Looking for Old Testament quotations on Jesus rising on the third day, if any...

Status
Not open for further replies.

charispistis

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello brothers and sisters,

Luke 24:44-46
"Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,"

Is it written in the Old Testament that Jesus would rise on the third day? Is Hosea 6:2 an allusion to it?
 

Hamalas

whippersnapper
I would think Jonah in the belly of the fish would be one allusion (if not a quotation) of this.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Jonah 1:7 is a reasonable reference, especially considering Jesus' own allusion, Mt.12:40.

Hosea 6:2 is possibly the most direct "prophetic" allusion. It is also helpful to reckon with the intertextual connections between Hosea's forward (in time) orientation, and the prophetic reliance on previous revelation. Hosea knows his Bible (OT, Moses &tc.); and he understands the instructive nature of Israelite redemptive history (that which is prophetically, providentially preserved for future generations). So it is not unreasonable to infer that he intentionally alludes himself to prior revelation, to Moses in Gen.42:18, "And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God."

Another probable point of reference for Jesus (and Paul, 1Cor.15:4) statement is Gen.22:4, which bears directly on the sacrifice of the son of Promise, the result of which event Heb.11:19 refers to as a symbolic resurrection.

All to say, the phrasing of "third day" or "three days" is met with often enough in the OT, that for the NT writers to draw attention to it even generally--if not specifically with obvious allusion--is a perfectly reasonable use of the OT.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Doctor
A question:

Not to discount what's already been pointed out (which is great!), but what do you say to the idea that "the third day," in addition to being a literal day, also means a fullness of time? By rising on the third day Jesus remained dead long enough to show that without a doubt he really was fully dead and has the power to conquer death of any duration. Taken that way, any Old Testament passage that foretells the Messiah's bodily resurrection from the grave, or his power over bodily death, should be understood to show that he will rise "on the third day," that is, "after a full time."

There's precedent for understanding New Testament claims about Jesus this way. For example, Matthew says the prophets told that he would be from Nazareth... even though it's hard to show that Matthew had in mind any particular prophet in the canon who mentioned the region directly. Was Matthew mistaken, or sloppy? No, it may be that by saying the prophets told of Jesus being "a Nazarene" Matthew means that the prophets made it clear the Messiah would come from a humble place, or that he'd be despised. Could "on the third day" likewise refer to a more general prophetic theme and not necessarily require a specific mention of three days?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Christ rose on the third day (inclusive) after his crucifixion, which was also the first day of a new week, otherwise known as the eighth day. See OT references to "the eighth day".
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
One could take the statement Lk.24:26 in a general way, although plain OT expressions are most valuable, being for that cause less deniable or objectionable. I'm not aware of any reason why it shouldn't be seen as all hanging together, and that the tenor of the prophets does not lead to their statements, which then are acknowledged by the NT writers. Nor am I saying there's no way a fullness-of-time aspect can be found under "three-days" phrasing (I only ask: let this be unambiguously attested to elsewhere, and then make the argument for Lk.24:26 and 1Cor.15:4).

My read of Matthew is that he is neither sloppy, nor does he over-generalize (as if that was possible). His exact statement is that Christ should "be called a Ναζωραῖος (a Nazorian)," and reference is made to his Providential hometown, i.e. where he was reared, viz. Nazareth. I am quite happy to see in this phrasing the Apostle's deliberate use of assonance in the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarite/Nazirite," the ceremonial designation for the uniquely sanctified Israelite devotee (see Num.6:1-21).

Neither Christ nor his parents make vows that we know of according to Moses' institution, but that's not the point. Christ is the archetype; and the consecrated Israelite-above-his-fellows was typological. So, in my estimation, Matthew is adhering to an ancient Israelite pattern of Scripture interpretation, whereby all that is good, clean, heroic, excellent, admirable, etc., is predicated superlatively of the promised Messiah. Hence, there need not be a particular text that promises that the Christ will fulfill the Nazarite ideal (and be called a Nazarite), when the mere existence of Num.6 constitutes such a statement. And then, I think Matthew wants us to appreciate the way men virtually and without deliberate act ascribe Jesus' unique sanctification and crown to him simply by designating him according to his place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top