|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2024 13:08:53 GMT -5
C. Paul’s Early Ministry (9:19-31)
The transformation of Saul the Pharisee into Paul the apostle was sudden and entire. Though Paul would continue, together with all of Jesus’ saints, to “grow up in all things into Him who is the Head,” (ref. Philippians 3:1ff), his encounter with the glorified Christ at Damascus had left him a new man; as one now “in Christ,” the old man had been done away with (Galatians 2:20) as Paul was delivered from the domain of darkness and resurrected to enter into the kingdom of the Son of God – the realm of the new creation (Colossians 1:13-14; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17).
The immediate transformation of Paul’s person was accompanied by and reflected in the instant reversal of his affections and energies. He had traveled to Damascus consumed by the passion to eradicate Jesus’ influence in the world; now, with the scales removed from his eyes, the same passion was instantly redirected toward the service and propagation of that influence. Paul had come to Damascus with the intention of entering the city’s synagogues, and that intention didn’t change. What did change was his motivation and goal: His prior design was to seek his
countrymen’s help in rooting out the gospel of Christ; now he was engaging them for the purpose of proclaiming that gospel and defending it from the Scriptures (9:19-20).
1. Luke identified Paul’s message as the proclamation that Jesus is Yahweh’s Son, which must be understood as a summary of his message rather than the sum of it. The goal of Paul’s preaching was the incontrovertible demonstration from the Scriptures that the crucified teacher Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Messiah promised in them (9:22). By summarizing Paul’s message in this way, Luke effectively highlighted and brought together two distinct components of Old Testament messianism.
a. The first is the notion of Jesus as the divine Son of God. This aspect of messianic revelation is more implied than stated; nowhere does the Old Testament use the phrase “son of God” in relation to its messianic figure. Indeed, the clearest suggestion of this concept is found in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16, esp. v. 14), but even there the issue of “sonship” doesn’t necessary imply the deity of David’s son (although it is suggested in the promise of an everlasting reign). Another scriptural passage important to this theme is the larger Immanuel context
in Isaiah’s prophecy. In particular, vv. 9:1-7 directly link the messianic Son of David with deity. This representation, in turn, reflects and contributes to the contextual theme and promise of Immanuel (“God with us”). Once again, the concept of a divine “son of God” is strongly suggested, but it isn’t directly stated.
Beyond the Immanuel prophecy, the closest prophetic association between the Messiah and Yahweh is found in the Scripture’s revelation of the Servant of the Lord. This individual was prophesied as coming in Yahweh’s name and power to accomplish His work in judgment and redemption, and Isaiah linked Him so closely with Yahweh and the Day of the Lord that His coming is treated as a theophany (ref. Isaiah 59:15-20; cf. 40:1-9 and Malachi 3:1-2). The Scripture implies the deity of the Servant, but He is not called the Son of God. (Note that the Servant’s role as True Israel also points to His identity as Son of God).
That Paul was proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God to the Jews of Damascus implies that first-century Judaism had some conception of the messianic theme of “son of God.” But given the above observations, it also follows that Paul would have had to substantiate his assertion about Jesus by drawing and reasoning broadly from the Old Testament scriptures. The only way he could identify Jesus of Nazareth (or any person) as the Son of God would be to first develop for his audience a coherent biblical theology of this messianic concept and then connect that revelation to the man Jesus. Developing such a theology would require Paul to correlate numerous threads of scriptural content.
b. Luke secondly indicated that the thrust of Paul’s proclamation was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ – Israel’s long-awaited Messiah (9:22). This might appear initially to have been an easier task since the Jews of his day had a pronounced messianic consciousness; Paul would simply need to connect Jesus of Nazareth with the Old Testament’s messianic portrait. That was no small task, however, since the Jews’ reading of their Scriptures had resulted in a flawed conception of what Messiah would be and do; for a start, they didn’t share Paul’s conviction that the Messiah revealed in the Scripture is in fact the divine Son of God.
This conviction amounted to a huge theological shift for Paul himself, since the Jewish messianism prevalent at that time anticipated a purely human Messiah.
The Jews were looking for a son of David who would be like David: a mighty liberator and king who would reestablish the Davidic theocratic kingdom in all its former glory and dominion. And so, more than merely connecting Jesus with
messianic revelation, Paul had to establish for his Jewish hearers a more biblical portrait of Messiah, including demonstrating that the Scriptures reveal a Messiah who is fully divine – a Messiah who is Yahweh in the flesh. Thus Paul’s gospel proclamation was vastly different from the “tract theology” of today; he would have explained and defended his claims concerning Jesus, not with a handful of proof-texts, but by a careful and broad exegesis of the Scripture.
2. Luke’s summary account of Paul’s proclamation shows how radically his perspective and understanding of the Scriptures had changed. As a Pharisee, Paul was a deeply studied scholar who would have committed to memory large portions of the Old Testament. More than any other Jewish sect, the Pharisees were noted for their scholarly zeal,
commitment and rigor; they were men utterly devoted to the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Now, having been confronted by the risen and glorified Christ, Paul was forced to rethink and reconstruct everything he thought he knew and was convinced of. This being the case, it raises the question of how Paul came to his new understanding.
Luke has Paul engaging the Jews almost immediately upon his conversion, and leaves the impression that his understanding resulted from instruction he received from Jesus on the road, from Ananias, and then from the community of disciples in Damascus (9:19b-20). Apart from other commentary, this would be the natural conclusion. However, Paul would later state that the gospel he preached neither originated with men nor was taught
to him by men; he received it “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12).
Scholars have interpreted this claim in various ways, often connecting it with Paul’s statement about time spent in Arabia following his conversion (ref. Galatians 1:15-17). Luke’s record is silent about this episode and Paul himself said nothing more about it, making it difficult to reach solid conclusions regarding it. At the same time, certain observations can be made and are helpful in piecing together the early period of Paul’s life and ministry as a Christian.
a. The first concerns the timing of this episode. Again, there is no consensus among scholars, but the information in Acts and Galatians seems to indicate that Paul departed Damascus soon after his saving encounter with Christ and journeyed into the region of northwest Arabia immediately to the east of the city. He later returned to Damascus where he continued his preaching ministry among the Jews until they threatened his life and he fled toward Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:23-26 with Galatians 1:15-18). Understood in this way, the Arabian episode fits into the extended Damascus ministry as recorded by Luke.
Another related timing issue pertains to the three year interval Paul mentioned in his epistle to the Galatians. It could possibly refer to the time he spent in Arabia, but the context better supports the conclusion that it refers to the entire period from Paul’s conversion until he returned to Jerusalem (ref. Galatians 1:15-18).
b. A second important consideration is the meaning of Paul’s statement that he received his gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” The first plausible interpretation is that Paul meant that he obtained his knowledge of Christ and His gospel by means of Jesus’ direct self-revelation on the Damascus road. In this way, Jesus was both the source and substance of the revelation Paul referred to: Paul’s gospel was a revelation of Jesus Christ by Jesus Christ. Another possibility allows for human participation in the formation of Paul’s gospel: While Jesus laid the foundation of Paul’s understanding through direct communication with him, He also “revealed” His gospel to him through appointed mouthpieces (as with Ananias). The greatest challenge to this view is Paul’s larger statement (ref. vv. 11-17) together with his grammar in v. 12, which at least suggests that the gospel he preached wasn’t communicated to him by men. Related to the first interpretation, many believe that Paul was indeed saying that
his gospel was imparted to him by direct revelation from Christ, but revelation that extended beyond the two visions at the time of his conversion. Those who hold this view commonly point to his sojourn in Arabia as the occasion of this supernatural discipleship. Analogous to Elijah’s time at Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19) and Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness, they contend that Paul spent the better part of three years alone in the Arabian desert being taught by Christ Himself. Other scholars reject the above interpretation, arguing that Paul went to Arabia to preach the gospel, not for the purpose of an extended discipleship retreat. He only mentioned Arabia to support his point that no man formed his understanding.
Among other things, they observe that Paul began preaching Christ and His gospel immediately upon his conversion and so clearly didn’t need protracted instruction. Indeed, if such discipleship was necessary, it calls into question the propriety (if not the biblical correctness) of his early preaching. On the other hand, an objection raised against this view is the fact that Paul mentioned his sojourn in Arabia in support of his assertion that he didn’t consult “flesh and blood” after being saved. The supposed implication is that Paul was alone in Arabia, not engaged in public preaching and interaction. But Paul could have simply been saying that no man was informing his understanding during that time; he could have been proclaiming the gospel in Arabia while not consulting other
men concerning it. It wasn’t until he traveled to Jerusalem a second time that he finally presented his gospel to the apostles for their scrutiny (Galatians 2:1-10). Summarizing all these observations, Paul’s saving encounter with Jesus instantly transformed every aspect of his life; he immediately set about proclaiming Him as the Son of God and Messiah promised by the Scriptures. Soon after his conversion he left Damascus and headed east into Arabia, later returning to Damascus to continue his gospel ministry in the city’s synagogues. Zealous and committed to reaching his Jewish countrymen with the gospel, Paul continued to grow in his own understanding of the Scriptures as they disclose God’s promise and preparation for the coming of Christ. He was determined to demonstrate scripturally that Jesus is the Messiah, and the sharpening of his christological perception brought with it the profound discovery that all the Scripture had now found its fulfillment in the Christ event. All of this understanding – what Paul called “his gospel” – came to him through Christ and not through men. Whether or not Jesus Himself directly communicated to Paul the totality of his gospel, it remains that His Spirit was illumining Paul’s mind and “leading him into all truth.”
3. Possessing a renewed mind and empowered by the Spirit (9:22),Paul was no longer able to read the Scripture except in the light of the fulfillment that had come in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. His fierce devotion to God’s inspired revelation continued unabated, but now with an entirely different perspective, motivation and goal. Paul no longer viewed the Scripture as revealing the path of personal righteousness; he saw in it the revelation of the “glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:1-6).
This turnabout and the power and insight of Paul’s proclamation stunned the saints in Damascus (9:21). They couldn’t believe what they were seeing and hearing, and doubtless treated Paul with caution for some time. But soon their caution turned to the sort of marveling that erupts in worship; how great is the power of God to save! The Jews of Damascus shared the saints’ amazement, but with a far different result. Their amazement led to outrage – the indignation that flows from the sting of betrayal. Jewish “laymen” embracing this false “Way” was bad enough; a prominent scholar and chief opponent embracing and promoting it was shocking and disgraceful. If the former needed
to be silenced, how much more this betrayer? Jewish offense quickly reached the boiling point and Paul was forced to flee Damascus under the cover of darkness (9:23-25). The pattern for the balance of his life was now in place; Paul’s suffering for Christ had begun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2024 13:11:17 GMT -5
4. Paul’s union with Christ had occurred at Damascus, and so it was fitting that his persecution and suffering in Christ should originate in the same place. Paul had travelled to Damascus confident that the Jewish authorities there would stand with him in his efforts to destroy Jesus’ followers. His confidence was well-placed; they were indeed committed to his cause, evident in the fact that they directed their hostility toward him when he became a promoter of this Way rather than its persecutor. Paul’s new life in Christ was soon met with the deadly opposition that was to characterize the rest of his days on earth. It began with the Jews, but would eventually extend to the Gentiles as well. This wasn’t to be the last time Paul would flee for his life as the Lord
continued to fulfill His purpose in and through him. As with those he had persecuted, Paul’s persecution only furthered the witness and fruitfulness of the gospel. He had testified to Jesus in Damascus, and now he would do so in Jerusalem (9:28).
a. Three years had passed since Paul departed Jerusalem for Damascus. The fact that he had been laboring in the gospel for some time and was an active part of the Church in Damascus makes it likely that the saints in Jerusalem already knew something of his experiences by the time he arrived back there. Certainly the Jewish establishment was painfully aware of what had transpired on the Damascus road, for Paul’s companions would have reported back to them when they returned without him and empty-handed.
Paul was well-known to the Jews of Jerusalem and notorious in the Church, so that there was no way his presence there could go unnoticed. He couldn’t keep a low profile if he wanted to, but that wasn’t his intention. Luke recorded that immediately upon his return Paul attempted to enter the believing community. His new-found love for Christ’s saints in Jerusalem preceded his introduction to them, but they were not so sure of his motivations. The wounds of his past atrocities were still smarting, and the believers were not at all convinced that such a zealous
enemy of Christ could really become His devoted servant (9:26).
The persecution that emerged from Stephen’s stoning had driven the Jerusalem saints away from the city, but the continuing apostolic presence and ministry – however cautious and low key – would have seen more people coming to faith. There was yet a Christian community in Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s return, but one no longer enjoying an open presence. The Jews had not discontinued their mission to destroy the Church, and Saul had been their chief agent. And so it’s no surprise that the saints responded to Paul’s overtures with deep suspicion. As far
as they knew, this was simply a tactic to infiltrate the community and learn who in Jerusalem continued to follow Jesus of Nazareth. One man, however, was able to get beyond that suspicion. Barnabas, whom Luke had introduced early in the Church’s life (4:36-37), saw in Paul a bona fide work of the Spirit. The man whose loving, devoted ministry to the saints had earned him the moniker “son of encouragement” was still living up to his name (9:27).
Paul desperately needed an advocate and the Lord provided one in Barnabas.
To this point, Paul had been unable to gain access to the community of believers, let alone the apostles. Everyone was holding him at arms length – everyone except Barnabas. But in God’s purpose and timing, the godly qualities in
Barnabas that had led the apostles to rename him afforded him the privilege of introducing Paul to them and explaining God’s work in and through him. - Luke doesn’t provide any further information about that encounter, but
Paul himself observed in his Galatian letter that he met only Peter and James during his first visit to Jerusalem (ref. Galatians 1:18-19). (This “James” was the Lord’s brother and not one of the Twelve, but subsequent to his conversion – probably as a result of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to him – James went on to play a prominent role in the Jerusalem Church. Thus Paul regarded him as a legitimate apostle.) - Specifically, Paul mentioned spending fifteen days with Peter, and Peter may well have introduced him to James. There is no doubt that Paul would
have used his time with the two apostles to learn more about the Lord he had come to know and love – His life and ministry, His post-resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-7), His ascension to His Father, His sending of His Spirit and subsequent work in building His Church. - Why Paul would have met only Peter and James is unclear, but there is some indication that they were the leaders of two congregations of believers within the larger Jerusalem Church (ref. 12:1-17). Some scholars believe this group led by Peter met in the house of Mary, the mother of
John Mark (12:11-12). He was Barnabas’ cousin (Colossians 4:10) and a close associate of Peter, having likely come to faith in Christ through Peter’s ministry (1 Peter 5:13). These associations may explain why Barnabas took Paul to Peter rather than others of the apostles.
b. Building upon Barnabas’ introduction, Paul would have elaborated to Peter and James concerning his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road and the amazing circumstances that followed. Doubtless his testimony and demeanor
convinced them of the legitimacy of his conversion and calling, and their reception of him would have encouraged the Church to also embrace him. Luke provides no explanation of how Paul won over the saints in Jerusalem, but the
boldness of his proclamation certainly would have impacted their thinking. Jerusalem continued to be the epicenter of Jewish hostility and persecution, and the earlier days of open witness on the temple grounds were a distant memory. But here was Paul – the former persecutor whose betrayal of the cause had put him in the crosshairs of Jewish animosity – “moving about freely” in the streets of Jerusalem and “speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord” (9:28). This Pharisee who had pursued Jesus’ followers with fearless abandon was now bringing the same attitude and zeal to his proclamation of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah.
c. Paul’s betrayal of Judaism was bad enough; returning to Jerusalem and rubbing his former colleagues’ noses in it was a direct slap in the face, and such audacity could not long be endured. Luke specifically noted Paul’s interaction with the Hellenistic Jews, perhaps indicating that the Hebraic Jews – of which Paul was a member – refused to have anything to do with him now that he had embraced this false messiah (ref. again 6:9-14). Or Luke’s purpose may have been to link Paul with Stephen, whose opponents had also been Hellenists (6:9). If the latter was his intent, it creates a sharp irony: The same community that Paul had stood in solidarity with as they took Stephen’s life was now seeking to take his (9:29). Whatever Luke’s intention in mentioning only Paul’s interaction with the Hellenistic Jewish community, he made it clear that his witness to Christ met with the same response from the Jews in Jerusalem as it had in Damascus. So it was with Jesus’ saints, who intervened to rescue Paul from death in Jerusalem just as they had done previously in Syria (9:30; cf. 9:23-25).
5. When they learned of the threat against Paul’s life, members of the Jerusalem Church whisked him out of the city, escorting him as far as Caesarea on the coast. From there they sent him to Tarsus, Paul’s hometown and the leading city of the small region of Cilicia. Luke’s account leaves Paul in Tarsus, where Barnabas would later find him and
bring him to the Church in Antioch in Syria (11:19-26; cf. Galatians 1:21). That congregation would become Paul’s “home church” and the hub for his missionary labors.
6. Finally, Luke closed out his treatment of Paul’s conversion and early ministry with a startling summary statement (9:31). The overall context has emphasized the Church’s struggle in persecution, imprisonment and death, and yet here Luke described its general state of being as one of peace. Some interpret Luke as implying that the flames of Jewish hostility died down once Paul was converted and stopped fanning them. This view is plausible, but Luke’s language seems to suggest a different interpretation – one that shines the spotlight on how the Church is to view itself and order its life in this world. Looking ahead in Luke’s narrative, it’s evident that nothing had changed with the Jews’ disposition; Paul certainly knew that to be true. The Church enjoyed settled peace in the midst of a continuing storm, an irony explained by his qualifying statements.
a. The first is that the Church was “being built up.” The unrelenting and lethal opposition directed against the Lord’s Church had failed to destroy it; to the contrary, it had served only to strengthen and build it up – in the maturity of personal faith, joy and love as much as in the increase of its numbers.
b. The second reveals the mechanism for this fruitfulness: The Church was flourishing as it continued in the “fear of the Lord” and the “comfort of the Holy Spirit.” Circumstances were distressing and unpredictable, but the truth of the gospel and the new creation remained constant. The Church’s peace wasn’t then – or ever – situational, but has always rested on the conviction of the truth and the resource of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 1-4; Philippians 4:1-13; 1 Peter 1:1-9; etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2024 17:29:23 GMT -5
The Work of Incarnation – Manifesting the Kingdom
1. The incarnation fulfilled Yahweh’s long-standing promise to return to Zion to liberate and heal His covenant people, renew His covenant with them, and again fill His sanctuary with His presence. But all of that looked to His ultimate design to establish His everlasting kingdom encompassing all creation, and thus the work of incarnation was the work of announcing and ushering in that kingdom. *cf. Luke 4:14-21 with Isaiah 59-60
2. All four gospel writers have Jesus announcing and manifesting the “good news” of this kingdom, while also indicating with increasing clarity what this kingdom-bringing would mean for the sons of Israel. Luke especially emphasized this dynamic, introducing it at the outset of his account of Jesus’ Galilean ministry: The prophet who found Himself without honor in His hometown would see that rejection replicated in the nation as a whole.
3. The Nazareth incident set the stage for what Jesus could expect for the balance of His ministration. He came to Israel proclaiming the good news His countrymen had awaited for many centuries, but it didn’t come in the form or manner they expected, and they responded, not by reassessing their own expectations, but by rejecting Him as an impostor and enemy.
II.
Manifesting the Kingdom
Jesus came to Israel as the last and greatest of Israel’s prophets – the prophet who heralded the fulfillment of all that the former prophets had promised, namely the coming of God’s eschatological kingdom. That kingdom would see Yahweh’s return to end Israel’s exile, renew the covenant relationship and establish His rule over the entire world by “raising up David’s fallen tent” and setting David’s covenant son on the throne of Israel. In this way Yahweh would fulfill His covenants with Abraham, David and Israel, vindicating Himself as the righteous God who is faithful to uphold His word. All of Israel’s prophets had spoken of these things, and Jesus proclaimed them as being fulfilled in connection with Himself.
Again, the kingdom of God was the goal of incarnation, and Jesus manifested the kingdom in His own person, as well as through His words and works. But because He was manifesting a kingdom that has no earthly counterpart – a kingdom that doesn’t originate in or have its essence in this world (John 18:33-37), and that stands in antithesis to human kingdoms and their premises and principles, Jesus’ witness met with confusion, unbelief, fear and rejection.
Israel was expecting a kingdom that conformed to the natural human conception of “kingdom” and “kingship” a kingdom not unlike the Roman one that was oppressing them, but one in which they were in power and able to lord it over their enemies. This was how the people of Israel envisioned the messianic kingdom and its king, and when they measured Jesus and His words and works against this expectation, it left them perplexed, discouraged and resentful, even to the point of wanting to kill Him as a false prophet and messianic pretender.
Jesus didn’t conform to Israel’s messianic hope – indeed, He threatened it, and this resulted in confusion, fear, slander and rejection. At the same time, none could deny that He spoke and acted as a prophet of God, showing unique authority and insight and manifesting divine power through astonishing signs and wonders. How could such a one be a false prophet? Would the Messiah do greater things?. Mat. 7:28-29, 12:9-45, 16:13-23; John 7:1-44, 10:22-42, 12:1ff
The kingdom Jesus came to inaugurate stood in absolute antithesis to all human counterparts, including the kingdom the Jews imagined for themselves. Thus Jesus’ witness to the kingdom had a quality of confrontation about it, whether His witness was implicit or explicit, whether verbal or enacted through His own life or the Spirit’s works. In every respect, the kingdom of God was suffering violence, even as the kingdom-bringer was a sign to be opposed. This is the story the gospel writers tell, and it is the lens through which their accounts need to be read.
B.
Invitation and Challenge
The gospel writers show this confrontation dynamic arising the moment Jesus began to announce and manifest the in-breaking of Yahweh’s kingdom. Luke introduced it through his account of Jesus’ encounter in His hometown (4:14-30), identifying it by the truism that a prophet isn’t received by his own people. What was true of Nazareth would prove true of the Hebrew nation. Jesus began His ministry of the kingdom by announcing its in-breaking in relation to Himself. But this announcement carried an obligation for Israel: If the kingdom was indeed at hand, the heirs of the kingdom needed to embrace it and enter into it. Hence Jesus’ announcement (in word and deed) was followed by His invitation and challenge. Put simply, the coming of the kingdom meant that Israel’s liberation and restoration were at hand, and thus Jesus called His countrymen to become Israel indeed – not by rising up against Rome, but by embracing His way of triumph. The way to enter Yahweh’s kingdom was to become a true son of the kingdom.
1. This is what the Sermon on the Mount is all about (Mat. 5-7), and the failure to situate it in its Israelite and salvation-historical context is the reason for the divergent perspectives and interpretations of its message and significance. Stripped from its context and treated in isolation, the Sermon on the Mount is characteristically viewed as presenting a code of ethics, whether regarded as Mosaic or universal, temporal or timeless, natural or spiritual.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Many, particularly in the modern church era, have interpreted this passage through a “social justice” lens, and so find Jesus condemning human inequity, injustice, and oppression and calling for a fair and just ordering of human social structures. Others view the Sermon on the Mount as setting out the governing ethic for the future Jewish millennial kingdom, with only a general moral relevance for the Church. Reformed Christians reject this millennial view, and yet most agree that Jesus’ teaching in this passage proves the continuing relevance of the Law of Moses. From the traditional Reformed perspective, Jesus was purging and reaffirming the Mosaic “moral law,” but as the universal obligation of all people in every age, not just the Israelite people. Still other Christians (and non-Christians) view Jesus’ instruction as a rehearsal and celebration of universal human virtues – timeless, moral and ethical truths that nurture human happiness in this life and will characterize human existence in heaven.
All of these views reflect the “de-judaizing” of the Scriptures and its effect on the Church and its doctrine and practice. But they also reflect the way people naturally conceive deity and human relationship with it. All religion starts from the premise of divine-human distance that needs to be bridged and managed for the good of the “worshipper,” and this same dynamic applies to the Christian “religion in which God relates to humans through a fixed standard to which they are accountable, and that determines their relationship with Him.
2. Like the other gospel writers, Matthew presented Jesus as the anointed Israelite appointed to take upon Himself Israel’s life and testing in order that God’s pledge to Abraham should be fulfilled. By living out Israel’s election and calling as the “seed of Abraham,” Jesus would become the foundation for a new Israel – an Israel reconstituted in Himself; an Israel suited to inherit Yahweh’s kingdom and the Abrahamic mission on behalf of the world.
This sense of His own messianic identity and vocation lay behind Jesus’ instruction and exhortation that day on the hillside in Galilee, a fact that Matthew underscored by the way he constructed his account (ref. chaps. 1-2): This Jesus, son of Abraham and David, was Yahweh’s anointed king, appointed to shepherd His people as ruler over His kingdom.
3. And so, while the Sermon on the Mount does have an ethical quality, this ethic is the ethic of the kingdom that Jesus came to inaugurate. He wasn’t pointing to a future Jewish millennial kingdom or setting out a humanistic ideal. But neither was He recovering and reasserting the Mosaic code as God’s “eternal moral law” that determines every person’s final fate. Rather, He was describing the kingdom of God and its regal-priestly citizens according to God’s design – i.e., what it would look like for Israel to be Israel in truth. But Jesus didn’t simply announce God’s kingdom; He was the kingdom-bringer and the One in whom Israel was to be restored to its God, and this points to three crucial truths:
a.
b.
c.
First and foremost, by describing the sons of the kingdom (5:1-16), Jesus was describing Himself; He was the Israelite in whom this authentic sonship was to be realized. But of the course, the Israelite people had a different notion of the kingdom and its sons, and this would lead them to see Jesus as undermining and even abrogating God’s word and promises concerning His kingdom and Israel’s restoration. Jesus understood this, and so challenged His hearers that He and His way of sonship didn’t nullify the Scriptures, but fulfilled them; this was the way of righteousness they prescribed. * 5:17-20
And because Jesus recognized that His instruction had its truth and fulfillment in Himself, He wasn’t calling His hearers to pursue the better way of life He was depicting. No, He was calling them to embrace Him. The sons of Israel would become the sons of the kingdom as Jesus was describing – i.e., Yahweh’s restored “Israel” – when they
embraced and followed Him, the true Son and Servant. * cf. 5:17-20 with 5:21-48 But this implies a grave negative corollary: Sonship in the Son is a narrow strait, with all other notions and approaches comprising a “wide path” that leads to destruction (5:1327). Thus Jesus’ invitation and challenge came with a sober warning:
The sons of Israel must not listen to and follow the “prophets” who were promoting false notions of Yahweh’s kingdom, His messianic King, the messianic work, and the righteousness that defines the sons of the kingdom. All who followed that path would find themselves “cast out” of the kingdom, along with those who had deceived them.
Israel’s rabbis had long taught that only the “righteous” – those who are faithful sons of the covenant – would inherit Yahweh’s kingdom, but this truth needed to be rethought. Jesus was insisting that He, Israel’s long-awaited Messiah, is that faithful Son, and His way of sonship is the sole path into the kingdom (5:20). All who follow another way are building their house on sand, and so will find themselves and their abode swept away when the tumult of judgment came upon them. * ref. 7:24-27; cf. Luke 13:22-30, 19:28-44, 21:20-24
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2024 21:49:42 GMT -5
The Work of Incarnation – Manifesting the Kingdom
1. After His baptism, His anointing as Messiah and the proving of His sonship in the wilderness, Jesus embarked on His messianic mission of announcing, manifesting and ultimately inaugurating the kingdom of God. This kingdom was the realization of all that Yahweh had promised to Israel – all that He would accomplish when He returned to Zion to
liberate, forgive, cleanse, renew and reestablish His reign in their midst.
2. This was the kingdom Jesus heralded as “good news” and manifested in His own person, as well as by His words and works. But because the sons of Israel had a very different expectation of God’s kingdom, Jesus’ message perplexed and disturbed them and many resented and rejected Him as a false prophet and messianic pretender.
3. Nevertheless, Jesus’ presence in Israel as Yahweh’s Messiah meant that the promised kingdom was at hand, and thus He accompanied His proclamation with the invitation and challenge to embrace Yahweh’s kingdom by embracing Him as its King.
II.
Manifesting the Kingdom
Jesus manifested the in-breaking kingdom first in His own person. Most significantly, He embodied Yahweh’s return to Zion to again dwell in the midst of His covenant people. But He also embodied Israel in truth as faithful son, servant, disciple and witness. When the Israelite people observed Jesus, they were observing the fundamental reality of the kingdom – Yahweh again dwelling with His restored covenant people in perfect, loving intimacy.
And what Jesus embodied in His person, He affirmed with His instruction and deeds. He proclaimed and depicted the kingdom with His preaching and teaching, and also disclosed its nature and power through His works. Jesus was heralding a kingdom that was going to supplant the kingdom of the world and its ruler – the kingdom that even Israel was subject to, and this truth was a key aspect of His disclosure. Thus He proclaimed the kingdom, not just through His preaching and teaching, but through His conflict with and triumph over the reigning powers and the implicit indictment and warning that that conflict carried.
C.
Conflict and Victory
1. The kingdom Jesus came to inaugurate is fundamentally and radically different from all human kingdoms because it functions according to a different set of principles; it is the kingdom of God and reflects and expresses His nature and character. And because all human kingdoms are grounded in man’s alienation from God and subjection to the powers that contradict and oppose Him, they have no place alongside God’s kingdom; the existence of the one disallows the existence of the other. Thus Jesus’ witness to the in-breaking kingdom was a battle cry to the contradicting powers (human and supra-human), and they were all-too eager to rise to the conflict. * cf. Mat. 12:1-45, 15:1-20; Luke 9:18-62; John 8:31-59; etc.
2. At the heart of Yahweh’s kingdom promise was His assurance of a second exodus: He was once again going to rise up and overthrow the enslaving powers and so liberate and restore His captive people. Israel understood this in terms of their Gentile overlords, but God was referring to the powers that oversee, inform, and direct all human authorities and powers.
Indeed, Israel’s prophets indicated that Yahweh’s ultimate design in this second great exodus was the creation’s liberation, reconciliation and renewal. He was going to overthrow the curse and the powers that enforce it, and this could not be achieved by conquering human kings and kingdoms. No, He needed to vanquish the powers behind the human powers if His kingdom was to be installed on earth as in heaven.
3. This doesn’t suggest that God had been misleading His people about His intentions. Yes, He pledged to end His people’s exile, renew the covenant, reunite Israel and Judah, return to His sanctuary on Mount Zion, and restore and glorify Jerusalem as the seat of His sovereign kingdom that would encompass the whole earth. But all of these promises reflected Israel’s election as the Abrahamic people and their central place in God’s designs for the world. He had determined to bind up the creation’s destiny in Israel, and thus the nation’s history and covenant life were the proper context for God to disclose and interpret His purposes and work in the world. Viewed from this perspective, the Israelite shape and features of God’s kingdom promises weren’t the least bit misleading, but in perfect accord with the truth of what He was going to do. It was only the inability to foresee the messianic person and work that created the apparent disconnect between God’s promises and the manner of their fulfillment. * cf. Rom. 9-11 with Gal. 3-4 and Eph. 2-3
4. Jesus had come to fight Yahweh’s decisive battle against the true enemy and ultimate enslaving power, and that for the purpose of liberating the creation and ending its exile, not simply restoring the people of Israel. This, then, is the lens for interpreting Jesus’ confrontations with and triumph over natural and supra-natural powers, whether casting out demons or calming the sea, whether healing human bodies or raising the dead.
All four gospel writers emphasize this diverse ministration of authority and power, but there was one occasion that provided unique insight into Jesus’ designs. That occurred at Caesarea Philippi, and it marked a crucial turning point in Jesus’ ministry to His disciples. For there He revealed to them the actual battle He’d come to fight and what His victory would secure (Mat. 16:13-20; cf. Mark 8:27-30). This is a familiar passage to many, but grasping its full significance depends on reading it in terms of its setting and historical context.
a.
Caesarea Philippi was a town northeast of the Sea of Galilee, named by Herod Philip as his tribute to Caesar Augustus. It was located in the north of the region of Bashan on a fertile terrace near the southern slope of Mount Hermon. The settlement had a long history and was renamed Dan when it became part of Dan’s tribal inheritance at the
Israelite conquest. Later, after the division of David’s kingdom, it was one of two sites where Jeroboam I built altars and set up calf images for worshipping Yahweh, and so became synonymous with Israel’s idolatry and apostasy (1 Kings 12).
But the area’s notoriety extended beyond Jeroboam’s desecration; for centuries before Jesus’ birth it had been a focal point of pagan religion and lore. The Canaanites called Mount Hermon Baal Hermon, named for their god Baal who was thought to live on that mountain. Afterward, the Greeks associated the area with their god Pan, and the Romans
referred to it as “the rock of the gods,” even building a temple there to Caesar Augustus.
But most significantly, there is a large rock escarpment at the site of Caesarea Philippi containing a grotto that various pagan traditions taught was an entrance point into the underworld – the gate into Hades, as it were. This is the context for Jesus’ assertions about His messiahship and the triumph associated with it.
b.
Caesarea Philippi is about 25 miles northeast of the Sea of Galilee, ell out of the way of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. The gospel texts don’t explain how Jesus and His disciples found themselves that far north, but it seems clear that the Lord intentionally led them there – the place believed to be the entrance into the underworld realm of death – as the appropriate setting to instruct them concerning His messiahship and its triumphal work.
For when Jesus confronted His disciples about His identity and confirmed that He was Israel’s Messiah, He specifically associated His messianic work and its triumph with an absolute victory over “the gates of Hades.” Many have taken this statement as a kind of vague reference to hell and its defeat, but Jesus was making a much more profound point, and one that His disciples wouldn’t have missed: Standing there at the pagan site that symbolized the realm of the dead and the dark powers that preside over it, Jesus was declaring that His victory, manifest in His Church, would render them powerless. In effect, Jesus was telling His disciples that the messianic triumph – His triumph – would involve death’s conquest and the destruction of the forces that wield its power.
5. Viewed from this perspective, Jesus’ statement about building His Church on “this rock” takes on a different quality. Christians have commonly understood the “rock” as referring either to Peter himself or his confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. Many are aware of Jesus’ play on words – Peter the little stone versus the bedrock on which He would build His Church, but few recognize that He made that verbal play standing before the large rock escarpment filled with pagan images and believed to be the entrance into Hades, which He clearly intended to be the context for interpreting His meaning. Jesus orchestrated this occasion to address His messiahship, but specifically regarding the battle He was about to fight – the decisive battle that the prophets had placed at the center of the messianic work, and that Israel (including His disciples) understood in terms of victory over Rome.
a.
b.
Jesus was affirming to His disciples that He is indeed Yahweh’s messianic son, but He’d come to fight an entirely different battle – a battle symbolized by the place to which He had brought them. Unlike every other supposed messiah, He wasn’t going to take up arms against the Gentile oppressors; His battle was with the powers behind those human oppressors – the dark powers who wielded the unbreakable chains of sin and death.
These were the enslaving forces Jesus was going to fight, and when He had achieved complete victory He would establish His ecclesia – Yahweh’s renewed covenant household brought out of death into life – on the very bedrock that had been the symbolic monument to death and its invincible power over all mankind. Moreover, this triumph
would be final and irreversible; the gates of Hades would not be able to withstand it.
6. The messianic battle wasn’t against human enemies, and it wouldn’t involve conventional weapons. Israel’s hope looked to a messianic warrior who would raise an army and prevail against human forces on the battlefield. But Jesus was going to defeat the enemy by fully yielding to it; He would defeat death and its powers by letting them kill Him. To human reasoning, nothing could be more absurd, and it was certainly true for Jesus’ disciples. He
took them to the gates of Hades to disclose the battle He was about to fight, and when they departed He began to explain how He was going to engage the enemy (16:21). Matthew recorded Peter’s response (16:22), but no doubt all of the disciples felt the same way.
Already forgetting the lesson at Caesarea Philippi, Peter returned to his own messianic notions – notions derived from human manifestations of power and triumph that reflect the rule of the satanic lord, not the living God and His King (16:23).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2024 22:03:58 GMT -5
The Work of Incarnation – Manifesting the Kingdom
1. Jesus’ ministry was directed toward manifesting the in-breaking kingdom to the children of Israel; in Him, Israel’s God was at last fulfilling His promises of conquest, liberation, reconciliation, restoration and exaltation. All of those achievements were key aspects of Yahweh’s pledge to return to Zion and establish His everlasting rule and kingdom.
2. Jesus was the kingdom-bringer, and this work involved announcement, invitation and challenge to the sons of Israel, but also manifesting God’s authority over the ruling powers He would soon defeat. He was the messianic son of David and had come, as promised, to fight the great and decisive battle in order to inaugurate His everlasting kingdom.
3. But this was not the battle Israel expected; Yahweh would secure His supreme victory by submitting Himself, in the person of His incarnate Son, to all of the enemies assembled against Him. The Messiah’s apparent defeat at the hand of the powers wielding the weapons of condemnation and death would spell death’s demise and the inauguration of the everlasting reign of life under the rule of the Lord of life.
II.
Manifesting the Kingdom
Jesus took His disciples to Caesarea Philippi to make clear to them the battle He had come to fight, and thereafter He began to explain to them how He would obtain the victory. He was going to fulfill His Father’s will for the world and establish His kingdom, but there would be many among the Father’s covenant children who would fall short of that kingdom. Thus another crucial dimension of Jesus’ kingdom announcement was a grave and shocking warning – a warning that became more prominent the closer He drew to His appointed day in Jerusalem.
D.
Warning
1. Put simply, Jesus wanted His countrymen to understand the consequences of refusing Him. To most in Israel, Jesus was a curiosity – a wonder-working prophet and teacher who brought a strange and baffling message. To others, He was clearly a false messiah, which provoked great fear that He would catch the attention of Rome and Roman swords would again fall on the Israelite nation, as had happened recently with Judas the Galilean. And this time Rome’s
retribution would likely be more severe, perhaps even reaching to Israel’s sacred institutions (ref. John 11:45-50). Many other Israelites – including Jesus’ inner circle of disciples – followed Him as Israel’s Messiah, but yet with a flawed sense of the messianic mission. They, too, found themselves often perplexed by what they heard and saw in Him.
2. Thus Jesus found Himself continually warning His hearers about the danger of missing the day of their visitation – i.e., the day of Yahweh’s return to Zion to accomplish all that He had promised through His prophets. This failure would bring grave consequences, not just for unbelieving individuals, but for the nation as a whole. Many Israelites feared that Jesus’ messianic claims and popularity would draw Rome’s ire and threaten their institutions and
national well-being, and thus they sought to undermine and silence Him. But the great irony was that their response to Him would bring the very thing they feared. Roman legions would indeed march against Judea, Jerusalem and its temple – not because Israel was promoting Jesus as Yahweh’s messianic King, but because they had rejected Him. * John 19:1-15
3. All four of the gospel writers make Jesus’ warnings a key aspect of their accounts, though Christians often fail to see just how common this dimension of Jesus’ ministry was. A primary reason for this is that many of Jesus’ parables and teachings that pertain to Israel’s impending judgment are interpreted as referring to His “second coming” and a final day of judgment. Examples include the parables of the maidens (Mat. 25:1-14), the talents (Mat.
25:15-30; cf. Luke 19:11ff), and the fig tree (Luke 13:6-9; ref. 12:35-13:9), as well as Jesus’
answer to the question of how many in Israel were to be saved (Luke 13:22-30).
4. There are numerous reasons why so many of Jesus’ sayings are wrongly interpreted as
pertaining to His Parousia and a final judgment, but a few are worth noting here.
a.
b.
The first is historical as well as biblical, and that is failing to understand the dynamics of Israel’s exile and the fact that it continued right up to the time of Jesus’ birth. Many Christians (and Christian scholars) believe that the Judean exile ended when Cyrus allowed the Jewish exiles under his authority to return to Judea and rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem (cf. Isa. 44:28 with 2 Chron. 36:22-23). This return completed the 70 years of decreed desolation, and the temple and city were indeed rebuilt, but the Jews understood that their exile was a relational phenomenon, not a geographical one; regardless of where they were residing and the condition of Jerusalem and its temple, Israel’s exile would end when Yahweh returned and renewed His covenant with them.
Moreover, the prophets indicated that Yahweh would accomplish this return and renewal in connection with His messianic servant. Jesus understood Himself to be that One, and so confronted His countrymen with the truth that His presence indicated Yahweh’s return and hence their obligation to receive Him and His restorative work as He established His kingdom. This is what it meant for Israel to “repent and believe the good news.”
Overlooking the matter of Israel’s exile leads to a second interpretive problem, which is misunderstanding the concept of Jesus’ coming. Since Christians live on this side of the “Christ event” and look forward to His return, it’s natural for them to read Jesus’ teaching concerning His “coming” in terms of a second coming. But it’s important first to recognize that Jesus was speaking to His Jewish contemporaries, not Christians in later
generations. So He was speaking to them according to their understanding and expectations of Yahweh’s return, the messianic work, and the coming kingdom. From this vantage point, Jesus’ teaching on His “coming” has two distinct referents that many (perhaps most) Christians miss: His “coming” to Israel as the messianic servant-son
through whom Yahweh was returning to Zion (Mat. 21:33-44; Luke 19:11-27), and His “coming” as referring to His vindication and exaltation as King at the right hand of God following His triumph in death and resurrection. * cf. Mat. 26:59-64; Dan. 7:1-14 None of this denies the fact of a future Parousia, but the Scripture treats this event as Jesus’ appearing – His becoming openly manifest in the world – not as Him returning to earth from a distant heaven. Indeed, the prophets spoke of one “coming,” not two, and it was Yahweh who was coming to liberate, renew and regather His people and establish His everlasting kingdom on the earth. This was the lens through which the Israelite people heard Jesus’ words; they had no concept of a “second coming,” and needed only to realize that Yahweh had returned, not in His Shekinah or merely in mighty works of power through anointed agents, but in His incarnate Son, and that He would establish His kingdom in an extended process according to the principle of already-but-not-yet.
c.
Another reason that some parables and teachings are referred to Jesus’ second coming is their proximity to the Olivet Discourse, which is commonly interpreted in the same way. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record this episode, but with their own unique emphases. Thus they must be read and interpreted together, and when this is done, it becomes clear that Jesus was primarily (if not solely) speaking about the impending destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. This is evident at the outset from the way Jesus provoked the disciples’ questions (ref. Mat. 24:1-2) – questions that He then proceeded to answer. Jesus’ overt allusions to Daniel 9 also show that He had in mind Rome’s impending desolation of Israel,not a future tribulation preceding His second coming. Of course, making this connection depends upon a right reading of the Daniel 9 context, which itself is commonly read through the lens of a supposed “end times” tribulation scenario. The revelation given to Daniel came through an angel sent to answer his question about
Israel’s restoration, which he understood had been predicted to occur at the end of a seventy-year desolation and exile under Babylon (9:1-19; cf. Jer. 29:10 with 2 Chron. 36:20-23). Babylon’s rule had been broken, and yet Daniel saw no hint that his people’s plight was coming to an end. Yes, exiles were returning to Judea, but under Persian
authority and Gentile oppression; this was hardly the restoration Yahweh had promised.
Thus Yahweh sent His angel to explain to Daniel that the seventy years were actually seventy weeks of years –seventy “sevens.” The redemption and renewal Daniel longed for was more than five centuries away, timed by Artaxerxes’ yet future authorization to rebuild Jerusalem (circa 457 B.C.; Ezra 7). What is crucial to recognize is that this
disclosed timetable pertains to Daniel’s concern with the end of Israel’s exile, which Israel’s prophets associated with Yahweh’s return to Zion and His redemptive and restorative work accomplished through His messianic servant. This is the lens for interpreting Daniel 9:24-27, and while the angel painted only a general thematic depiction, the crucial features of this future episode are indisputable:
1) The restoration Yahweh had pledged through His prophets (9:24) would come in connection with Messiah’s rejection. This rejection – astonishingly by Messiah’s own people (the “people of the coming prince”) – would see them become the causal agents of Jerusalem’s destruction.
2) They would “destroy the city and its sanctuary,” not by their own hands, but by a desolating power brought in “on the wings of their abominations” (v. 27). Daniel was longing for Yahweh to end Israel’s exile and fulfill His promise of reconciliation and renewal, and His angel revealed to him that this fulfillment was going to occur in a most unexpected way. Yahweh would effect this redemption, restoration and relational healing through Israel’s rejection of Him, culminating with the destruction of city and sanctuary that were at the center of Daniel’s longing. This is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke of the “abomination of desolation” (Mat. 24:15-21; cf. Luke 21:20-24), which fits perfectly with His initial assertion about the temple (Mat. 24:1-2). This interpretation is also consistent with Jesus’ repeated warnings to His countrymen of the dire consequence of missing the day of their visitation and rejecting the One sent to them. These warnings escalated as Calvary drew near,
reaching their climax as Jesus rode into Jerusalem, symbolizing Yahweh’s return to Zion as her King, and pronounced the temple’s condemnation. * ref. Luke 19:28-20:19
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2024 22:17:58 GMT -5
The Work of Incarnation – Inaugurating the Kingdom
Introduction
1. Beginning with the phenomenon of incarnation itself, Jesus’ life was directed toward testifying to the kingdom that Israel’s God had long before pledged to establish. That kingdom would see Him return to Zion to redeem, cleanse and regather His exiled people, renew the cursed creation, and take up His everlasting reign in the midst of the earth.
2. Jesus heralded this kingdom and manifested its true nature in His person, words and works, but its actual inauguration was the ultimate goal of His coming.
3. This is where the matter of atonement enters into the picture, and it is precisely the inauguration of God’s kingdom – the kingdom disclosed and promised in Israel’s scriptures – that must inform and govern our understanding of Jesus’ atoning work and its outcome.
4. The reason for emphasizing this truth is that multitudes of Christians understand Jesus’ atoning work in terms of satisfying the legal demands of justice against human violation of God’s laws and commandments. Atonement, then, is the means for people to escape their just condemnation and punishment in hell.
This notion of atonement is reflected in “gospel” tracts and presentations, along with much Christian preaching and teaching, but it is less than biblical in that it fails to interpret Jesus’ cross work from within its scriptural – i.e., Israelite and salvation-historical – context.
II.
A.
Inaugurating the Kingdom
The Scriptural Concept of Atonement
Virtually all Christians recognize that Jesus’ death on Calvary was both foundational and essential to the inauguration of God’s kingdom; put differently, kingdom and cross are inseparable and mutually referential, and so interpret each other. But the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus’ atoning death and God’s kingdom aren’t often clearly understood, especially when the matter of atonement is considered beyond simply Jesus’ crucifixion.
1. As noted above, atonement is typically understood in forensic terms as God’s ordained means for satisfying justice against human violation of His expressed will (laws, commands, precepts, etc.). God is the righteous Lord, so that His faithfulness to Himself requires that He punish all disobedience to all that He demands. While atonement does address the matter of divine justice, it looks beyond legal satisfaction to resolving the elemental issue that stands between God and humans. That is the alienation that has destroyed the divine-human relationship for which God created human beings in His own image and likeness.
So the Scripture identifies human failure in terms of three primary categories – sin, iniquity, and transgression, and each of these speaks to man’s fundamental relational obligation.
a.
Sin is the most general and encompassing of these designations, and refers to any deviation from the truth (“missing the mark”) – truth as God knows it and manifests it in the structure and functioning of His creation. For human beings, then, sin is any deviation from authentic human existence, whether inwardly or in outward expression.
And since man was created to be image-son (with all that entails, implies, and requires), sin is any deviation from or distortion of the human sonship that has its essential substance – its truth – in one’s absolute union and communion with God. All sin, then, is failure at the point of that intended comprehensive intimacy (“I in you and you in Me”).
b.
c.
Iniquity is a similar concept, but it elaborates on the idea of sin by emphasizing human deviation as an inward condition that manifests itself outwardly. Iniquity spotlights the inherent and persistent bent of the fallen human heart and mind away from God; it is the human condition that renders all people idolaters with themselves as their supreme “god.” Transgression (trespass) often refers to the violation of a specific obligation, as in transgressing a commandment. But even so, the Hebrew concept is fundamentally relational, which is underscored by the fact that all of God’s commands reflect the relational obligation of humans to Him. (So the Law of Moses defined and prescribed the relationship between God and Israel.) At bottom, transgression is relational infidelity; it is
active rebellion born of disloyalty. * ref. Gen. 31:36-41, 50:14-17; Exod. 22:8f, 23:20f
Taken together, these designations underscore that, from God’s perspective, human failure, violation and guilt are fundamentally relational and have one’s relationship with Him at the very center. Even when a person “sins” against another person, that violation is ultimately a trespass against one’s sonship (ref. Psa. 50:1-4). Thus compliance with directives as such isn’t the issue in one’s obedience to God. Indeed such compliance, however eager and
scrupulous, amounts to violation and incurs guilt with God. * cf. Isa. 1:10-13; Phil. 3:1-9
The above consideration is important because atonement is the scriptural provision for addressing human failure and disobedience and the guilt and uncleanness they produce. If sin, iniquity, and transgression concern relational infidelity, then atonement must be directed toward relational restoration. And this is exactly what the Scripture indicates. Atonement and the concept of an atoning sacrifice notably emerge in the context of Israel’s covenant and
the priesthood ordained to mediate it (Exod. 29-30), which shows that atonement was Yahweh’s provision for preserving the relationship between Him and His covenant “son.”
2. The Law of Moses provided Israel with a system of atonement, not as punishment or retribution, but as God’s gracious means for preserving His relationship with His people. Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant alienated them from their God, and atonement served to bridge that chasm and restore the covenant communion. Thus atonement is closely related to the concept of redemption. For redemption is concerned with freeing a person or thing from some form of indenture, captivity, enslavement, etc. through an appropriate payment (price of redemption, or ransom). In the case of the Israelite people, they were in continual need of liberation from their covenant uncleanness, guilt and alienation, and the various means of atonement provided by the Law of Moses achieved this ongoing “redemption,”
with the supreme redemptive “ransom” coming annually on the Day of Atonement.
This atonement/redemption dynamic reached its climax with the Christ event, when Yahweh sent His messianic servant to redeem Israel from its exile and captivity by offering Himself as the atoning sacrifice for them (ref. Isaiah 53-54, 59-60; cf. Mark 10:45). The prophets had said that the Messiah would act as Israel’s redeemer, ending their exile and bondage and restoring them to their covenant God, and thus Jesus chose Passover as the setting and
interpretive context for His death. Yes, His sacrificial death would make atonement, but as accomplishing Yahweh’s promised redemption. * cf. Eph. 1:7; Rom. 3:21-25; Heb. 9:15
3. Perhaps most often Christians associate atonement with the issue of justification, especially in light of Paul’s treatment of this doctrine in his Roman and Galatian epistles. And given the forensic (legal) undertones of justification (to be justified is to be “in the right”), it isn’t surprising that atonement is also predominantly viewed in legal terms as satisfying the demands of justice against human violation of God’s laws and directives.
Paul’s writings are the primary source of the New Testament’s teaching on the doctrine of justification, but a close reading of his epistles shows that the commonly held forensic understanding of justification is actually imposed on Paul, not provided by him. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith in the Messiah isn’t concerned with how a person meets a supposed requirement of legal “righteousness” in order to escape condemnation and be “saved” for heaven, but how a person becomes a part of God’s covenant household and what this means for the relationship among the diverse members of that household, particularly Jews and Gentiles. * cf. Rom. 3:21-31, 4:1-18; ref. also Gal. 2:11-3:29 And while a common objection to this understanding of justification is that it strips it of its
soteriological significance (i.e., justification as pertaining to a person’s salvation), this is an obvious straw man. For, from the Scripture’s perspective, to be “saved” is to be brought into God’s covenant household – to be adopted as a son in the Son. Personal “salvation,” then, is being joined to the Messiah so as to be grafted into His body (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 2:11-22; 1 Pet. 2:1-10). And so justification also underscores the relational nature of atonement. Contrary to the way it is typically conceived, justification doesn’t shift the meaning of atonement away from relational restoration; quite the opposite, it reinforces it.
4. One final consideration in defining atonement is how it relates to reconciliation. Put simply, reconciliation – restoration of estranged relationship – is the very purpose for atonement. Again, this ought to be obvious from the various means of atonement that God provided to the children of Israel and what those atoning acts were targeting and seeking to redress. Israel’s entire system of atonement found its pinnacle and comprehensive expression in Yom
Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and Yahweh assigned that elaborate ritual to remedy the uncleanness and estrangement that had accrued to Israel over the preceding year.
The goal of this supreme annual ritual of atonement was propitiation – not punishment or retribution, but healing of the relationship between covenant Father and son through cleansing and forgiveness. This is reflected in the New Testament writings and Old Testament Septuagint by their use of propitiation language (hilaskomai) to translate the
Hebrew concept of atonement (kippur). An epitomizing example of this is the Greek term hilasterion used to render the Hebrew kapporeth (mercy seat, or place of atonement). * cf. also the Septuagint of Lev. 4:20, 5:5-10, 25:9, 17; Num. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:12-21, etc.
In every instance, atonement had its goal in reconciliation between Yahweh and His covenant people, but in order that Israel should faithfully fulfill its covenant election as “son” for the sake of all mankind. Israel’s ongoing personal and national reconciliation looked to God’s goal of reconciling mankind to Himself (2 Cor. 5:17-21), in order to finally achieve His eternal design to become “all in all” by gathering up His entire creation to Himself.
“He is head of the body, the church. And He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything He might be preeminent. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col. 1:18-20)
|
|
