Category Archives: Jesus Christ
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.
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.
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
Jesus Flunks Evangelism 101
The more I’ve been thinking about it, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that Jesus would have failed 9 out of 10 evangelism courses in America. His approach was clear, direct, and take-no-prisoners. He knew when to be gentle and when to confront (see John 4 for an excellent example of Jesus doing a little of both). Here are a couple of modern scenarios I think show how Jesus would be graded in many evangelism courses today.
Scenario 1: Mark 10:17-22
Rich Young Ruler: “Jesus, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Does Jesus “seal the deal” and get him to “raise his hand”, or “walk down an aisle”? (You know what I mean).
Jesus: “Here’s an idea, sell everything you’ve built your identity on, and then we’ll talk.”
Jesus’ grade in most evangelism classes: 55
Scenario 2: Luke 9:18-26
Jesus gathers a large crowd after “ministering to their felt needs.” He has them on the edge of their proverbial seats, waiting for his “encouraging message.”
Crowd: “Shhhhh, Jesus is about to speak…I can’t wait to be inspired.”
Jesus: “Ahem, now that I have your attention, you guys might want to know that unless you take a big ‘ol bite of my flesh and take a solid swig of the good stuff running through my veins…uh yeah, you’re going to die in your sins.”
Crowd: “Did he just say that!? Brother’s flippin.” (John 6:56-60)
Jesus’ evangelism grade: “Please see me after class.”
Scenario 3: Luke 9:18-26
Jesus: “Hey guys, what’s the skinny on the street? What are others saying about me?”
Peter: “People are throwing out all kinds of stuff out there.”
Jesus: “But what about you?”
Peter: “You? You’re the man, David’s son, the Messiah. You’re gonna woop-up on those Romans and show them who’s really in charge.”
Jesus: “Don’t go around telling people that. Truth is, I’m not going to be “opening up a can” on anyone. If anything, my enemies are going to open up a can on me. And here’s the kicker. If you’re going to be my peeps, prepare to have to “open a can” on yourself daily. See, how those Romans nailed up your friends over there. Yeah, that’s going to be the kind of life you live every day. And if that bothers you and y’all break out on me, when the time comes I’ll return the favor with the quickness when my Dad and his boys show up to “handle things.”
Peter: [Grumbling under his breath…not caught by Luke] “Not exactly your ‘best life now’.”
Test Grade: “Needs improvement. Doesn’t get along well with others.”
Here is a short list of helpful book on evangelism.
A Million-Dollar “Challenge”?
A friend of mine brought this Youtube clip to my attention. It’s a “challenge” to orthodox Christianity’s view of Jesus as one person with two natures (human and divine). The person who created this clip claims that one simple question is enough to debunk Christianity. What’s the question? Watch this 1:40 clip and see for yourself:
Here are my thoughts:
This is actually a ridiculous “challenge.” Contrary, to the underlying assumption of this video, deception is not essential to our human nature. Working from within a biblical Framework (as I reject a humanistic framework), before the fall Adam and Eve were fully human, and yet did not lie. Human beings, in the new Heavens and Earth, will be completely, fully, and gloriously human, and yet will never lie or be subject to the temptation to lie. Christ, as the second and final Adam, was (and is) the perfect human being who lived a life of perfect covenant obedience.
Another important, but ignored point in this video, is the slippery meaning of the word “can,” as in Can Jesus lie? They’re asking whether Jesus “had the ability” to lie in his human nature. But there are different sorts of ability. The 2 types relevant here are moral ability and physical ability. As a human being, did Jesus have the physical ability to move his lips and say something untrue? Of course. And no thinking Christian would ever say otherwise. He wasn’t like Jim Carrey in the movie Liar, Liar. The relevant question is whether Jesus had the moral ability to lie, and there the answer is no. But, unlike most people’s misunderstanding, this is perfectly consistent with being a human being that is fully, perfectly, and utterly devoted to God (see comments above). There is nothing “artificial” about a relationship in which a husband never ever lies to his wife. It’s the mark of a flourishing relationship.
So, Jesus’ physical ability to lie (the ability to move his lips and say those words) affirms his full humanity, and his moral freedom from uttering deceptive words highlights that he is perfectly, not merely, human.
How did Jesus View His Ministry?
How did Jesus view his own relationship between his ministry and the Old Testament story of Israel leading up to him? R. T. France, in his Jesus and the Old Testament, summarizes his answer:
Jesus’ types are drawn from a wide range of aspects of Israel seen in the Old Testament; they are not restricted to any one period or any single class. Thus he uses persons in the Old Testament as types of himself (David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jonah) or of John the Baptist (Elijah); he refers to Old Testament institutions as types of himself and his work (the priesthood and the covenant); he sees in the experiences of Israel foreshadowing of his own; he finds the hopes of Israel fulfilled in himself and his disciples as assuming the status of Israel; in Israel’s deliverance by God he sees a type of the gathering of men into his church, while the disasters of Israel are foreshadowings of the imminent punishment of those who reject him,whose unbelief is prefigured in the wicked in Israel and even, in two instances in the arrogance the Gentile nations.
In all these aspects of the Old Testament people of God Jesus sees foreshadowing self himself and his work, with its results in the opposition and consequent rejection of the majority of the Jews, while the true Israel is now to be found in the new Christian community. Thus in his coming the history of Israel has reached it’s decisive point. The whole of the Old Testament is gathered up in him. He himself embodies in his own person the status and destiny of Israel, and in the community of those who belong to him that status and destiny are to be fulfilled, no longer in the nation as such.
- R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 75-76.
For more, see:
Was Jesus Abandoned at the Cross?
James R. White gives his answer:
“The words of Jesus in Matthew 27:46 ["My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"] have come in for many kinds of interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have compromised the Bible’s teachings on the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father was never separated from or abandoned the Son. This truth is clear from many sources. Jesus uses the second person when speaking to the Father- “Why have You forsaken Me?” rather than “why did He forsake Me?” as if the Father is no longer present. Immediately on the heels of this statement Jesus speaks to the Father (“Father, into your hands…”), showing no sense of separation. Whatever else Jesus was saying, He was not saying that, at the very time of his ultimate obedience to the Father, the Father abandoned Him. Rather, it seems much more logical to see this as a quotation of Psalm 22 that is meant to call all of that Psalm, which would include the victory of v. 19ff, as well as verse 24, which states, “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has he hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”
James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, 217.
Christ’s Development Through Obedience
On the growth of Christ:
As Jesus grew as a man, his human capacities developed, and with them the pressure of temptation (Lk. 2:52) In that context he developed in obedience, not from imperfect to perfect, but from infancy to maturity. When he cried on the cross “it is finished” (Jn. 19:30, see also 17:4) and with royal dignity committed his spirit into the hands of his Father, he was the first person to have lived a life of perfect obedience and sanctification. In his resurrection his sanctified human life was divinely transformed into what New Testament calls “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16). Because this has taken place first in Christ our representative, it is possible for it to take place also in us through the Spirit. Christ himself is the only adequate resource we have for the development of sanctification in our own lives. (Sinclair Ferguson, Christian Spirituality)
The Importance of the Incarnation
Too often Christians fall into the trap of de-emphasizing the humanity of Jesus. We need to be very careful about this, because it was this type of error that posed such a threat to the early church. One branch of Gnosticism, docetism, claimed that Jesus was not truly a flesh and blood human being. The docetists claimed that Jesus only seemed to be a physical being (the Greek word dokeo means “I seem”). An early form of docetism is the type of error that the apostle John warned against when he wrote, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:2-3 ESV).
We don’t find a whole lot of full-blown docetists these days, but I have run into a number of functional docetists over the years. Such people act as if Jesus floated above the ground, always an inch or two from touching the dirty, sandy roads of Galilee. The humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is absolutely essential to understanding his work as our savior (for more, see my entries In the Flesh part 1, part 2). God had a “plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10). And how was this to be accomplished? “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4). In the fullness of time, God placed his Son the throne of Judah.
In Gen. 49, Jacob blesses his son Judah and says, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” This is linked to the promise of Genesis 3:15, where the seed of the women is promised to crush the head of the serpent. That is to say that the coming seed of the woman whom we are introduced to in Gen. 3:15 we later learn (in Gen. 49) will come through Judah’s line (later filtered through David). Taking this all into consideration, I normally stress the following points to my students:
- this is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ
- the idea of the Messiah who will redeem from the curse is found early on in the Bible, not something that is mentioned only later in Scripture (in the Prophets or something of that nature), and
- in the redemptive plan of God, salvation was always intended to be won by a human being. Since the Fall happened because of the rebellion of a human being, so the redemption of all creation was to be won by the obedience of a human being.
For more on the incarnation, person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ see,
