{"id":20085,"date":"2025-04-28T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-28T08:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=20085"},"modified":"2025-04-27T23:24:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-28T03:24:57","slug":"jonah-and-the-resurrection-of-christ-from-type-to-antitype","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/jonah-and-the-resurrection-of-christ-from-type-to-antitype\/","title":{"rendered":"Jonah and the Resurrection of Christ: From Type to Antitype"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From a historical standpoint, Jonah is one of the more perplexing characters in the Old Testament. He is called to be a prophet and yet disobeys, unwilling to heed the voice of God or dwell in his presence (Jon. 1:3).[1]<\/sup><\/a> He ends up being swallowed by a great fish, but somehow survives only to be regurgitated three days later and vomited out near a coastline (Jon. 2:10). Moreover, after finally going to Nineveh at the word of the Lord, he is ultimately frustrated with Nineveh\u2019s positive response, complaining about God\u2019s mercy of all things (Jon. 4:2). Quite obviously, critical scholars dismiss these details as ahistorical, relegating Jonah to the status of \u201cmyth\u201d in order to make sense of the story as the use of a literary character to enforce a moral lesson. But natural men do not comprehend the ways of God.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Jonah 1:1 begins, \u201cNow the word of the Lord came to Jonah.\u201d The phrase, \u201cthe word of the Lord came\u201d appears 109 times in the Old Testament, and is primarily associated with the prophets indicating the mode by which God communicates with a chosen servant (see e.g. 1 Sam. 15:10; 2 Sam. 7:4; 1 Kgs. 18:1; Isa 38:4; Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1; etc.).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

From a theological standpoint, Jonah\u2019s significance is not so easily discounted. In just four short chapters, the book of Jonah is full of rich theological themes, including the presence of God, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, God\u2019s immutability,[2]<\/sup><\/a> and salvation, among others. In the context of the narrative, the point that Jonah is in the belly of the fish for \u201cthree days and three nights\u201d (Jon. 1:17; Heb. 2:1) is striking for the simple fact that Jonah did not ultimately die and lived to tell the tale. Yet the significance of Jonah\u2019s ordeal goes beyond the historical details. When we come to the New Testament we read Jesus saying, \u201cfor just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth\u201d (Matt 12:40). In other words, an association is being made between Jonah\u2019s experience and Jesus\u2019s resurrection. Thus, there is more to Jonah\u2019s maritime internment than what might meet the eye at first glance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Immutability means unchangingness.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In this essay, I intend to address several aspects of the Jonah\/Jesus relationship in two brief questions: 1) What is the nature of the association that Jesus is making between his death and resurrection and Jonah\u2019s? And, 2) What bearing does this association have on Jonah\u2019s historical claims?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jonah as a Type of the One to Come<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

First, in the full context of Scripture, it is best to understand Jonah\u2019s experience in the belly of the fish as a typological theme finding its fulfillment in Christ\u2019s death and resurrection. Typology in Scripture includes divinely intended patterns of historical correspondence and escalation among certain historical people, events, and institutions which propel the storyline of Scripture forward, ultimately finding their telos <\/em>(goal) and terminus<\/em> (finish line) in Christ.[3]<\/sup><\/a> Types can be discerned initially by recognizing patterns, words, and themes that repeat within the Old Testament as they occur in biblical history, and\/or by finding these Old Testament patterns, words, and themes repeated in the New Testament. In other words, the reuse by later biblical authors of persons, events, and institutions recorded by earlier biblical authors is what constitutes typology. In this way typology connects past events with present ones, while also linking current events with the past. In the biblical framework, types are not made between abstractions but historical<\/em> realities, a point I will return to below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. For one example of employing typological hermeneutics in biblical theology, see Joshua M. Philpot, \u201cWas Joseph a Type of Daniel?: Typological Correspondence in Genesis 37\u201350 and Daniel 1\u20136,\u201d Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em> 61, no. 4 (2018): 681\u201396.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In the present study, we can discern a relationship between Jonah and Jesus noted explicitly by both Matthew and Luke. Three patterns of historical correspondence are mentioned specifically. First, Jonah is in the belly of the fish for \u201cthree days,\u201d while Jesus will be in the grave for \u201cthree days\u201d (Matt 12:38\u201342; Luke 11:29\u201332). One might argue that Jonah is not in a  \u201cgrave\u201d per se<\/em>; that is, he is not dead. But Jonah states that his entombment within a fish is in \u201cthe belly of Sheol<\/em>\u201d (Jon. 2:1), using the common Hebrew term for \u201cgrave\u201d to refer to his predicament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, Jonah\u2019s time within the fish follows the pattern of the \u201cthird day\u201d theme in Scripture, whereby a person or nation is delivered and saved from certain death after three days: the sacrifice of Isaac on the third day (Gen 22:4), God\u2019s descent on Sinai on the third day (Exod. 19:16), Hezekiah healed on the third day (1 Kgs. 20:5), Esther\u2019s intervention for the Israelites on the third day (Esth. 5:1), and Hosea\u2019s prophecy that the Lord will raise up Israel from the dead on the third day (Hos. 6:2). As it happened with Jonah on the third day, so also it will be with Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul says additionally in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that Christ \u201cwas raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures<\/em>,\u201d concluding the pattern established in the Old Testament. The exact \u201cScriptures\u201d Paul had in mind is a matter of debate.[4]<\/sup><\/a> What we can ascertain is that when Jesus references \u201cthe Scriptures\u201d in Luke 24:26\u201327 to demonstrate now the Old Testament anticipates his death and resurrection, he likely had many texts in mind instead of just one: \u201c\u2018Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?\u2019 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures<\/em> the things concerning himself.\u201d Perhaps Paul does as well when he describes Jesus dying and then rising from the dead on the third day \u201cin accordance with the scriptures\u201d (1 Cor. 15:4).[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
4. For an overview of interpretive views, see Stephen Dempster, \u201cFrom Slight Peg to Cornerstone to Capstone: The Resurrection of Christ on \u2018the Third Day\u2019 According to the Scriptures,\u201d The Westminster Theological Journal<\/em> 76, no. 2 (2014): 371\u2013409.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. However, see the intriguing essay by Tom Sculthorpe<\/a> who argues that Paul is referring specifically to Gen 1:11\u201313.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Third, Jonah\u2019s expulsion from the fish (i.e. Sheol, the grave) corresponds symbolically to Jesus\u2019s resurrection from the dead. The connection with resurrection is not stated explicitly in Matthew and Luke, but it\u2019s implied nonetheless, a point that Jesus makes crystal clear in several speeches in Matthew alone (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 26:32). The details in Jonah thus typify the details in Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the \u201cthird day\u201d theme moves from type (the original context) to antitype (i.e., its fulfillment)[6]<\/sup><\/a> in history, a divinely intended pattern emerges, escalates, and reaches fulfillment in the New Testament. Jesus refers to these corresponding details as the \u201csign of Jonah\u201d (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29), indicating that just as Jonah\u2019s rescue from the fish was a sign to the Ninevites that he was truly a prophet from God, so also Jesus\u2019s resurrection from the dead proves to his generation that he is truly the Son of God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. An \u201cantitype\u201d simply means the fulfillment of a type. In other words, it is the final and highest repetition of the pattern that gives the whole sequence meaning. In Scripture, many types have their antitype in Jesus.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

We can conclude, therefore, that Jonah\u2019s three days in the \u201cgrave\u201d of the fish and his repulsive resurrection[7]<\/a> <\/sup>fits a typological pattern culminating in Christ\u2019s three days in the grave and glorious resurrection. These points of contact establish historical correspondence and escalation from one resurrection to the next. Indeed, in Christ \u201csomething greater than Jonah is here\u201d (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. It must have been disgusting.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Jonah as a Historical Reality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

But the fact that Jonah\u2019s experience is a typological theme <\/em>does not lessen its historical nature, as if the story is merely the use of an abstraction (\u201cbelly of the fish\u201d) to make a greater moral lesson. This is the view of many who embrace the theological message in the book of Jonah but not the historical reality. For example, David Baker suggests on the evidence of the types of Jonah and Job, that \u201cit is possible to have correspondences between an imaginary<\/em> person and a real<\/em> person.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a> In his view, even if the type is artificial, the type still has educative value. He writes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Emphasis mine. David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old & New Testaments<\/em> (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 180, fn17.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n

There is an undoubted correspondence between Macbeth or Hamlet and real people, and the significance of these characters is not lessened by the fact that they are fictional. Likewise, whether or not they ever lived, there are real correspondences between the lives of Jonah and Job as portrayed in the biblical stories and those of Jews and Christians today.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

9. This analogy is offered in a section arguing for the basis of typological relationships, chiefly that types are historical by definition. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible<\/em>, 179\u201380.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

To this line of thinking, I offer three counterpoints. First, although the analogy from Shakespeare might serve to illustrate Baker\u2019s point, it does not illustrate a biblical point. Shakespeare never claims divine inspiration as the biblical authors do. Thus, it is the analogy and not the biblical text that is artificial, however convenient that analogy may be. Second, on the basis of the divine inspiration of types\/antitypes, one must accept that if Jonah or Job is merely symbolic of a greater principle\u2014i.e. literary contrivance, parabolic or otherwise[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014then these men are the only biblical types that might fall into that category. Thus, Jonah and Job would be outside the norm of what constitutes a biblical type. It is the convenience of the skeptical critic that he or she might choose which types are historical and which types are not. But insofar as the authors of the New Testament are concerned (namely, Matt. 12:38\u201342; Luke 11:29\u201332), Jonah\u2019s three days in the great fish correspond typologically to Jesus\u2019s three days in the tomb. If one accepts that Jesus\u2019s three days look back to the three days of Jonah, is it possible, within the context of the Bible, to confirm the factuality of the one while denying the other? In addition, if one argues as Baker does that Jonah and his three days refers not to a factual person or event, then one must also apply the same logic to the rising up of the men of Nineveh in judgment (the main point of Jesus\u2019s message), as well as the Queen of the South (1 Kgs. 10:1\u201313; 2 Chr. 9:1\u201312), as well as Solomon\u2014all characters that Jesus uses typologically to illustrate the salvation he brings through judgment. Would Matthew and Luke (and Jesus, for that matter) mix an imaginary type with real types? The link between Jonah and the others in relationship to \u201cthis generation\u201d supports the conclusion that Jesus considered these individuals to be historical.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Further, Matthew\u2019s assertion that \u201cone greater than Jonah is here,\u201d indicating escalation from type to antitype, prophet to prophet, accords best with correspondence to a factual type and not an imaginary one. What good is it for Jesus to be greater than an imaginary<\/em> prophet<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
10. On the view that the Jonah narrative is an extended parable, see Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah<\/em>, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 175\u201381, 194\u201397; Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 392\u201393.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Although the conclusion here was reached independently, see the same argument for internal consistency and authenticity of the Jonah story in Douglas K. Stuart, Hosea\u2013Jonah<\/em>, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987), 440.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Third, the comparison in Matthew 12 with Jonah, Sheba, and Solomon comes at the end of a section beginning in Matthew 12:1 where the words meizon<\/em> and pleion<\/em> (\u201cgreater\u201d) are used to show how Jesus is \u201cgreater\u201d than the temple\/priesthood (Matt. 12:6), prophets (Matt. 12:41), and kings (Matt. 12:42). Thus, Jonah is the archetypal, representative prophet in this instance where both his life (in the belly of the fish) and message (to the Ninevites) is presented in typological relationship to Jesus\u2019s life and work. As the archetype of Old Testament prophets, Jonah, not Moses, is put forward. Thus, if Matthew intended to show that Jesus\u2019s life is naturally associated with an imaginary<\/em> hero like Jonah, the typological relationship would falter. The text assumes that the death and resurrection of Jesus will not be ambiguous. Neither was the death and resurrection of the prophet Jonah. If a person or event is rejected on the basis that it is miraculous, then the Bible\u2019s fabric is torn. If, however, we accept the divine inspiration of the text, then the authenticity of the miraculous events of the Bible (such as Jonah\u2019s three days) is not so far-fetched.[12]<\/sup><\/a> The church stands or falls, after all, on the historical factuality of a dead man coming back to life.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
12. For my attempt at applying the logic of typology to the historical case for Adam, see Joshua M. Philpot, \u201cSee the True and Better Adam: Typology and Human Origins,\u201d Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology<\/em> 5, no. 2 (2018): 77\u2013101.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. One might conceive of a type in the realm of literary stories like the Ancient Near East tales of Leviathan, which find their way into the biblical text (Job 3:8; 41:1; Ps. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1). But even the creative use of Leviathan has a basis in real history. It is clear from Psalm 74 (\u201ccrush the heads of Leviathan,\u201d cf. Ezek. 32:4ff.) that Leviathan refers to Egypt, and from Isa. 27:1 (\u201cIn that day,\u201d \u201cfleeing serpent,\u201d \u201ctwisted serpent\u201d) that the tale of Leviathan is being used literarily to refer to Satan, whom the New Testament calls the \u201cancient serpent\u201d (cf. Isa. 51:9; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). The point is not whether typology employs metaphors to recall persons\/events, but whether the type is a historical person or occurrence.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Christ\u2019s death on the cross, three days in the tomb, and resurrection were unambiguous according to eyewitnesses and historical testimony. And, on a future day the men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment and give testimony to Jonah\u2019s story, proving once and for all the historical reality of his own personal death and resurrection (Matt. 12:41).[14]<\/sup><\/a> I have argued in this essay that Jonah\u2019s three-day internment in the fish and expulsion to dry land serve as types in the biblical storyline which point to future fulfillment by one greater than Jonah. Like Jonah, Jesus was a prophet. Like Jonah, Jesus descended through the waters of judgment (Luke 9:31; 1 Pet. 3:18\u201322). Like Jonah, Jesus was in the grave\/Sheol for three days. Like Jonah, Jesus did not \u201csee corruption\u201d (Ps. 16:10; Acts 13:35) even while in the grave. Like Jonah, Jesus was expelled from the grave by the voice of God, resurrected to life. Like Jonah, following his resurrection Jesus preached repentance and turning to God for salvation. Like Jonah, Jesus was raised to life in order to prove once and for all that he truly was the man he claimed to be\u2014God\u2019s Son in the flesh. And like Jonah, Jesus\u2019s real resurrection was proof that his message was truly God\u2019s message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. The sailors likely assumed Jonah\u2019s death after casting him from the boat in Jonah 1:11\u201316 in the middle of a turbulent storm.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

These are not the only typological correspondences of Christ\u2019s death and resurrection in the Old Testament and New Testament. However, as Christians celebrate Resurrection Day each spring, may we read and remember Jonah\u2019s own experience and glory in the One greater than Jonah, who leads us through the waters of judgment to a future resurrection from the dead.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What does the belly of a fish, the heart of the earth, and something-greater-than-Jonah have in common? The answers start with a “J” and a “T.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":20086,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"What does the belly of a fish, the heart of the earth, and something-greater-than-Jonah have in common? The answers start with a \"J\" and a \"T.\"","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"[]","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1970,32,12,38],"tags":[695,217,823,57,282,1381,662,2075,257,661,694,2006],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[1961],"class_list":["post-20085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-april-2025","category-article","category-concise","category-theme","tag-atonement","tag-biblical-theology","tag-christ","tag-christ-as-center","tag-christ-over-all","tag-cross","tag-easter","tag-jonah","tag-messiah","tag-resurrection","tag-typology","tag-work-of-christ"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Philpot-Jonah-scaled.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:40:01","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":1961,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"josh-philpot","display_name":"Josh Philpot","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Josh-Philpot-Author.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Josh-Philpot-Author.jpg"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Josh Philpot (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is the pastor for worship at Founders Baptist Church in Houston. Dr. Philpot has published articles and book reviews in the Bulletin for Biblical Research, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament, Journal of Ecclesial Theology, and Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood<\/i>. Dr. Philpot and his wife, Jennifer, have four children."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20085","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20085"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20085\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20103,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20085\/revisions\/20103"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20086"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20085"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=20085"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=20085"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=20085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}