Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

  • About
  • Writings
  • Recommended Resources
  • Categories
    • Christian Living
    • Book Recs
    • Biblical Theology
    • Dogmatics
      • Bibliology
      • Christology
      • Ecclesiology
    • Church History
    • Biblical Studies

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 16

October 1, 2008 by Brian

The three offices are all highlighted in the book of Hebrews. The opening verses indicate that not only had there arisen a prophet like Moses, but that the Son was a prophet greater than Moses. The Lord knew Moses face to face, but this prophet is characterized as “a Son” (Heb. 1:2). Furthermore, though Moses interacted with God face to face,* and even saw his glory, the Son “is the radiance of the glory of God.” The people of Israel asked for Moses to be their prophet-mediator because they were afraid to approach God directly (Ex. 20:18-21; Deut. 5:22-27; 18:15-16), but the Son is both Mediator and God. Hebrews also teaches Christ was prophet in his earthly ministry by declaring the message of salvation. Yet the prophet is not merely a preacher of new revelation from God. The prophet also mediated the covenant. Moses mediated the Old Covenant, but Christ mediates a better covenant (Heb. 8:6) (See Horton, Lord and Servant, 210f.).

Hebrews, more than any other book expounds the priestly work of Christ. His suffering and death are mentioned in the early chapters (Heb. 1:3; 2:9, 14-15). Hebrews 2:17 introduces the idea that Christ is “a merciful and faithful high priest.” This is expanded upon in the following chapters. Hebrews five and six provide an introductory exposition of Christ as High Priest. Hebrews 7:1-10 makes the case that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and that as such He is superior to the Levitical priests. The further significance of the emergence of Christ as the Melchizedekian Priest is unpacked in 7:11-28: the Mosaic law is set aside (7:18-19), a better covenant is instituted (7:22), and Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice fulfilled and replaced the repetitious sacrifices of the Levitical system. The following chapters demonstrate that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled and replaced the Levitical sacrifices because he accomplished what those sacrifices could not. Hebrews 10:18 is the last word of exposition in the author’s argument that Christ is the superior High Priest: “Where there is forgiveness of [sins], there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” Jesus is the absolute fulfillment of the entire Old Testament priestly system.

Because of the Son’s priestly ministry, he is enthroned and crowned (Heb. 1:3; 2:9). Once again appeal is made to Psalm 2:7. His successful sacrifice for sin resulted in his enthronement with the words promised to the Davidic king upon his ascension. Multiple Old Testament quotations establishing the kingship of Jesus follow. The chain of quotations climaxes with Psalm 110:1, emphasizing once again the Davidic nature of Jesus’ rule. Hebrews 2:5-9, by quoting Psalm 8:4-6, links this Davidic rule back to Adam’s dominion. This dominion was corrupted by the fall, and even of Christ, the passage says, “At present we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (Heb. 2:8; This harmonizes with Psalm 110:1 which teaches that during the Messiah’s reign enemies will need to be subdued). But the Davidic Messiah is the Second Adam who will restore the right dominion of Man to the new earth (Heb. 2:5; 1 Cor. 15:22ff.)

*Douglas Stuart describes the significance of “face to face,” “The expression ‘face to face’ (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים) is an idiom. It does not mean ‘looking at each other’ or the like as if Moses actually saw God when Moses stood in the ‘tent of meeting’ and Yahweh stood in front of it in the form of the glory cloud. (This could hardly be so in light of the explicit statement of God later in v. 20, ‘You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’) Its sense is more that of the Eng. expression ‘up close and personal.’ The Eng. idiom ‘person to person’ is relatively similar as well (because it does not imply visual perception), and the idiom ‘heart to heart’ is also analogous (because, likewise, it emphasizes the quality of intimacy of the conversation rather than any visual perception).” Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 699, n. 111.

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 15

September 18, 2008 by Brian

In his epistles Paul also taught that Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.

In 2 Thessalonians he declared that Jesus will return a conquering king and a judge (1:7-10).

In 1 Corinthians he declared that Christ was sacrificed as a Passover lamb (5:7). He also declared that Christ will reign until he puts all his enemies, including death under his feet. Then he will deliver his kingdom up to the Father (15:24-28).

In Romans, Paul affirmed the Davidic rights of David (Rom 1:3). He sees these as integral to the gospel promised before by the prophets (1:2). He also recognized that Christ was the propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of men’s sins (3:25).

In Ephesians he referred to Christ’s resurrection and session as the time in which God granted the Son dominion over all things (1:20-23). Christ Jesus is the one who through his sacrifice invalidated the Old Covenant’s sacrificial ordinances (2:14).

In Philippians Paul connected the sacrifice of Christ on the cross with his exaltation (2:8-10).

Paul makes the same connection in Colossians (1:18). In the same context he refers to Christ’s sacrificial death (1:20). Later Paul returned to the exaltation and kingship themes (2:10; 3:1).

In his first letter to Timothy Paul called Christ “the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1:17). In the second letter Paul spoke of believers reigning with Christ (1:11). This theme looks forward to a restoration of right dominion by mankind. Paul also looked forward to Christ returning as judge and establishing his kingdom on earth (4:1).

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 14

September 3, 2008 by Brian

Jesus did not remain dead. The gospel hangs on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Peter connected the resurrection and ascension of Jesus with his enthronement on the Davidic throne (Acts 2:29-36). In Acts 2:30-32 Peter said that David prophesied the resurrection in Psalm 16 because he knew God’s oath to place a Davidic descendant on the Davidic throne (Ps. 132:11)—thus connecting the resurrection and the ascension to the throne. Peter also connected the resurrection to the enthronement of the Davidic Messiah predicted in Psalm 110. The connections between Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 indicate that Peter has in view the Davidic enthronement and not some other enthronement.

Peter concludes on the basis of these passages that at the resurrection/ascension God “made [this Jesus] both Lord and Christ” (2:36). In what way was Jesus made Lord and Christ? “Lord” probably refers back to Peter’s quotation of Psalm 110:1. He was made Lord at the enthronement. He was also made Christ or Messiah. In the context, this indicates that Jesus was enthroned as Messiah.

Paul likewise testified that Jesus was the Davidic king, enthroned through his resurrection (Acts 13:22-23, 32-39). Paul’s argument was similar to Peter’s, but he appealed to Psalm 2:7 rather than to Psalm 110:1 for his enthronement text. Paul said the declaration, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled in the resurrection (Acts 13:33). In the context of Psalm 2, this is the declaration of enthronement. Some object that since Psalm 2 teaches the Messianic king will be enthroned on Zion, Jesus cannot be reigning as the Davidic king from heaven. This ignores that prophecies are often fulfilled in stages. Jesus will one day rule from Zion as the Davidic king, but his enthronement has commenced from heaven.

On the basis of Jesus’ enthronement as the Davidic king, the apostles and elders determined that the Gentiles could participate in the church without the rituals required of Jewish proselytizes (Acts 15:14-19). As the apostles and elders wrestled over the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the church, Amos 9:12, with its promise of parity between Israel and the nations, provided insight in how to proceed. Niehaus notes that “the implication of the present statement is that the nations will not simply come under Israelite hegemony (as before), but that they will actually become one with God’s people” (492).

The timing of this promise is significant. The apostles were not at liberty to decide that since one day God will treat Jews and Gentiles equally, they may do so at any time. James was careful to quote the time frame for this promise. This promise is connected to the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty.

The preaching of the early church also declared Jesus to be the fulfillment of the prophetic and priestly offices. Peter taught explicitly that Jesus was the Prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22), and Stephen’s martyr sermon climaxed by implying that Jesus was the messianic Prophet (Acts 7:52-53).

Philip declared to the Ethiopian eunuch that Jesus was guilt offering for sin (Acts 8:32-35). Thus the preaching of the early church as recorded in Acts affirms that Jesus is the King, Prophet, and Priest that Israel had been expecting.

Sources

Bock, Darrell L. “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. See especially 159f., 199f.

Gibson, Aaron J. “Until His Enemies become His Footstool: A Biblical Theology of the Davidic Covenant in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 2003. See chapter 7 of this dissertation for detailed argumentation in favor of the position outlined above.

Niehaus, Jeff.  “Amos.” The Minor Prophets. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 13

September 1, 2008 by Brian

Four hundred years after the last book of the OT was penned, an angel appeared to a priest named Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple. The angel announced that Zechariah’s elderly wife would give birth to a son who would, “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” prepare the way for the Lord (Luke 1:8-17).

Six months later the angel Gabriel visited a virgin pledged to be married to Joseph, a descendent of David. She, as a virgin, would conceive a son who would be the promised David king. “He will reign over the house of Jacob, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:26-33). Mary responded to this great news by singing a hymn reminiscent of the one sung by Hannah so long ago (Luke 1:46-55; 1 Samuel 2:1-10).

Matthew, who opened his gospel by explicitly identifying Jesus as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), recorded the announcement to Joseph. An angel told Joseph this Son was to be named Jesus, “Yahweh saves,” because he would accomplish the great problem facing mankind from Genesis 3 throughout the rest of Scripture. He would solve the problem that no priest or king or prophet had even been able to solve. He would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Furthermore, he is named “Yahweh saves” because he is Yahweh. The angel quotes Isaiah 7:14 to substantiate the claim that Jesus was “God with us.” Remember, Isaiah is the prophet who most clearly connects Yahweh ruling from Zion with the ruling Davidic king. These royal announcements framed Jesus birth, even though he did not begin life on earth in any particularly royal way. He was born in a stable and into an artisan’s family.

During his ministry Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man. For those with ears to hear, this was a royal declaration. His message was the message of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15).

Much of his earthly ministry was preaching. Indeed, that was one reason Jesus came (Mark 1:38). The people recognized that he was a prophet (Matt 21:46; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 7:16, 39; Luke 9:8, 19; John 4:19; 9:17). Jesus also identified himself as a prophet (Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 13:33). This was no insignificant identification. The people of Israel were expecting the Prophet like Moses (John 1:25; see Carson, John, PNTC, 143). In a few cases people identified Jesus with that Prophet (John 6:14; 7:40). It is worth noting that record of people ascribing the office of the Prophet to Jesus occurs in John, the gospel that testifies that Jesus is the Word. [For a convincing demonstration that Jesus is presented as the Word throughout John’s gospel see Robert H. Gundry, Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian, 4-50.]

After Peter’s confession that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, Jesus began to prophesy his own death (Mark 8:31-38; 9:9, 30-32; 10:32-34). He used sacrificial terminology to describe his death (Matt. 20:28; 10:45). The Gospels climax with the record of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.

In Jesus all the Old Testament hopes for a Messiah—a prophet, priest, and king to set the world right—are realized. The excitement at the arrival of such a person is most evident in the opening chapters of Luke. The significance of Jesus’ life death, and resurrection is explained in the epistles.

Sources:

Carson, D. A.  The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Gundry, Robert H. Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, especially its Elites, in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

Bavinck on "Son of Man"

August 21, 2008 by Brian

Herman Bavink’s Reformed Dogmatics contains one of the best treatments of Christology to be found. At one point he includes a helpful discussion of the title "Son of Man."

Here are a few key quotes:

Taking all this [previously discussed exegetical material] into consideration, we realize that with this name Jesus intends to distinguish himself from and position himself above all other humans. The name also undoubtedly implies that he was truly human, akin not only to Israel, but to all humans; yet it simultaneously expresses the fact that he occupies an utterly unique place among all humans.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

It does not follow that the people in general, or that even the disciples, on hearing the name, immediately thought of the Messiah. The opposite is likely the case, because he was never attacked on account of this title. People perhaps understood by it only that he was special, that he was an extraordinary human being, a fact that was immediately substantiated by his words and works. But for that very reason this name afforded Jesus an opportunity to cut off in advance all misunderstanding about his person and work, and to gradually inject into that name and unite with it the peculiar meaning of the messiahship that, in accordance with the Scriptures, was inherent in it to his mind.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250

So then Jesus chose this name for himself to make known: (1) that he was not just the Son of David and King of Israel but the Son of Man, connected with all humans and giving his life as a ransom for many; (2) that he nonetheless occupied an utterly unique place among all humans, because he had descended from above, from heaven, lived in constant communion with the Father during his stay on earth, and had power to forgive sins, to bestow eternal life, to distribute to his own all the goods of the kingdom; (3) that he could not grasp this power violence as the Jews expected their Messiah to do, but that as the Servant of the Lord, he had to suffer and die for his people; and (4) that precisely by taking this road he would attain to the glory of the resurrection and the ascension, the elevation to God’s right hand, and the coming again for judgment."

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:250f.

Filed Under: Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 11

August 20, 2008 by Brian

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).

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 10

August 19, 2008 by Brian

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.

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 9

August 8, 2008 by Brian

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.”

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 8

August 6, 2008 by Brian

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).

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 7

August 5, 2008 by Brian

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.

Filed Under: Biblical Theology, Christology, Kings

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »