|
Post by Admin on Jun 2, 2023 20:58:06 GMT -5
Kit Culver sermon notes
Sacred Space in Promise: The Exodus I. Background of the Exodus
1. All of salvation history, traced out in the Scriptures, is directed toward the creation’s redemption and renewal, which design has its ultimate goal in God becoming “all in all,” attaining full and perfect intimacy with His creation. * ref. 1 Cor. 15; Rom. 8; Rev. 21-22
2. God brought about a kind of “new creation” through Noah, but the curse of alienation and death remained. He later made a covenant with Abraham that He would be his God and the God of his descendents and dwell with them in an appointed place. However, this relationship in Canaan would be only a provisional recovery of sacred space, and even so it awaited a future time, as Abraham’s covenant descendents were exiled out of the land.
3. This exile began as God’s provision of life through Joseph, but later on it became a circumstance of slavery and cruel oppression. Nevertheless, God’s promise to make Israel a great nation in Egypt was undeterred (Gen. 46:1-4). The more the Egyptians sought to decimate the Hebrews, the more they increased in numbers and vitality, so much so that the Egyptians came to fear them as a threat and the Pharaoh sought to weaken them and eventually exterminate them by depriving them of male offspring. * Exodus 1:1-22
4. The Egyptians sensed something remarkable at work among these Hebrews that enabled them to thrive against impossible odds, and it terrified them. Ironically, the Egyptians sensed what the Hebrews apparently did not; they didn’t see their God behind their astonishing circumstance. Indeed, as time passed the Israelites set their God aside and forgot about Him, even to the point of embracing the gods of Egypt. * ref. Ezekiel 20:1-9 Israel’s legacy of unfaithfulness and idolatry were firmly established in Egypt, and would only continue after the Lord brought them back to the covenant land. But God remained faithful to His covenant and His purposes in it, and so remembered and tended to His covenant people, even while they forsook Him.
5. Israel forsook and forgot their God, yet when they cried out in their suffering, He heard them and “remembered His covenant.” (It’s noteworthy that the text gives no clear indication that the Hebrews directed their pleas to Him – 2:23). The covenant sons had abandoned their God psychologically and covenantally, but He hadn’t forsaken them, for He is I am, unchanging in His purpose, promises and faithfulness (6:1-8). He had already chosen, preserved and prepared a deliverer – Moses, “he who draws out” – and now He was sending His man to bring them out through His own triumph over Egypt and its gods, climaxing with the death of Egypt’s firstborn sons and new birth for His firstborn through the Passover. * Exodus 4:21ff
II. Significance of the Exodus The Egyptian Exodus holds a unique place within Israel’s history; it was fundamental to Israel’s sense of itself, its relation to God, and its role in His purposes. Hence the Exodus episode is a primary theme in Israel’s scriptures as they unfold God’s purposes and their outworking. The One who arose on behalf of His covenant to redeem and liberate the heirs from their bondage and restore them to Himself would do so again, this time with a greater redemptive work that would be final, fully effectual, and creation-wide in its scope.
1. In terms of its historical significance, the Exodus set the stage for God’s fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant as it regarded his descendents. If they were to inherit the covenant and its promises, they would first have to be delivered from Egypt.
2. The Exodus was the foundation for establishing the kingdom promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:12ff), and hence signified Israel’s birth as covenant son. * Exodus 2:24-3:17, 12:1-14
3. This is the reason the scriptural narrative presents Sinai as the focal point of the Exodus (cf. 3:1-12, 19:1-6), and so also of Israel’s national existence as Abraham’s covenant seed. At Sinai, Israel was formally constituted a covenant nation and joined to Yahweh as His “son.”
4. But because Israel’s election and calling pertained to the entire cursed creation, the historical events of Israel’s existence had profound salvation-historical significance – significance centered in the Messiah, who is the climax of history and Israel’s own destiny.
a. Thus Israel’s exodus out of Egypt, with its premise in the Abrahamic Covenant and its focal point in the Passover, became the singular prefiguration and promise of a future counterpart – a second exodus in which God, through His messianic servant-king, would deliver the creation from its bondage and establish His presence and rule in the earth (i.e., sacred space) as He had purposed from the beginning. * Isa. 49-55, also 2:1-4, 11:1-12
b. This conception of sacred space – God with us – is precisely what Canaan represented as the goal of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and constitution as a nation. The Abrahamic Covenant carried forward God’s oath in Eden, and so held out the promise of a sanctuary land where God and men would dwell together in covenant fellowship. The Exodus served the fulfillment of that promise, albeit at the preparatory, typological level.
5. This truth is celebrated in the Song of Moses that the Israelites sang after Yahweh destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. It celebrated God’s faithfulness in delivering them, and so anticipated their entrance into His sanctuary land. Thus its two sections: vv. 1-12 and 13-18. He’d delivered Israel, not as El Shaddai (God Almighty) but as Yahweh, the covenant God and Father of His elect son in order to gather His son to Himself. * 3:13-14, 4:21-23, 6:2-8 The Song of Moses reveals that God’s goal in redeeming His son was covenant fellowship, grounded in covenant love (hesed) and maintained by covenant integrity and faithfulness. “The point has been made that the word hesed is not applicable to the establishment of a relationship, but reflects rather fidelity and loyalty to an existing relationship. The aim of the hesed exhibited is to preserve the tenor of the relationship which already exists.” (Dumbrell) Conclusions
1. The Exodus represented another symbolic “new creation” – the birth of a new image-son appointed to rule God’s dwelling place in His name and for His sake as a faithful priest-king.
2. It had its basis, meaning, and goal in God’s intent for His creation as sacred space. Thus the Exodus looked toward Canaan, which represented God’s new garden-sanctuary (note the Edenic imagery of Canaan). But Canaan would fall short, even as Israel would fail as imageson. The Exodus fulfilled its purpose by enlarging and advancing the promise of another day.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:04:17 GMT -5
Kit Culver sermon notes Sacred Space In Promise – Preparation for Sinai I. Five Tests of Israel’s Faith (15:22-18:27)
1. From their miraculous triumph at the Red Sea, Israel set out toward Mount Sinai (Horeb) and their appointed encounter with their Redeemer-God. * Exodus 3:11-12
2. God’s elect “son” needed to be formally joined to Him in covenant union, but before Israel reached Sinai it was confronted with five tests of faith, in which Israel also “tested” God. These tests openly demonstrated Israel’s heart toward their God, even as they showed His unwavering commitment to His covenant and its promises and purposes. A. Marah (15:22-27) Within three days of their deliverance at the Red Sea, the Israelites’ jubilation had already turned to disbelief and grumbling. The abrupt juxtaposition of the episodes underscores this duplicity.
1. Arriving at Marah and finding the water undrinkable, the people began grumbling to Moses.
2. Moses petitioned God, and He responded with a supernatural purification (“sweetening”) of the water. Notably, this first ordeal was to serve as foundational instruction for Israel’s life. Faithfulness – heeding their faithful God – constituted Israel’s obedience. Meeting this obligation would see their well-being preserved, even as He’d healed the waters of Marah.
3. God affirmed this commitment by leading Israel from Marah to the oasis of Elim (v. 27).
B. The Wilderness of Sin (16:1-36) The second test occurred in the wilderness of Sin in parallel with the first one. It escalated the people’s unbelief and rebellion in three respects: 1) the subjects; 2) the objects; 3) the complaint. What they had lamented they now longed for – the provision of Egypt’s gods.
1. Once again God responded with supernatural provision: He supplied manna as “bread from heaven” and meat in the form of quail that flew in and covered the camp (16:4-36).
a. The manna arrived in the morning and the quail in the evening, showing Israel that Yahweh was their provider in full. This, too, was to be instruction for the nation. * 16:4
b. The manna would continue on, while the quail seems to have been a unique occurrence – one that God would repeat as His judgment against Israel’s rejection of His provision.
2. This test introduced manna as God’s heavenly food – heavenly in its form and its appearing.
a. It was an unearthly, unknown food, hence its name derived from man hu – what is it?
b. It was supernaturally provided by God Himself; the people could neither cultivate it nor preserve it. Manna was their daily bread, attesting that Yahweh was their provider (Gen. 22:14) and they lived upon Him. * cf. Deut. 8:3 with Mat. 4:1-4; Mat. 6:11 with John 6
3. Importantly, God’s provision of manna provided the occasion for the introduction of the Sabbath principle that He would soon ratify at Sinai. * Exod. 16:14-30
a. As a creation principle, sabbath spoke of completed order and its administration by God.
b. As a human principle, sabbath showed that God intended His divine “rest” to be carried out through His image-son, which status Israel possessed through covenant election.
c. In this way, sabbath was fundamental to both the Sinai Covenant itself and the relationship it governed. And because this covenant relationship involved cohabitation, sabbath was to be the defining principle of Israel’s life in God’s sanctuary land, even as it had been in Eden. * cf. Exod. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:10-20; also Isaiah 56:1-7
4. Manna’s significance in Israel’s redemption and new life was attested by its commemoration – which is highlighted as an anachronistic parenthesis in the narrative flow. * 16:32-36
C. Massah and Meribah (17:1-7) Israel’s third test also involved the lack of drinking water. But, as with the second test, it saw an escalation in the nation’s unbelief and rebellion.
1. Not only did the people not learn from their experience at Marah, they overtly questioned God’s presence with them and lashed out at Moses such that he feared for his life. 2. God, in turn, answered with a response that affirmed both His presence and His abiding care: He would again give them water, but out of a rock upon which He Himself stood (17:6).
3. It’s unclear how God appeared to the people, but His presence was clearly evident to them, and His action made a profound contribution to Israel’s perception of their covenant God: “God who is the Shepherd of his people not only leads them through the wilderness; he stands in their place that justice might be done. The penalty is discharged: Moses strikes the Rock. The Lord redeems by bearing the judgment. From the smitten Rock there flows the water of life into the deadly wilderness. When Paul says the Rock was Christ, he perceives the symbolism of the passage.” (Edmund Clowney, Preaching Christ in All of Scripture)
D. Battle at Rephidim (17:8-16) The last two tests involved Israel’s faith in God’s stated commitment to their protection and preservation. He’d elected Abraham’s seed as His covenant “son” and pledged to dwell with them in Canaan. But this meant giving them victory over the inhabitants of that land and those who stood in their way. The battle at Rephidim with the Amalekites was the first such encounter. 1. Amalek was the forefather of the Amalekites, and a descendent of Esau. This battle and its outcome echoed and reaffirmed Jacob’s triumph over Esau, and was profoundly significant in the development of the biblical storyline.
a. Jacob’s triumph was entirely the Lord’s doing and reflected His covenant faithfulness, and so it was with Israel’s triumph at Rephidim.
b. But as the Amalekites opposed God’s covenant intent, they embodied the ongoing conflict between the serpent’s seed and Eve’s seed. * 17:14-16; cf. 18:10-12 Thus the divinely-granted victory at Rephidim prefigured and strengthened the hope of the ultimate victory of Abraham’s seed over the adversaries of God and His purposes. 2. Yahweh secured the victory for Israel, but through the pleading, upraised arms of Moses, His servant-mediator, who himself was strengthened in his task by the Lord’s provision. This episode, too, was to be memorialized as enduring testimony of Yahweh’s faithfulness (Deut. 25:17-18). In every generation, the covenant children were to live out their God’s commitment to His covenant – trusting not only His material provision, but also His protection from every power poised to destroy them, thus setting itself against their covenant Lord and His designs.
E. Appointment of Judges (18:1-27) The final test for Israel leading up to their encounter with Yahweh at Sinai involved His provision of judicial resource to oversee and maintain the nation’s civil well-being. 1. Israel was faced with a looming crisis that, in its own way, spotlighted the fundamental human problem of estrangement: It led the Israelites to doubt and grumble against their God and Father, even as it provoked them to dispute and contend with one another. 2. In both instances, Moses acted as mediator. He was God’s appointed judge, but the task of leading Israel was pressing him to the breaking point, even as the nation’s integrity, unity, and very continuance were at risk. If Moses could not successfully mediate Israel’s internal conflicts and disputes, the nation would almost certainly collapse in chaos and fracture. This test was unique in being entirely internal – Israel was threatening its own well-being and was poised to disintegrate before the unifying covenant was even ratified. 3. It was Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, the Midianite priest, who proposed the solution: Moses needed to identify other godly men to share the burden of judging the people. * 18:14-23 Conclusions
1. These episodes were tests of Israel’s sonship. Specifically, they tested the people in regard to their faith: Would they look to and trust in their circumstances, or their God who had spoken (cf. 15:25-25, 16:4, 31-34, 17:6-7, 18:14-16 with 19:1-6)? Would they walk by faith as true sons, resting in their Father’s word to them, or by sight as all people naturally do?
2. In each instance, Israel failed its testing. Even their victory over the Amalekites reinforced their confidence in the sword, not Yahweh’s hand working through weakness and petition.
3. Israel’s failure – already openly manifest before even reaching Sinai – was the failure of its sonship. But Israel’s sonship reflected the covenant behind it, so that God’s purpose for the world – the fulfillment of His covenant – depended on Israel fulfilling its calling as elect son.
4. Israel was failing as covenant son, but the Lord of the covenant remained faithful; in each instance, He met His son’s failure with His own provision, carrying them toward Sinai.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:11:43 GMT -5
Sacred Space In Promise – Preparation for the Covenant at Sinai
I. Israel’s Arrival at Sinai (19:1-25)
A. God’s Preparatory Charges to Israel (19:1-15) Israel’s journey from the Red Sea to Mount Sinai had tested Israel and proven the nation’s unfaithfulness, even while demonstrating God’s unfailing commitment to His covenant. In spite of their unbelief, ingratitude, and rebellion, Yahweh carried Abraham’s descendents “on eagles’ wings” to His holy mountain to ratify His covenant relationship with them. Toward that end, He issued two preliminary charges to prepare them to meet their covenant Redeemer-God.
1. The First Charge – The Purpose for the Covenant (19:1-8) Yahweh’s first charge identified His intent in this union: As His elect son, Israel was His “unique possession” for the purpose of being a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
a. These two phrases interpret each other. Israel’s identity as Yahweh’s uniquely elect “son” pointed to its obligation of consecration, devotion, testimony and mediation.
b. As a “holy nation,” then, Israel would fulfill its Abrahamic vocation as a “priestly kingdom,” manifesting and testifying to its God in order to bless the wider world. “The entire nation was to live in the midst of God’s presence, and were all to become like priests standing in the presence of God in his temple and reflecting his glorious light, being intermediaries for the nations living in darkness and apart from God.” (Beale) c. This charge also provides insight into how the covenant should be perceived as law. The Law of Moses was the covenant binding God and Israel, which formally ratified the relationship of covenant Father and son that the Abrahamic Covenant established (Exo. 4:22-23). Thus all of its particulars addressed the core obligation of love – love for God manifested in love for one another (Deut. 6:1-9; Mat. 22:35-40; Rom. 13:8-10), and that for the sake of God’s ultimate restorative purpose underlying the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus righteousness under the Mosaic Law was relational faithfulness as defined by the covenant, not moral/ethical compliance as such. * ref. Hosea 11:1ff; Ezekiel 16, 23
d. God’s first charge, then, identified Israel’s identity and calling under the covenant, which provided the framework for their understanding of their obligation of obedience. Israel responded by committing themselves to be faithful in all God required of them. * 19:7-8
2. The Second Charge – Preparation for the Covenant (19:9-15) After the people openly affirmed their commitment to His word and covenant will, Yahweh proceeded to set the terms for their encounter with Him on the holy mountain.
a. Reflecting their status as a holy nation, God charged the sons of Israel to consecrate themselves for three days by washing their clothing and abstaining from sexual contact.
b. And yet, even in their ritual purity, God sternly warned the Israelites to keep their distance from Him. No person or animal was to touch even the base of Mount Sinai while Yahweh was present upon it. Yahweh’s beloved elect “son” – whom He had redeemed and taken to Himself – was forbidden from approaching the place where His glory descended, let alone entering into His very presence. * 19:12-13, note also vv. 20-21
B. God’s Meeting with Israel – Sinai as Yahweh’s Sanctuary (19:16-25) This scenario and God’s warnings to Israel underscore the fact that sacred space and divine human encounter remained a matter of mediated distance. Though God had consecrated Israel to Himself as His elect, beloved son, the son couldn’t commune with the Father apart from some intermediary – in this case, Moses, Aaron, and Israel’s elders. * 19:19-25, 20:18-21, 24:9-11
The true recovery of sacred space – intimated in the protoevangelium and promised in the Abrahamic Covenant – awaited a future fulfillment; it awaited the end of divine/human estrangement. True divine-human intimacy would not be recovered until man was restored as image-son, which restoration would find its essential fulfillment in the Incarnation.
II. The Making of the Covenant (20:1-23:33)
A. The Preamble to the Covenant (20:1-2) Consistent with covenant structures in general and near-eastern suzerain treaties in particular – treaties that would have been familiar to the ancient Israelites – Yahweh introduced His covenant with a preamble identifying the parties to the covenant.
1. God’s Self-Identification – Israel’s Redeemer-Father Israel wasn’t simply entering into covenant relation with the Creator-God: God wanted Israel to know Him as their Redeemer, Deliverer, and covenant Father who had liberated them and gathered them to Himself as He had pledged to Abraham. * Gen. 15:12ff; Exo. 3:1ff, 6:1ff The Creator-God thus revealed Himself to Israel as Yahweh: the God who will ever be who He is. That is to say, He is the God whose purposes, will, and commitment never change or relent; He is the God whose intent for His creation, bound up in Abraham by covenant grant, would be fully realized exactly as determined.
2. Israel’s Identification – Redeemed Son Thus Israel was more than just a chosen and redeemed people; they were sons of God as Abraham’s offspring and heirs of the covenant promises and obligations.
a. But they were and remained covenant sons because God is Yahweh: the God who is faithful irrespective of men and circumstance. Even Israel’s name itself was a perpetual reminder that their triumph with God was the result of Him causing them to prevail out of a condition of complete incapacity and chronic failure.
b. And Israel would indeed prevail because of its high calling on behalf of the world. Yahweh was consecrating the sons of Israel to Himself as committing them to the vocation He’d determined for them; His “holy nation” was to be a “priestly kingdom.” Sermon notes from Kit Culver
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:19:57 GMT -5
Sacred Space In Promise – The Making of the Covenant at Sinai II. The Making of the Covenant (20:1-23:33)
B. The Ten Words of the Covenant (20:3-17)
1. The Covenantal Function of the Ten Words The Sinai covenant formalized the Father-son relationship between Yahweh and Abraham’s descendents as pledged in the Abrahamic Covenant. * cf. Gen. 12:1-7, 15:1-21; Exod. 6:1-8
Accordingly, Israel’s obligation of sonship, summarized in the “Ten Words,” was the response of love to the Father (20:3-11) and one another (20:12-17). 2. The Salvation-Historical Function of the Ten Words
a. The Sinai covenant showed Israel what it meant to be Israel – God’s “image-son” who reflects and manifests Him in the world and administers His dominion. In this way, then, the covenant at Sinai (the Law of Moses) revealed what it is for man to be truly man.
b. This is the primary sense in which the Law prophesied of the Messiah: He would embody the Mosaic Covenant as Yahweh’s True Israel, and so His True Man (Last Adam). * cf. Isaiah 42:1-6 and 49:1-8 with Mat. 11:13; Luke 24:25-27; 1 Cor. 15:45-49
c. The Christ-centeredness of the Law of Moses (Sinai Covenant), then, focuses on its relationship with God’s covenant with Abraham. The Sinai Covenant served the Abrahamic Covenant and its outworking and fulfillment, even as the latter covenant had its own focal point in the unique “seed” promised to Abraham. * Galatians 3:1-4:7
3. The Centrality of the Sabbath Commandment Thus the Sinai Covenant looked all the way back to God’s pledge in Eden, and this helps to explain the central role of sabbath in the covenant. The Decalogue affords the sabbath commandment the most attention, and it serves as the hinge between the two “tables.”
a. The original creation was defined by sabbath in a perpetual seventh day, with this state of “rest” attesting that God had taken up His rule over His creation after fully and perfectly completing His work of ordering and filling it.
b. The creation account emphasizes the sabbatical nature of sacred space, which applies equally to God’s dwelling with Israel in Canaan (ref. Exod. 15:17-18; note also 25:1-8). What God had promised Israel amounted to a prototypical restoration of sacred space, and for this reason Israel’s life in Canaan was to be a sabbatical life, with the weekly Sabbath serving as the very sign of the covenant. * ref. 31:12-18; cf. Isaiah 56:1-8
c. The centrality of shabbat (sabbath) to Israel’s life with God in Canaan is evident in three particulars:
1) God’s introduction of the sabbath concept prior to Israel’s arrival at Sinai (Exodus 16:22-30; cf. Deut. 5:12-15);
2) the prominence of the weekly Sabbath within the Ten Words (Exodus 20:8-11); 3) the entirety of Israel’s life in relationship with God being ordered around the principle of “shabbat” (cf. Leviticus 23:1-38, 25:1-8).
C. Moses’ Mediation (20:18-26) a. Yahweh spoke the Ten Words in Israel’s hearing, but they were terrified and cried out to Moses to stand as mediator between them and Him (20:18-21). The ultimate significance of this is seen in Moses’ later reminder to the people. * Deuteronomy 18:9-19
b. Israel’s response to Yahweh’s presence underscored the relational distance between covenant Father and son, and the stipulations of the covenant reinforced this truth: As with the patriarchs, Israel’s access to God would be through mediating instruments – priestly representatives, sacred structures, sacraments, etc. – that He ordained. Yahweh had taken Israel to Himself, and His relationship with His “son” was unilateral; that is, God determined and ordered every aspect of the relationship, so that any initiative or contribution by Israel constituted rebellion. * cf. 20:22-26, 23:14-19, 25:1-31:18
D. The Civil Ordinances of the Covenant (21:1-23:19)
1. Set on the foundation of the Ten Words, the Lord provided a series of general ordinances (mishpatim – governing principles of justice) pertaining to Israel’s corporate existence.
2. Israel was collectively “son of God,” but living out this corporate identity and calling required faithfulness on the part of the individual members of the covenant household. Note, for instance, Exodus 21:22-25 with Leviticus 24:10-22 and Deuteronomy 19:15-21.
3. And whereas God spoke the Ten Words in the people’s presence, He delivered these subsequent ordinances to Moses to communicate to them. Per their petition, Yahweh would now speak His words to Moses and he would deliver them to Israel. * ref. again 20:19
E. Summary Obligations of the Covenant (23:20-33) As the preamble to the covenant identified and defined the covenant parties (Yahweh and Israel), so the Lord closed out the covenant with a series of personal promises and sanctions pertaining to both the covenant Father and son.
1. For His part, Yahweh would fulfill His oath – bound up in His covenant with Abraham – to bring Israel safely through the wilderness and into the sanctuary land. * 23:20
2. But Israel, too, must conform to the covenant, fulfilling its identity as image-son by ordering its existence according to its status and calling as a consecrated and priestly people, wholly devoted to their God, thereby testifying of Him to the surrounding nations. In that way, they would realize all of the blessings of sonship in God’s presence. Yahweh would be a protecting and providing Father if they would be a devoted and faithful son. * 23:21-33
Conclusions 1. Israel was now covenantally bound to Yahweh as His “first-born son,” obligated to fulfill its Abrahamic calling as servant, disciple and witness on behalf of the world.
2. As image-son, Israel was God’s prototypical new Adam, “created” by covenant ordination to extend sacred space from God’s new garden-sanctuary in Canaan to the ends of the earth
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:28:01 GMT -5
Kit Culver Sermon Notes
God With Us The Ratification of the Sinai Covenant
I. Review - The Law of Moses as Yahweh’s Covenant with Israel
1. Covenants are relational contracts. So the Law of Moses defined and prescribed the terms of the Father-son relationship between Abraham’s God (YHWH) and his offspring.
2. Thus the Sinai Covenant was Torah (law), as Dumbrell’s comments illumine and clarify: “It is unfortunate that this term [torah], the most generalized OT concept for the covenant demand, should be translated by ‘law,’ for undoubtedly such a translation has led to views of the OT dispensation which do not correspond to the reality of the revelation progressively delivered. What is primarily involved in this Hebrew term is direction for life within the framework of the presupposed relationship. The connotation conveyed by the English word law is unfortunate. It is a connotation of regulations imposed by a competent authority, to which have been attached the backing of some sanctions or other, so that the subject upon whom law is imposed will incur a penalty if the law code concerned is breached… In the OT, adherence to law is not so much a matter of fulfilling a legal demand as demonstrating by way of national or personal life that a sphere of divine blessing has been entered.”
3. The Law of Moses, then, instructed Israel in its role as son, servant, disciple and witness to the nations, and this is the fundamental sense in which Jesus fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled Israel’s identity, even bearing in Himself Israel’s just condemnation, so that, in Him, Israel was liberated and restored to fulfill its vocation on behalf of the world. Thus all (Jew and Gentile alike) who share in Him share in His faithful sonship and so are true sons of Abraham – persons in whom the righteousness of the law is fulfilled.
4. The question of the continuing relevance of the Law of Moses, then, isn’t a matter of “law” vs. “grace,” or of God’s unchanging moral nature, but of promise and fulfillment.
II. The Ratification of the Covenant (24:1-8) A. Israel’s Ownership of the Covenant (24:1-8)
1. After receiving the terms of the covenant, Moses descended Mount Sinai with Yahweh’s instruction to return to Him, this time with Aaron and his sons and seventy of Israel’s elders. Moses recounted Yahweh’s covenant to all the children of Israel, and as they had done previously, they solemnly swore to uphold all that He had spoken. * 24:1-3, cf. 19:7-8
2. Father and son had both expressed their commitment to the covenant, and now it was to be formally ratified by covenant ritual, just as with the covenant with Abraham. * 24:4-8 Moses recorded all the words of the covenant in a book in the sight of the people, and then erected an altar upon twelve pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. He then directed that burnt offerings and peace offerings be sacrificed to Yahweh. (* Moses served in this priestly role inasmuch as the Aaronic priesthood had not yet been established.)
a. Together, these two forms of offering attested the fact that Israel, the newly-confirmed covenant son, was at that time blameless under the covenant and the relationship it established and entailed. Covenant Father and son were fully at peace with one another. b. As part of the ratifying ritual, Moses sprinkled blood from the sacrifices on the altar and the covenant children, thus underscoring both the solemnity and the severity of the covenant relationship that Father and son had bound themselves to. Israel had twice heard the words of the covenant – once from Moses’ mouth as Yahweh’s mediator, and then from the book where those words were inscribed. Their obligation of faithfulness and the gravity of it were clear, and they openly affirmed their commitment.
B. Israel’s Celebration of the Covenant (24:9-11) The ratifying of the covenant heralded its official institution and inauguration, so that the son’s intimacy with his Father was now formally established, free of all corruption.
1. Thus Yahweh directed Moses, Aaron, his sons, and seventy elders (representing the entire nation) to come to Him on the mountain to celebrate together with a fellowship meal.
2. The covenantal context for this encounter is crucial to its meaning; without that context, the episode is confusing and even shocking, given God’s former directives. * ref. 19:9-12, 20-25
a. The narrative notes that these men entered into God’s presence and looked upon Him, and yet He didn’t “stretch out His hand” against them. Yahweh had sternly warned that He would “break out against” anyone who gazed on Him, and now He was allowing numerous individuals to do just that (cf. 24:9-11 with 19:21). Indeed, they had come to Him in this way because He had directed them to do so.
b. The reason for this strange turn of events is that Israel was now rightly related to Yahweh as His son by formal covenant agreement. These men were allowed to see God and commune with Him, not because of their personal sinlessness (which they didn’t possess), but because of the covenantal righteousness of the nation they represented. The communion between Yahweh and Israel recounted in these verses spotlights what the covenant had made Israel to be, and epitomized what it required of them going forward. Conclusions:
1. This fellowship meal brought the covenant-making process to its climax, but also stood as the high point of Israel’s life with God; never again would the “son” enjoy such immediacy and intimacy with its Father. Only days would pass before the covenant would be shattered.
2. Israel would prove to be an incorrigibly unfaithful son, and yet God’s determination to bless the world through Israel (the Abrahamic “seed”) would stand. Somehow, Yahweh would secure the faithfulness of His son – somehow, He would cause Israel to be Israel in truth.
3. Thus the communion on Sinai was prophetic and promissory; one day Abraham’s true sons would enjoy such communion in full, taken up in God’s own life in union with the true Son.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:35:43 GMT -5
Sacred Space In Promise – The Provision of a Mediating System I. Overview
1. After Yahweh’s fellowship meal with Israel, He instructed Moses to again ascend His mountain while the others remained behind.
2. His intent was to provide Israel with another written record of the covenant: Moses had written the words of the covenant in a book; Yahweh would now etch the ten words in stone.
3. But before doing so, the Lord gave Moses instruction regarding a sanctuary – His dwelling place among His people – and a priestly system to administer it: The covenant ratified, defined and prescribed the Father/son relationship between God and Israel (Exodus 4:22); the priestly system was Yahweh’s provision for mediating that relationship. Coming after the covenant ratification and fellowship meal, this provision spoke of two crucial realities:
a. The Father/son relationship was to be a matter of mediated (managed) distance.
b. This distance reflected Israel’s failure in its covenant sonship, which, in turn, called into question the nation’s ability to fulfill its calling as Abraham’s covenant offspring.
4. The narrative highlights this by a notable juxtaposition: While Yahweh was giving Moses the prescription for managing the distance between Him and His “son,” Israel was affirming that distance by constructing an image of Him in denial of who He had shown Himself to be.
II. The Tabernacle and Priesthood (24:12-31:18) A. Their Relation to the Sinai Covenant Yahweh’s provision of the covenant tablets forms the bookends for chapters 25-31, which present His detailed instruction regarding His sanctuary and its ministering priesthood.
1. In this way, the text distinguishes the priestly system from the Sinai Covenant itself. So the Hebrews writer noted that the Law of Moses had its basis in that priesthood (ref. Heb. 7:11).
2. Though the priestly provision followed the covenant’s ratification, the covenant presupposed the priestly system because it was the ordained means to manage the covenant relationship.
a. According to His promise to Abraham, God intended to dwell among his descendents (cf. Genesis 17:7, 26:1-3, 31:1-3 with Exodus 3:15:17), and He would do so by means of a physical sanctuary and mediating priesthood. * 25:1-8
b. Yahweh was to be King in Israel, but ruling, not as a detached despot, but a loving Father and Husband in their midst. The tabernacle with Yahweh’s Shekinah abiding within it made His presence tangible, but shown to be remote by the priestly ministration.
B. Their Role in the Sinai Covenant The Lord had designated all of Canaan as His dwelling place, but it was necessary that there should be a particular, tangible place where He could meet with His covenant son. The tabernacle was to serve that function, with the priesthood overseeing divine/human encounter.
1. The covenant established formal intimacy between Israel and Yahweh as Father and son, tangibly expressed by means of a physical sanctuary in the midst of the Israelite people.
a. Previously, people (including Abraham and his descendents) had interacted with God and worshipped Him occasionally and in certain locations in connection with simple altars.
b. The tabernacle would incorporate the altar concept, but such that God’s presence with His people and their worship of Him would be perpetual.
c. And yet, Yahweh’s perpetual presence and worship would reflect the relational distance between Him and Israel, underscored in an elaborate system of priestly mediation. 2. God’s provision of a priestly system anticipated Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness, but it also transcended that unfaithfulness. Again, the covenant was itself founded on the priesthood, so that the principle of priestly mediation reached beyond Sinai, and reflected the fundamental alienation between the Creator and His creation that originated in Eden.
a. Because of its universality, this creational estrangement necessarily expressed itself in Israel’s relationship with God. As a result, continuance of this relationship depended on perpetual, effectual mediation – mediation that God Himself ordained and provided.
b. And so, Israel was in the process of breaking the covenant even while Yahweh was giving Moses the details for the sanctuary and the priestly system that would attend it.
c. Yahweh’s answer to Israel’s failure was the provision of vicarious righteousness. He would address Israel’s covenant infidelity with the remedy of substitutionary atonement. In that way, He would enable the failed covenant son to continue its sonship. III. Conclusion
1. God’s exhaustive definition reflected the fact that this tabernacle modeled a pre-existing pattern. The Lord prescribed every detail, not because each was crucial in itself, but because any human contribution to the design would nullify the fact that this tabernacle was to be an earthly representation of a heavenly counterpart. * cf. Exod. 25:9-40; Heb. 8:1-6
2. The Israelite tabernacle modeled Yahweh’s heavenly abode, and so emphasized to Israel that their covenant God and Father was indeed establishing His dwelling place among them.
a. And yet, His presence was completely veiled from them and inaccessible to them. Only a single appointed mediator could enter His presence, and then only once yearly.
b. Thus the tabernacle declared and upheld God’s intent to inhabit His creation through human sonship and communion, but as yet unrealized. The earthly sanctuary was itself prophetic and promissory, looking to the day when Yahweh would tabernacle among men through incarnation culminating with resurrection and creational renewal. * 1 Cor. 15
3. It is through this lens that we understand the key principle that God’s sanctuary was to be constructed with the wealth of the nations (Exod. 12:35-36, 25:1-8). So it would be with the later temples (1 Chron. 18:1-11; 1 Kings 5; Ezra 1, 5-6), and so it would be with Yahweh’s final, eschatological temple (Hag. 2:1-9; Zech. 6:9-15; Eph. 2:11-22).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 13:44:41 GMT -5
The Gold Calf – Israel’s Violation of the Covenant I. Israel’s Violation of the Covenant (Exodus 32:1-14)
A. Psychological Context for the Gold Calf
1. Moses was on the mountain for 40 days receiving Yahweh’s instruction regarding His sanctuary and a priesthood to mediate His relationship with His covenant people.
2. During that time, the Israelites became increasingly unsettled and concerned that Moses might not return to them, which would leave them without their mediator through whom Yahweh would lead them on toward the land of Canaan and their promised rest.
3. With each passing day it seemed more likely that Moses wasn’t coming back, and the people feared they were going to die there in Sinai unless they took action. Thus they sought Aaron’s help in constructing an image by which they could move forward toward Canaan.
B. Religious Context for the Gold Calf
1. This intent – along with the text itself – argue against the notion that the Israelites were abandoning Yahweh for another deity. Their intent wasn’t to forsake their covenant God, but to find an alternative way to continue to interact with Him in the absence of the man He’d appointed to mediate the relationship between them. * cf. 32:1-5, 7-8, 21-23
2. Thus Israel’s action represented a crisis of faith, but not in the way commonly assumed: It wasn’t faithless in the sense of rejecting Yahweh for a different deity, but in attempting to interact with Him according to their own natural sensibilities and reasoning.
a. In the ancient world, every people group had their own gods whom they believed took an interest in them and their well-being. This perspective afforded a sense of personal and national identity, power, protection, and provision. * ref. Isaiah 10:9-11; Psalm 96:1-6
b. Nations and individuals looked to their gods for guidance and provision and attributed their circumstances – good or bad – to them. But this implies their belief that they were able to gain access to their deities and solicit from them their attention and care.
3. This premise of effectual human access to deity lies behind all religious philosophy and practice. In a word, all human religion is magic, where magic refers to the mindset, process and techniques by which men attempt to make spiritual entities and forces – however they may conceive them – accessible, amenable, and useful to them. All people naturally think and function in this way, even professing atheists. One might deny the existence of deities, but all humans seek – ultimately for their own benefit, to conform to transcendent principles, forces, etc. that they believe govern within the natural order.
4. Ancient near-eastern people believed that gods were present and accessible in relation to physical images representing them. An image brought the god and the worshiper together, and thus the mindset behind the gold calf: Believing that they had lost their mediator, the Israelites sought a new point of mediation in a tangible image of Yahweh. Through this image, they could appeal directly to Him in the hope that He’d lead them on toward Canaan.
C. The Gold Calf and the Second Commandment
1. As it explains Israel’s action, so this dynamic of religion as magic also illumines God’s prohibition regarding the making of images. * ref. again 20:4-6
a. The issue isn’t creating or viewing a religious depiction, or even expressing the Creator in creaturely form. This is precisely what occurred in the incarnation. Man is himself the image of God, which image is fully manifested in Jesus the Messiah.
b. The issue is the idolatry associated with images – images as concocted instruments of self-interest. Yahweh was forbidding the universal practice of devising gods in one’s own image, which is antithetical to the truth that He made man in His image. “We must set aside this whole modern way of thinking about the matter [that is, the notion that God was simply forbidding representations of Him in tangible, creaturely form], and endeavour to reproduce for ourselves the feelings with which the ancient idolatrous mind regarded and employed the image it possessed of its god…While not easily described in its true inwardness, we may perhaps define it by subsumption under the category of magic. Magic is that paganistic reversal of the process of religion, in which man, instead of letting himself be used by God for the divine purpose, drags down his god to the level of a tool, which he uses for his own selfish purpose…Because it lacks the element of objective divine self-communication from above, it must needs create for itself material means of compulsion that will bring the deity to do its bidding.” (Vos, Biblical Theology)
2. And so the Decalogue’s second commandment was God’s prohibition against natural human religious conceptions and practice. His people are to interact with Him in truth as He has made Himself known – i.e., as image-sons with their Creator-Lord and Father, so that this commandment speaks to the very essence of covenant faithfulness. Thus the severity of Israel’s first covenant violation: It exposed the innate human idolatry that still reigned in Israelite hearts – idolatry facilitated by the very man whom Yahweh had designated to mediate His relationship with His covenant children.
II. Response to the Violation A. God’s Response
1. Israel’s action was a flagrant and grave violation of the covenant and their repeated oath regarding it (ref. again 19:1-7, 24:3-7), and the Lord declared His just intention to destroy the nation and raise up a new people for Himself through Moses. * 32:7-10
2. On the one hand, God’s determination was shocking, given that this outcome would negate all that He had brought to pass in forming Israel (Abraham’s covenant “seed”) out of Jacob and his offspring. Creating a new covenant people through Moses would eliminate the twelve tribes of Israel as Abraham’s seed and make Moses a new Jacob –a new “Israel” as patriarch of the replacement covenant nation consisting of his descendents.
3. At the same time, this intent demonstrated that Yahweh remained committed to His covenant with Abraham: Despite Israel’s sin, He would uphold His promise to make Abraham a great nation, but now He would do so through Moses alone. Yes, Israel in its present form would be no more, but the line of covenant descent and Yahweh’s covenant household would still be traced through Abraham, but now through only Jacob’s one son Levi. * cf. 2:1-10, 32:25-29
B. Moses’ Response 1. Yahweh’s stated intent confronted Moses with two options: He could embrace this outcome – to his own benefit and exaltation, or he could refuse it out of the conviction of faith.
a. God was affording Moses the incredible privilege of becoming the fountainhead of a new covenant people. He would assume the enviable place of the patriarch Israel (Jacob) and see God’s promise to Abraham realized through himself. Beyond that, Moses was in complete agreement with Yahweh regarding the severity and outrageousness of Israel’s offense and the justice in destroying the offenders. * ref. 32:19-30
b. But the same faith/faithfulness that fueled Moses’ indignation provoked his intercession: He pled with Yahweh to relent from this course of action, not out of concern for Israel as such, but out of jealousy for his God. Moses’ concern was that, by destroying His covenant people, Yahweh would undermine His own integrity and credibility – not just among the children of Israel, but ultimately in the sight of the nations who would observe His dealings with His people. * ref. 32:11-13; cf. also Numbers 14:1-23
2. In sharp contrast to Aaron, whose “mediation” was self-serving deference, Moses interceded for the people as a true mediator: He acted out of jealousy for God’s veracity and reputation and an understanding of the larger role and significance of the covenant in God’s purposes. Thus Moses depicts the sort of man who is suited to stand before God as intercessor for others, and hence his typological function in the salvation history. * Deut. 18:13-19
3. So God responded to Moses’ intercession by relenting of His intent. This passage, and others like it, are often used to support the notion that “prayer changes things” – that prayer can influence (if not determine) God’s decisions and actions. Others wrestle with the apparent implications for divine sovereignty and immutability, but such concerns aren’t in view here.
a. As always, readers must guard against the tendency to impose doctrinal constructs and personal sensibilities and convictions onto a text, and so fail to hear its message.Predetermined convictions and conclusions will inevitably lead the reader to ask of a text questions that lead back to the answers he has presumed.
b. This text isn’t a proof-text for divine sovereignty or a theology of prayer. It is concerned with answering the question of how God’s covenant relationship with Abraham’s offspring will be preserved – i.e., how He will uphold His own faithfulness to the covenant and its purposes in the context of their unfaithfulness. So Richard Lints: “The meaning of a text like Exodus 32 is intimately wrapped up with the epochal significance of Moses as a mediator of the covenant and the canonical significance of his action as a foreshadowing of Christ, the final mediator of the covenant with God’s people. The epochal and canonical horizons help to determine which questions are important to the passage and which are not. Failure to pay attention to the epochal and canonical horizons might lead the modern reader into the mistake of reading the passage too narrowly – for instance, focusing on the question of whether prayer can change God’s mind. This is not the fundamental question of the text. The question that the epochal and the canonical horizon want to ask of the passage is who might be an acceptable mediator between God (who is faithful) and the Israelites (who are unfaithful). This is the thread that links this particular passage to the rest of the Scriptures, and we must not lose sight of that as we attempt to build a biblical theological framework. (The Fabric of Theology, emphasis author’s)
III. Summary Observations 1. Within only days of the covenant’s ratification, Israel had shown itself to be an unfaithful son whose relationship with the covenant Father was going to be a matter of managed distance. Only a mediating agency could preserve the covenant relationship, and this is exactly what Yahweh provided – first in Moses, and then the Levitical priestly system. He would sustain His son in the face of Israel’s inability to fulfill its covenant sonship.
2. And Israel’s failure at Sinai showed that it was no different from all other people and nations throughout the earth. Israel was “son of God” in name only; in truth, the nation bore the title idolater just like every other human being. For all their privilege in being allowed to know the living God through His words and deeds, the children of Israel were determined to form Him in their own image according to their own sensibilities and perceived interests.
3. Israel’s sole obligation under the covenant was to fulfill its identity and calling as “son of God” on behalf of the world. The path to this fulfillment was simple: The Israelite people needed to yield themselves to their covenant Father in sincere dependence, unwavering trust, and undistracted devotion. The life of sonship was the life of “faith working through love.”
4. This is the context for interpreting the episode of the gold calf – whether Israel’s sinful action, God’s reaction to it, or Moses’ intercession on their behalf.
a. The Israelites’ action manifested their idolatrous hearts – not in abandoning their God for other supposed deities, but in believing that they could relate to Him and interact with Him on their own terms, according to their own conceptions, judgment, and concerns.
b. So Yahweh’s fierce indignation was appropriate to this particular form of unfaithfulness. Israel was His image-son according to His electing intent that the world should come to know Him in truth through His son’s faithfulness; instead, Israel had testified falsely of Him, actually aligning itself with the human world against Him by joining mankind in fashioning him in their own image according to their own notions and self-interest.
c. Moses shared God’s indignation, but also His jealousy for His creation and His intentions for it. Thus he pled with Yahweh to relent, not out of compassion and concern for his Israelite brethren, but because he was concerned to see the Lord’s name, power, and purposes rightly attested and exalted among the watching nations. Yahweh honored Moses’ petition, not because fervent prayer moves Him to respond accordingly, but because Moses’ prayer gave voice to his solidarity with his God and His designs to be realized through Abraham and his “seed.” By honoring Moses’ faithful petition, the Lord was affirming and displaying His own abiding faithfulness.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2023 14:04:47 GMT -5
Sacred Space In Promise – The Renewal of the Covenant I. The Renewal of the Covenant (32:15-34:35) A. Moses’ Response to Israel’s Idolatry (32:15-32)
1. At the Lord’s direction Moses descended Mount Sinai with the stone tablets in hand. When he saw the spectacle before him, Moses threw the tablets to the ground, shattering them in the sight of the people to underscore the significance of their actions.
2. He then burned, ground, and mixed with water the symbol of their sin, and forced the people to drink it, thereby taking full ownership of their covenant-shattering idolatry.
3. Israel was forced to own its transgression, and now it would suffer the consequences. Moses proceeded to divide the people according to their allegiance, and then directed his fellow Levites – who alone demonstrated their loyalty to Yahweh – to slay the unfaithful violators.
4. The rebels had been put to death, but Israel’s solidarity as “son of God” meant that the whole nation bore the guilt of covenant violation. Thus Moses again interceded as mediator, hoping to atone for the nation’s sin. Unto that end, he offered to bear their guilt and be blotted out of Yahweh’s book (i.e., removed from the register of the covenant household) in their stead.
B. God’s Response to Moses’ Intercession (32:33-33:11)
1. Yahweh had given Moses the provision of substitutionary atonement for ordaining Aaron and his sons to serve Him as priests (chap. 29), but He was unwilling to let Moses bear Israel’s guilt in their place; those who against Him would be blotted out of His book. Though Moses was God’s appointed mediator, he could not act as the people’s substitute; he could neither atone for their guilt nor bear their punishment. That role was reserved for the future prophet/mediator whom Moses prefigured. * Deut. 18:14-19; Heb. 3:1-11
2. Moses could not stand in Israel’s stead, and thus the Lord declared His intent to withdraw from His covenant-breaking “son.” He would uphold His promise to bring Israel to Canaan, but through one of His angels; He Himself would no longer lead them. * 32:34-33:6 The tragic irony of this episode is that the very action Israel intended to secure God’s abiding presence and favor had instead resulted in distance, alienation, and wrath.
3. Covenant Father and son were now manifestly estranged from one another, attested by Yahweh interacting with the people through Moses outside the camp. * 33:7-11
C. Moses’ Second Plea (33:12-23)
1. Yahweh declared that He would not continue with Israel in their midst, and Moses again pled with Him to relent, once again pleading His faithfulness to His covenant and its continuance: If He was determined not to go with His people, then He should not send them at all. For their destination wasn’t simply a land pledged to them, but Yahweh’s dwelling place (ref. again Exod. 15:17). The covenant promised that Father and son would dwell together; inhabiting Canaan without their covenant God would leave Israel’s exile unresolved.
2. And if Yahweh didn’t go up with Israel into Canaan, He wouldn’t go up with Moses whom He’d appointed to lead them. Thus Moses pled with the Lord to not abandon him, but to affirm His own words that declared His favor toward him. Specifically, Moses asked the Lord to manifest His glory to him, and Yahweh agreed, stating that He would display His glory by disclosing His goodness – goodness that consisted in His lovingkindness, i.e., His covenant love through which He would uphold and preserve the covenant relationship.
D. The Renewal of the Covenant (34:1-35)
1. The Lord honored Moses’ petition in both of its concerns (33:17-23): His presence would indeed go up with Israel to the promised land (cf. Isa. 63:9), and He would also grant Moses’ request to behold His glory.
2. Thus Yahweh directed Moses to carve out two new tablets and take them up to the top of Mount Sinai where He would again declare and inscribe the words of the covenant.
3. It was during this time on the mountain that the Lord granted Moses’ plea to see His glory, and this theophany importantly accompanied the renewal of the covenant relationship. Moses longed to gaze upon the divine glory, and Yahweh answered Moses’ plea in a way that showed him that he had already seen that glory numerous times in His dealings with Israel.
a. For all their infidelity, Yahweh had shown Himself good to Israel. So His goodness – His steadfast love and faithfulness – would see His covenant fulfilled unto His own glory.
b. Israel would continue to fail its sonship, but God would prevail, making provision in that failure for the sake of His oath to the patriarchs and His goal for His creation. * 34:5-8 Moses understood the significance of what was transpiring before him, and responded by asking Yahweh to continue His pattern of goodness toward His covenant son, thereby showing Himself glorious in Israel and before the nations. 34:9
4. Standing on the foundation of His glorious self-disclosure to Moses, Yahweh declared His intent to renew His covenant with Israel. Though He spoke of making a covenant (34:10), His elaboration (vv. 11-26) shows that the Lord was renewing the broken covenant and its relationship, not issuing an entirely new one.
II. Conclusion – Veiled Glory as the Covenant’s Defining Characteristic
1. The renewal of the covenant involved two climactic circumstances: Moses’ experience of Yahweh’s revealed glory, and his bearing the divine glory before the sons of Israel.
2. God displayed His glory to Israel through Moses, but in a manner that indicted the nation as a rebellious and unreceptive son. The Exodus narrative is brief and sparse, but Paul’s insight shows that Moses’ practice of veiling himself spoke to Yahweh’s glory being veiled from the Israelite people. They observed, but could not discern, the glory disclosed to Moses, which consisted in Yahweh’s expressed goodness in covenant love and faithfulness. This glory would continue to elude the sons of Israel, whose hearts were shrouded in an obscuring veil.
3. But Israel’s God remained faithful, and one day His glory would be fully manifest and embraced by all men alike. And not as fading away, but as increasing until the faces of His people reflect it in full, even as His glory has found its fullness in the true Son. * 2 Cor.3
|
|