Biblical Studies

...now browsing by category

 

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Obedience

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

As noted previously, Israel’s obedience to the covenant stipulations bookends this book. The importance of obedience is stressed in the body of the book through examples of Israel’s disobedience (e.g., Achan, the Gibeonites).

If Israel was to live out its purpose for living in the land—showing the nations what good and wise dominion of the earth looked like—it had to live in obedience to the covenant.

Ominously, Joshua closes the book by telling the people that they will not be able to serve the Lord (Josh. 24:19).

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Covenant

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

Because the promises God kept were covenant promises, the covenant is a theme in Joshua.

The covenant theme also appears in the opening and closing of the book. In both places Israel is exhorted to keep the Mosaic Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant is emphasized in chapter 3 with the crossing of the Jordan and in chapter 8 with the renewal of the covenant.

Joshua, Fulfilled Promises, and the Abrahamic Covenant

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

One reader sent an e-mail in response to the post on the fulfillment of God’s promises: “You should deal . . . with whether or not that part of the Abrahamic covenant is still in force if Joshua says the land was given to the people.”

This actually raises a fairly big issue within Joshua itself. Some passages in Joshua seem to say that the entire land had been conquered (Josh 10:40-42; 11:16-23; 21:43-45). Other passages seem to say that there was more land to conquer (Josh 13:1; 18:3).

This seeming discrepancy should not be blown out of proportion. For instance, Joshua 11:23 reads, “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses,” immediately after noting that there remained land to conquer in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh 11:22).

It is important to remember exactly what God spoke when he promised the land to Moses (Josh 11:21; 21:45). In Deuteronomy 7:22, God said, “The LORD your God will drive out these nations before you little by little. You will not be able to destroy them all at once; otherwise, the wild animals will become too numerous for you” (HCSB).

In other words, God had given to Israel the land as a whole, but, just as he had said, there still remained land to conquer little by little: the border lands and pocks of resistance within each tribe’s territory.

As to the Abrahamic covenant being fully fulfilled, this becomes more of an issue in 1 Kings 4:20-21. That passages says Solomon ruled all the land by the Abrahamic Covenant according to the specified boundries (Gen. 15:18). It is important to note, however that this land was promised to Israel as an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). That was not fulfilled either in Joshua’s day or in Solomon’s.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – God’s Promises

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

The reception of the land both in general and in many particulars was the fulfillment of promises that God had made to the patriarchs and to the nation. The fulfillment of these promises is especially noted in Joshua 21:43-45: “Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the LORD had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua – Land

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Land is the key theme of Joshua. The book opens with God commanding Joshua to lead the people across the Jordan in the land that he is going to give them. The body of the book focuses on the conquest and allocation of the land.

The roots of this theme reach back to the dominion blessing of Genesis 1:26-28. The ability to carry out dominion over the earth as intended by God was lost apart from redemption.

The promise of land was given to the Israelites as a part of God’s redemptive plan. Like the original dominion blessing, the promised land was given by God, but the recipients were to act on the gift to bring it to fruition.

Joshua shows the dominion blessing in the context of the Fall. The land must be conquered from human enemies who have corrupted the land with their sin. The sinners are to be exterminated from the land, and God’s people are to live in the land in accordance to God’s covenant regulations. In this way the nations will be able to see what a land under righteous dominion looks like.

Thoughts on the Theology of Joshua

Monday, January 19th, 2009

Theme: God’s people must exercise good and wise dominion over the land that God promised and gave them by exterminating God’s enemies and by living in obedience to God’s covenant.

Place in Redemptive History: Joshua advances the story of God’s plan of redemption by telling of the fulfillment of aspects of the land promise to Abraham and his seed. The land promise gave God’s people the space to live out the Dominion Blessing in a fallen world.

The Consecration of the Priests

Monday, December 29th, 2008

After the description of the priest’s garments, the consecration ritual for the priests is provided (Ex. 29). The opening verses set out the supplies that will be used in ceremonies described later in the chapter (Ex. 29:1-3). Next Aaron and his sons were to be washed, clothed, and anointed (Ex. 29:4-9). The washing indicates the need for cleansing before being invested with “holy garments” (Ex. 28:2). The garments are listed (calling to mind briefly the significance of each raised by the previous chapter). The anointing with oil is the symbol of the ordination.

A series of sacrifices follow the washing, investing, and anointing. The first offering was to be a sin/purification offering (Ex. 29:10-14).* This sacrifice was offered to atone for sins committed when one strayed from the commandments of God.** Next Moses was to offer a ram as a burn offering (Ex. 29:15-18). The burnt offering probably symbolized the entire consecration of the one who offered it since this sacrifice was entirely burned. The second ram, called the ram of ordination, was killed and it was used in two stages. First, its blood was applied to Aaron, his sons, and their garments (Ex 29:19-21). This sacrifice was to make the priests and their garments holy. Next this ram along with some bread was used as a wave offering. Wave offerings are often (though not always) connected with peace offerings, as is the case here (Ex. 29:28). There may be a progression here from the sin offering that provided purification from sin, to the burnt offering which symbolized entire consecration, to the ram of ordination which was used, along with the ordination, as part of a peace offering which may symbolize fellowship with God.

Exodus 29:29-30 turns the emphasis to the garments worn by the priests and it raises the matter of succession. Then follows a description of a meal from the ordination  ram (Ex. 29:31-34). This seems to indicate fellowship now made possible through atonement. This is followed by instructions for a seven day series of sin offerings and consecrations of the altar in connection with the ordination (Ex. 29:35-37).

The chapter closes by moving from the ordination to the work that the priests were ordained to do. They were to offer morning and evening sacrifices (Ex. 29:38-42). The great significance of the priesthood , and the tabernacle, and the sacrifices are found in the last verses of the chapter—Exodus 29:42-46. The tabernacle was the place where God would meet with his people. It was a holy place were this meeting could take place. Furthermore, not only would God meet with his people at the tabernacle, he would dwell among them, and he would be their God. And, in a theme that runs throughout Exodus, they would know that he is the Lord God.

*Milgrom argues for the translation “purification offering” on the grounds that (1) it is sometimes offered in cases other than to atone for sins (Lev. 8:15; 12:6; Num. 6:10) and (2) the term חַטָּאת is derived from the piel which means “to cleanse, expurgate, decontaminate.” Jacob Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” Vetus Testamentum 21 (April 1971): 237. Averbeck accepts Milgrom’s reasoning but offers the caution, “it should not be taken to mean that the sin offering only applied to issues of physical (amoral) uncleanness. According to Leviticus 4:2, for example, it applied to ‘any of the Lord’s commandments.’” “Sacrifices and Offerings,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 718.

**Roy Beacham argues that שְׁגָגָה or שׁגה, which are usually translated “unintentionally” or “sins unintentionally,” should simply be translated “in error” or “to go astray.” He argues that if the sin is unintentional there needs to be a qualifying phrase that makes that point. In arguing for this position Beacham notes it is impossible to commit the sin noted in Lev. 5:1 unintentionally. Texts outside the Pentateuch also confirm that sins designated as שְׁגָגָה or שׁגה are known sins (Psa. 119:118; Pro. 5:23; 19:27; 28:10; 1 Sam. 26:21).

Exodus 28—Priestly Garments

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

Exodus 28 provides details about the garments worn by those called to serve as priests. At the beginning and ending of the chapter (Exod. 28:2, 40), God says the garments are for glory and beauty. This highlights the importance of the priestly service.

Much of the description in this chapter simply emphasizes the glory and beauty of the garments. Some of the details, however, seem to carry special significance.

Like the chapters describing the tabernacle, this chapter also emphasizes the presence of God. Several times the priest is said to enter “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] (Exod. 28:12, 29, 30, 35, 38). Aaron and his sons are called out of Israel to mediate between God and the nation.

The first piece of priestly clothing described in depth is the ephod (Ex. 28:6-13). Stuart notes the fabric from which the ephod was to be made matched the colors used within the Holy Place and Holy of Holies. He also notes the misuse of an ephod by Gideon. He surmises from these two facts that the ephod was a symbol of God’s presence among his people.

Exodus 28:9-12 speaks of stones with the names of the sons of Israel engraved on them. The priests bears the stones as memorials [זִכָּרֹן] before the Lord.

Thus the high priest is a mediator between God and the people. The ephod symbolizes God’s presence among the people as he moves among them wearing the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet yarns—the colors of God’s dwelling place. The stones on the shoulders of the ephod represent the people being brought into the presence of God. by the priest.

The next article of clothing, the breast-piece (Exod. 28:15-30), also emphasizes God’s presence (לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה occurs 3x in Ex. 28:29-30). The breast-piece also uses stones inscribed with the names of the sons of Israel to bring them before the Lord as a remembrance [זִכָּרֹן] (Exod. 28:29).

The breast-piece further indicates God’s presence with his people because it was used or God to render decisions [מִשְׁפָּט] from God for his people (Exod. 28:15, 30).

Exodus 28:31-35 deals with the priest’s robe. It is not clear if there is significance to the blue, the pomegranate, or the collar aside from the fact that the garments were to be made for glory and beauty. The section climaxes, however, with the need for bells on his robe as Aaron enters the holy place before the Lord so that he does not die. The words “holy place” [הַקֹּדֶשׁ] “before Yahweh” [לִפְנֵי־יְהוָה] and “not die” [וְלא יָמוּת] are key words. When someone comes before the Lord, he enters a holy place because God is holy. But for the gracious provision of God, those who enter are liable to die.

Holiness is a theme that runs throughout the chapter. God identifies the garments of the priest as “holy garments” (Exod. 28:2). The are a necessary part of his consecration to the priesthood [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] (Exod. 28:3, 41). These are the garments necessary for Aaron to enter the Holy Place (Exod. 28:29, 35, 43).

The emphasis on holiness climaxes in Exodus 28:36-38 which deal with the plate that goes on the front of the high priest’s turban. it reads “Holiness to the Lord” [קדשׁ ליהוה]. Holiness is a key word in this section. Because of the plate Aaron could bear the iniquity of the holy things [הקדשׁים] which the sons of Israel consecrated [יקדושׁו] as holy gifts [מתנת קדשׁיהם]. Aaron does this when he comes before the Lord [לפני יהוה]. The idea seems to be that the plate declared the high priest holy and therefore worthy of bearing the iniquity of the consecrated holy gifts, thus making these offerings acceptable to God.

Verses 39-43 wrap up the instructions about clothing for the priests. Once again, as at the beginning the clothing is said to be for glory and for beauty [לכבוד ולתפארת]. The passage also notes that they should be anointed [משׁח] as part the consecration [לְקַדְּשׁוֹ] for their office.

The passage closes by describing undergarments. It may seem odd to end this list of regulations with undergarments, but if the priests’ nakedness was exposed to God’s holy things, they would die. This likely has connections back to the shame Adam and Eve had over their nakedness after they sinned and the need for clothing. It also highlights the danger in unholy man coming into the presence of God.

In the Fall mankind was thrust from God’s presence. The Tabernacle regulations and these instructions for the priest’s garments show that God’s gracious restoration of his presence to his people is no light matter. Because of his holiness and their uncleanness, the penalty for sin—death—was an ever-present threat.

Bavinck on Matthew 24:34

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008

The preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse rests heavily on Matthew 24:34. Mathison says,

The key to understanding the entire discourse is found in verse 34, in which Jesus tells His disciples, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Jesus declares that his prophecy will be fulfilled before the generation to whim He is speaking passes away. In other words, the events of which he speaks in this passage will be fulfilled by A.D. 70, one generation from the date He made the pronouncement.”

Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 111.

There are a number of hard passages for the preterist within the discourse (see Mathison 112-15 for his explanation of them), but Matthew 24:34 is the most difficult for the non-preterist. Bavinck’s explanation of Matthew 24:34 makes good sense:

The words “this generation” (ἡ γενεα αὑτη, hē genea hautē) cannot be understood to mean the Jewish people, but undoubtedly refer to the generation then living. On the other hand, it is clear that the words ‘all these things’ (παντα τυατα, panta tauta) do not include the parousia itself but only refer to the signs that precede and announce it. For after predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs and his return and even the gathering of his elect by the angles, and therefore actually ending his eschatological discourse, Jesus proceeds in verse 32 to offer a practical application. Here he states that just as in the case of the fig tree the sprouting of the leaves announces the summer, so ‘all these things’ are signs that the end is near or that the Messiah is at the door. Here the expression panta tauta clearly refers to the signs of the coming parousia, not to the parousia itself, for else it would make no sense to say that when ‘these things’ occur, the end is ‘near.’ In verse 34 the words ‘all these things’ (panta tauta) have the same meaning. Jesus therefore does not say that his parousia will still occur within the time of the generation then living. What he says is that the signs and portents of it, as they would be visible in the destruction of Jerusalem and concomitant events, would begin to occur in the time of the generation then living.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:687.

The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Knowledge

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

One of the Oswalt quotes noted last week demonstrates how unbelief can distort a scholar’s understanding of Scripture.

It is hard to understand how those who can assert that the theological function of this passage [Isa 36-37 / 2 Kings 18-19] is to claim that God acts in history can then assert with equal force that God did not act in this event (cf. Clements). If they do so to demonstrate that biblical theology is self-discredited, that is one thing. But to speak of the worth of the theology while denying its evidence is very odd indeed.

Oswalt, Isaiah, NICOT, 1:638, n.21

Other examples of this abound if one looks for them. Here are a few others.

In commenting on Ezekiel’s charge as a watchman, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2.185, speaks of ‘the complete irrationality of the divine activity.’ He refers to God’s first commissioning a foe against his people and then sending a watchman to warn them. ‘Such is the divine logic!’ says Zimmerli. This bold exclamation minimizes the justice of God in bringing judgment on the persistently wicked, the mercy of God in not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked (33:11), and the full responsibility of every human being for his own actions.

Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 295, n. 30

Or note the contrast between the critical and evangelical commentators on Ecclesiastes 2:26:

Qohelet’s positive counsel rests under a cloud. The ability to enjoy life is not in anyone’s power, coming as a gift from God.

Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL, 89

The final verdict of ‘vanity’ refers to the arbitrary (from the human standpoint) action of God who does as he pleases.

Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, 26-27

This verse does not present God as capricious but does relate to the biblical idea of the grace of God. To believe that one’s life is ruled by impersonal fate is intolerable; to believe that one’s life is controlled by a personal God is a comfort.

Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC, 296

All these commentators are looking at the same data, but the evangelical sees God’s grace whereas the liberals see a capricious god.