Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

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.

Psalm 119 and Exodus

by

Pastor Minnick has several times suggested prefacing a time of Bible study with the reading (and praying) of a stanza from Psalm 119. Reading these stanzas prior to study in the latter part of Exodus has proved remarkably helpful. This section of Exodus (and much of Leviticus and Numbers which follows) can seem as dry as the wilderness Israel was traversing if it is read superficially.

Yet consider some of the things the Psalmist says in the opening stanzas of this Psalm: “My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times” (119:20). “Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counselors” (119:24). “In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches” (119:14). “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart” (119:1-2). Surely when the Psalmist wrote of God’s rules and his law, the Pentateuch was at the forefront of his mind.

For the Psalmist, the law was not dry. It was like a stream of water that causes a tree to prosper with unwithered leaves and abundant fruit. The man who delights in the law so that he meditates on it day and night is a blessed man (Ps. 1:1-4).

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.

Van Til on Theism

by

“It is  . . . no easier for sinners to accept God’s revelation in nature than to accept God’s revelation in Scripture. They are no more ready of themselves to do the one than to do the other. From the point of view of the sinner, theism is as objectionable as Christianity–theism that is worthy of the name is Christian theism. Christ said that no man can come to the Father but by him. No one can become a theist unless he becomes a Christian. Any god that is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not God but an idol.”

Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., 79.

Psalm 119:8

by

How can the psalmist be so bold as to declare, “I will keep your statues” (Ps. 119:8)?

Note how he concludes the verse:  “do not utterly forsake me.”

Flavel on Heart Work

by

“Heart-work is hard work, indeed. To shuffle over religious duties with a  loose and heedless spirit will cost no great pains, but to set yourself before the Lord, and tie up your loose and vain thoughts to a constant and serious attendance upon Him, will cost you something. To attain a facility and dexterity of language in prayer and put your meaning into apt and decent expressions is easy; but to get your heart broken for sin while you are confessing it and melted with free grace while you are blessing God for it, to be really ashamed and humbled through the apprehensions of God’s infinite holiness, and to keep your heart in this frame not only in, but after duty will surely cost you some groans and travailing pain of soul. To repress outward acts of sin and compose the external part of your life in a laudable and comely manner is no great matter. Even carnal persons, by the force of common principles, can do this. But to kill the root of corruption within, to set and keep up a holy government over your thoughts, to have all things lie straight and orderly in the heart, this is not easy.”

John Flavel, Keeping the Heart (SDG, 1998), 9f.

Note on Jephthah

by

Interpreters commonly attempt to explain away Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter. The text plainly says that Jephthah vowed whatever first exited his house upon his return, he would “offer it up for a burnt offering” (11:31). The text also plainly says, he “did with her according to his vow” (11:39). Often the reference to Jephthah’s daughter bewailing her virginity is used to support the thesis that she became a lifelong virgin. However, in a culture that highly valued marriage and childbearing, a daughter who would be burned as a sacrifice may well spend some months weeping because she would never be a wife or mother. It is no argument against this position that fulfilling this vow broke the Mosaic law. That is precisely the point. Israel’s judges had degenerated to the point that they were either ignorant of or flagrantly disobedient to God’s law. A comparison between Judges 11:24 and Deuteronomy 2:19 indicates the former is more likely in this case.

Note on Othniel

by

The Othniel account is brief (3:7-11), but it sets the pattern for the following judge accounts: Israel does evil, the Lord gives them over to oppressors, Israel cries out to the Lord, the Lord raises up a deliverer, the Lord gives the deliverer victory over the enemy, the land rests for a number of years, and the judge dies. In a more profound sense Othniel is the judge by which all the rest are measured. Interestingly, Othniel (or one of his ancestors) was a proselyte. Every time Othniel is mentioned in Judges, he is called “Othniel the son of Kenaz.” This makes him a descendant of Esau (Gen 36:11, 15, 42; cf. Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6-14). Othniel was exhibit A for what Israel ought to have been doing. Israel ought to have been turning foreigners into zealous Israelites.

See Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 150.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part Three

by

Though God’s people were to look to the future for the prophesied deliver(s), Israel itself was part of God’s plan of redemption. The nation was to be a priest to the nations (Ex. 19:6). They could bless the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3) by leading them to the true God (Deut. 4:1-8). But Israel was also part of the world’s sin problem. God predicted that Israel would fail to keep his law and would therefore suffer the covenant curses (Deut. 30:1-8). Israel, even in Moses’ day, was comprised of people with uncircumcised hearts. They needed regeneration so they could turn and obey they Lord (Deut. 30:1-10). Though Israel successfully conquered the Promised Land (Josh. 10:40; 11:23; 21:43-45), Joshua told the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord” (24:19).

The book of Judges confirms Joshua’s prediction. The people quickly turn from beings priests to the nations to becoming like, or even worse than, the nations. By the end of the book, one judge offered human sacrifices. Another judge was more concerned with Philistine women and personal vendettas than with delivering God’s people. Israel’s judges were unable to restore God’s people to God’s law.

Not even the priestly class in Israel maintained the true worship of Yahweh (Jdgs. 17-18). The last account of the book includes an incident eerily reminiscent of the Sodom story. Amazingly, the story in Judges is darker than the one in Genesis. In Sodom, the angels blinded the men and no wicked deed was accomplished, but in Judges, the men of Gibeah “knew her and abused her all night until the morning” (19:25). They left her for dead, and the concubine’s master dismembered her and sent the pieces of her body throughout the land. Israel, the priest to the nations, had become worse than the worst of the nations (Sodom throughout Scripture is the illustration of human wickedness; Deut. 32:32; Isa. 1:10; 3:9; jer 23:14; Ezek. 16:46-56; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8).

The nations needed a better priest, and their priest, Israel, needed better priests (The last two accounts in Judges feature wayward Levites, including a descendant of Moses himself; cf. Block, Judges, Ruth, 512). The text explicitly notes Israel needed a king. Four times it says, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). The closing words of the book are, “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25). These words recall the actions of Adam and Eve doing what was right in their eyes. Israel was acting in the same manner that led to the distortion of human dominion at the beginning, and God said they needed a king to fix this sin problem.

The storyline of Scripture moves forward into the book of Samuel. Stephen Dempster says, “It is hard to imagine a worse situation than the end of the narrative of Judges, but this is it” (Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 135). The opening chapters of Samuel reveal that sin permeated the priesthood. Eli’s sons insisted on taking whatever raw meat would come up when they stabbed it with a meat-fork (1.2:13-17) despite Torah prohibitions (Lev. 7:22-25, 31-36; Deut. 18:3-4). Furthermore, they corrupted the women who ministered at the tabernacle (1.2:22; cf. Ex. 38:26) in a way that may have mimicked the forbidden cult prostitution of the Canaanites (Deut. 23:17). In summary statements, these men are called “sons of Belial” and men who “did not know the Lord” (1.2:12; this contrasts with Exodus which repeatedly says that the purpose for God’s miraculous deliverance was so Israel would know that he is the Lord: Ex. 6:3, 7; 10:2; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13). Their actions were said to be blasphemy (1.3:13). Eli was little better. Despite his strong words, his remonstrance with his sons was ineffectual (1.2:22-25). Priests like this could not mediate between God and man.

God intervened at this crisis point in Israel’s history by raising up a prophet: Samuel. The necessity of a prophet showed the failure of the priesthood. The priests could receive revelation from God through the Urim and Thumim. They were given the responsibility of teaching God’s word. These tasks mirror the prophetic tasks of receiving revelation from God and declaring his word to the people. Samuel was a faithful prophet (1.12:3-5), but he was not sufficient to turn the people to God. Furthermore his sons became known for their wickedness (1.8:1-3).

Israel was in need of a righteous king, priest, and prophet.

Works cited
Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1999.
Dempster,Stephen G.  Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part Two

by

See Part One

The sin that disordered man’s blessing of dominion also disordered his relationship with God. God revealed that sacrifice is necessary for sinful man to approach God. Some see this in the killing of animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve (cf. Waltke & Fredericks, Genesis, 95).  More clearly, the chapter directly following the account of the Fall reveals that humans now approached God in worship through sacrifices. The position of Leviticus in the Pentateuch further reinforces the necessity of sacrifices if sinful man is to approach God. Exodus closes with the erection of the tabernacle, which was a symbol of God’s presence (Exod. 29:46). This raised the question that existed since man’s sin drove him from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8, 23f.): how can God dwell with sinful man? This is the question that Leviticus exists to answer (Lev. 26:11-13), and it answers it with a detailed exposition of Israel’s sacrificial system (cf. Kiuchi, “Leviticus,” 152.).

Sacrifices imply priests. If Job reveals the state of true religion in patriarchal times, it may be that the father served as the priest for the family (Job 1:5; cf. Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4; 35:1). Melchizedek, king of Salem, also served as a priest (Gen. 14:17), and this may indicate that for a time kings served as priests for their subjects. With the establishment of the nation Israel, God ordained a separate class of priests to mediate between God and man for the nation.

For mankind to receive revelation from God about his condition and about God’s expectations regarding worship, fallen man needed prophets. Abel (Matt. 23:34), Enoch (Jude 14), and Abraham (Gen 20:7) were all prophets, but among the covenant people, the office of the prophet originated when the people of Israel asked for someone to mediate between them and God (Ex. 20:18-21; Deut. 5:22-27; 18:15-16) (Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 25). Not only was Moses the first to fill this office, he was the greatest of Israel’s prophets (cf. Robertson 36-39).  As his ministry drew to a close God told the people to look for a future Prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-22; cf. Acts 3:22-23).

By the close of the Pentateuch, God’s people knew that sin had disordered mankind’s dominion over the world, and they knew that as part of God’s restoration they ought to look for a Judean king and a Mosaic prophet. There was no prediction at this point of a coming priest, but the Israelites probably already realized the insufficiency of their sacrificial system and thus the need for something more than they had in their current priestly system. [While many liberals have suggested a tension between the Pentateuch’s sacrificial system and the prophetic critique, Childs suggests the basis for the prophetic critique is found in Leviticus 26:14-45, which predicts the judgment of Israel for its sins in the exile. In the exile Israel is unable to offer sacrifices and they must simply cast themselves on the mercy of God (Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 160f.).]

Works Cited
Watke, Bruce and Cathi J. Fredericks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi  “Leviticus.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Robertson, O. Palmer.  The Christ of the Prophets. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004.
Childs, Brevard S.  Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.