, as the fish vomits him
out onto dry land (2:10).
24. Jonah 3:3 mentions the fact
that a visit to Nineveh required tv,l{ïv. ~ymi(y" ‘three days’.
1.
Gen 1:13 stands out from the
other passages on a few counts. First,
the Hebrew of yvi(yliv. ~Ayð ‘third day’ lacks the article. Every
other passage with this time margin contains this phrase with the article. Second,
this passage forms part of a list, where each day is differentiated from the
one before and the one after. This leads
to the climax on the seventh day. In
particular, on this third day, the sky and the land are formed and named. The vegetation, including seed-bearing fruit
is created according to its kinds. The
section concludes with the phrase, ‘and there was evening and there was
morning’. Therefore, third, through the
lens of O. O’Donovan’s Resurrection and
Moral Order, a teleological reading of the order in this passage suggests
itself.[32] That is, we believe that this passage is
offering the purpose under God’s hand
for various parts of the creation. The
land is ‘ordered’ in such a design that plants grow on it. The sky is ‘ordered’ in such a design that
birds fly in it. The time of evening
through to morning (night) is ordered in such a design that work does not occur
(so God does no work from evening through to morning, a model for our pattern
of work). This is to see the order of
Genesis 1 as broadly telic, and not
chronological, as it is usually taken.[33] A significant point to draw from this is that
the word ‘day’ is likely used here differently to its use in the historical
narratives.
These
major differences from the historical narratives are sufficient warrant to
separate this passage from the historical narratives in our final synthesis.
2.
In Gen 22:4, the ‘third day’ is
the day when Abraham goes up to sacrifice Isaac. The phrase yviªyliV.h;
~AYæB; ‘on the third day’ is used. On that day, Abraham intended to obey God’s
command to offer Isaac as a ‘burnt offering’ (22:2). Abraham took out a knife to ‘slay his son’
(22:10), but the angel of the LORD told him not to ‘lay a hand on the
boy’. The sharp change in God’s command
from ‘slaying’ to ‘not laying a hand on the boy’ is well described by Hebrews
as evk
nekrw/n evgei,rein ‘a raising from the dead’, evn parabolh/| ‘figuratively speaking’ (Heb 11:19).
3.
In Gen 31:22, Jacob had fled from
Laban after the LORD told him to return to the land of his fathers and
relatives (31:3). It was ~AYæB; yvi_yliV.h;
‘on the third day’ after Jacob fled that Laban was told of Jacob’s flight. He took his relatives with him and ‘pursued
Jacob’ (31:23). There was a threat in
Laban’s action, for he warned Jacob that ‘he had the power to harm’ him
(31:29).
4.
In Gen 34:25, a slaughter occurs yviøyliV.h;
~AYæB; ‘on the third day’ after
the Hivite males were circumcised. The
context is that Shechem the Hivite had defiled Jacob’s daughter Dinah, and so
Jacob’s sons acted ‘deceitfully’ in insisting that all the Hivites be
circumcised (34:13). This was the
condition under which Dinah was to be given to Shechem. But on the third day after this mass
circumcision, Simeon and Levi ‘took their swords and
attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male’ (34:25). It is clear that this slaughter was intended
as judicial retribution with respect of Shechem’s action, since the episode
finishes with the Simeon and Levi’s defense of their action: ‘should he have
treated our sister like a prostitute?’ (34:31)
5.
Gen 40:12, 13, 18, 19 and 20 all
speak of the coming judgment upon Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and baker. 40:13 and 40:19 use the phrase dA[åB. ~ymiªy" tv,l{åv. ‘yet three days’, 40:12 and 40:18
use the phrase tv,l{ïv. ~ymiÞy"
‘three
days’, and 40:20 uses the phrase yviªyliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day’. It is for the last verse that the passage is
included in this list. Both the cup-bearer and the baker had been thrown into jail with
Joseph. They each had dreams, which
Joseph interpreted for them. The meaning
of the dreams was that Pharaoh would ‘lift up’ the cup-bearer’s head and
‘restore’ him to his position ‘within three days’. Pharaoh would also ‘lift off’ the baker’s
head and ‘hang’ him ‘on a tree’. The
birds would eat away his flesh. On the
third day, both their heads were lifted up in the presence of Pharaoh’s
officials, as Joseph had said. One was
‘restored’, and the other was ‘hanged’.
The
nature of these verdicts is judicial, in that the baker is hung for his prior
indiscretion, while the cup-bearer is cleared of his indiscretion. As Gen 40:1 tells us, they had ‘offended
their master, the king of Egypt’. The
eating away of flesh, hung on a tree, is a sign of the curse which is on the
baker (Deut 21:23, 28:26, 1 Kgs 16:4,
21:24)
6.
In Gen 42:17 and 18, Joseph puts
his brothers in prison for three days, after they came to him to ask for
grain. The phrase used in 42:17 is ~ymi(y" tv,l{ïv. ‘(for) three days’, referring to
the time the brothers were locked up.
The phrase in 42:18 is yviêyliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day’, the day
when Joseph spoke to them. This last
verse has the form required in this survey.
When Joseph spoke, a death threat was implied, for Joseph said, ‘do this and you will live’ (42:18).
At the same time as showing the level of the threat, this verse also
shows that the brothers’ lives will be spared.
7.
Exod 19:11, 15 and 16 speak of
the third day after the people camped at Mount Sinai. In 19:11, the people are told to be ready ~AYæl; yvi_yliV.h; ‘for the third day’. In 19:15, they are told again to prepare ~ymi_y" tv,l{åv.li ‘for the third day’. In 19:16, the phrase used is yviøyliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day’. It on this ‘third day’ that
God appears in the sight of the people.
God warns Moses that ‘whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put
to death’ (19:12). ‘He shall surely be
stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or
animal, he shall not be permitted to live.’ (19:13). They cannot ascend, or else God will ‘break
out against them’ (19:24)
Despite
this warning, Moses and Aaron are themselves called to ascend the mountain, and
to speak with God (19:24). They are
exempt from this death threat. Moses is singled
out, for reasons made clear in verse 9: ‘I am going to come to you in a dense
cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put
their trust in you.’ Moses and Aaron get
to speak with God in God’s presence, while the others will die if they enter
God’s presence.
8.
Num 19:12 and 19:19 is a little
different, in that the genre is law, and not historical narrative. The law commands a ritual cleansing for those
who have had contact with death (Num 19:11).
In both verses the phrase used is yvi²yliV.h;
~AYõB; ‘on
the third day’. According
to most translations (e.g. NIV, ESV) the person must be cleansed with water on
both the third and seventh days.
However, J. Milgrom contends that the better rendering is ‘he shall
cleanse himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be
clean’, so that ‘he is aspersed with the purificatory waters on the third day
only.’[34] This understanding is quite plausible. Whatever the correct understanding, if the ritual is not carried
out, the man does not become clean, and he must be cut off from
Israel (19:13).
Num 31:19 is a story where this law
is obeyed. The phrase again is yviyliV.h; ~AYÝB; ‘on the third day’. In this narrative,
Moses is ordering his men just home from battle to obey the law of Num 19:12
and 19.
9. In Josh
9:17, the third day is the day of decision for the Israelite leaders regarding
the deceptive Gibeonites. It is the
third day after they set out, that they come to the Gibeonite cities. The phrase used is yvi_yliV.h;
~AYæB; ‘on the third day’. The decision is to spare the
Gibeonite lives rather than to kill them.
‘But the Israelites did not attack
them, because the leaders of the assembly had sworn an oath to them by the
LORD, the God of Israel’ (9:18). The
threat of death was certainly there in the language of ‘attack’ in this
verse. This is underlined in 9:26, where
we read that ‘Joshua saved them from the Israelites, and they did not kill
them’.
10. In Judg
20:30, Gibeah, in Benjamin, had been responsible for raping and murdering a
Levite’s concubine. The Levite had asked
Israel to ‘give’ their ‘verdict’ (20:7).
In response, ‘the tribes
of Israel sent men throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What about
this awful crime that was committed among you? Now surrender those wicked men
of Gibeah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel’
(20:13-14). But instead,
Benjamin went to war against Israel. On
the first two days of the battle, Benjamin were victorious, and they struck
down many soldiers in the Israelite army.
However, ~AYæB; yvi_yliV.h; ‘on the third day’, God gave the
Benjamite army to be ‘cut down’ (20:42).
The narrative also emphasizes that Israelite lives were saved on the
third day, for the Benjamites said on this day, ‘We are defeating them as
before’ (20:32). In 20:31, ‘about thirty
men fell’ from Israelite numbers, before the battle went in Israel’s favour.
11. 1 Sam
30:1 speaks of the day when David and his men discover that Ziklag had been
burned, and that their wives and children taken off by the Amalekite. It was yvi_yliV.h;
~AYæB; ‘on the third
day’ after David had been dismissed from fighting with King Achish against the
Hebrews. On that third day, the people
speak of killing David, in their grief at losing their families, ‘the men were
talking of stoning him’ (30:6). In
response to this threat, David calls on the priest to bring the ephod, and they
inquire of God what to do next. God says
that David’s men will overtake the raiding party, so 600 men go with him in the
chase. Thus David escapes possible
death.
12. In 2 Sam
1:2, David is staying in Ziklag for two days after defeating the
Amalekites. yviªyliV.h;
~AYæB; ‘on the
third day’ of this rest, a man from Saul’s camp arrives and reports the death
of Saul and Jonathon. He is put to death
for his part in killing Saul: As David
says, ‘Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you
when you said, 'I killed the LORD's anointed (1:16). As such, his death is
clearly a judicial punishment.
13. 1 Kgs 3:18 occurs within
the famous story regarding Solomon’s wisdom in judging the two prostitutes who
were fighting over a baby. The phrase
used in 1 Kgs 3:18 is ‘yviyliV.h; ~AYÝB; ‘on the third day’. This third day is the day when the second of the prostitutes had her
baby. It is the third day after the
first prostitute had her baby. That
night, (so it is claimed), one woman’s son ‘died
because she lay on him’ (1 Kgs 3:19). Then, according
to the first woman, ‘she got up in the middle of the
night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep.’ (1 Kgs
3:20). Note that this is not an event of judicial verdict.
14. In 1Ki 12:5 and 12:12, the
story involves Rehoboam’s decision about his future reign. The phrase used in 1 Kgs 12:5 is ~ymiÞy" hv'îl{v. d[o± ‘yet three days’, the time that
Rehoboam asks for his deliberations. In
12:12, the phrase is yvi_yliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day’, the day
where his verdict is given. He was asked
to lighten
the heavy yoke which his Father had placed on the people. ‘On the third day’, he gave his decision: ‘My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father
scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions’ (1 Kgs 12:14). As a result, the ten
northern tribes of Israel split from the two southern tribes of Judah. The story is repeated in 2 Chron. 10:5 and 10:12.
15.
In 2 Kgs 20:5 and 20:8, the story
is Hezekiah’s healing. Both verses use
the phrase yviêyliV.h; ‘~AYB; ‘on the third day’. Hezekiah had been told
by Isaiah the prophet that he would not recover from his illness (20:1). But he prayed to God and wept bitterly
(20:3), so God sent Isaiah back to change the prognosis. He will be so well healed that he will be
able to go to the temple ‘on the third day’ (20:5), he will live another
fifteen years, and God will protect him and Jerusalem from Assyria (20:6).
16. In Esth 4:16, Esther asks
for ‘~ymiy" tv,l{Üv. ‘three days’ of fasting,
after which she will go to King Xerxes.
Then in 5:1, yviªyliV.h; ~AYæB; ‘on the third day, she goes
to the king, risking her life. As Esther
wrote to her cousin, Mordecai,
‘All the king's officials and the people of the royal provinces know that for any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that he be put to death. The only exception to this is for the king to extend the gold scepter to him and spare his life.’ (Esth 4:11)
So the third day in this story is
the day when life and death are decided for Esther. She is spared (5:2)
As an aside, this narrative has
implications for the way the Hebrews counted days. Note that while 4:16 implies that Esther went
to the king after three days and three
nights of fasting, 5:1 still says that Esther went to the king on the third day. This language may appear strange to
us. We would not speak of an event both
occurring ‘after three days’ and also ‘on the third day’. However, it appears that this was part of the
idiom of the Hebrew language. We posit
that ‘after three days and three nights’ can mean ‘after the sun had set
twice’. This is supported by the fact
that the Jewish day finished at nightfall, a point which is clear in Judg
14:18, and asserted by P. Barnett.[35]
17. Hos 6:2 speaks of Israel being raised up yviêyliV.h; ‘~AYB; ‘on the third
day’. Given the importance of this
passage, and its different genre (prophetic prediction), we will leave this
passage, and look at it in some detail after we have synthesised the historical
narrative passages.
Two further passages occur in
lists where ‘second day’ and ‘fourth day’ are also mentioned, and where there
is no important difference between what happens on the second, third and fourth
day (Num 7:24, Num 29:20). Thus they do
not contribute anything distinctive to a ‘third day’ theme.[36]
It
is interesting, but unnecessary to this paper to consider the ‘third day’
references in the historical narratives of the New Testament.[37]
Let us now consider the
scholarly understandings of ‘third day’ and ‘three days’ which we outlined
above. In terms of Landes’ suggestion of
a ‘journey motif’, there are four explicit ‘three-day journeys’ in our first
data set (Gen 30:36, Exod 3:18, Ex 15:22, Num 10:33). Notably these are all in the Pentateuch. A further two might be described as implicit
three-day journeys (Jonah 1:17, 3:3). So
Landes’ suggestion of a ‘journey motif’ is present in the data. But when it comes to Landes’ other citations,
they are unpersuasive. He included Josh
2:16, where the spies are hiding, not journeying. He cited 2 Kgs 2:17, which involves a search,
not a journey. He cited 1 Sam 30:1 and 2
Sam 20:4, which involve a command to assemble within three days, not a command
to journey for three days. Such a
command will imply a three-day journey for some, but not for all, since many
will not need to journey far to arrive at the assembly point. He cited Gen 22:4, Josh 9:17 and 1 Sam 30:1,
which speak of arriving at a place ‘on the third day’. It is true that a three-day journey is
implied in these three passages, but the arrival is the focus, not the
journey. These last three citations also
expand his sample, so that he must include all references to ‘on the third
day’, as well as the references to a three day period. Thus these last three references widen his
sample size from 23 separate narrative passages (from our first list) to 37
(the narrative passages from both lists which we surveyed). Therefore, even if we include these three
references to an arrival ‘on the third day’, Landes has found only nine out of
thirty-seven passages which can be described as representing a journey. This is significant, but not overwhelming. We can do better.
Turning to Bauer’s suggestion
of a ‘longer or shorter time span’, he offers ten passages, which come from
both of the data sets which we surveyed.[38] He adds an additional passage (1 Sam 20:5 ff
speaks of ‘the evening of the day after tomorrow’, which is three days later,
since the day finishes at sunset). Thus
he presents a frequency of ten out of thirty-eight occurrences for his
theme. Of these ten, a few are
questionable. It is very debatable in
Neh 2:11 (isolated from other three-day texts) whether the three-day rest is
meant to communicate a short rest or a long one, or whether nothing more is
communicated that the historical length of the rest[39]. This is the same for Ezra 8:32. So Bauer’s theme occurs in only eight out of
thirty-eight passages, a frequency which
is not greatly compelling.
In terms of Wenham’s
suggestion that three days is typical of preparation for something important,
Wenham himself only suggests five passages as evidence (Gen 31:22, 40:20,
42:18, Exod 3:18, Exod 19:11). To
Wenham’s citations, we should add Josh 1:11 and Josh 3:2, which describes the
preparation to cross the Jordan into the promised land. Wenham’s citations speak both of events ‘on
the third day’, and of three-day periods. Thus it also seems necessary to
measure Wenham’s sample against all the 37 narrative passages which we have
surveyed above. Wenham’s theme then
includes only 7 of 37 references, and so does not constitute a prominent
pattern. To be fair to Wenham, his theme
is much more prominent within the book of Genesis, which was his focus.
Turning to Hamilton’s
suggested theme, ‘some ominous event’, this is a good suggestion for the time
margin ‘third day’. The flaw is that
‘some ominous event’ is too vague. As we
will discuss below, there are many deaths or death-threats in the ‘third day’
data, all of which are ‘ominous events’.
In these cases, more should be said of the event than that it was
‘ominous’. In terms of the other data
set, where the time margin is ‘three days’, Hamilton’s suggestion is less
convincing, being true in perhaps 6 or 7 of the 24 passages (Exod 10:22, Exod
15:22, Josh 1:11?, Josh 9:16?, Judg 14:14, 2 Sam 20:4?, 2 Sam 24:13). However, so many biblical events are
‘ominous’, that this moderate frequency does not seem noteworthy. In fairness to Hamilton, as with Wenham, we
should note that his focus is the book of Genesis, in which context his
conclusion is more robust.
J. Durham’s claim that
‘the third day’ time margin marks ‘rising anticipation’ is close to the
mark. As we show below, events on the
third day usually contain either a death or a death threat resolved on the
third day. As such, these narratives tend to contain
a rising anticipation until the death occurs, or until the death threat is
resolved. Durham’s claim is thus
correct, but not precise enough. One
problem with his lack of precision is that he does not communicate that the
drama is usually resolved on the third day.
Another is that he does not communicate that life and death are in the
balance so often.
Lastly, there are strengths
in the rabbinic view that the ‘third day’ is a day of salvation for the
righteous. But more needs to be said,
given the fact that four of the fourteen narrative passages contain deaths on
the third day (Gen 34:25, 40:12, 2 Sam 1:2, 1 Kgs 3:18).
In short, the scholarly
suggestions are either flawed, or they are a subset of our suggestions
below. With that we need to turn to our
own suggestions.
The first answer which we
suggest is that the time margin ‘three days’ carries a notion of ‘sufficient
time for certainty’. That is, three days
is a period which represents a ‘safety margin’.
Events can be considered firmly established once they have been
established for three days. Let us
consider two explicit examples of this theme.
First, the three–day
journey which the Israelites must make before sacrificing in the wilderness is
explicitly requested so as to be out of sight of the Egyptians (Exod
8:26-27). It represents sufficient time
traveling to be certain that no Egyptians will be present. Second, in Josh 2:16, 22, three days in
hiding is explicitly said to be sufficient for the two spies to be certain that
their pursuers had gone.
These two examples are not
significant in a data set of twenty-four.
But there are very many more examples which are implicit in the various
narratives. When Laban moved Jacob’s
flocks a three-day journey from his own flocks (Gen 30:36), it was implied that
the distance was sufficient to be sure that the two men’s flocks would not
interbreed and form more speckled offspring (which would then belong to Jacob).[40] The reason Pharaoh waited three days to
respond to the plague of darkness is not stated, but given the other examples
in this pattern, the feeling is that Pharaoh was now sure that the darkness
would not subside without some kind of action (Exod 10:22). The Israelites began grumbling after three
days of not finding water. The
implication is that this time period was sufficient to be sure that they were
in trouble (Exod 15:22). When three days
passed after the treaty with the Gibeonites, the feeling of the narrative is
that sufficient time had passed for the treaty to be firmly established, and
thus binding (Josh 9:16). When the
Philistines could not answer Samson’s riddle for three days, the implication is
that they will never answer it. Three
days is sufficient to be sure of their failure.
Thus they turn to desperate measures on the fourth day (Judg
14:14-15). In the narrative regarding
Saul and the lost donkeys, it is implied that three days is sufficient for
Saul’s father to be worried for the safety of his son. His ‘lostness’ would now be seen as enduring
(1 Sam 9:20 cf. 9:5). In the story of
the lost Egyptian slave (1 Sam 30:12), the statement that the slave was
abandoned ‘three days ago’ implies that he has been permanently abandoned. In the story of Elijah’s disappearance, three
days is sufficient to imply that Elijah is permanently gone (2 Kgs 2:17). Ezra and his men wait for three days (Ezra
8:32) after they had arrived in Jerusalem.
Having been fearful of ‘enemies on the road’ (8:22), the three days
appear to be sufficient for confidence that they have not been followed, and
will not be attacked. Later in the book
of Ezra, Ezra sets three days for the people to assemble in Ezra 10:8-9. It is assumed that if the people have not
assembled by that time, their absence is permanent.
To this evidence, we could
add the passage suggested by Bauer, 1 Sam 20:5, where David hides ‘until the
evening of the day after tomorrow’. This
three day waiting period represents excellent evidence for our theme, since
three days is explicitly sufficient to determine Saul’s attitude towards David
(1 Sam 20:6-7). However, to avoid
biasing our sample of passages, we will not include this passage in our
percentage summary below.
Our pattern can also be drawn upon for contrast in other stories involving three-day periods. In a key example for this project, Jonah’s three days and nights in the whale are sufficient to establish the expectation that Jonah would not escape. This provides an expectation which is shattered when Jonah does escape, underlining the surprising nature of his deliverance (Jonah 1:17). In a more speculative way, perhaps we can comment on the plunder which took Jehoshapat’s men three days to collect (2 Chron 20:25). Perhaps the ‘sufficient for certainty’ theme would lead the reader to expect that three days should be more than enough to search out and take the spoils of war. If so, the rhetorical point would be that the amount of plunder was unbelievably large.
Even excluding this last example, and excluding Bauer’s example, thirteen of the twenty-three[41] narrative examples fit under this heading of ‘sufficient for certainty’. This is enough of a pattern that an astute reader would notice it. It is also fairly easily the best pattern we have found to explain the large number of OT references with time margin ‘three days’. As such we believe it should be accepted.
Turning to the second
group of data (with the time margin ‘third day’), there were seventeen
passages. However, we have already
argued the need to treat Gen 1:13 separately, due its different genre, lack of
article in the phrase ‘third day’, and likely different use of the word
‘day’. We will also remove Hos 6:2 and
Num 19:12 from our summary treatment, because of their different genres, that
of prophetic prediction and law respectively.
This leaves us with fourteen passages in the genre of historical
narrative.
The most general point
appears to be that all fourteen passages have a climactic resolution on the
third day, under the broad heading of a ‘reversal’.
Of the fourteen, nine
passages narrate the sparing of human life in the context of threatened death
‘on the third day’ (Gen 22:4, 40:12, 42:17, Exod 19:11, Josh 9:17, Judg 20:30,
1 Sam 30:1, 2 Kgs 20:5, Esth 4:16). These
constitute a climactic reversal from death to life. Four passages have not just the threat of
death but death itself on that day (Gen 34:25, 40:12, 2 Sam 1:2, 1 Kgs
3:18). These constitute a climactic
reversal from life to death. Of the
remaining two passages, the subjects of Rehoboam expect a lighter yoke, but in
the climax, this is reversed into a heavier yoke on the third day (1 Kgs 12:5,
12). In Gen 31:22, Laban sets out,
seemingly to attack Jacob on the third day.
This can be seen as a reversal in that Laban and Jacob were previously
at peace with each other. It may also be
seen as the climax resulting from Jacob’s flight.
The second point is to
underline that nearly all the passages involve someone’s death, or an escape
from death (12 out of 14). Under this
heading, we note that three of the four deaths are judicial punishments, in
that they are executed with respect of a prior offense (Gen 34:25, 40:12, 2 Sam
1:2). So there is a hint that the
reversal can involve a judicial death.
Thus our first suggestion for the ‘third day’ theme is this: a climactic
reversal, usually involving a death of judicial punishment, or the escape from
likely death.
The third point we wish to
make is that this theme is so overwhelming in the data that the careful OT
reader will look for life and death reversals in the ‘third day’ passages where
life and death are not explicitly in the balance. For example, the careful OT reader will have
the feeling that Jacob’s life was in danger, as Laban set out to chase him (Gen
31:22), since the chase began on the third day.
There is implicit support for this in Laban’s explicit threat of harm in
31:29, but the ‘third day’ time margin strengthens this considerably. In the story of Rehoboam’s verdict, the
‘third day’ time margin gives the sense that lives are in the balance as
Rehoboam declares that ‘his little finger is thicker’ than his ‘father’s waist’
(1 Kgs 12:20). Again, there is implicit
support for this in the death that quickly followed Rehoboam’s decision (12:18)
and in the war that nearly broke out (12:21-24).
Before progressing, we
should underline that the two separate themes we have identified in the ‘three
days’ and ‘third day’ passages are not mutually exclusive. The two different time margins have much in
common, and should not be totally divorced from one another.
This is clear first of all
in that some of the passages we surveyed contained both the ‘third day’ and the
‘three days’ time margin (e.g. Gen 40, Josh 9).
Second, our themes also
overlap in that there are numerous passages in the first survey which fit the
theme of the second, and vice versa.
Consider these examples from the first survey which fit the theme of the
second: Israel are rescued from likely death from thirst after three days (Exod
15:22). The spies escape a likely death
after hiding for three days (Josh 2:16).
The Egyptian slave is spared, rather than killed after a three-day
period (1 Sam 30:12). 2 Sam 20:4
contains a judicial death sentence after a three-day period. Jonah is saved from death after a three-day
period (Jonah 1:17). Consider also these
examples from the second survey which fit the pattern of the first: In Gen
34:25, Simeon and Levi can be seen to attack the Hivites on the third day in
order to give sufficient time for the circumcisions to be completed. The three-day time period before cleansing in
Num 19:12 can be seen as ‘sufficient time for certainty’ that due punishment
has been borne, or ‘sufficient time for certainty’ that uncleanness is ready to
be expunged.
Third, our two themes
overlap in that they can be integrated conceptually. So we have seen that a three-day period often
functions as a requisite period for certainty regarding a given outcome. However, this does not exclude a climactic
reversal at the end of the three-day period.
Indeed, in many narratives, precisely this occurs, and a climactic
reversal follows a period which represented some kind of ‘safety margin’. See for example Gen 34:25, Exod 15:22, Josh
2:16, 1 Sam 30:12, Jonah 1:17,.
The reader should not understand from our synthesis that the ‘third day’ time margin is the only device which the OT uses to narrate life and death events. A few examples should make this clear. First, in Gen 32-33 a day-night-day time sequence is used to narrate the climax and reversal where Jacob’s life is spared by Esau (Gen 32:1, 32:13, 32:22, 32:31-33:4) . Second, in 1 Kgs 18:43, a seven-fold return of Elijah’s servant to look at the sea is the device used to show climax and reversal, where God sends rain and lives are saved from famine. Third, in 2 Kgs 19:35, God intervenes directly through an angel ‘that night’ to save the city of Jerusalem from death at the hands of Sennacherib. This is another climax and reversal involving lives being saved. Thus the OT has an arsenal of narrative techniques which convey climactic reversals of somebody’s fate, from death to life. The point we are making is that the time margin ‘third day’ is a very significant component of this arsenal.
We turn now to consider the time margins ‘two days’, ‘four days’, ‘second day’, and ‘fourth day’, in order to establish a control against which our findings on ‘three days’ and ‘third day’ can be measured.
While the OT has 69 references to
the ‘third day’ or ‘three days’ (excluding those used in dates), there are only
14 references to the ‘second day’ or ‘two days’ (Gen 1:8, Exod 16:29, Num 7:18, Num 9:22, 11:19, 29:17, Josh 6:14, 10:32, Judg 20:24, 2 Sam. 1:1, Esth 7:2, 9:27, Ezek 43:22, Hos 6:2).
Gen 1:8 speaks of the
second of the seven creation days. We
have discussed our view of the creation days above. In particular, we discussed the distinctive
use of ‘day’ at this point. It is
sufficient to repeat that the climax of this narrative is the seventh day, not
the second (or third) day. In Exod
16:29, Moses tells the Israelites that they will be given bread ‘for two
days’. This reference serves to explain
how God is enforcing the Sabbath (the seventh day rest) in his distribution of
manna. The two-day supply of bread
highlights a seven-day pattern, since the extra bread is given the day before
the Sabbath in order that the Israelites rest on the seventh day. Num 7:18 and 29:17 occur in lists where
‘third day’ and ‘fourth day’ are also mentioned, and where there is no
important difference between what happens on the second, third and fourth days
(Num 7:24, Num 29:20). The twelfth day
is the climax of the list in Num 7:24, while the seventh day is the climax in
Num 29:20. In Josh 6:14, ‘the second
day’ is referring to one of the days when the Israelites circled Jericho as
part of their siege. It is mentioned to
highlight that this was the regular practice for the Israelites for the first
six days of the siege, with the climax being the seventh day, not the
second. As such, there is nothing
distinctive about the second day, for the distinction rests with the seventh
day. In Josh 10:32, Joshua takes the
city of Lachish on the second day.[42] He puts everyone in the city to the
sword. During this narrative, the point
seems to be the speed with which Joshua is conquering. The speedy two-day conquest contrasts with
the seven days which it took to conquer Jericho (Josh 6:15). Judg 20:24 is part of the story where the
Benjamites were being attacked because Gibeah had raped and murdered the
Levite’s concubine. But the climax here
is not the second day. Rather, the
second day is the same as the first day, when the Benjamite army overcame the
Israelites. It is the third day when the
Benjamites are defeated, thus the distinction is with the third day. In 2 Sam 1:1, no event is mentioned at all on
the second day, merely that David stayed two days in Ziklag. The two days mentioned in this verse
highlight the next story, which occurs ‘on the third day’ (2 Sam 1:2). In Ezek 43:22, a male goat, a young bull and
a ram are to be offered as sacrifices on the second day. This is also to occur every day for seven
days (43:25). As such, there is nothing
distinctive about the second day, but the distinction is with the seventh
day. We will discuss Hos 6:2 below,
given its different genre, but the point to note is that the phrase ‘after two
days’ in Hos 6:2 is used as a foil for the statement that ‘on the third day he
will raise us up’.
In summary, all these
references focus attention away from
the second day or the two-day period, and toward the third, seventh or twelfth
day. We are left with only four
references to consider.
In Num 11:19, we read the following saying:
‘You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty
days.’ Clearly no event on the second
day is being described. Num 9:22 is
similar. In Esth 7:2, the second day is
the day when Esther petitions the king for her life and the life of her
people. It may be the case that her
deliverance should be seen as a swift one in light of the preponderance of
three day events in the OT (two days being less than three). The same applies to the subsequent military
deliverance which is celebrated at Purim (Esth 9:27). Whether or not this is true, it should be
clear that the references to ‘second day’ and ‘two days’ do not present a theme
of their own, but often have rhetorical impact through their relation to three
and seven day periods or events.
Further, the relative scarcity of ‘two days’ and ‘second day’ relative
to ‘three days’ and ‘third day’ (14 verses 69) is sufficient by itself to
underscore the importance of the time margins ‘three days’ and ‘third day’.
When it comes to the
‘fourth day’, or ‘four days’, there are only 8 references, excluding references
to dates: (Gen 1:19, Num 7:30, 29:23, Judg 11:40, 14:15, 19:5, 2
Chron 20:26, Ezra 8:33). Gen 1:19 is the fourth day within the
creation account, where the emphasis falls on the seventh day. Num 7:30 and 29:23 occur in lists where
‘third day’ and ‘fifth day’ are also mentioned, and where there is no important
difference between what happens on the third, fourth and fifth day. The twelfth day is the climax of the list in
Num 7:30, while the seventh day is the climax in Num 29:23. In Judg 11:40, the daughter of Jephthah the
Gileadite is commemorated for four days each year, since she was sacrificed
because of the oath of her father (Judg 11:30-31). It is hard to perceive any rhetorical effect
in this use of ‘four days’. In Judg
14:15, the fourth day is the day Samson’s wife is threatened with death if she
does not answer the riddle which Samson has set for the Philistines. This ‘fourth day’ event brings the previous
three day period into relief, as we argued above. Judg 19:5 tells of the Levite, who stayed
with his father-in-law first three days, then four, then five, before finally
leaving the night after the fifth day.
The emphasis falls perhaps on the five-day stay, or perhaps on the three
day initial stay, but certainly not on the fourth day. In 2 Chron 20:26, the fourth day is the day
when Jehoshaphat and his men give praise to God for the victory and spoils they
have just won, after they had defeated Moab and Ammon. Again, the reference to the fourth day comes
immediately after a ‘three-day’ event (2 Chron 20:25), and we suggested above
how this time margin might work rhetorically in the narrative. In Ezra 8:33, the fourth day occurs after a
rest of three days, the latter time margin being the significant one. We also discussed the rhetorical effect of
this three day reference above.
These passages are
striking in their scarcity relative to the ‘third day’ events, and by the fact
that they are often used to bring three-day or seven-day periods into focus.
The same points could be
made regarding the fifth and sixth days.
Thus the third day stands out markedly as a day of great theological
significance in the OT. Even if the
reader rejects our suggestions for the ‘third day’ and ‘three days’ themes,
some explanation is required for the preponderance of ‘three days’ and ‘third
day’ time margins relative to that of ‘two days’, ‘second day’, ‘fourth day’
and ‘four days’.
In critique, the reader
may be tempted to ask why there any references at all to ‘second day’, or
‘fourth day’, if God (or the human authors) intended a bold theology of the
third day? Our first answer is that the
‘third day’ pattern should not disqualify God from allowing some events to
occur on the second or fourth days. Nor
should it disqualify the authors from recording events on the second or fourth
days. Our second answer is that the
relative preponderance of ‘three days’ and ‘third day’ time margins is
sufficient to gain the reader’s attention – a complete monopoly of references
is not necessary to achieve the desired result.
What should we make of
these patterns? Perhaps nothing. Some possible objections need to be dealt
with before we can conclude with confidence.
The reader might contend that when a narrative provides a time margin –
any time margin – then we expect an event.
Further, in Hebrew narrative, we often expect a climactic event. Further still, most climactic events in the
OT salvation history will tend to be life and death matters. So perhaps the ‘third day’ pattern above is a
pattern found throughout the OT with time margins, and we should not make
anything of it with this time margin. A
similar argument could be made against our finding with the ‘three days’ time
margin.
To address this question,
we surveyed all the references to tr'x\m' ‘the next day’, contained in historical narrative (Gen 19:34, Exod 9:6,
18:13, 32:6, 30, Num 11:32, 16:41, 17:8, 33:3, Josh 5:11, Judg 6:38, 9:42,
21:4, 1 Sam 5:3, 11:11, 18:10, 20:27, 30:17, 31:8, 2 Sam 11:12, 2 Kgs 8:15, 1
Chron 10:8, 29:21, Jonah 4:7). These
provide a good sample of random events which have a time margin. Of the twenty-four passages covered by this
survey, all but two (Exod 18:13, 2 Sam 11:12) could be described as climactic
in some way. Twelve could be described
as ‘climactic reversals’ (Exod 9:6, Exod 32:6, Num 16:41, Judg 9:42, Judg 21:4,
1 Sam 5:3, 11:11, 18:10, 20:27, 30:17, 2 Kgs 8:15, Jonah 4:7). A further five recorded human death (Num 16:
41, Judg 9:42, 1 Sam 11:9, 30:17, 2 Kgs 8:15).
In three passages, a death threat was present (Josh 5:11, 1 Sam 18:10, 1
Sam 20:27). Two of these three death
threats were resolved that same day (Josh 5:11, 1 Sam 18:10).
There are five points to
make related to this survey. First, the
large number of ‘climactic’ events underlines that any passage with a time
margin is likely to mark a significant event.
Second it is clear that many such significant OT events are ‘reversals’,
and many are life and death events. Thus
we saw 12 passages which were ‘reversals’, and 8 examples of life and death
events, out of 24 passages sampled.
Third, this survey underscores that ‘third day’ time margins are doubly significant. This is illustrated by the 12 out of 14
‘third day’ life and death events, considerably more frequent than 8 out of 24
such events on the ‘next day’. Fourth,
we note that the other elements of the ‘third day’ data do not stand out. It is a close run thing that 5 out of 24
‘next day’ passages record human death, compared with 4 out of 14 ‘third day’
passages, so the life to death theme on the third day does not stand out as
much as the death to life theme. Also,
the hint that the ‘third day’ deaths are particularly judicial is no more than
a hint, since there are 2 out of 5 implicit ‘next day’ judicial sentences
compared with 3 out of 4 such events explicit on the ‘third day’. Fifth, the most significant result is that 9
out of 14 ‘third day’ passages have a death threat removed on that day, while
this is true for only 2 out of 24 of the ‘next day’ passages.
This last point is
sufficient to dispose of the objection that the ‘third day’ data is no
different from data with any other time margin.
Further, it helps us to focus on where ‘the third day’ material stands
out relative to other material (with a time margin) in the OT. Based on this survey, we can confidently say
that the most striking element of the ‘third day’ passages is the idea of
‘death threat removed’. This part of the
‘third day’ data would be particularly highlighted in a reader’s mind, because
these relatively unusual events, of the same character, keep happening ‘on the
third day’. This is a partial
vindication of the rabbinic motif that the third day is the day of salvation
for the righteous. It is a vindication,
since the ‘day of salvation’ theme well captures the ‘third day’ reversals from
death to life. The vindication is only
partial, because this salvation is not always for the ‘righteous’, as the
Genesis Rabbah[43] has it, nor for ‘Israel’ as
the Esther Rabbah[44]
has it. Rather, the Egyptian cup-bearer
is saved on the third day (Gen 40), as is the Egyptian slave (1 Sam 30), as are
the Gibeonites (Josh 9). Therefore it is
better to say that the data points to salvation for members of all nations on
the third day.
However, we should not
exclude the pattern of death from the
‘third day’ pattern, since the deaths on the third day would no doubt stick in
the reader’s mind as part of the ‘third day’ phenomenon. They are numerous enough (within the ‘third
day’ sample) to make an impact, once the reader has noticed that ‘the third
day’ is a significant marker of associated content. The hint that 3 out of 4 deaths are judicial
may also stay in a reader’s mind.
In summary, we have not
only disposed of this objection for the ‘third day’ time margin, but we have
established that the ‘third day’ pattern stands out within the OT, and that
this pattern has four elements, in descending order of importance. The
first element of the pattern is the recurrence of a climactic reversal on the
third day. The second element is the
prominence of reversals from death to life.
The third, less prominent element is the pattern of reversals from life
to death. The fourth, speculative
element is the hint of a judicial nature to such deaths.
Turning to the ‘three
days’ time margin, it is hard to find a single alternate time margin to use as
a control. We considered again our
surveys of ‘the next day’, ‘two days’, and ‘four days’, and we could not find
any passage which explicitly conveyed the idea of ‘sufficient for
certainty’. However, ‘the next day’ is
not a period in time, but a point in time, and ‘two days’ and ‘four days’
provide a limited sample size. Therefore
this consideration provides evidence – but only limited evidence - that the ‘sufficient for
certainty’ is an unusual idea, in terms of its association with time margins.
But we must address
another objection before we continue. One might ask whether the
prevalence of the use of ‘three’ in the OT merely represents the love of the
number three in the contemporary Ancient Near East. For three is a significant number for the
religions of the ANE. ‘Triads of gods
are found in Babylonia (Anu, Bel, Ea), Egypt (Isis, Osiris, Horus) and Greece
(Zeus, Poseidon, Hades), corresponding to the realms of heaven, earth and the
underworld’[45]. A possible reason for this can be found in R.
Harris’ Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament. It is suggested that ‘as
the number of the smallest plurality, three was appropriate as representing an
innermost circle of friends or followers’.[46] Since the number two in Hebrew and other ANE
languages is dual, the number three is the first number with plurality, and
this may help to explain this religious usage, and also other usages. The implication, a critic might say, is that
the OT authors were conscious of various rhetorical possibilities surrounding
the number three, thus making the number prominent in their writings.
But even if we concede that the reason for the use of three may be grounded in the ANE love of the number, this does not negate our conclusion. The literary result of the frequent and focussed use of the number three is to draw attention to the characteristics associated with the phrases ‘third day’ and ‘three days’. This is true irrespective of the ANE use of the number three, or the reasons for that usage.
A further objection we wish to address comes from the major work on biblical numerology by John Davis. In Biblical Numerology, Davis argues that the only number in the biblical literature which conveys symbolism is the number seven.[47] He states that seven ‘is the only number which appears to be used symbolically with any consistency in the contemporary extra-biblical literature’. He argues that since Scripture does not explicitly divulge the symbolic meaning of any number, the only valid method is to sample every occurrence of a number. Thus he says of the number three,
When all the occurrences of the number three are studied, the most one could say for its symbolism is that it conveys the idea of “completeness”. This number may have conveyed this concept because of the nature of common triads with which everyone was familiar.[48]
He goes on to dismiss those who make more of the number three’s symbolism in the bible:
J. Edwin Gartill, for example, says that three is the number of “…union, approval, approbation, co-ordination, completeness, and perfection.” […] It appears that there are almost as many different interpretations of the number three as there are interpreters […] The system of symbolic numbers, as used in the Christian church must be regarded as a post-Apostolic development. Most of the meanings adopted today for the symbolic numbers are those that were proposed by the Church Fathers. And one should remember that Augustine, along with the other fathers, was strongly influenced by the early Gnostic heresies and Pythagorean theories with regard to symbolic numerology.[49]
We may therefore seem to disagree with Davis, by suggesting a theme behind the phrase ‘third day’ and ‘three days’? How can we avoid Davis’ critique? First, we note that our question is different from his. He considered only the symbolism of the number three, while we have limited ourselves to a much narrower set - ‘three days’ and ‘the third day’. Second, we have avoided his critique of being selective, by sampling every occurrence of these two phrases. Third, the results in our sample are much more striking than for the cardinal number three considered alone. One place to see this is in the frequency of usage. For the cardinal numbers two, three and four, the Old Testament frequency (in the Hebrew) is 772[50], 605[51] and 456[52] respectively. This is a distribution we would expect, with the smaller numbers used more frequently than the larger numbers. This was not the case with third day and three days, as we have already shown. The respective frequencies of two, three and four in our study was 14, 69, and 8. On this basis alone our case for symbolism is very much stronger than the case for the cardinal number three. Fourth, Davis’ suggestion that three conveys the idea of ‘completeness’ is close to our suggestion that 'three days' can imply ‘sufficient time for certainty’. The ‘sufficient time for certainty’ motif often means that there has been sufficient time to be sure that an event is complete. Thus Davis can be seen to support our thesis.
Having cleared some
objections, it is worth restating our finding regarding ‘the third day’ before
considering it further. We have found
that there is a pattern in the way that OT historical narratives use the term
‘on the third day’. The first element of
the pattern is the recurrence of a climactic reversal on the third day. The second element is the prominence of
reversals from death to life. The third,
less prominent element is the pattern of reversals from life to death. The fourth, speculative element is the hint
of a judicial nature to such deaths.
Can we be more concise
than this? When these four factors are
considered together, the concept of ‘resurrection day’ presents itself as a
good way to describe this data, by way of analogy. To be clear, we are not speaking about
identity at this point. But the
resurrection day, as depicted in Daniel 12:1-3 has common elements with our
‘third day’ pattern.
‘At that time Michael, the great
prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress
such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that
time your people-- everyone whose name is found written in the book-- will be
delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will
awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3
Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who
lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
At the resurrection the
leading emphasis is that of a climactic reversal, since the dead are
permanently animated. Further, it is a
day of salvation, since many are saved from death, and are given everlasting
life (12:2). However the outcome is not
good for all people, as some awake to ‘shame and everlasting contempt’
(12:2). There is a hint of a judicial
result here, since those who rise to shame are also the ones who have not ‘led
many to righteousness’. All of these
items may also be asserted of our ‘third day’ data, considered as a group.
To illustrate, consider
the story of the cup-bearer and the baker (Gen 40). By analogy, we may say that Genesis 40 is
‘resurrection-like’, where the cup-bearer represents the resurrection to life,
in that he is rescued from death. The
baker represents the resurrection to shame and contempt, in that he is
sentenced to death on account of his offending the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1).
Having done this work with
the ‘third day’ and ‘three days’ narratives, we can now turn to the prophetic
prediction made in Hosea 6:2, which we have left to one side until now.
Hosea 6:2 comes after a
chapter of judgment directed at Ephraim and Judah. Future judgment was promised against Ephraim
in 5:9. Judah’s leaders were promised
God’s wrath in 5:10. In 5:14, God says
that he will tear Ephraim and Judah to pieces like a lion. Our passage comes as a promise looking beyond
that time of judgment. Hosea says:
Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. 2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (Hos 6:1-2)
We note four arguments that ~wq in verse 2 should have the sense of raising from the dead. First, ~wq can validly be used in this way, since it means ‘raising from the dead’ in Ps 88:10, Is 26:19, Amos 5:2 and elsewhere. Second, the promise that the LORD would tear Ephraim like a lion has the sense of death about it, since one does not normally survive being torn by a lion. Thus a resurrection is required to revive the corpse. Third, the connection between the verb ~wq ‘raise up’ in 2b and hyx ‘live’ in 2c suggests a prior death, unless the opposition in 2c is focussed on ‘before him’.
So D. Stuart helpfully says of this
verse:
‘The first two verbs (hyx, piel, and ~wq, hiphil) here in chiastic parallel, clearly denote coming back to
life from the dead, a theme already expressed in 2:2, and analogous (as in
2:1–3) to Ezek 37:6, 10, 12–14. The attempts of Wolff (117–18) and others to
eliminate the concept of resurrection from the verse are unsuccessful.[53]
Fourth, the parallel
poetry is important for our purposes, because the pattern in verse 1 can be
used in verse 2 to show that the emphasis falls on what will happen on the
third day, rather than on the second day.
Consider the first line, ‘he has torn us, that he may heal us’. The preliminary statement is that ‘he has
torn us’, while the climactic prediction is that he will ‘heal us’. Similarly in the second line, the preliminary
statement is that ‘he has struck us down’, while the climactic prediction is
that ‘he will bind us up’. If we follow
this pattern into verse 2, the preliminary statement is ‘after two days he will
revive us’, while the climactic prediction is ‘on the third day he will raise
us up, that we may live before him’. The
reference to two days thus serves to bring attention to the main point, which
is the point about the third day. This
follows a pattern which we have observed in the narrative sections of the OT,
namely that the second day is often used to highlight events on the third day.
Given that the focus rests
here on the third day, the OT narrative associations of the ‘third day’ come to
rest on this passage. Thus we can
incorporate all the work we have done so far, the implication being that this
passage is speaking about a climactic reversal from death to life. Thus a resurrection from the dead comes
firmly into view in this passage.
These considerations seem
sufficient to negate H. Wolff’s assertion that ‘these verses concern one who
has been wounded but is still alive.’[54]
Our preliminary work with the OT historical narratives does much to bolster the
argument of Stuart in this regard.
So how does this help us
to understand Paul’s claim in 1 Cor 15:4b, that the Christ had to rise on the
third day, according to the Scriptures?
In light of our study from Genesis to Jonah, ‘three days’ conveys the
idea of ‘sufficient time for certainty’.
That is, first, the three days in the tomb were sufficient to be sure
that Jesus was dead. Second, the
resurrection of Jesus exemplifies the OT pattern of God’s involvement with
people ‘on the third day’. Here is
another climactic reversal from death to life on the third day. Here is the most important element of a
pattern which culminates in a theological sense in Daniel 12:1-3.
Kata. ta.j grafa.j ‘according to the Scriptures’ in 1 Cor 15:4b should therefore not be
understood to say that the Old Testament predicts
the resurrection of the Christ on the third day. Rather we understand Paul’s teaching to mean
that Jesus’ third day resurrection is in perfect harmony with the Old
Testament. His third day resurrection is
part of a pattern of ‘third day’ reversals from death to life. So rather than a prediction, we might speak
of a suggestion which the Old
Testament makes. If an astute OT reader
were asked ‘when do you think the Christ would rise’, he would not say
‘certainly on the third day’, but rather, ‘I suppose the third day fits the
pattern best’.
Our
thesis that the ‘third day’ in 1 Cor 15:4b works by analogy with the OT
historical narratives is strengthened by Matthew 12:40. Jesus there draws the analogy between the
three days and nights of Jonah and the three days and nights of Jesus’ burial. Jesus points to an analogy, not to a prophetic
prediction, with respect of the third day.
This underscores that there is more than Hosea 6:2 behind the OT’s
suggestion of Christ’s third day resurrection.
This project has underlined that there are many other OT analogies that
Jesus could also have chosen (contra Dodd and Evans).
In
the end, however, Hosea 6:2 stands out from the other testimonies. Hosea gives us an explicit link between
resurrection and the third day, where the narratives only give us a link by
analogy. Hosea 6:2 draws upon and enriches
the ‘third day’ narrative theme in a way which we might say Paul has copied.
Our
conclusion is therefore that the third day resurrection of Christ is suggested
by the OT Scriptures in general, with a special focus on Hosea 6:2.
What implications might we
take from this study? First and most
obviously, we have given a coherent answer to the referent of ‘according to the
Scriptures’ in 1 Cor 15:4b. We have
shown that it is not necessary or preferable to follow Metzger’s interpretation
of the verse. Rather, the OT Scriptures
in general, with a special focus on Hosea 6:2, testify that the ‘third day’ is
the day of resurrection.
Second, our study gives
added warrant to the Christian case apologetically. For we have shown that a significant part of
the claim about Jesus was grounded in a ‘fitting’ way in advance of his
coming. It is a very important testable
claim that the Old Testament paves the way for understanding the person and
work of Jesus. It is very important that
this OT foundation agrees with the eyewitness accounts of his life, death and
resurrection. This is a testable
conclusion of a kind not available in any other religion. We have sought to bolster this claim. As such we have sought to bolster the case to
accept Christ and to reject other religions or worldviews.
Third, we have contributed
to the understanding of the resurrection saying about Jonah in Matthew
12:40. It is not necessary to follow
Landes when he says that Jonah’s three days in the whale illustrated a journey
to the ‘chthonic depths of the underworld’.[55] Neither is it necessary to transfer this
understanding to Christ. The point is
simply that both Jonah and Jesus spent enough time in the ‘heart of the earth’
that one could be sure they were dead.
Except in both cases this is the wrong conclusion.
Fourth, we have shown how
the theme surrounding ‘three days’ can be used with effect to draw out
rhetorical meaning from some Old Testament historical narratives. As an important example, debate has long
raged over the manner in which Esther contributes to the biblical canon.[56] Our study shows one way that Esther’s
location in the canon can draw out its theology, since Esther’s ‘third day’ and
‘three days’ time margins are informed by those time margins in the rest of the
OT, and by the resurrection of Jesus.
Fifth, Esther’s
participation in the ‘third day’ time margin data might be used to bolster its
place in the canon. If it could be shown
that ancient extra-biblical sources do not link the ‘third day’ time margin
with concepts of ‘climactic reversal from death to life’, this would constitute
an argument for Esther’s place in the canon.
For Esther would then contribute to an OT theme in a fashion unknown
outside the bible.
Barnett,
P. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.
________ 1
Corinthians. Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2000.
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: A&C Black, 1971.
Baldwin, J. Esther.
Leicester: IVP, 1984.
Bauer, J. B. ‘Drei Tage’, Biblica 39 (1958): 354-58
Black, M. ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestament 40 (1969): 1-8
Butler, T. Joshua. Waco: Word Books, 1983.
Carson, D. The Gospel According to John. Leicester: Apollos, 1991.
Conzelmann, H. 1 Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Cundall, A. and Morris, L. Judges and Ruth. Leicester: IVP, 1968.
Davis, J. Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the use of Numbers in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Delling, G. ‘h`me,ra’, Pages 943-953 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1964.
________ ‘trei/j’, Pages 216-225 in vol. 8 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Friedrich. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1964.
Dillard, R. 2 Chronicles Waco: Word Publishers, 1987.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet and Company, 1952.
Durham, J. Exodus. WBC. Waco: Word Books, 1987.
Evans, C. Resurrection and the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1970.
Fee, G. First
Corinthians. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Fensham,
F. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1982.
Garland, D. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Goodrick, E. and Kohlenberger, J. III, Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999.
Hamilton, V. The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995.
Harris, R. ‘shalosh’. Page 933 in vol. 2 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Harris. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Hill,
D. ‘On the Third
Day’. The Expository Times 78 (1966/67): 266-67.
Jenson, P. ‘vAlv' / hv'l{v.’. Pages 144-145 in vol. 4 of Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis. Edited by W.
VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
Landes,
G. ‘The “Three Days and
Three Nights” motif in Jonah 2:1’. Journal
of Biblical Literature 85
(1967): 446-50.
Lehmann,
K. Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift. 2nd ed. Freiberg: Herder, 1969.
Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.
McArthur,
H. ‘On the Third Day’. New
Testament Studies 18 (1971/72): 81-86.
McCasland, S. ‘The Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’. Journal of Biblical Literature 48 (1929): 124-137.
Midrash
Rabbah on Esther and Song of Songs. Translated
by M. Simon. London: Soncino Press,
1983.
Midrash
Rabbah on Genesis 2 Translated by H.
Freedman. London: Soncino Press, 1983.
Milgrom,
J. Numbers. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1990.
Metzger,
B. ‘A Suggestion
Concerning the Meaning of 1 Cor xv. 4b’. Journal
of Theological Studies 8 (1957): 118-123.
Neusner, J., ed. The
Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts IX. Genesis
Rabbah Part Three. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1997.
O’Donovan,
O. Resurrection and Moral Order. 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.
Richards,
H. The First Easter: What Really Happened? Oxford: Twenty-third
Publications, 1983.
Stuart,
D. Hosea-Jonah.
Waco: Word Books, 1987.
Thiselton, A. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Webb
B. Five Festal Garments. Leicester: Apollos, 2000.
Wenham, G. Genesis 16-50, Waco: Word Books, 1994.
Wijngaards, J. ‘Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. vi. 2)’, Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967): 226-38.
Wolff,
H. Hosea.
Translated by G. Stansell.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Woudstra, M. The Book of Joshua. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003.
Bock, D. Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
Christensen, J. ‘And That He Rose on the Third Day According to the Scriptures’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1990): 101-113.
Hemer, C. ‘trei/j’. Pages 686-687 in vol. 2 of The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology. Edited by C.
Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
[1] With Thiselton, evn prw,toij in 1 Cor 15:3 should be taken as having logical rather than temporal
force. So the NIV, NRSV, ESV rightly
translate ‘of first importance’. See A.
Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B
Eerdmans, 2000), 1186.
[2] Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 31-32.
[3] By virtue of Luke 24:46-47.
[4] G.
Fee, First Corinthians. (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 727,
does not state explicitly that this point excludes the view that ‘according to
the Scriptures’ modifies ‘he was raised’, but it is implied. We include it, because it is central to the
viewpoint.
[5] Fee, First Corinthians, 727.
Position (c) is expounded by D. Hill, ‘On the Third Day’, ExpT 78 (1966/67), 266-67.
[6] Fee, First Corinthians, 727.
[7] P. Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 182.
[8] B.
Metzger, ‘A Suggestion Concerning the Meaning of 1 Cor xv. 4b’, Journal of Theological Studies. 8
(1957): 118-119. Metzger, together with
S. McCasland, ‘The
Scripture Basis of “On the Third Day”’. JBL 48 (1929): 134-135, do not find any
origin for the ‘third day’ resurrection of the Christ in the OT Scriptures.
[9] Metzger, ‘Suggestion’, 118-123 uses
the parallels to 1 Macc 7:16 to argue for the possibility of his translation.
[10] Paul Barnett, 1 Corinthians (Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2000),
275, demonstrates that Jesus did in fact rise on the third day. He first asserts that the Jewish day began at
sunset. ‘Thus Christ died and was buried
on Friday afternoon (day one); he remained in the tomb Friday sunset to
Saturday sunset (day two); he was raised alive sometime during Saturday night
before the arrival of the women on Sunday morning (day 3)’.
[11] For example, C. Senft and S. Kistemaker. See Thiselton, First Epistle, 1195, for details. Examples of this position in the English language include C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbet and Co., 1952), 77, 103, J. Wijngaards, ‘Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. vi. 2)’, VT 17 (1967): 226-38, C. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1970), 47-50, B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 60-66, G. Delling, ‘h`me,ra’, TDNT 2: 949, G. Delling, ‘trei/j’, TDNT, 8:216-225, M. Black, ‘The “Son of Man” Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition’, ZNW 40 (1969): 1-8.
[12] Evans, Resurrection, 49.
[13] Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 77.
[14] Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 103.
[15] Fee, First
Epistle, 727.
[16] K. Lehmann, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, (2nd ed.; Freiberg: Herder, 1969), 176-181, 262-90. See also Thiselton, First Corinthians, 1197.
[17] H. McArthur, ‘On the Third Day’, New Testament Studies 18 (1971/72): 84, cites
two parts of Midrash Rabbah, one from Gen 22:4, one from Gen 41:7, and one from
Esth 5:1 as constituting the Rabbinic position on ‘three days’ and ‘the third
day’. He also cites the Midrash on
Psalms, Psalm 22:5, and Yalkut Shimeoni to Joshua II. 16. This precise quotation may be found in
Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 2 (trans. H. Freedman. London: Soncino Press, 1983),
843. Note the alternative rendering in
Midrash Rabbah on Esther and Song of Songs (trans. M. Simon. London: Soncino
Press, 1983), 112: ‘Israel are never left in dire
distress more than three days.’ For the
rabbinic comment on Gen 22:4, see J. Neusner, ed. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts
IX. Genesis Rabbah Part Three. (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997), 37.
[18] McArthur, ‘Third Day’, 86.
[19] H. Richards, The First Easter: What Really Happened? (Oxford: Twenty-third
Publications, 1983), 104.
[20] C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (London: A&C Black, 1971), 340.
[21] This is also the view of N. T. Wright. He does not think that the idea of bodily resurrection was present until the 3rd century BC, which rules out the major passages we have considered. See N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. (London: SPCK, 2003), 202.
[22] All the commentaries on 1 Corinthians, and also on Luke are obliged to say something on the problem. However, there is little said in other commentaries that is not caught in the summary above. See for example, D. Garland, 1 Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 684-688, A. Thiselton , First Epistle, 1193-97, and H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 255-256.
[23] H. Richards,
The First Easter: What Really Happened? (Oxford:
Twenty-third Publications, 1983), 104.
[24] G. Landes, ‘The “Three Days and
Three Nights” motif in Jonah 2:1’, Journal
of Biblical Literature 85 (1967): 447, cf. J. B. Bauer, ‘Drei Tage’, Biblica 39 (1958):354-58.
[25] Landes, ‘Jonah 2:1’, 448.
[26] Landes, ‘Jonah 2:1’, 449.
[27] Landes,
‘Jonah 2:1’, 446.
[28] G. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, (Waco: Word Books, 1994), 106.
[29] V. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 107.
[30] J. Durham, Exodus. (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 264.
[31] This excludes dates. For example, we have excluded Ezra 6:15 ‘The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.’
[32] O. O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 45-50.
[33] This reading has numerous advantages. First, a telic reading of this passage
enables Genesis to answer moral questions
which a chronological account does not.
Since the purpose of Genesis pertains to the questions of how we should live rather than how the
universe was chronologically created, this reading fits the purpose of Genesis
better. There is something inappropriate
about caging birds on the ground, when those birds are designed to fly in the
air. Second, a side benefit of this
reading is that it does not need to defend itself against certain scientific
contradictions. For example, we can
explain why the earth is created before the sun in the account. The reason is that the sun is (teleologically)
ordered to serve the earth, by giving it light.
We are not forced to conclude which came first chronologically, so it is
possible on this reading that the earth is younger than the sun, but that the
sun was created for the earth.
[34] J. Milgrom, Numbers. (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 161.
[35] P. Barnett, 1 Corinthians. (Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 275.
[36] In Num 7:24, the leader of Zebulun brings an offering
on the third day. It is the same
offering that the leader of Issachar brought on the second day, and the same
offering that the leader of Reuben brought on the fourth day. So there is no distinctiveness about ‘the
third day’ in this passage. The same is
true in Num 29:20 – on each progressive day of the assembly, one less bull is
presented in the sacrifice than the previous day. On the third day, 11 bulls were prepared for
sacrifice, while there were 12 on the second day, and 10 on the fourth day.
[37] For a brief discussion of ‘the third day’ in John 2:1, see D. Carson, The Gospel According to John. (Leicester: Apollos, 1991), 167-168. Acts 27:19 is interesting in that Paul and his companions are delivered from likely death on the third day. This is a neat continuation of one of the themes we have identified in the OT data. Few if any commentaries on the book of Acts make comment on this point.
[38] Landes, ‘Jonah 2:1’, 448.
[39] F. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1982), 113 comments on the use of ‘three days’ here and in Ezra 8:15, 32 only
to defend the likely historicity of a three-day rest.
[40] V. Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 283.
[41] This excludes Lev 7:17, being part of the ‘law’ genre.
[42] M. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1981), 182, does not comment on ‘the second day’ at this point. The rhetorical use of numbers is not part of his interest. The same is true of T. Butler, Joshua. (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 118-119, whose interest is in the historical veracity of the account. This point could be made over and over again with respect of the different passages I am considering, in terms of the rhetorical use of time margins. Commentaries are interested in historicity, authorship, characterization, redaction, and many other things, but almost never in the rhetorical impact of numerical time margins. Further examples, somewhat randomly, include A. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges and Ruth (Leicester: IVP, 1968), 166, R. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (Waco: Word Publishers, 1987), 153-159, J. Baldwin, Esther (Leicester: IVP, 1984), 91, 109. It does not seem necessary or prudent to extend this list further.
[43] Rabbah on Genesis 2, 843.
[44] Rabbah on Esther, 112.
[45] P. Jenson, ‘vAlv' / hv'l{v.’, NIDOTTE, 4:144-145.
[46] R. Harris, ‘shalosh’, TWOT 2:933.
[47] J. Davis, Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the use of Numbers in the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968), 115-124.
[48] Davis, Biblical Numerology, 120.
[49] Davis, Biblical Numerology, 121.
[50] E. Goodrick and J. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 1503.
[51] E. Goodrick and J. Kohlenberger III, Exhaustive Concordance, 1501.
[52] E. Goodrick and J. Kohlenberger III, Exhaustive Concordance, 1370.
[53]
D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah.
(Waco: Word Books, 1987), 108. Note that
Hos 2:1-3 in the MT (to which Stuart refers) maps onto Hosea 1:10-2:1 in the
NIV.
[54] H. Wolff, Hosea. (trans. G.
Stansell. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1974), 117-118.
[55] Landes, ‘Jonah 2:1’, 449.
[56] See, for example, B. Webb, Five Festal Garments. (Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 126.