The land of promise finds its realization in Jesus: not in types and shadows
See, I and the sons whom the LORD has given me are to be signs and portents in Israel, sent by the LORD of Hosts who dwells on Mount Zion. Isa. 8:18
In the Pauline writing two basic typological patterns appear—Adamic or Creation typology and Covenant typology. Each is related to a particular aspect of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ,(These two ideas may be present in Rom. 1:3f, where Christ is described as descended from David and Son of God. and, over all, they unite to form one interrelated whole. Thus, becoming a Christian is spoken of as a new birth (Exodus typology) and a new creation (Adamic typology); sometimes (e.g. Rom. 6:3) both ideas are apparently joined in the figure of resurrection.
Two principles are fundamental to Paul’s understanding of the OT. First, he reads the Scripture from the viewpoint of the ‘End-time’ in which OT history and prophecy have become realized and fulfilled in Christ. The OT is Heilsgeschichte-"salvation history", pregnant in anticipation of future fulfilment: The mystery of the Gospel, foretold in the OT, is now made manifest in Christ. Rom. 16:26.
That the OT pointed to the Messiah and the Messianic Era was a familiar concept in Judaism. With this in mind the first century exegete had a twofold task, to ‘search the Scriptures’, and to discern ‘the signs of the times’; he learned from the Scriptures the nature of God’s purpose, and from current events he sought indication of the fulfilment: ‘When the Scripture rightly interpreted coincided with the event rightly understood, then you had the argument from prophecy.
Paul assumes the validity of this principle, and his Christological interpretation of the OT proceeds from it. As the OT itself notes, the ‘last word’ is not in it but in the New Covenant which fulfils and supersedes it. And with the inauguration of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ history enters ‘the times of the End’. ‘What had been predicted in Holy Scripture to happen to Israel in the Eschaton has happened to and in Jesus. The foundation-stone of the New Creation has come into position.’ E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 134–136.
I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea (Ex 13:21; 14:22, 29; Rom 1:13), and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food (Ex 16:4, 35), and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (Ex 17:6; Num 20:11) Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. (Num 14:29, 30; Heb 3:17)
Now these things occurred as examples-types for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did (Num 11:4, 34; Ps 106:14). Do not become idolaters as some of them did, as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” (Ex 32:4, 6) We must not engage in sexual immorality, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day ( Num 25.1ff). We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents (Num 21:5, 6). And do not complain, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer (Ex 12:23; Num 16:41, 49).
These things happened to them to serve as an example-types, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.(Rom 13:11; Phil 4:5) 1 Co 10:1–11
The typological method developed by Paul thus consists in expounding the analogous relationship of concrete historical OT events, in the sense of the past prefiguring present or future eschatology happenings. This approach introduces a vital theological concern of Paul. Divine activity in history is expounded in order to show how God is bound to his promises. It is God himself who creates this “typical” relationship insofar as his word of revelation (Scripture) fulfills it (cf. Rom. 4:23–24). In this prefiguration of eschatological saving events in OT history, witness is borne to the participation of the community in the saving work of Christ. As against some supposed metaphysical speculation, salvation history is interpreted as the self-fulfilling activity of God in concrete human history. Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 507
But what is truly remarkable about this passage is that it runs backward as well as forward. The rock in some sense pointed to Christ, but Christ was already there in the Old Testament bringing blessing to the Israelites: “Christ himself, the pre-existent Christ, was present with the Israelites in their wilderness journey … as much the source of the spiritual food and drink of the Israelites as he is the one present in the Lord’s Supper at Corinth.”
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” The claim that this is a specific prediction, and that Paul takes it this way, depends on the identification of the rock that causes people to stumble. Some have suggested this rock is Torah (hence NRSV margin: “whoever trusts in it” rather than “whoever trusts in him”). But it is better to see a reference either to God (since in Isa. 8:12–14 God is both a sanctuary to those who fear him and a stone of stumbling to those who do not) or to the Messiah.
Certainly some rabbis interpreted Isa.28:16 in a messianic sense (e.g. b.Sanh 38a). More importantly, Paul quotes the same passage again in his next chapter, and unambiguously connects the rock with Christ (Rom. 10:11), and this is in line with Paul’s argument in Romans 9:1–5. Much of ethnic Israel has failed to believe in the Messiah. His crucifixion was a scandal to them (cf. 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11).
D. A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid, 181st ed., vol. 2, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Tübingen: Baker Academic; Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 407-409.
Even if one distinguishes between appropriation techniques and hermeneutical assumptions, something crucial seems to be missing: appealing to hermeneutical assumptions to explain the difference in the exegetical results of Paul the Pharisee and the exegetical results of Paul the apostle is in danger of saying no more than that now that Paul is a Christian, inevitably he finds Christian themes in the Old Testament that he did not find there before. At one level, of course, that is true, and Paul would admit it:
it was his conversion on the Damascus road that enabled him to see many things in a new perspective.
One form of this position argues that Paul the Christian finds things in the Old Testament that are not really there: he resorts to irresponsible proof-texting, playing well-nigh indefensible association games. Nevertheless it is quite clear that this is not what Paul thinks he is doing. Even though he knows full well that he came to his Christian understanding via the Damascus road experience, and not in classes on exegesis, he also argues that what he, as a Christian and an apostle, finds in the Scriptures is actually there, and the reason unconverted Jews do not see it is because “to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it take away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts” (2 Cor 3:14–15).
In other words, as far as Paul is concerned, conversion to Christ removes the veil to enable the reader to see what is actually there. Judging by his passionate handling of Scripture in Galatians, and in his slightly less passionate but scarcely less intense handling of Scripture in Romans, Paul is concerned to show that the gospel he preaches has in fact actually been announced by what we now refer to as the Old Testament:
the righteousness of God he announces is that “to which the Law and the Prophets testify” (Rom 3:21).
Unless we are to think that everything that Paul now finds in those Scriptures is grounded in nothing more than the bias effected by his conversion, or adopt some narrow postmodern perspectivism, it is worth asking how, methodologically speaking, Paul’s reading of Scripture differs from that of his unconverted Jewish contemporaries. How does he himself seek to warrant his Christian reading in the Scriptures themselves, and thereby convince his readers?
D. A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid, 181st ed., vol. 2, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Tübingen: Baker Academic; Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 410–411.
Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed cf. Dt. 28:15; because thou hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, (cf. Isa. 8:18.) and upon thy seed for ever. Dt. 28:45–46. KJV
Covenant theology saw redemptive history in terms of one overarching covenant of grace—with the various biblical covenants as administrations of the one covenant,
The church “replaces” Old Testament Israel, inheriting her promises of land and rest from enemies as the spiritual blessings of peace, forgiveness of sins, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and eternity in heaven.
(Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2014),689)
God’s assurance that ‘I am with you’ was not addressed to Adam or Noah, and is not formulated until the promise is repeated to Jacob. This assurance is the basis for God’s promise and commission to spread out in order that his tabernacling presence would spread (see with respect to Isaac [Gen. 26:24], Jacob [Gen. 28:15] and Moses [Exod. 3:12]). The divine assurance ‘I am with you’ is central to the task of extending the ‘temple’ of God’s presence, as is apparent from noticing that this forms part of God’s promise and commission to Isaac, to Jacob and to Moses (again, see respectively Gen. 26:24; 28:15; Exod. 3:12).
It was this very presence that provided enablement of the task and assured the fulfilment of the promise
[The same promise could be made to individual Israelites other than the patriarchs: e.g., see 1 Chr. 4:10]. In response to God’s presence, Israel was ‘to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments’ in order to fulfil the original Adamic commission: to ‘live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it’ (Deut. 30:16). Ultimately, only if God ‘circumcised their heart’ would they be able to love and obey him, continue in his presence, and inherit the promise and truly ‘live’ (Deut. 30:5–6, 16).
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 114.
In the creation narrative of Genesis 1–2, God gives to humans authority to rule over the earth (Gen. 1:26), and then God rests from all work on the seventh day, the Sabbath (Gen. 2:2–3). Also, the use of “Son of Man” in Dan. 7:13 may echo the human Adam who had received authority to rule as the representative of humanity. If this is the case, then the Son of Man may be given all authority in Jn 5:21–22, 26–27 because he is the Danielic Son of Man who also represents humanity as the second Adam. Stefanos Mihalios, The Danielic Eschatological Hour in the Johannine Literature, ed. Mark Goodacre, vol. 436, Library of New Testament Studies (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2012)
As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead could mean. Then they asked him,
“Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
He said to them, “Elijah is indeed coming first to restore all things. How then is it written about the Son of Man, that he is to go through many sufferings and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written about him.”
Mk 9:12–13 establish a parallel between Elijah (John the Baptist) and Jesus (the Son of Man = messiah). Elijah has come, and, in fulfillment of scripture, has suffered. The messiah has come, and, in fulfillment of scripture, he will suffer.
On the heels of that notice comes the disciples’ query, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” That clearly means, before “the rising from the dead” or before “the Son of Man rises from the dead.” Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 432.
If you are scattered to the ends of the heavens, from there the Word of the Lord will gather you by the hand of Elijah the High Priest, and from there he will bring you near by the hand of the King Messiah. Deuteronomy 30:4 Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut. 30:4
Caiaphas’ sarcasm, recorded in John 11:50, also assumes this expectation: ‘you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people’—to which John added (Jn.11:51–52): ‘He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.’ This was the ingathering of the tenth Jubilee. Margaret Barker, Temple Theology: An Introduction (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 70–73.
The theology of land, then, provides a basis for the NT doctrine of adoption; It was as God’s sons that the people of Israel received their inheritance. The link is most explicit in Romans 8:14–25, which also links the theology of the land with the theology of creation. Both the creation mandate to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28), and the theology of the land in the OT find their ultimate fulfillment in the new creation brought together under Christ.
This is an important point. The flow of redemptive history as traced through the biblical covenants reaches its telos in Christ.
What our Lord has inaugurated does not go back to the types and patterns of old; it transforms and fulfills them.
This is especially crucial to note in regard to the land. When it comes to the future, dispensational theology, at least on the land issue, tends to go backward in redemptive history instead of forward. But as Robertson states well, in the new creation
“The old covenant’s promise of land finds its new covenant realization.”
Rather, the entire New Testament announces that in Jesus, the last Adam and true Israel, our inheritance is nothing less than the new creation, which has already arrived in the dawning of the new covenant in individual Christians (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8–10) and in the church (Eph. 2:11–21) and will yet be consummated when Christ returns and ushers in the new creation in its fullness (Rev.21: 21–22).
This makes perfect sense if we place the entire land discussion in the flow of redemptive history as viewed through the biblical covenants. Christ, who is Lord over the whole world, inherits as a result of his work the entire world.
“He is the Messiah of Israel, but his rule also extends far beyond the borders of the original promised land (e.g., Phil. 2:10; cf. 1 Cor. 3:22–23; Eph. 1:10).”
The gulf of sin separates creation from redemption. The relationship also exhibits harmony. Redemption is not against creation. It is against sin. Furthermore, there is progress and advancement. Creation was “very good.” Redemption is superior to very good.
The restoration achieved in redemption is not retrogressive. It doesn’t take man back to pre-fall Eden. It produces something better than Eden.
God restores sinless hearts, but not pre-fall innocence. The end result of redemption is greater than original creation minus sin. In sum, the relation between creation and redemption displays harmony and improvement. (Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, Second Edition. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 677,836,837.)
William Farel: “We are restored to a state more noble than what was ever before the sin of Adam in Paradise; not that which is terrestrial, but celestial; not to a life corporeal, corruptible, and that can be lost, but spiritual, without corruption, and which can never be lost.” In Dennison Jr., ed., Reformed Confessions, 1:57.(Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Darlington, Co Durham: EP Books, 2019), 263–268.)
The intent of Deut. 32:8 is to set God’s choice of Israel within the context of God’s universal purpose. God “fixes the boundaries” not only of Israel, but of all nations. (Cf. Amos 9:7: God, who led Israel to their homeland, also led Israel’s arch rivals, the Syrians and the Philistines, to theirs.) Israel is chosen not for favoritism but for witness, as an instrument for universal blessing (Gen. 12:3). Cairns, I. (1992). Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (pp. 282–283). W.B. Eerdmans; Handsel Press.
It was God’s plan for extending his redemptive designs to all believers, from all nations. In extending his grace to Abraham, God was establishing the beginnings of the church, the community of grace.
Beyond the benefits of grace accorded to individuals such as Abraham, David, the prophets, and later the apostles by virtue of their call, loomed the potential of their contributions to the fulfillment of the covenant of God on behalf of the community of those who share the faith of Abraham, the church.
In the gracious dealings of God with Israel, with its patriarchs and its leaders, God was laying the basis for his outreach of grace to the church universal.
God’s gracious interventions in the old covenant were intended to manifest the ultimacy of the church in his redemptive purposes. In the exercise of their ministries, the prophets of the old covenant knew that they were serving not themselves but the church (1 Pt 1:10–12). (Gilbert Bilezikian, “Grace,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 899.)
The often repeated description of the land as ‘flowing with milk and honey’ reveals that the land which the Israelites are about to enter is a new paradise (see Deut. 6:3; 11:9–12; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20; cf. Exod. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13–14;). This is a theological rather than an agricultural point; Israel’s land is so good because it is the long-awaited gift of God in fulfilment of his promise. The promise of land guarantees the restoration of intimacy with God in terms which recall the description of Eden.
Jesus draws explicitly on a promise of land from Psalm. 37 (Matt. 5:5). A similar idea, this time couched in terms of inheritance, appears in Matthew 25:34. Gary Burge has argued that the imagery in John. 15, and Jesus’ injunctions to ‘abide in me’, point to the fulfilment of the land motif in the OT in the person of Jesus himself (G. M. Burge, ‘Territorial Religion, Johannine Christology, and the Vineyard in John 15’, in J. B. Green and M. Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ [Carlisle and Grand Rapids, 1994], pp. 384–396).
It is not only Jesus who uses such ideas. Paul’s understanding of the church as a community of both Jews and Gentiles is based on his reading of the OT teaching on land. He too draws on the inheritance theme, in Colossians 1:13–14, in explaining the nature of salvation in Christ, as does Peter in 1 Peter 1:3–5.
The inheritance in Christ is no doubt different from the land received and lost by Israel, but it is greater, not less, than that land.
J. G. Millar, “Land,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 623,627.
The NT writers set forth the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfilment of these expectations. The picture of Christ in Matthew is particularly suggestive of the rabbinical parallels between Moses and Messiah: Like Moses, he is saved from Herod’s slaughter, comes forth out of Egypt, calls out the ‘twelve sons of Israel’, gives the law from the mount, performs ten miracles (like Moses, ten plagues), provides ‘manna’ from heaven.((Matt. 2:13ff; 10:2ff cf. Mark 3:14; Matt.5–7; 8–10; 14:15ff). The pattern is sporadic and mixed; in John. 6 and 1 Cor. 10 it is Christ Himself who is the manna. Sahlin (New Exodus, p. 82) suggests that a Pentateuchal format is implicit in the first Gospel, viz., (Matt. 1–7; 8–10; 11–18; 19–25; 26–28.)
Matthew 4, the temptation in the wilderness. “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.’ But He answered, ‘It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Matt. 4:1–4” Do you know where that comes from, what book of the Old Testament? Deuteronomy. It’s Deut. 8:3.
“Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him up on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you,” and “On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” ’ Jesus said to him, ‘Again it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. Matt. 4:5–7” Do you know what book of the Bible Jesus is quoting now? Deut. 6:16.
“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, ‘All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve. Matt. 4:8–10” Any guesses? Deut. 6:13. “The devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.”
Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness for forty days after His baptism, where He immediately has a conflict with Satan. Israel, God’s son, wandered for forty years in the wilderness after her deliverance from Egypt, but fell to temptation. Once again, we see Jesus succeeds where Israel fails.
At the beginning of His public ministry, Jesus is subject to the same types of temptations that the Israelites faced in the wilderness. He’s tempted with hunger, with not testing the Lord, with worshiping Satan. What did he do in each instance? He responded by quoting from Deuteronomy.
I think by this point in the course you ought to know what Deuteronomy is. It’s Moses’ farewell speech to disobedient Israel. Once again, the New Testament writers portrayed Jesus as the true Israel. In every instance where Israel proved unfaithful, Christ proved to be the faithful Israel.
Erika Moore, BI312 A Biblical Theology of Redemption: Themes and Interpretation, Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).
However, the picture is not certain; at least as good a case can be made out that Matthew has in mind Christ as the ‘embodiment’ of Israel. This is almost certainly the meaning in Matt. 2:15; cf. also ‘forty days in the wilderness’ (Matt. 4:1ff). The Semitic concept of solidarity between the Messiah and Israel, and Israel’s leaders cautions against drawing any fine distinctions in this regard.
Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking about his exodus, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem. Luke 9:28–31
Moses, Jesus, and Elijah discussed Jesus’s exodon—Lk.9:31—to Jerusalem. “Now, from the Transfiguration onwards”—I want you to listen to this quote from Hook—“Now, from the Transfiguration onwards the final Exodus begins. We see Jesus with his face set towards Jerusalem, leading an uncomprehending and reluctant company of followers who were to be the new Israel, carried with him through the waters of death, baptized with his baptism.” Jesus is the true Israel.
Erika Moore, BI312 A Biblical Theology of Redemption: Themes and Interpretation, Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).
The resurrection of Jesus is one of seven events which John describes with the term σημεῖον-sign. Though some have suggested that John does not use the term in relation to Jesus’ resurrection, in fact, he does so here in Jn.2:18–19, as Richard Bauckham rightly notes
Ironically, the Jews ask Jesus for a sign, but in the end, they play a role in its provision. If the citation identifies Jewish zeal for the standing temple as the motivation for seeking Jesus’ death, the saying suggests that the ultimate sign is the raising up of a new temple in Jesus’ death and resurrection. As here, so also in John 14:1–6,
Jesus’ departure through death and resurrection completes the messianic preparation of the eschatological dwelling place of God as a dwelling place for the disciples.
As we shall now see, the temple action anticipates this sign of a new temple with its symbolic declaration that the standing temple was not and would not be the eschatological temple.
Steven M. Bryan, “Consumed by Zeal: John’s Use of Psalm 69:9 and the Action in the Temple,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21, no. 1–4 (2011): 489.
Paul, like the other NT writers, regards the Christian ecclesia as the faithful remnant of Israel, the true people of God ( Cf. Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9, 10). Christians are the true ‘Jews’ (Rom. 2:29, Cf. Rev. 2:9), Israel (Rom. 9:6), Israel after the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 10:18), the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29), the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), the circumcision (Phil. 3:3), the peculiar people (Tit. 2:14 Cf. Exod. 19:5).
The term ἐκκλησία-Church is itself of marked significance; cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, London, 1952, p. 38:
‘In understanding themselves as Congregation or Church the disciples appropriate to themselves the title of the OT Congregation of God,
the קהל־יהוה- assembly of YHWH.’ Ἐκκλησία-Church (קהל־יהוה) is carefully distinguished from συναγωγή-synagogue in Jewish literature. The unbelieving majority of Jews are, in contrast, characterized by terms usually reserved for the heathen or Gentiles; a striking example is κύνας in Phil. 3:2. ‘Dogs’ was a choice Jewish epithet for Gentiles. E. Lohmeyer (Der Brief an die Philipper, 9th ed., Göttingen, 1953, pp. 124–6) contends that Paul’s attack here is directed solely against ‘Jewish Agitators’ from the Jewish synagogue in Philippi. Even if, as is more probable, Judaisers are included, the figure is still revealing, i.e. not being true Christians they are not true Jews.
The early Church did not view itself as merely a sect within the larger ‘Israel’ of Judaism, or as a new or different people of God. Gutbrot rightly observes that ‘… in all these passages there is nowhere an enlargement of the concept “Israel” with the aim of denoting a new people of God.’ As the imagery of the olive tree in Rom. 11 shows, for Paul there is only one Israel into which the Gentiles are ingrafted; there is, therefore, no necessary contrast between Israel κατὰ σάρκα-in the flesh and the true Israel.
Paul’s exclamation, ‘I too am an Israelite’ (Rom. 11:1), reveals how firmly he holds to the fact that the Christian ecclesia is the continuing body of OT Israel.
As Flew expresses it: ‘The proud claim [of the early Church] to the exclusive possession of the original Covenant is unmistakable. The Jews in those early years regarded Christianity as a Jewish sect, and modern writers have sometimes so described the early Church. But that was not the view of the original disciples. A sect is a party or school within Israel. But the disciples were Israel. They were the Church or People of God. They did not separate from Israel. They could not. It was the rebellious sons of Israel who forfeited their Covenant by rejecting Christ.’
‘The Church’s own conviction was that it was the only synagogue entitled to claim that it embodied true Judaism, the true Israel.’
E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 136–138.
Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, Isa. 4:2; Eze. 17:22 and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. Ezra 3:8–10; Zec. 4:6–9 It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest Ps. 110:4 on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’ Zec 6:12–13. NIV
Despite von Rad’s contention that the land given to Israel is not referred to as “Yahweh’s land,” the song in Exod. 15:13–18 speaks of the future planting of Israel in the land of God’s allotment (naḥalah), the place that God made for his dwelling, established by the God who reigns forever. The celebratory song both extols Yahweh as the divine warrior / king and echoes creation. The divine monarch has created (not purchased or acquired) the mountain (Zion) that is his dwelling; it is rightfully his to give to the people he brought into this particular land “by the power of his arm.”
Bruce R. Reichenbach, “Genesis 1 as a Theological-Political Narrative of Kingdom Establishment,” ed. Craig A. Evans, Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 13, 2003, 56.
When you lead them in, plant them in the mountain of your inheritance,in your prepared dwelling place, which you prepared, O Lord,
the holy place, O Lord, which your hands have made ready. Ex. 15:17 LES
LXX translates the Hebrew מכון לשׁבתך (“place of your dwelling”) with ἕτοιμον κατοικητήριόν σου (“your prepared dwelling place”) and then immediately picks up the verbal form of the adjective in the following apposition, ἁγίασμα, κύριε, ὃ ἡτοίμασαν αἱ χεῖρές σου (“the sanctuary, O LORD, which your hands prepared”). The notion first found in Exod. 15:17 of a sanctuary that the Lord prepared by his own hands to be his dwelling place had already given rise to the belief among some that the eschatological Temple would be a Temple not made with hands.
This presupposes a very close association or perhaps even identification of the eschatological Temple with the heavenly Temple, which was necessarily a Temple not made with hands. In view of the close verbal parallels with a text known to have informed discussions of the heavenly and/or eschatological Temple and the numerous conceptual points of contact with Jewish ideas about the Temple, it seems likely that John was speaking of a heavenly Temple that, though built by God, Messiah would prepare to be the eschatological dwelling of his people. As with the texts surveyed above, John. 14 envisions the Temple as the eschatological dwelling place of the righteous. cf. 2 Peter 3:13, See also (Isa. 6:1–2; 2 Sam. 22:7; Psa. 18:6; 29:9–10; Mic. 1:2; Hab. 2:20.) Steven M. Bryan, “The Eschatological Temple in John 14,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 15, 2005, 195.
Rev. 12:6 is parallel with John 14:2–3: “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place (ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον) for you. And, if I go and prepare a place (ἑτοιμάσω τόπον) for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where (ὅπου) I am, so also you will be.” In the following context, Jesus explains that “the Father’s house” and the “place” are anywhere that he and the Father come in the Spirit to abide with the disciples (Jn.14:16–24; 15:26–27; 16:7, 13–16). This is a significant parallel when seen in connection with the same associations of tribulation: it is by being in the place of the Spirit that they are enabled to persevere and overcome temptations to compromise because of persecution (Jn.15:25–27; 16:1–16, 32–33). G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 649.
This is the House into which [the unclean shall] never [enter, nor the uncircumcised,] nor the Ammonite, nor the Moabite, nor the half-breed, nor the foreigner, nor the stranger, ever; for there shall My Holy Ones be. [Its glory shall endure] for ever; it shall appear above it perpetually. And strangers shall lay it waste no more, as they formerly laid waste the Sanctuary of Israel because of its sin. He has commanded that a Sanctuary of men be built for Himself, that there they may send up, like the smoke of incense, the works of the Law.
The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House (2 Sam. 7:11c). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam. 7:12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever] (2 Sam. 7:13). [I will be] his father and he shall be my son (2 Sam. 7:14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen (Amos 9:11). That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel. cf. Acts 15:14 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised and extended 4th ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 353–354.
Perhaps the most striking conceptual—even verbal—similarity between early Christian thought and that of this charter is the notion of community as temple.
Paul speaks of the believers being “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God” (Eph. 2:20–22).
Our text describes the believers as a “temple for Israel and … Holy of Holies … the tested wall, the precious cornerstone whose foundations shall neither be shaken nor swayed … a blameless and true house in Israel” (8:5–9). Thus both early Christians and members of this association conceived of themselves abstractly as the true temple. They had replaced the physical structure in Jerusalem. This was an idea with a transcendent implication, since the Bible could be read as saying that God lived in the Jerusalem temple. For both of these groups, God did not dwell in that mere hollow edifice built by human hands. He lived in them.
He also discovered that two future heroes should arise from his group’s ranks: an inspired interpreter of the Bible, whom he called the “Interpreter of the Law,” and a messianic deliverer, scion of Israel’s greatest king, the “Shoot of David.” He further teased out information about a future temple, the “Temple of Adam.” The name derived from a pattern commonly seen in Israel’s Prophets: the end shall be like the beginning. (Cf. Isaiah, for example: “The lion will lie down with the lamb.”) Some scholars have seen in this temple a reference to the notion of community as temple. This is the idea that the author’s group would somehow come to form, as it were, a temple; the apostle Paul speaks of Christians in just such terms in the book of Ephesians.
Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 116,225
The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, because the land is Mine; for you are only strangers and residents with Me. (Gen 23:4; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12; Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11) Le 25:23 NASB
This plan of salvation finds its conclusion and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is this aspect of Scripture—this story of salvation—that makes the Bible distinct from all other “bibles” of pagan religions. These reveal no order or plan. They embody no historical revelation of God working out His saving purposes.
The Bible, by contrast, is a unity because it is the record of a progressive revelation of the will of God for humankind’s salvation. The Bible is, in short, a “gospel” in the fullest sense of the word.
The objective action of God was for the patriarchs interlinked with the three great promises. These were first, the chosen family would be made into a great nation; secondly, that the land of Canaan would be their possession; thirdly, that they were to become a blessing for all people
Next to the objectivity of these three things promised, we notice as the third important feature of the revelation, that it emphasizes most strongly, both in word and act, the absolute monergism of the divine power in accomplishing the things promised; otherwise expressed, the strict supernaturalism of the procedure towards fulfilling the promises.
Abraham was not permitted to do anything through his own strength or resources to realize what the promise set before him.
Abraham was not allowed to acquire any possession in the land of promise. Yet he was rich and might easily have done so. But God Himself intended to fulfil this promise also without the co-operation of the patriarch; and Abraham seems to have had some apprehension of this, for he explains his refusal to accept any of the spoils from the king of Sodom by the fear lest the latter should say, ‘I have made Abram rich’ [Gen. 14:21–23].(Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003), 80,81.)
The escape from Egypt is a faith event. It is the crucial event of the whole Hebrew tradition. It is also the source of all the biblical language about salvation and liberation, including the theology of the Cross. Its importance for Christians, as well as for Jews, cannot be exaggerated.
Since its importance is chiefly theological, we should begin not with its historicity but with its theology. To take this approach is not to imply that the actual historical facts, if they can indeed be verified, should be ignored, but to recognize that in the eyes of Hebrew faith the escape from Egypt happened just as it is recorded in the Torah. From this point certain themes emerge:
The escape from Egypt is the responsibility and initiative of the God of the Hebrews. In this event, Yahweh keeps his promises to the patriarchs, creates a people for himself, and punishes Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt.
All Hebrew ancestry leads up to it, and all subsequent Hebrew history flows from it.
The Hebrews do not fight in their own cause; they are not allowed to do so. They do little physically to help themselves and nothing by way of aggression or even self-defense. God does the fighting, and nature is his ally—water, fire, cloud, the plagues, the whole cosmic panoply.
This signals the beginning of a theology of nonviolence that reaches its culmination in the Old Testament in the Servant Songs of Isaiah 40–55 and that dominates all other theologies of human action when it reaches the New Testament.
God will fight for his people, not they for themselves. Eventually that fight will culminate in the Cross of Christ.
(G. W. Ashby, Go out and Meet God: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1998), 62–64.)
Justification is always and everywhere in Scripture a declaration of God, not on the basis of an actually existing condition of our being righteous, but on the basis of a gracious imputation of God that is contradicted by our condition.
Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 22.
As the miracles were to be revelatory of his own nature and the glory of God when he himself performed them, so were they to be revelatory of the glory of God already in the Old Testament. Then Elijah on Mount Carmel prayed for fire to come down to devour his sacrifice, he not only prayed that God would corroborate the truth of his words, but he also prayed that by the miracle it might appear that God was great, that he was the only God that could cause the fire to burn … “Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel …” (1 Kgs 18:36) This glory of God had been primarily displayed in the fact that God had with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm redeemed his people.
When God speaks we must accept the truth at his word. When God acts, we must see the fact that he acts in these acts themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment