Hi Brett,

The message you sent is interesting, but I'm still not swayed that Jonah actually died in the belly of the fish. I have two main reasons for my view.

First, although Jonah did say (Jonah 2:2)" And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of Sheol cried I, [and] thou heardest my voice.", this does not necessitate an actual death. The word Sheol is used many times of a physical location, the abode of the dead. But it is also often used to describe a state of dread or feeling as if you could die. Psalm 116:3 says, "The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of Sheol got hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow." Also, "For great [is] thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.( Psalm 86:13 )" I don't think that David was actually dead before he wrote this psalm.

Although the above verses demonstrate that death isn't necessary in Jonah's case, I think that the more convincing evidence is found in Matthew 12:40:
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus here is drawing a comparison between the prophet and Himself. However, He is also opposing His future location (the heart of the earth) to that of Jonah (the belly of the fish). If we are to assume that Jesus meant Sheol when he said heart of the earth (and I feel this is a logical conclusion, because Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb was no more than a few feet inside the earth - hardly the "heart"), then He places Jonah's position not in Sheol, but still in the belly of the fish. Jesus here makes it known that Jonah was a type of Christ, but He also seems to say that His future is much greater in degree than Jonah's.

I do believe that the typology is consistent as you've outlined in the end of your letter, but I really think it is a type and not more than that. It really reminds me of the Melchizedek debate and whether he was a theophany (pre-Gospel appearance of Christ). Sometimes the type is so close and so complete that people jump to the conclusion that it must be that which it is only intended to represent. There is a rule in science that is called "Occam's razor." :

Occam's Razor, named after the Franciscan William of Ockham (Occam), is also referred to as the Principle of Parsimony. At it's core the Razor assumes that simpler explanations are inherently "better" than complicated ones. The scientific method of hypothesis generation and testing relies heavily on this powerful tool. Here are some other interpretations:

One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.
Don't make unnecessarily complicated assumptions.
Make things as simple as possible - but no simpler. - Albert Einstein

I think this is a good rule of thumb for Biblical interpretation, as well. It definitely makes things easier for discussing these issues with skeptics! Hope this helps. Tell me what you think!