Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

The Tabernacle and the Presence of God

by

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.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 11

by

Ezekiel continued Jeremiah’s theme of destruction coming on the failed prophet, priest, and king (Eze 7:26-27; 23:26-28). Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel condemned the shepherds of Israel (Eze 34:1-10, 17-19). The oracle of judgment is divided into two parts. The hope proffered after the first oracle is Yahweh’s declaration, “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (Eze 34:11-16). The hope after the second oracle of judgment is the exaltation of the Davidic king (Eze 34:20-24).

In the restoration oracle of chapter 37, the hope of the Davidic king is once again placed before the people (Eze 37:22-28). In his vision of the great city-temple Ezekiel describes a figure called the “prince.” He seems to symbolize the right rule that the people will experience during this time (cf. Eze 45:9). Interestingly this prince seems to be involved in both kingly and priestly work. He leads in Sabbath and festival worship (It is worth noting that he is able to go through the gate by which the Lord entered the temple.).

The prophet Daniel, like Ezekiel, wrote during the exile. He envisioned God establishing a kingdom that would overcome the wicked human kingdoms that controlled the world throughout human history (Dan 2:44).

This dominion was granted to a person identified as “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14). In Genesis 1:28 God told humans that He intended for them to rule over the beasts. After the Fall, however, man was not able to fulfill this command as God intended. Instead, as Daniel 7 indicates, man has become bestial. But the Son of Man, in Daniel’s vision, will one day rule over the beasts. He will conquer those rulers who have become bestial in their exercise of dominion. He will be the ruler who will rightly exercise dominion over all the earth.

Daniel also looked forward to the day when definitive atonement would be made (Dan 9:24) and he relates this to the cutting off of the Messiah (Dan 9:26).

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 10

by

Jeremiah prophesied in the last days of the kingdom of Judah. He laid the judgment of the nation at the feet of the priests, kings, and prophets: “The priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the shepherds [kings] transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal and went after things that do not profit” (Jer 2:8; cf. Jer 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 50:6).

It is striking that the prophet who recounts the fall of Judah, highlights the failure of all three offices. The failure of these three offices led to exile. Lamentations, traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah, recounts the judgment of God on priest, king, and prophet (Lam. 1:4, 19; 2:6f., 22; 4:1-2, 20; 5:18).

Jeremiah 23 is a diatribe against the false priests, kings, and prophets (The focus of the first four verses is on the kings, and the focus of Jer 23:9-40 is on the prophets. The priests are mentioned in passing; Jer 23:11.).

In the midst of this oracle of judgment, God reminded the people of the promised Davidic king who would rule the people righteously. The name of this king is “Yaheweh is our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6; cf. 30:9). There is no doubt that this Davidic king will rule. The Lord declared in the strongest terms that the Davidic covenant will be fulfilled (33:14-26).

Psalm 89 reveals the necessity of the prophetic assurances that the Davidic Covenant would be fulfilled. This Psalm recounts the Davidic covenant with an emphasis on God’s faithfulness (Ps 89:1-37). But from the perspective of the exile (see Steveson, 345; Goldingay, 2:665f.), it seems that  God had cast his people off (Ps 89:38-51).

The Psalmist does not think that God has entirely repudiated his covenant (on נָאַר see Kidner, 324; with the NASB; contra ESV, NRSV, HCSB, T/NIV). He asks, “How long?” (Ps 89:46), which looks forward to a time of restoration. He calls on God to remember (Ps 89:50), which is a prayer that presumes a covenant (see Myers, 206ff.). Nevertheless the closing verses of this Psalm reveal the full sense of God’s abandonment felt by those in exile.

Sources:

  • Steveson, Peter A. Psalms. Greenville: BJU Press, 2007.
  • Goldingay, John. Psalms 42-89. Baker Commentary on Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Edited by Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
  • Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73-150. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973.
  • Myers, Vernon Edward “The Forgotten Doctrine of Divine Remembering: A Biblical Theology of God’s Remembering.” Ph.D. dissertation: Bob Jones University, 2007.

Frame on the Biblical Story

by

The story of the Bible is the narrative of God coming to be with his people as their Lord, in his control, authority, and presence. After creation and fall, the story is about redemption, and thus about Jesus.

John Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 273.

I like the inclusion of God’s presence in his description of the story. Here is how I would trace the theme of God’s presence through Scripture in a thumbnail sketch:

At the Fall, mankind was thrust out from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8, 23f.). The covenant with Abraham, however, contained hope that God would one day dwell with men again (Gen. 17:8).  The Tabernacle/Temple was a first step toward permitting God and man to dwell together again (c.f. Exo. 25:8; 29:35). But the Tabernacle/Temple was deficient (cf. Heb. 8:7) in that it restricted people from God’s presence even as it symbolized His presence. Furthermore, God’s presence could be lost through sin.

The themes of God’s presence, the Spirit, and the temple converge in the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel was given a vision of the presence of God departing from the temple in judgment upon the people’s sins (11:22-23). This is followed by the promise of God’s indwelling presence, which will remedy Israel’s sin problem (36:27; 37:14). This, in turn, is followed by a vision of a coming Temple named יהוה שמה.

The incarnation of Jesus was a major step toward fulfilling Ezekiel’s vision. Jesus was Ἐμμανουήλ, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). Or as John put it, “The Word became flesh and dwelt [ἐσκήνωσεν] among us” (John 1:14).

Jesus’ ascension was not, however, a redemptive-historical step backward “It is to your advantage that I go away,” Jesus tells the disciples, “for if I do not go away, the παράκλητος will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). This verse recalls John 7:39. There is a giving/sending of the Spirit that could only happen after Jesus was glorified and gone away. The farewell discourse links this giving of the Spirit with continued presence of God among men.

Paul continues to connects the concepts of temple and the indwelling presence of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 3:16 he speaks to the local church as “God’s temple.” He tells them that “God’s Spirit dwells in you.” He makes a similar statement about the individual Christian in 1 Corinthians 6:19. In these passages the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church or the believer is motivation for holiness, which connects well with the new covenant promises that the Spirit will transform the lives of those in the new covenant (Eze. 36:27).

The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of the expectation of the more-than-restored presence of God.  “Its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). God will dwell with man for eternity.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 9

by

Isaiah, Hosea’s contemporary in the Southern Kingdom, made the same point: God did not want any more offerings.

The blood of bulls and goats brought him no delight, and the burning of incense was an abomination to God. He said that he had not required these people to come trampling through his courts. If they were to come before God, they must first make themselves clean (1:11-17; cf. 43:23-24; 66:3). The sacrifices were insufficient to truly address Israel’s sin problem.

Yet in these same contexts God spoke of a resolution to that sin problem. Their sins, though “like scarlet” and “crimson,” could be made “white as snow” or “wool” (1:18). God promised to “blot out your transgressions for my own sake” (43:25).

Isaiah revealed how God could do this justly. God said his Servant would be made “a guilt offering” (53:10; NASB). Many would be counted righteous because the Servant bore their iniquity as their sacrifice (53:11).

The roles of prophet, priest, and king are combined in the Isaianic Servant. This Servant will, as a true prophet, mediate God’s word to the nations (42:1-4; 49:6; 50:4). In doing this he will also fulfill the priestly role that Israel failed to fill. Furthermore, He will bring justice to the nations (42:1-4). This is the work of a king. The servant will be the king to whom all the other kings in the world will be subservient (49:7).

Isaiah’s revelation about this glorious person is not limited to the Servant Songs at the end of the book. As early as the second chapter, Isaiah spoke of Yahweh ruling as king from the Davidic city of Zion (2:3; cf. 18:7, 24:23; 31:4-5; 52:7). His rule is characterized not only by kingly judgment (2:4), but also by priestly and prophetic teaching (2:3). He will be to the people of Zion a Teacher, and they will all follow his teaching (30:19-22).

The rule of Yahweh in Zion may at first glance appear to be something different that the rule of the promised Davidic king, but Isaiah connects the two (other prophets may have also made and understood this connection; see Zeph. 3:15). A person called “Mighty God” will sit on the throne of David (9:6-7). This Davidic king will not only rule the world in righteousness (11:3-5; 16:3-5), but he will also restore the earth to Edenic conditions (11:6-9). How could a descendant of David—a man—be Yahweh ruling in Zion? Isaiah provides the answer to that question also. Isaiah told a king panicked at the threat to his life (which was also a threat to the Davidic line; 7:6) that a virgin would give birth to a son who would be named “God with us.”

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 8

by

Through the writing prophets the Lord continued to send prophets to his people, warning them of the judgment to come if they continued in their sin. “But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the Lord their God” (2 Kgs 17:14).

These prophets prophesied of a coming day in which God would raise up the promised Davidic king. Though Uzziah, a relatively good Davidic king, sat on Judah’s throne during the time of Amos, God considered the Davidic booth fallen. The prophet looked forward to its restoration, and he tied the restoration of the Davidic booth with the restoration of Israel to the land and a return to Edenic conditions on earth (Amos 9:11-15).

The prophet Hosea predicted that God would put an end to the kings of Israel, and the people would realize that a king was no protection against enemies when their true problem was sin. But after a long time without a king Israel would return to seek God and his promised Davidic king (3:4-5). The Israelites begged for a king in 1 Samuel 8 so he could defeat their enemies and free them from the consequences of their sin. But in exile the people would be driven to admit, “and a king—what could he do for us?” (10:3).

Hosea also criticized Israel’s sacrificial worship. The Pentateuch presented sacrifices as a way for a sinful people to make atonement before God and have their sins forgiven. But these people had a problem that ran much deeper than specific sins. Their hearts were uncircumcised (Deut. 30:6), and as a result they did not love God (cf. Deut. 6:5). Through Hosea God says, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burn offerings” (6:6). Since sacrifices failed to penetrate deeply enough to solve the Israelite’s true problem, the Lord refused their sacrifices (8:13).

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 7

by

With the failure of the king to right Israel’s (and the world’s) sin problem, the focus turns to the prophets. The book of Kings contains more references to the prophet or the man of God than any other book of the Bible. Kings emphasizes the sure fulfillment of the prophetic word, and this emphasis should have reminded the people that God would fulfill the covenant curses prophesied by Moses if they continued in their disobedience.

The account of Elijah, the greatest of the prophets during the time of the divided kingdom, echoes in many ways the ministry of Moses. It is possible that attentive Israelites looking for a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18) thought Elijah was that man.

Just as Yahweh demonstrated through Moses that the gods of Egypt were no gods, through Elijah Yahweh demonstrated Baal was no god. The three year drought challenged the belief that Baal brought fertility to the land, and the miraculous provision of food in Sidon, Jezebel’s homeland, demonstrated that Yahweh could do what Baal was supposed to be able to do. In Baal mythology, during the dry season the god Mot held Baal captive in the world of the dead. Each year Anath rescued Baal and together they would restore fertility to the land. By raising the widow’s son from the dead during the drought, Yahweh demonstrated that even though Baal could not rise from the dead, as it were, Yahweh had power to raise people from the dead.

This contest climaxed on Mount Carmel. Elijah’s prayer was the same as the oft repeated purpose of God in the Exodus (Ex 6:7; 10:1; 16:6, 12; 29:46): “that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back” (1.18:37). The last part of the prayer is a request for the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

Elijah may have realized the many ways in which his ministry was like Moses’, but after the climatic confrontation on Mount Carmel he saw that Jezebel was going to kill him just as she had killed Yahweh’s other prophets. [It is better to read וַיַּרְא with the KJV rather than repointing to וַיִּרָא. Keil perceptively notes, “For it is obvious that Elijah did not flee from any fear of the vain threat of Jezebel, from the fact that he did not merely withdrawn into the kingdom of Judah, where he would have been safe under Jehoshaphat from all the persecutions of Jezebel, but went to Beersheba, and thence onwards into the desert” C. F. Keil, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, (Reprint, Hendrickson, 1996), 178. Note also Ronald B. Allen, “Elijah, the Broken Prophet,” JETS 22 (Sep. 1979): 198-99.] So despite the fiery response from God and the immediate confession of the people, in the next chapter Elijah is found taking a forty-day journey to Mount Sinai. But Elijah realized that instead of being a prophet like Moses, he was “no better than [his] fathers” (1.19:4). He was not about to let Jezebel kill him, but he would be happy if God would simply take his life (like he did with Moses?). God did not take his life, but, interestingly, before Elijah is taken from earth he crossed the Jordan in a manner reminiscent of Moses’ crossing of the Red Sea.

In some ways Elijah surpassed Moses since, unlike Moses, who died and was buried by the Lord, Elijah was caught up to heaven in a fiery chariot. [Interestingly, it is Moses and Elijah who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration.] Even so, Elijah was not the prophet like Moses. That Prophet was still to come.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 6

by

The Davidic covenant promised great things for David’s son. The ascent of Solomon to Israel’s throne appeared to be the fulfillment of many covenant promises. In Solomon’s day the people of Israel had become as numerous as the sand of the sea (1 Kgs. 4:20; Gen. 22:17). The boundaries of Solomon’s rule matched those promised to Abraham (1 Kgs. 4:21; Gen. 15:18). Solomon was also a blessing to the nations; people from all the nations came to hear Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs 4:34; Gen. 22:18). Solomon embodied the goal that Israel would become a priest to the nations (1 Kgs 10:6-9; Deut. 4:6-8). First Kings 5 begins the account of the Temple construction. This immediately brings to mind the promises of the Davidic Covenant: “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:12-13). The benefits of his reign are even described in language that is used later to describe the Millennium (1 Kgs. 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10).

A cursory look at Solomon might lead one to think that he was the promised king, but a careful examination reveals numerous unsettling failures. Though Solomon loved the Lord, he worshipped him at high places contrary to the Law (1 Kgs. 3:3; Deut. 12:5-6; cf. Provan, 45). He married Pharaoh’s daughter (1.3:1) contrary to Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3. He apparently placed more emphasis on building his own palace than on building God’s temple (1.7:1-12; cf. Provan, 70). He broke all three of the regulations for kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. He imported horses from Egypt (1 Kgs. 10:26; Deut. 17:16). He married many foreign women (1 Kgs. 11:1-3; Deut. 17:17; cf. Deut. 7:3-4). He acquired a great amount of gold (1 Kgs. 9:14; 10:11, 14-22). [Some tension exists between God’s promise to bless Solomon with riches (1 Kings 3:13) and Deuteronomy 17:17’s prohibition of gathering up wealth. This tension can be resolved by comparing 1 Kings 4:21-25 in which Solomon uses his great wealth to benefit his people (note the Millennial language in 4:25) and 1 Kings 10:14-22 in which he made himself a golden throne and filled his house with golden goblets and shields.] In the end, Solomon turned his heart from Yahweh to other gods. Instead of being the promised king, Solomon’s sin brought Israel under the covenant curses. The hope for the promised Davidic king was not extinguished, but the expectation was delayed (1.11:12, 32, 34-36, 39).

Soucres:
Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. New International Biblical Commentary. Edited by Robert L. Hubbard Jr. and Robert K. Johnston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 5

by

As the narrative in Samuel continues, all eyes are turned to David. David is the humble man exalted to be the anointed king. He is not geboah (1.16:7); in fact, he is the youngest (and thus the lowest) in his family. But kingship—even David’s kingship—did not solve Israel’s sin problem. David too was a sinner. Satterthwaite reflects on the closing chapters of Samuel: “Rape and civil war were singled out by the last chapters of Judges as two of the greatest evils of the pre-monarchic period (Judg. 19 and 20), and attributed to the lack of a king (Judg. 17:6; 21:25); they now reappear in David’s kingdom and even in his own household” (“Samuel,” 181).

Nevertheless God still planned for a king to restore this fallen world. The summit of the Samuel narrative is this declaration of the Davidic covenant, for this is a covenant that picks up the promises of earlier covenants and carries them for­ward. David’s last words reflect on the promise of this covenant that his house will provide a ruler who fears God. This will result in the blessing of all the people (2.23:3-5).

The Psalms often elaborate on the Davidic covenant. In Psalm 2 David declares that the nations of the world (“kings of the earth”) are opposing the Lord and his Messiah. The Lord will respond by establishing the Messiah as the Davidic king (he will rule from Zion) over all the world (2:8-12). The decree “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” is a decree of coronation. It probably looks back to God’s declaration in 2 Samuel 7:14 that he would be the Davidic king’s father and the Davidic king would be his son.

Psalm 110 also predicts the enthronement of the Davidic Messianic king (110:1-2). In light of Psalm 2, the enthroned Lord of Psalm 110:1-2 must be the Messiah. Like the Messiah of Psalm 2, he is enthroned by Yahweh (1:1) on Zion (1:2) from where he will rule over the enemies who have opposed his rule (1:1-2, 5-6). Verse 4 indicates that the coming Messianic king will also be a priest. He, being of the tribe of Judah, could not be a Levitical priest. This passage declares that his order would be that of Melchizedek.

Works Cited
Satterthwaite, Philip E. “Samuel.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part Four

by

Judges revealed that Israel’s sin problem was tied to the lack of a king (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). But when the Israelites asked for a king, the request was treated as a rejection of Yahweh (1.8:7; 10:19; 12:12, 17). This is at first difficult to account for given the previous revelation that God intended for Israel to have a king (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:8-12; Num. 24:7, 17; Deut. 17:14-20; also 1.2:10).

Part of the difficulty lay in the Israelites’ motive. The motive behind their request was a desire to be like the other nations. Though, the terminology “like all the nations” is found in the Deuteronomic legislation about the king (Deut. 17:14-20), Deuteronomy 17:14 should probably be interpreted as a prophecy of what Israel would say rather than instruction as to what the people should say (see Merrill, Deuteronomy, 265; Bergin, 1, 2 Samuel, 112f.). The regulations that follow were designed to distinguish the Israelite king from those of the surrounding nations. In other words, Deuteronomy predicts that Israel will want a king to be like the nations and counters with instructions that prohibit that kind of king. Samuel predicts Israel’s kings will disobey the Deuteronomic instructions and will be kings like those of the surrounding nations (1.8:11-18).

Furthermore, Israel wanted a king to defeat their enemies (1.8:20). This may sound innocent enough, but the invasions of Israel came as a result of Israel’s sins. Yahweh their king was able to defeat all their enemies. The book of Judges looked forward to a king that would prevent the Ca­naanization of Israel; the Israelites in Samuel’s day desired a king in order to be like the other nations. The book of Judges looked forward to a king to solve Israel’s sin problem; the Isra­elites in Samuel’s day desired a king to evade the consequences of their sin. Truly their request for a king was a rejection of Yahweh as their king (1.8:7; 10:19; 12:12).

In this world of sin, Hannah sang a song that proclaimed the transfor­mation that Yahweh intended (1.2:1-10). She sang of the exaltation of the humble and the humiliation of the mighty. The entire world as it existed would need to be transformed. Hannah realized that Yahweh alone could effect that kind of exaltation and humiliation (1.2:3-10). For this reason, Hannah closed her song with an appeal for Yahweh to “give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed [מָשִׁיחַ]” (1.2:10). Once again God reveals that setting the world right will involve a God-appointed king.

Works Cited
Merrill, Eugene. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, B&H, 1994.
Bergin, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, B&H, 1996.