Category Archives: Biblical Theology
A Better Priest: Part 6
Imperfect sacrifices vs. the perfect work of Calvary. A striking characteristic of the contrasts between the Levitical priesthood and Christ’s is the accomplishment that each one secures. Hebrews 10:1-4 sheds great light upon the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Many for whom the sacrifices were offered perished in their rebellion without their sacrifices procuring for them any lasting benefit. The chief reason the old covenant sacrifices continued year after year (Lev.16:34) was because they perfected no one. Though the Mosaic Law demanded them they nonetheless failed to secure salvation and ultimate remission of sin. So God had no “pleasure”[1] in them (Heb. 10:6).
With the Levitical sacrifices came only a reminder of sin (Heb. 10:3). Each year the high priest offered his sacrifices, knowing that sin, just as in the year before that and the year before that, kept God distant, within the Most Holy Place. Hebrews 10:1-4 contrasts these ineffectual sacrifices with the Christ’s ability to cleanse our conscience and bring us to God through His once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 9:13-14) [2]. No longer is there a reminder of sin; instead there is a reminder of a perfect Savior. Now we are told that we may come boldly before God’s throne, and enter in by the veil that is Christ Himself (Heb. 10:19-23).
Likewise those for whom Christ’s sacrifice is offered are actually perfected (Heb. 10:11-14). His sacrifice is completely effectual and Christ’s continuing ministry of intercession as high priest guarantees the final salvation of His people. As opposed to the Aaronic Priesthood, Scripture teaches that the reason why the Lord Jesus never fails in His mediation is “he always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). Christ’s high priestly function is that which preserves the sheep of His fold.
Let’s go a bit further; “Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost[3] those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” To briefly exegete this passage we must ask a few basic questions. What is the topic of this verse? What is the ground for Christ’s success in intercession? The answers in brief are these: The verse is speaking about salvation. Christ is able to save perfectly those to come to God through Him, “the way” (John 14:6). The verse also provides the reason why, or the instrumental cause of His guaranteed success, namely His intercession. He saves perfectly “since he always lives to make intercession for them.”[4]
Thus we see that, as opposed to those priests of the Levitical administration, Christ’s priestly mediation and intercession fully accomplishes that which He aims to accomplish, namely the perfection and salvation of all those for whom he acts as High Priest. What the Mosaic age prefigured the New Covenant brings to its completion.
Next, we’ll wrap things up.
[1] Of course as just mentioned these offerings were ordained by God Himself in the first seven chapters of Leviticus, thus the author of Hebrews does not mean that God was ill disposed to them. Instead what he means is that these offerings did not finally atone; they did not bring about the completion of redemption and propitiation that the author so frequently stresses is the paramount necessity of a once-for-all sacrifice.
[2] Hughes notes, “[w]ithin the context [‘apax] means ‘once for all,’ and this sense is confirmed by the use of the perfect participle [kekatharismenoun] which suggests a cleansing that is permanent.” A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 391.
[3] “ The expression [ein to pantelan] is at the same time a resumption and an amplification of the [ein ton aiona] of Psalm 110:4. Like the term [aparabaton], it is enriched by its ambivalence, combining the notions of perpetuity on the one hand…and of completeness on the other…” Ibid, 269. .
[4] In light of this verse I find it very difficult to make sense of any understanding of Christ’s high priestly activity that states that Christ can mediate for someone yet that person is lost in the eschatological judgment. Indeed, in continuity with the Old Covenant priests Christ intercedes or mediates for all for whom a sacrifice is made. If all who Christ mediates in behalf of are saved to the uttermost, then, it seems logical to assert, that Christ does not mediate for every single individual (see John 17:9). If He does, would this not, according to Hebrews 7:25, lead us to accept the doctrine of universalism? Yet we would never want to say that Christ’s intercession on behalf of anyone could be ineffectual. I surely don’t. Christ always pleases the Father (John 8:29).
Stated another way, to say that Christ can present His perfect sacrifice before the Father in behalf of sinner x, yet sinner x is eternally lost, how can Christ be presented as a better sacrifice than those of the Old Covenant? In fact this would be counter-productive to the author’s argument. If his entire point is that Christ is not like the sacrifices of old, yet His sacrificial death and priestly mediation do not guarantee salvation for any one then Christ’s work is exactly like those offerings. Clear and precise hermeneutics demand that we never interpret an author’s words in a particular passage so as to make it contradict his overall message.
A Better Priest: Part 5
A few more contrasts.
Many priests vs. the everlasting Christ. One of the most precious contrasts between the Old and New Testament priestly ministrations is the duration of their services. Ex. 29:29-30 speaks of the garments Aaron was to wear while performing his service, and in passing a succession of priests is mentioned. One reason why the Levitical priesthood was unable to bring about perfection, according to Hebrews, was that those who ministered were mortal, unable to continue their work forever. Their work never perfected those for whom it was sacrifices were offered. Since the priests who made such offerings were always subject to death the priesthood of Aaron would never be the tool through which God brought about complete atonement and shalom for His people. “The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office” (Heb. 7:23).
In contrast, “ [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Heb. 7:24, emphasis added). The term used in this context is quite telling:
The adjective [aparabatos]…is susceptible of a variety of interpretations: “unchangeable” (KJV), “perpetual” (NEB), “indefectible” (F. F. Bruce), “inviolable” (Westcott), “Interminable” (Delitzsch) represent one line of exegesis, while “that cannot pass to another” (Erasmus), “that doth not pass from one to another” (Owen), intransmissible” (Hering, Teodorico), “inalienable” (Spicq, montefiore), “non-transferable” (Mofatt), “that needs no successor” (Phillips) represent another…In our view the appropriateness of the term, is enhanced by it’s ambivalence: the priesthood of Christ does not pass to another precisely because it is a perpetual priesthood.[1]
The Christians comfort in times of trouble is Christ’s High priestly function (Rom. 8:34).
Repeated offerings vs. Once for all. In numerous places in Leviticus God commands the Israelites to practice all the offerings and ordinances that He has prescribed. A clear example would be Lev. 16:34. The Lord tells Moses, “And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.” What God had commanded was never to be taken lightly. The focus here is on the repeated nature of the sacrifices. Hebrews 10:3 notes that the fact that the worshiper was to present these sacrifices over and over, and that the high priest was to offer these very sacrifices again and again on Yom Kippur demonstrated that these were reminders not of salvation but of their sin, the very thing that kept God at a distance.[2]
In contrast with this Christ offered up Himself once for all time. Since Christ was the lamb without blemish, and His sacrifice actually saves. “He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people…” (Heb 7:27). To believe that Christ’s sacrifice needed to be offered over and again, like the sacrifices of old, would be to slander the Son of God.
Christ’s atonement is once for all (Heb. 9:12, 26, 10:10) and thus sufficient; any other attempt at propitiating God’s righteous displeasure renders one without hope.
[1] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1977), 268-269.
[2] Hughes, echoing this thought states, “The people, on whose behalf the sacrifices were offered under the old system, thus had their sinfulness brought to their remembrance, as it were, every time the day of Atonement came around- not to mention the yet more frequent reminders afforded by the innumerable other offerings that were made from day to day. It was the Day of Atonement in particular on which their sinfulness and need of forgiveness and reconciliation were brought into focus on a national scale.” A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews , 391-392.
Salvation in the Gospel of John
“We can sum up this great salvation from John’s Gospel with the following steps: all that the Father has chosen to be his, he has given to the Son (17:6); and all whom he has given to the Son, the Son knows (10:4) and calls (10:3); and all whom he calls, know him (10:14) and recognize his voice (10:4-5) and come to him (6:37) and follow him (10:27); and the sun lays down his life for the sheep (10:11, 15); and to all for whom he dies he gives eternal life (10:28) and keeps them in the Father’s word (17:6), so that none is lost (6:39) or snatched out of his hand (10:28), but is raised up at the last day (6:39) to glorify the Son forever (17:10). This is why the Father has pleasure in election. It is indestructible foundation for an infallible salvation that redounds in the end to the glory of the Father and the Son.” – John Piper, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God, 140
A Better Priest: Part 4
Now that we’ve taken a brief look at some of the parallels between Christ’s work as mediator and the OT Levitical priesthood, we’ll move on to the contrasts.
Hebrews, in an impassioned exhortation to believers to stand firm in their Christian confession, presents us with the greatest degree of contrast between the Old and New Covenants. It would be impossible to plumb the depths of the high Christology in the pages of this challenging epistle. While we don’t know with certainty the identity of the author, we do know two things primarily dominate the his mind, the Old Testament and Christ. The Lord Jesus is seen as the interpretive lens through which all of the Old Testament coheres and ultimately points. Here we’ll briefly highlight 2 of the most notable differences between the mediatorial services of the Old Covenant and the sacrifice and high priesthood of Christ Jesus, the Son (Heb. 1:1).
Sinless Christ vs. sinful priests. One stark contrast between the Levitical priesthood and Christ’s priesthood is the very nature of those who served their respective people in each age. Entrance into God’s holy presence is not accessible to Aaron and those who followed him simply because they were priests, “[e]laborate preparations were needed before the high priest could be considered fit to appear before God at the mercy seat.”[1] In Lev. 16:6 we find “Aaron … offer[ing] the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house.” Aaron, and all other priests after him, needed to offer sacrifices for themselves because they too were in need of reconciliation and atonement. They too bore the blemish of sin.
Every provision was made available to the priests in order that they would not violate God’s holiness boundary and die. When the high priest entered into the Most Holy Place in order to present his sacrifices he was to follow very careful instructions.
To protect himself from the wrath of God, the high priest has to prepare a censer full of hot charcoal taken from the altar of burnt offerings in the outer court and put in it fine incense. The smoke was to cover the mercy seat, so that the high priest would not be killed.[2]
The message was quite straightforward: No one can see God and live. Provisions have been made…do not violate them!
In contrast with these imperfect priests, Christ “has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself” (Heb 7:27). The epistle to the Hebrews several times draws a hard distinction on this issue; Christ can effectively make atonement for His people because He doesn’t draw from a polluted stream, so to speak. Christ is the only one in this position, thus only He is suited for this lofty work (cf. Heb. 4:15, 7:26).
Aaron vs. Melchizedek. Also, Christ’s Priesthood is seen as a superior Priesthood to the one that is based upon Aaronic lineage. In the Mosaic covenant all priests were selected from Aarons family, no one could simply assert their influence thus appointing themselves to the priesthood. This is stated in Ex. 28:1, “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” The author of Hebrews then jumps to Psalm 110 where God speaks of another Priesthood, one after the order of Melchizedek. The author’s argument for the superior nature of Christ’s Priesthood is this: Upon encountering Melchizedek Abraham pays to this King-priest a tenth of all that he had. In response Melchizedek blesses Abraham. Obviously Levi (the tribe through which the old covenant priests were chosen) is subject to his father Abraham, yet Abraham acknowledged the authority and superiority of Melchizedek. A further link in the author’s chain of an argument is said in this manner, “It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior.”
Now a crucial question is raised: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?” (7:11). Christ is presented as a priest after this order, a Priesthood which God has established with an oath, something He never did for the Aaronic Priesthood (an argument fully developed in Hebrews chapter 7).
A Better Priest: Part 3
Let’s continue with the parallels between the mediatorial work of the Old Testament priests and the work of Jesus Christ.
Blood Atonement. God’s holiness is absolute. No sinful creature can enter into His presence and live. The demand of divine justice is death. “[f]or the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). God warned both Adam and Eve in the garden that the penalty of disobedience and rebellion was separation from the ultimate source of life (Gen. 2:16-17). Leviticus 17:11 makes the point that the blood of the sacrificed animal represents its life, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”[1] By the offering of the sacrifice the sins of the people were (temporarily) dealt with. This occurred on the solemn Day of Atonement, otherwise known as Yom Kippur. “The verb kipper (as in Yom Kippur) …seems to derive from a concrete notion of rubbing clean. In the cultic lexicon, it has the more abstract-indeed, theological- sense of effecting atonement.”[2] R. Laird Harris points out that, “[b]lood…plays the major role in the sacrificial system…”[3] Elsewhere, in Lev. 16:14, we see the presentation of the blood upon the atonement cover (also called the mercy seat) as the evidence that the appointed substitute had been executed. In fact the belief in blood atonement was so common in both Israelite and mid-east culture that the author of Hebrews mentions it in passing without even attempting to support it (Heb. 9:22).
The requirement of a “blemishless” sacrifice. As mentioned earlier, God demands that a sacrifice be presented to atone, and cover over, sin. But God does not accept just any sacrifice. His lofty standards require a perfect sacrifice. We find in both Lev.4:3 and 16:11 that the sin offering must be without blemish or defect. The sacrificial substitute represents the worshipper. To offer a sacrifice with imperfections would be a blight against the character of God. If God were to accept a less-than-perfect sacrifice it would indicate a horrible reality regarding His moral nature, for how can a less than absolutely holy and pure God stand as the ultimate standard of all morality? Thus God, acting in perfect accord with His divine nature, commands perfection. We also find this principle repeated in the New Testament. Christ is spoken of as pure and sinless, and notably is likened to a spotless lamb (1 Pet. 2:22, 1 Jn 3:5, Heb. 4:15, 9:13-14).
As one can easily notice by even a cursory reading of Leviticus, all the sacrifices of life were performed on a substitute, not the worshiper themselves. Goats, Bulls and lambs were offered to God. As always, God provides a substitute.
The worshiper lays his hand on the animal, signifying his identification with it. Then he kills the animal at the entrance into the courtyard, signifying that the animal dies as a substitute for the worshiper.[4]
But how can an animal atone for what we have done?
Imputation of guilt. In Leviticus chapter 16 the priest places his hands on the head of the sin-offering. In the first few chapters of Leviticus the priest places only one hand on the offering’s head, yet, in striking contrast, on the Day of Atonement in chapter 16 we explicitly find a description of the priest placing both his hands on the substitute’s head. In confessing the sins of the people over the animal (a goat in this case) he “put[s] them on the head of the goat.” The imagery here is as if the sins of Israel were a physical load borne by the scapegoat (“For Azazel”). “The passing of the sins onto the scapegoat was a demonstrative act stressing the reality of sin almost like a physical entity”[5] This transferring of guilt was the symbolic imputation of sin. In the New Covenant Scriptures it is Christ Jesus that was “made… sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and dies as the ultimate substitute for His people.
[1] All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
[2] Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2004), 612. Parenthetical statement added.
[3] R. Laird Harris, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 2: Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 395.
[4] The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, 44.
[5] Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 764.
A Better Priest: Part 1
If there’s ever been a misunderstood book of the Bible it would have to be the third book of the Torah, the book of Leviticus. Unfortunately saying it’s “misunderstood” is not really presenting the case as it is, for in the American Church today Leviticus is more than misunderstood, for intents and purposes it’s totally ignored. In conversations with others I’ve repeatedly heard the admission that Leviticus was the nail in the coffin to their “read the Bible in a year” plan. The second half of Exodus was rough enough, but Leviticus? Who wants to read about ripping the wings off a turtledove and all of that?
I can understand their plight.
The book of Hebrews starts off by stating that in past times God spoke through the Prophets in many different ways (1:1). Noticeably one of the OT books Hebrews most interacts with, Leviticus, repeatedly claims direct divine discourse.
No other book in the Bible affirms divine inspiration so frequently as Leviticus. Under the heading of the verb to speak (dibber) alone, the concordance lists no less than thirty-eight occurrences of the statement that Jehovah spoke to Moses or to Aaron. (Gleason Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament: Revised and Expanded [Chicago: Moody Press, 1994], 258.)
As a result of the understandable frustration with Leviticus many in the Church are ignorant of the foundational teachings about the God-ordained form of worship for the OT. Yet, as Christians, isn’t our faith centered in the confession that God has reconciled himself to a fallen humanity by the sacrifice of His unique Son? Sacrifices, both how God ordains they’re made and what they stand for, should be of great importance to the believer living this side of the cross.
Due to this lack of understanding about the OT sacrifical system we may find ourselves in an interpretative bind when encountering the book of Hebrews. For anyone who’s skimmed book the reason should be obvious: The author clearly presupposes that his audience was familiar with, and understood, the Levitical system. And, as expected, because of this fact the epistle to the Hebrews is by and large a closed book in the American evangelical Church.
So at the start of this series, I’d like to quickly chart our course. You’ll have a better understanding of what’s going on if a general overview is provided. In outline format, the goals of this series are twofold:
- To analyze both parallels and contrasts between the Levitical system and the Priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as well as to highlight the perfection and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, and to affirm the believer’s peace and unity with the Father because of Christ’s work in both its past and continuing functions.
- To clarify how the Old Testament types find their fulfillment in Christ, thus demonstrating the continuity regarding the means of salvation in both the Old and New Covenant administrations.
In the next part we’ll discuss some of the parallels between the OT priests and the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Marriage = (A Response)
Perhaps you’ve seen the poster pictured above in your journeys across the interwebs. It’s a quasi-comical statement about the “foolishness” of Biblical marriage. The point is clear, while many (or most) Christians strongly advocate a definition of marriage that sees it as a lifetime covenantal union between one man and one woman, there is a “clear” discrepancy between their “traditional” position and the Book from which they’re supposedly basing that view. My friend Ra McLaughlin, webmaster and Vice President of Curriculum and Web Delivery at Third Millennium Ministries, has given me permission to repost his response to this poster on Facebook. His thoughts are clear, detailed, and yet concise:
Biblical law doesn’t require women to marry their rapists (cf. Ex. 22:17). The bride price to be paid by rapists was a sort of reverse dowry, not payment for “property.” It was owed whether or not the woman married the man. In the only example of rape and subsequent attempted marriage that I can think of at the moment, the woman’s family chose to murder the rapist and his people rather than give her as a bride (Gen. 34).
The Bible also doesn’t require the stoning of women that couldn’t prove their virginity (unless otherwise stated, legal penalties are maximum not mandatory; cf. Joseph’s treatment of Mary in Matt. 1:19). Similarly, levirate marriage was not a requirement; it was assumed that the women would want an heir, but it wasn’t a necessary arrangement (cf. Deut. 25:7).
Sexual submission is mutual (the husband must also submit to his wife; cf. 1 Cor. 7:4).
Giving “slaves” as wives was part and parcel of the whole concept of arranged marriages. As part of the household, slaves and servants were under the authority of the patriarch, like his own children. So, it was the patriarch’s obligation to arrange their marriages as well as those of his own children. Marriage was seen as a blessing, and arranged marriages were standard for the surrounding cultures, as well. When romantic love was present, parents often arranged marriages according to the desires of their children (e.g., Jdg. 14:2).
Slaves could be acquired as booty in war, and women acquired in this manner could be married. This was probably due to the fact that they were under the authority of the one that captured them. Captured slaves were much more like chattel slaves, whereas Israelite slaves were much more like contracted servants. Even so, chattel slaves were to be treated as human beings and part of the household. Slavery akin to what we saw in American history wasn’t tolerated, or even practiced as far as I can tell. The subjugation of those captured in war was part of God’s curse on them for their sins against him (idolatry) and against others (you’ve seen Apocalypto?). It was supposed to be a more lenient sentence than the other option: death.
Polygamy was tolerated (though not endorsed or promoted, as per Gen. 2; 1 Tim. 3:2,12; Tit. 1:6). There are a number of passages in which multiple wives appear to be given to men as blessings from God, though probably the “blessing” aspect in these passages is the fact that these many wives produced many children. King Solomon is notorious for his 700 wives and 300 concubines — in violation of biblical law (Deut. 17:17), though the prohibition probably pertains especially to pagan wives that might lead the king’s “heart astray” into idolatry. Other odd arrangements, such as servants bearing children for their mistresses, were intended to provide heirs to barren women through surrogates, and not to give men greater romantic license.
At-will divorce/remarriage, polygamy, etc. were tolerated and regulated, but not endorsed (Matt. 18:8-9). Real estate in the Promised Land was inherited by sons, unless there were none (cf. Num. 27), so there were a number of means provided to women by which they could secure an inheritance for their children (e.g., levirate marriage). The goal wasn’t to treat women like chattel, but to provide them with legal and financial relief. Parents also had the freedom to leave wealth to their daughters if they desired.
In summary, yes, strange marriage practices were tolerated and regulated in the Old Testament, as accommodations to hard-hearted and even barbaric cultures. But as the New Testament makes clear, the ideal standard was always one man with one woman in a mutually respectful and loving relationship. Any authority men had over women was to be used to serve and honor them, not to control them. It was balanced not only by the obligation men had to use the authority well, but also by the mutuality of submission required in the relationship (cf. (cf. Eph. 5:21-33).
Treating the Old Testament Like An Ugly Tie
Recently Dr. Mark Garcia brought to my attention this quote (located here). I knew it needed a wider audience.
Modern Christians are now almost entirely non-Jewish in background. This creates a strong tendency to see in Jesus’ interaction with the Judaisms of his day a critique of the content of their scriptures rather than an argument over scripture’s true governing center. This critical attitude of Jesus is then identified with the New Testament as such. This Second Testament becomes the developmental culmination of and correction of the Old Testament, its religion, its ethic, its God. In other words, what began as a struggle between differing sorts of Jews over what constitutes the governing heart of the only scriptures they know has become for a church now Gentile a warrant for reading two Testaments developmentally and indpendently.
But the most serious problem involves the Christian understanding of God himself. It is not just that the Old Testament has become someone else’s religion en route to Christianity; rather, a criticism of Jewish appropriation of the scriptures, made by one within their own frame of reference, has become a criticism of God himself as depicted there, to be pitted against ‘the God revealed in Christ.’ The results are striking. We have a New Testament focused on Jesus but not on God, a Jesus who reveals a new religion if not a new divinity, and an Old Testament with only historical, descriptive, or background–but not theological or normative or abiding–contours. Instead of being a correlative expression, ‘He is risen’ replaces ‘the God of Israel raised him from the dead.’ Jesus relates not to the God of the scriptures, with an identity provided there, but to a private God, known somehow else. And so Christians struggle at present to give this God a name: Godself, Creator, Mother/Father, Mother. Ironically, what became an unutterable name in Israel out of reverence has become unutterable in the New Israel because the One who raised Jesus from the dead no longer seems to be riveted to the scriptures the church inherited as a gift. The gift has proven awkward: a bad tie from a close relative at Christmas.” (Christopher R. Seitz,Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness, 4-5)
Don’t fall into this trap. Read the Old Testament, and read it as Scripture.
Cosmic Christ, Cosmic King
“The kingship of Israel, with its Davidic line, is…presented in terms of a Spirit-anointed king charged with subduing and defeating the enemies of the people of God (1 Sam. 8:19-20). Indeed, the removal of the Israelite kingship from Saul takes place precisely because Saul refuses to destroy utterly the enemies of Yahweh (1 Samuel 15), resulting in the loss of Saul’s monarchy and the anointing of the Spirit of God, both transferred instead to the house of David (1 Sam. 16:1-3, 12-14). Indeed, as soon as David receives the anointing of oil by the prophet Samuel, he is anointed with the Spirit (1 Sam. 16:13), and immediately David as the “anointed one” leads the nation in the defeat of the Philistine attackers (1 Sam. 17:20-58), an activity that Saul recognizes as inherently kingly (1 Sam. 18:6-9). The definition of Jesus’ messianic identity as the “anointed one,” the bearer of the Spirit (Luke 4:18-19), is therefore set within this context of the anointed warrior-king.
This means that, contra dispensationalist traditionalism, there is no dichotomy between the “offer of the Kingdom” and the “forgiveness of sins,” as though the forgiveness of sins can be anything other than a Kingdom act. Instead, in the Gospel of Luke, for example, messianic salvation is defined in terms of Jesus’ promised Davidic kingship (1:32-33); the forgiveness of sins (1:50, 72, 77); the defeat of all enemies (1:51, 71); the crushing of political pretenders-to-the-throne (1:52); the provision of material blessings (1:53); the covenant restoration of national promises to Israel (1:54-55); the redemption of the Gentile nations (1:79; 2:32); and the monarchial anointing of the Spirit (4:18). In Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, salvation is a Kingdom activity whereby the Second Adam, the Son of David, displays His anointing by God and His faithful obedience to His mandate as King by protecting the created order, crushing the head of the ultimate enemy of the Kingdom, the Serpent (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9). The dispensing of the Spirit on those united to Him in faith is possible only because of union with the messianic King who is declared to be the Son of God (Gal. 4:4-7). It is this Christocentric focus of salvation that ties the salvation of human beings to the motif of the Kingdom of God and to the broader aspects of cosmic salvation. The defeat of Satan by the man Christ Jesus is pictured by the apostle John as the establishment of the Kingdom (Rev. 12:10; also John 12:31; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8). The cosmic extent of salvation is seen as the Second Adam offers up to the Father a created order in which He has subdued every enemy (1 Cor. 15:24-26), and there is nothing unclean in the garden over which He rules (Rev. 21:1-8). Thus, salvation is portrayed in the New Testament as more than simply the salvation of so many individual souls. Redemption is the transfer from the satanic kingdom to the eschatological Kingdom that God the Father has prepared for His Messiah (Col. 1:13), a transfer that is by definition a violent act of subduing “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:3-4, NIV) or “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:1-7).” – Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective
Paul’s Second Exodus
One great New Testament theme is that of the Second Exodus. Christ is the new and greater Moses, delivering his people from a greater captor than Pharoah, to a greater Promised Land than Canaan. The Second Exodus theme can be found all over the pages of the New Testament. In light of this, here is N.T. Wright’s exciting reading of Romans 6-8 in his work Paul In Fresh Perspective:
…Paul believes that the new Exodus has been launched through the work of Jesus. When he speaks in 1 Corinthians 10 of ’our ancestors’ being ‘baptized into Moses’ and so forth, clearly indicating the parallel between being baptized into the Messiah, he seems to be envisaging Jesus’s death as the moment of new Exodus, an impression confirmed, if somewhat kaleidoscopically in terms of theme, by his almost casual reference to the Messiah as the Paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). This is then filled out by his large-scale exposition, in Romans 6-8, of the entire Exodus theme as applied to the people of God in Christ. To recapitulate the point: in Romans 6 God’s people come through the waters which mean that they are delivered from slavery into freedom; in Romans 7:1-8:11 they come to Sinai only to discover that, though the Torah cannot give the life it promised, God has done it; with the promise of resurrection before them, they are then launched onto the journey of present Christian life, being led by the Spirit through the wilderness and home to the promised land which is the renewal of all creation (8:12-30). This is Paul’s version of the retold Exodus story… (Paul In Fresh Perspective, 138)
Wright is drawing from the approach of Richard Hays in his seminal Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.
Jesus as the New Moses
One of the most interesting things about Matthew’s Gospel is it’s Old Testament links. More so than all the other Gospels, Matthew is concerned with tying Jesus together with the story of Israel. Like the Epistle to the Hebrews, in order for Matthew to demonstrate that Israel’s hope is to be found in Jesus- that is to say that the climax of Israel’s history had come- he needed his readers to know that Jesus is superior to the leaders and institutions of the Old Covenant. This isn’t a matter of bad vs good (heaven forbid!). Matthew makes a good-better argument.
One claim that Matthew makes is Jesus is the new Moses, leading a a new Exodus. Often this isn’t picked up by interpreters because Matthew doesn’t come right out and say it. The claim lies under the surface, acting as the substructure of much of what’s said. Commentators have recognized that Matthew organized his Gospel according to a 7 point outline. There’s the beginning (1) and the end (7), and couched in the middle is the substance of Matthew’s account: The Five Books of Jesus (2-6), centered around Christ’s five great discourses or speeches (1: chs. 5–7; 2: ch. 10; 3: ch. 13; 4: ch. 18; 5: chs. 24–25). One outline would look like this:
- The Genealogy and Preparation for Jesus Ministry (chs. 1–4)
- Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee (4:12—14:12)
- Jesus’ Withdrawals from Galilee (14:13—17:20)
- Jesus’ Last Ministry in Galilee (17:22—18:35)
- Jesus’ Ministry in Judea and Perea (chs. 19–20)
- Passion Week (chs. 21–27)
- The Resurrection (ch. 28)
The concluding chapters of Deuteronomy (31 -34) contained Moses’ final blessing, he’s going up the mountain to see the land which the people would possess, and his eventual death.
Matthew, I suggest, had the entire scene in mind as he arranged his material into its eventual form. The theme of the whole passage in Deuteronomy is thoroughly germane to the complex scene of [Matthew's] first chapter: Israel has indeed fallen into the curse of exile because of her sins, and now the story of Abraham’s people is to be brought back on course by a new exodus, by the renewal of the covenant. As a result, Israel is again faced with a choice. Life or death, curse or blessing; the house on the rock or sand; the wise or the foolish maidens; the sheep or goats. Jesus, like Moses, goes to his death with the promises and warnings still ringing in the people’s ears. After his resurrection, Jesus, like Moses, goes up the mountain and departs from his people, leaving them with the commission to go in and possess the land, that is, the entire world (28:16 – 20). And, if my suggestion is correct, Matthew has woven this covenant choice into the very structure of his gospel, portraying it as a choice set before his contemporaries by Jesus, and thereby himself setting the same choice before the church of his own day. There is a way by which Israel can be rescued from her exile, can receive the promised forgiveness of sins rather than the ultimate curse. It is the way of following Jesus. Those who come by this way are not a new Israel, as though created suddenly from nothing. They are the true descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (NTPG, 388)
The Covenantal Context of Redemption
Here’s Lane Tipton again on the covenantal context of redemption:
For more on a theology of covenant see:
One doesn’t need to agree with everything said in these books to benefit greatly.
Finally, here’s one I’m very excited about:
Redemption Accomplished and Redemption Applied
Here’s a fantastic summary of the gospel from Dr. Lane Tipton of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia.
For more on this, see the now classic work by John Murray:
Should We Avoid Theological Controversy?
“Can controversial teachings nurture Christ likeness? Before you answer this question, ask another one: are there any significant biblical teachings that have not been controversial? I cannot think of even one, let alone the number we all need for the daily nurture of faith. If this is true, then we have no choice but to seek our food in the markets of controversy. We need not stay there. We can go home and feast if the day has been well spent. But we must buy there. As much as we would like, we do not have the luxury of living in a world where the most nourishing truths are unopposed. If we think we can suspend judgment on all that is controversial and feeding our souls only on what is not, we are living a dreamworld. There is nothing left. The reason any of us thinks we can stand alone on truths that are noncontroversial is because we do not know our history or the diversity of the professing church. Besides that, would we really want to give to the devil the right to determine our spiritual menu by refusing to eat any teaching over which he can cause controversy?“
-John Piper, The Pleasures of God, 121
There is also an audio format of the book available.
