by Brian
Theme: God’s people must exercise good and wise dominion over the land that God promised and gave them by exterminating God’s enemies and by living in obedience to God’s covenant.
Place in Redemptive History: Joshua advances the story of God’s plan of redemption by telling of the fulfillment of aspects of the land promise to Abraham and his seed. The land promise gave God’s people the space to live out the Dominion Blessing in a fallen world.
by Brian
After the description of the priest’s garments, the consecration ritual for the priests is provided (Ex. 29). The opening verses set out the supplies that will be used in ceremonies described later in the chapter (Ex. 29:1-3). Next Aaron and his sons were to be washed, clothed, and anointed (Ex. 29:4-9). The washing indicates the need for cleansing before being invested with “holy garments” (Ex. 28:2). The garments are listed (calling to mind briefly the significance of each raised by the previous chapter). The anointing with oil is the symbol of the ordination.
A series of sacrifices follow the washing, investing, and anointing. The first offering was to be a sin/purification offering (Ex. 29:10-14).* This sacrifice was offered to atone for sins committed when one strayed from the commandments of God.** Next Moses was to offer a ram as a burn offering (Ex. 29:15-18). The burnt offering probably symbolized the entire consecration of the one who offered it since this sacrifice was entirely burned. The second ram, called the ram of ordination, was killed and it was used in two stages. First, its blood was applied to Aaron, his sons, and their garments (Ex 29:19-21). This sacrifice was to make the priests and their garments holy. Next this ram along with some bread was used as a wave offering. Wave offerings are often (though not always) connected with peace offerings, as is the case here (Ex. 29:28). There may be a progression here from the sin offering that provided purification from sin, to the burnt offering which symbolized entire consecration, to the ram of ordination which was used, along with the ordination, as part of a peace offering which may symbolize fellowship with God.
Exodus 29:29-30 turns the emphasis to the garments worn by the priests and it raises the matter of succession. Then follows a description of a meal from the ordination ram (Ex. 29:31-34). This seems to indicate fellowship now made possible through atonement. This is followed by instructions for a seven day series of sin offerings and consecrations of the altar in connection with the ordination (Ex. 29:35-37).
The chapter closes by moving from the ordination to the work that the priests were ordained to do. They were to offer morning and evening sacrifices (Ex. 29:38-42). The great significance of the priesthood , and the tabernacle, and the sacrifices are found in the last verses of the chapter—Exodus 29:42-46. The tabernacle was the place where God would meet with his people. It was a holy place were this meeting could take place. Furthermore, not only would God meet with his people at the tabernacle, he would dwell among them, and he would be their God. And, in a theme that runs throughout Exodus, they would know that he is the Lord God.
*Milgrom argues for the translation “purification offering” on the grounds that (1) it is sometimes offered in cases other than to atone for sins (Lev. 8:15; 12:6; Num. 6:10) and (2) the term חַטָּאת is derived from the piel which means “to cleanse, expurgate, decontaminate.” Jacob Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” Vetus Testamentum 21 (April 1971): 237. Averbeck accepts Milgrom’s reasoning but offers the caution, “it should not be taken to mean that the sin offering only applied to issues of physical (amoral) uncleanness. According to Leviticus 4:2, for example, it applied to ‘any of the Lord’s commandments.’” “Sacrifices and Offerings,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 718.
**Roy Beacham argues that שְׁגָגָה or שׁגה, which are usually translated “unintentionally” or “sins unintentionally,” should simply be translated “in error” or “to go astray.” He argues that if the sin is unintentional there needs to be a qualifying phrase that makes that point. In arguing for this position Beacham notes it is impossible to commit the sin noted in Lev. 5:1 unintentionally. Texts outside the Pentateuch also confirm that sins designated as שְׁגָגָה or שׁגה are known sins (Psa. 119:118; Pro. 5:23; 19:27; 28:10; 1 Sam. 26:21).
by Brian
Exodus 28 provides details about the garments worn by those called to serve as priests. At the beginning and ending of the chapter (Exod. 28:2, 40), God says the garments are for glory and beauty. This highlights the importance of the priestly service.
Much of the description in this chapter simply emphasizes the glory and beauty of the garments. Some of the details, however, seem to carry special significance.
Like the chapters describing the tabernacle, this chapter also emphasizes the presence of God. Several times the priest is said to enter “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] (Exod. 28:12, 29, 30, 35, 38). Aaron and his sons are called out of Israel to mediate between God and the nation.
The first piece of priestly clothing described in depth is the ephod (Ex. 28:6-13). Stuart notes the fabric from which the ephod was to be made matched the colors used within the Holy Place and Holy of Holies. He also notes the misuse of an ephod by Gideon. He surmises from these two facts that the ephod was a symbol of God’s presence among his people.
Exodus 28:9-12 speaks of stones with the names of the sons of Israel engraved on them. The priests bears the stones as memorials [זִכָּרֹן] before the Lord.
Thus the high priest is a mediator between God and the people. The ephod symbolizes God’s presence among the people as he moves among them wearing the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet yarns—the colors of God’s dwelling place. The stones on the shoulders of the ephod represent the people being brought into the presence of God. by the priest.
The next article of clothing, the breast-piece (Exod. 28:15-30), also emphasizes God’s presence (לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה occurs 3x in Ex. 28:29-30). The breast-piece also uses stones inscribed with the names of the sons of Israel to bring them before the Lord as a remembrance [זִכָּרֹן] (Exod. 28:29).
The breast-piece further indicates God’s presence with his people because it was used or God to render decisions [מִשְׁפָּט] from God for his people (Exod. 28:15, 30).
Exodus 28:31-35 deals with the priest’s robe. It is not clear if there is significance to the blue, the pomegranate, or the collar aside from the fact that the garments were to be made for glory and beauty. The section climaxes, however, with the need for bells on his robe as Aaron enters the holy place before the Lord so that he does not die. The words “holy place” [הַקֹּדֶשׁ] “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] and “not die” [וְלא יָמוּת] are key words. When someone comes before the Lord, he enters a holy place because God is holy. But for the gracious provision of God, those who enter are liable to die.
Holiness is a theme that runs throughout the chapter. God identifies the garments of the priest as “holy garments” (Exod. 28:2). The are a necessary part of his consecration to the priesthood [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] (Exod. 28:3, 41). These are the garments necessary for Aaron to enter the Holy Place (Exod. 28:29, 35, 43).
The emphasis on holiness climaxes in Exodus 28:36-38 which deal with the plate that goes on the front of the high priest’s turban. it reads “Holiness to the Lord” [קדשׁ ליהוה]. Holiness is a key word in this section. Because of the plate Aaron could bear the iniquity of the holy things [הקדשׁים] which the sons of Israel consecrated [יקדושׁו] as holy gifts [מתנת קדשׁיהם]. Aaron does this when he comes before the Lord [לפני יהוה]. The idea seems to be that the plate declared the high priest holy and therefore worthy of bearing the iniquity of the consecrated holy gifts, thus making these offerings acceptable to God.
Verses 39-43 wrap up the instructions about clothing for the priests. Once again, as at the beginning the clothing is said to be for glory and for beauty [לכבוד ולתפארת]. The passage also notes that they should be anointed [משׁח] as part the consecration [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] for their office.
The passage closes by describing undergarments. It may seem odd to end this list of regulations with undergarments, but if the priests’ nakedness was exposed to God’s holy things, they would die. This likely has connections back to the shame Adam and Eve had over their nakedness after they sinned and the need for clothing. It also highlights the danger in unholy man coming into the presence of God.
In the Fall mankind was thrust from God’s presence. The Tabernacle regulations and these instructions for the priest’s garments show that God’s gracious restoration of his presence to his people is no light matter. Because of his holiness and their uncleanness, the penalty for sin—death—was an ever-present threat.
by Brian
The preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse rests heavily on Matthew 24:34. Mathison says,
The key to understanding the entire discourse is found in verse 34, in which Jesus tells His disciples, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus declares that his prophecy will be fulfilled before the generation to whim He is speaking passes away. In other words, the events of which he speaks in this passage will be fulfilled by A.D. 70, one generation from the date He made the pronouncement.”
Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 111.
There are a number of hard passages for the preterist within the discourse (see Mathison 112-15 for his explanation of them), but Matthew 24:34 is the most difficult for the non-preterist. Bavinck’s explanation of Matthew 24:34 makes good sense:
The words “this generation” (ἡ γενεα αὑτη, hē genea hautē) cannot be understood to mean the Jewish people, but undoubtedly refer to the generation then living. On the other hand, it is clear that the words ‘all these things’ (παντα τυατα, panta tauta) do not include the parousia itself but only refer to the signs that precede and announce it. For after predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs and his return and even the gathering of his elect by the angles, and therefore actually ending his eschatological discourse, Jesus proceeds in verse 32 to offer a practical application. Here he states that just as in the case of the fig tree the sprouting of the leaves announces the summer, so ‘all these things’ are signs that the end is near or that the Messiah is at the door. Here the expression panta tauta clearly refers to the signs of the coming parousia, not to the parousia itself, for else it would make no sense to say that when ‘these things’ occur, the end is ‘near.’ In verse 34 the words ‘all these things’ (panta tauta) have the same meaning. Jesus therefore does not say that his parousia will still occur within the time of the generation then living. What he says is that the signs and portents of it, as they would be visible in the destruction of Jerusalem and concomitant events, would begin to occur in the time of the generation then living.
Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:687.
by Brian
One of the Oswalt quotes noted last week demonstrates how unbelief can distort a scholar’s understanding of Scripture.
It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage [Isa 36-37 / 2 Kings 18-19] is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed.
Oswalt, Isaiah, NICOT, 1:638, n.21
Other examples of this abound if one looks for them. Here are a few others.
In commenting on Ezekiel’s charge as a watchman, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2.185, speaks of ‘the complete irrationality of the divine activity.’ He refers to God’s first commissioning a foe against his people and then sending a watchman to warn them. ‘Such is the divine logic!’ says Zimmerli. This bold exclamation minimizes the justice of God in bringing judgment on the persistently wicked, the mercy of God in not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked (33:11), and the full responsibility of every human being for his own actions.
Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 295, n. 30
Or note the contrast between the critical and evangelical commentators on Ecclesiastes 2:26:
Qohelet’s positive counsel rests under a cloud. The ability to enjoy life is not in anyone’s power, coming as a gift from God.
Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL, 89
The final verdict of ‘vanity’ refers to the arbitrary (from the human standpoint) action of God who does as he pleases.
Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 26-27
This verse does not present God as capricious but does relate to the biblical idea of the grace of God. To believe that one’s life is ruled by impersonal fate is intolerable; to believe that one’s life is controlled by a personal God is a comfort.
Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC, 296
All these commentators are looking at the same data, but the evangelical sees God’s grace whereas the liberals see a capricious god.
by Brian
The Tabernacle proper and the furniture described in Exodus 25 symbolize the presence of God among his people. The curtains in chapter 26 indicate the restricted access to God’s presence. They set up barriers to the symbols of God’s presence, and later laws would restrict who could pass those barriers and at what times.
The bronze altar (27:1-8) sat in the tabernacle courtyard. It demonstrated to the people that there could be no access to God without a substitutionary sacrifice.
by Brian
If Exodus 25 spotlights Tabernacle furniture that symbolized God’s presence, chapter 26, with its description of curtains and frames, highlights God’s distance from his people. The furniture was to be hidden away under curtains. And the curtains that would most clearly indicate the presence of God—those with the cherubim—were to be hidden under other curtains.
The Tabernacle was forward movement in the plan of redemption. God was coming to dwell with his people. But it was also a sign that more needed to be done for God’s people to be restored to full fellowship with him.
by Brian
Enns observes a few key textual factors that point to the tabernacle as a recreated Eden.
Commentators for centuries have noticed that the phrase ‘the LORD said to Moses’ occurs seven times in chapters 25-31. The first six concern the building of the tabernacle and its furnishings (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), while the final introduces the Sabbath command (31:12). It seems clear that the purpose of this arrangement is to aid the reader in making the connection between the building of the tabernacle and the seven days of creation, both of which involve six creative acts culminating in a seventh-day rest.
Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, 509. [The weakness of the observation is the clustering of the sayings in ch. 30; why does it not occur consistently at key points of the building process?]
Interestingly the very next event recorded (Ex. 32) is a fall. There a couple of occasions in Scripture in which there is a "recreation" followed by a fall. (The Flood is one example. The passage is full of creation language. It is as if the world is washed clean and recreated. And the next recorded incident after God’s rainbow covenant with Noah is a fall). These passages emphasize the depth to which sin is engraved in the human person. To remove sin there will need to be a real recreation.
Also important to notice, the fall in Exodus 32 puts God’s presence among his people in jeopardy.
by Brian
The Tabernacle was a visible symbol of God’s presence among his people (Ex 25:8). This was a blessing not to be under-appreciated. When Adam and Eve were thrust from Eden, they were thrust from the presence of God. The Tabernacle was the first step toward God dwelling with his people once again.
Interestingly, it seems that all of the furniture described in Exodus 25 reinforces the concept of God’s presence.
The ark is the first piece of tabernacle furniture mentioned. It is the "supreme post-Sinai symbol of the Presence of Yahweh" (Durham, 350 cited by Enns, 511). Since Scripture reveals that Yahweh was enthroned between the cherubim (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; Ps 80:1; 99:1), the ark, with the cherubim on its lid symbolizes Yahweh’s throne.
The table also testified to God’s presence with his people. The twelve (=tribes) loaves of bread laid on the table were called "bread of the Presence" (ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV; "shewbread," KJV; Heb, לחם פנים). Leviticus reveals that the priests were to eat this bread each Sabbath in the Holy Place, which probably indicates God’s fellowship with his people.
The lamp is made to look like a tree, and several commentators think the lamp is meant to symbolize the tree of life (Staurt is the most helpful on this point; he makes the best use of cross references).
If the lamp does indeed picture the tree of life, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was like a miniature Eden built in the wilderness [G. K. Beale has some similar ideas in The Temple and the Church’s Mission, but he argues Eden was a "temple." I think this argues backwards; the tabernacle and temple were like Eden]. This is an Eden that is also a continual reminder of sin, however. The people are still barred from the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Only priestly mediators are permitted to enter there.
Frame says the biblical story "is the narrative of God coming to be with his people as their Lord, in his control, authority, and presence" (DCL, 273). The construction of the Tabernacle is a major step toward the realization of God dwelling once more with man. It also reveals the need for the remainder of the plan of redemption.
by Brian
Rob Bradshaw recently posted an article by E. J. Young, “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship.” The article is supurb. It would repay careful reading. Below are a few highlights:
Christian scholarship therefore is not ashamed of its presuppositions. In fact it glories in them,for it knows well enough that all approaches have presuppositions, whether consciously or unconsciously adopted. Christian scholarship knows where it stands and what it is seeking to accomplish. It understands that there is really but one alternative to the position which it has adopted. If it does not proceed upon the assumption that God is the ultimate source of meaning in life, and hence the ultimate point of predication, it knows that the only alternative is to believe and assert the ultimacy of the human mind. The human mind, however, is something created and finite, and from a finite source knowledge of the ultimate meaning of life can never come.
. . . . . . . . . .
The same may be said of some of the views that are being presented today, views which are widely acclaimed and even received with favour by some evangelicals. These theories have not the slightest hesitation in overriding express statements of the Bible. For that reason they are not in accord with Christian presuppositions and consequently they may be dismissed as mistaken explanations of Israel’s history and religion. This is not to say that there is no value in them or that they should not be studied. But the unlearned reader who simply reads the Old Testament itself and believes it to be true has a far more profound insight into the truth of Israel’s history and religion than he will find in the positions advocated by some modern scholars. One of the saddest signs of the times is that some evangelicals do not seem to recognise that fact.
May the writer be pardoned for mentioning personal experiences? Every now and then following a lecture, some young student will approach and say something like, ‘Why didn’t you pay more attention to Mowinckel, or, Do you not think that Von Rad’s writings are showing us some exciting new things in Old Testament studies?’ Now, surely, we should pay attention to what modern scholars are writing, and surely we can learn from modern scholars, but when we are making a serious effort to understand the history of Israel and its religion we shall learn far more by a serious exegesis of the Old Testament, an exegesis undertaken in a believing spirit, than we will from the writings of men such as Von Rad and Mowinckel who hold an extremely low view of the Bible. Christian scholarship rejoices in the confines that the infallible Word of God places upon it.
. . . . . . . . . .
And this brings us to what is probably the heart of the matter. True Christian scholarship will be characterised by humility. What, however, do we mean in this connexion by humility? We mean simply obedience to God. The humble scholar is the one who is truly obedient to God. But how shall one be obedient to God? The answer is that to be obedient to God means to do His will. We learn of His will, however, in His Word. Hence, we shall follow His Word in all that it says. Even though we may not always understand all the factors involved, we shall, if our desire is truly to be Christian, allow the Word of God to be our guide in all things. Its statements will direct our investigation, and we shall never dare to go contrary to those statements, for we know that they were breathed forth by Him who is truth itself and cannot lie. Christian scholarship then would be bound by the Bible, and rejoice that such is the case.
. . . . . . . . . .
Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.
. . . . . . . . . .
The Christian scholar need not endeavour to read everything. Scholars who seek to read everything are notably superficial when it comes to really fundamental matters. If a man tries to read all that is written in his field he simply cannot have the time to do the solid research that is needed if he himself is to produce something worthwhile. Discernment is needed that he may concentrate upon those works from which he may truly derive profit.
