Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

The Consecration of the Priests

by

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).

Alan Jacobs on Brian McLaren

by

In lectures and speeches, as well as in his books, McLaren often pauses to say that he really does believe that doctrine is important. But he has to say this because he doesn’t otherwise show signs of being interested in it.

Alan Jacobs, “Do-It-Yourself Tradition,” First Things (January 2009): 29

Calvin on Humility 3

by

To live happily the evils of false ambition and self-love must be plucked from our hearts by the roots.

If we listen to the instruction of Scripture, we must remember that our talents are not of our own making, but free gifts of God.

If we are proud of our talents, we betray our lack of gratitude to God.

“Who makes you to differ?” says Paul. “Now, if you received all gifts, why do you glory as if you had not received them?”

We must watch and acknowledge our faults, and be truly humble. For then we shall not be puffed up, but have great reason to feel dejected.

John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, 2.4.4

Calvin on Humility 2

by

The vices of which we are full we carefully hide from others, and we flatter ourselves with the notion that they are small and trivial; we sometimes even embrace them as virtues.

If the same talents which we admire in ourselves appear in others, or even our betters, we depreciate and diminish them with the utmost malignity, in order that we may not have to acknowledge the superiority of others.

If others have any vices, we are not content to criticize them sharply and severely, but we exaggerate them hatefully.

John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, 2.4.2

Baxter on our Companions

by

Not only the open profane, the swearer, the drunkard, and the enemies of godliness, will prove hurtful companions to us, though these indeed are chiefly to be avoided: but too frequent society with persons merely civil and moral, whose conversation is empty and unedifying, may much divert our thoughts from heaven.

Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest, cited in Fish, Surprised by Sin, 12f.

Baxter’s words hold true not only for companions but also for entertainments.

Calvin on Humility

by

When Scripture commands us to conduct ourselves in such a manner toward men, as ‘in honor to prefer others to ourselves,’ and faithfully to devote our whole attention to the promotion of their advantage, it gives such commands as our heart can by no means receive without being first cured of our sinful nature.

We are all so blinded and upset by self-love that everyone imagines he has a just right to exalt himself and to under-value all others in comparison to self.

If God has bestowed on us any excellent gift, we imagine it to be our own achievement; and we swell and even burst with pride.

John Calvin, Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, 2.4.1.

Mark Noll, Biblical Literalism, and Slavery

by

Michael Ruse writes in the November/December Books and Culture:

Thanks to scholars like Mark Noll (in America’s God), we now know how deeply the racism of 19th-century America was connected with and supported by biblical literalism—especially the ways in which the Bible was used to justify slavery.

Michael Ruse, “In the Land of Nod,” Books and Culture (Nov/Dec 2008): 39.

Does the evidence presented by Noll actually indicate that Biblical literalism lies at the root of Christian justifications for antebellum slavery?

“Literal” is a tricky word. Does it mean non-allegorical interpretation? Does it mean non-metaphorical? Noll seems to mean neither in America’s God. His use of “literal” denotes a superficial, surface reading of Scripture that fails to probe the Scriptures in a theological or synthetic manner. Noll makes a causal link between common sense realism and this approach to Scripture (America’s God, 379-385). It seems the claim that biblical literalism was used to justify slavery must be qualified by a careful definition of “literalism.” Without this definitional limitation, the claim that “biblical literalism” supported racism and slavery is in danger of slandering those who currently hold to what may be called “biblical literalism.”

What does Ruse mean by “biblical literalism”? He says, “The Sermon on the Mount hardly justifies slavery, so it is not the case that one has to reject the Bible to fight against the vile practice, but many passages of the Bible taken literally seem to support it” (p. 39f.) Does he mean “taken superficially and without theological intertextual considerations”? This would cohere with Noll’s usage, but it is not consistent with typical usage. Ruse could mean “that sense of interpretation (of a text) which is obtained by taking its words in their natural customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar” (OED, 3.a).

Though Ruse appeals to Noll, it seems more likely that he means by “literal” not the non-standard meaning used by Noll but the more common meaning found in the OED. The fact that the article deals with the Creation/Evolution debate strengthens this supposition.

If this is the case, Ruse’s claim that biblical literalism is the culprit for 19th century racism and slavery fails. In The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the book-length treatment of the material Ruse refers to in America’s God, Noll indicates that racism was something read into (not out of) the biblical texts (cf. p. 52, 54).

The more successful biblical arguments against antebellum slavery did not depart from a biblical literalism (as defined by the OED above). Noll notes this was especially true among African Americans who had a view of Scripture that was much higher than many white abolitionists (p. 64).

It is true that these biblical literalists did not argue against slavery per se. They noted instead the many ways in which biblical slavery differed from that practiced in the antebellum South. In other words they recognized a difference between a non-race-based slavery of no more than six years after which the former slaves were provided for liberally upon release (Ex. 21:2; Deut 15:12-18) and a race-based slavery founded on man-theft in which the slaves and their families could be held in perpetuity.

The difficulty was not that “many passages of the Bible taken literally seem to support [slavery]” (p. 40). The problem was a lack of careful attention to the specifics of the text.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 17

by

The book of Revelation opens by recognizing Jesus Christ as prophet. He is the one who declared this message from the Father to John (Rev. 1:1; this takes Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a subjective genitive; see Osborne, 52).

The sacrificial imagery of Revelation is apparent. Jesus is “a Lamb, standing as thought it had been slain” (Rev. 5:6). Throughout the book he is referred to as a Lamb. But he is a royal Lamb (he is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David,” Rev. 5:5). 

God’s throne is another major theme of Revelation. θρόνος occurs 47 times in Revelation [This figure includes three times where the plural “thrones” is used of the elders thrones (Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4) and twice where the reference is to the throne of Satan (Rev. 2:13; 13:2)] and is found in all but five of the book’s chapters. This pervasive motif highlights the theme of kingship.

Based on the reference to Jesus sitting “with my Father on his throne” after his resurrection (Rev. 3:21), some dispensationalists wish to distinguish the Father’s throne (on which Jesus currently sits) and David’s throne (on which he will sit in the future) (Thomas, 325f.). Bock responds to this line of argumentation by noting the Old Testament in places equates Yahweh’s throne and the Davidic throne (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23) because Yahweh is the Father to the Davidic king who is his son (1 Chron. 28:6). In addition to this, Revelation in its earliest chapters describes Jesus acting with the prerogatives of the Davidic king (Rev. 1:5; 2:18; 2:26-27; 3:12). Most significantly, Revelation 5:5 links his Davidic claims to his conquering, which is precisely Jesus’ claim in Revelation 3:21: “I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Bock, 111).

Jesus is introduced in the opening greeting as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5). The book climaxes with the declaration: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15). This is the goal of the entire history of the world.

John recorded the fulfillment of this declaration terms that highlight all three of the Messianic offices. The King will ride down from heaven with his robe dipped in his sacrificial blood (Rev. 19:13) to defeat his enemies with the Word of his mouth (Rev. 19:15). “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). Revelation 20 records the thousand year reign that is the precursor of Jesus’ eternal reign. At the end of that reign Jesus will exercise his kingly judgment over mankind.

Following the judgment, heaven and earth will be remade and the New Jerusalem—the new City of David—will descend from heaven. There is no temple there, “for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev. 21:22). There is a throne in the middle of the city (Rev. 22:3), and under the Lamb mankind will exercise the dominion intended for them “forever and ever” (Rev. 21:5).

Source:

Bock, Darrell L. “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992.

Bavinck on the movement from positivism to relativism

by

According to Troeltsch, the unity that used to exist between religion (Christianity) and science has been definitely broken up since the rise of eighteenth-century rationalism. This breakup was caused by the change that occurred both in the view of science and in that of religion. Science laid aside all apriorism, became positive, and banished metaphysics. Today it exists solely as mathematical-mechanical, natural science as the critical-comparative study of history. In both respects it is opposed to the old view of religion and theology. And so the latter gradually changed in the sense that theologians no longer want anything to do with an external authority, as much as possible reduce or abandon the supernatural elements—like prophecy, miracle, and inspiration—that occur in authority-based religion, fully accept the historical criticism of Scripture, and regard dogmas purely as expressions of personal faith. Accordingly, there no longer exists a method by which Christianity could still be upheld as absolute religion. . . . Theology, therefore, has no alternative but to radically break with every dogmatic method and apply with honesty and consistency the history-of-religions method.

. . . . . . . . . .

[But] one cannot, in a historic an psychological sense, understand the religious life, thought, and feelings of others if one is not personally religious, has no idea of religion, and cannot evaluate religious phenomena by a specific criterion. Total ‘presuppositionlessness’ (Voraussetzungslosigkeit) renders study and research impossible. But if nevertheless presuppositionlessness is one’s aim and one takes a positivistic position with respect to religion, the inevitable result is a ‘theology of “mood” in place of a concepts, a system of paradoxes in place of sober truth, the ‘art’ of being enthused about everything in place of the conviction which looks for a fixed standard of things.’ In this area the purely empirical method results in surrender to the relativism of the historical process or event and the loss of one’s ability to judge the truth-content of a religion. . . .

It must also be said that such consistent relativism, which is synonymous with total indifferentism, is certainly not the intent of the advocates of the history-of-religions and psychological method. It is precisely their aim, by the use of this method to arrive at a dogmatics based not on abstract ideas but on facts. But it is not hard to demonstrate that the path chosen does not and cannot lead to this goal.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:71, 73.