Читать книгу The Self-Donation of God - Jack D. Kilcrease - Страница 8

Priestly and Kingly Mediation

Priestly Mediation

Within the history of Exodus, priestly mediation arises through the prophetic mediation of the Word of God. The prophetic word both reveals the chosen status of the Levites and the practices in which they must engage. The occasion of the election of the Levites as the priestly caste occurs during Moses’s reestablishment of order after Israel’s apostasy to the golden calf. The Levites (Moses’s own tribe) rally to support him and zealously exact vengeance on those who have fallen away from YHWH (Exod 25:32–39).82 Our discussion of priestly mediation will nonetheless not begin with this narrative, but rather with the description of the nature of creation in Genesis 1–3. As we will see, these narratives served as foundational to priestly mediation.83

Recent scholarship on Genesis 1 has gradually come to recognize that it contains strong liturgical themes. Early in the twentieth century, much of the critical scholarship on Genesis 1 revolved around attempts to connect the chapter with the Babylonian epic, the Enuma Elish, and the ancient mythological motif of the chaoskampf.84 Though parallels still continue to be recognized, critics have also come to appreciate the presence of significant cultic and liturgical themes as well.

P. J. Kearney’s work has been particularly important for its recognition of these themes. Kearney has shown that there are not only strong verbal similarities between Genesis 1 and Exodus 25–32, but also that the seven days of creation directly correspond to seven speeches God made concerning the construction of the tabernacle in those chapters.85 Similarly, although the Jewish scholar Jon Levenson has claimed that Kearney’s interpretation is not entirely persuasive, nevertheless he thinks that it is impossible to deny that the accounts of creation and the tabernacle/temple share significant themes.86 Levenson notes that in Exodus 40:2, the erection of the tabernacle occurs on the day of the vernal New Year, the same time Genesis tells us that Noah emerged from the ark into the new creation of the post-diluvium world.87 Similarly, 1 Kings 6–7 emphasizes that Solomon’s dedication of the temple occurred on the seventh month during the Feast of Tabernacles, a seven-day feast.88 This would appear to suggest a connection with the seven days of creation.

Returning to Kearney’s scholarship, the activities of each day of creation correspond to an aspect of the construction of the tabernacle. The tabernacle and the later temple are, therefore, intended to represent a microcosm of creation. Among the seven speeches establishing the tabernacle, the seventh speech concerns the Sabbath, directly paralleling God’s own protological Sabbath rest. It stands to reason that if, as Kearney has shown, creation’s formation directly corresponds to the erection of the tabernacle, then they must also serve the same purpose, that is, the worship of God. Evangelical scholar G. K. Beale generally agrees with Kearney and has argued that each major section of the temple/tabernacle represents a part of the created order.89 In both the original tabernacle and the Solomonic temple, the basin of water represented the sea, the courtyard represented the land, while the holy place and holy of holies represented the starry and celestial heavens (or possibly Eden, in that it is the locus of divine presence). This theory is further bolstered by the fact that the curtains covering the holy place and the holy of holies were woven to resemble the sky (Exod 25), something also mentioned by Josephus concerning Herod’s temple.90 With Levenson, Beale also mentions the importance of the number seven in the liturgical calendar of Israel (notably the seven-day week and the forty-nine-year cycle of Jubilee) and in the imagery of the tabernacle.91 He argues that the use of seven corresponds to the seven planets visible to the naked eye. In the tabernacle, the seven planets appear to be represented by the seven lamp stands.

The second chapter of Genesis continues the liturgical themes of the first chapter. The Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham has argued for a strong connection between the garden of Eden as it is portrayed in the second chapter and the later Israelite cult. Wenham notes similarities between Eden and the temple/tabernacle such as the opening of both to the east and each functioning as the locus of the divine presence (Gen 2:15).92 Wenham has also argued that the text’s descriptions of Adam’s activity in the garden possess verbal similarities with the ministrations of the priesthood elsewhere in the Pentateuch.93 This means that the author of Genesis describes Adam and Eve’s care for creation as a true act of grateful worship, making it a liturgical activity. In Wenham’s commentary on Genesis, he also notes that Adam’s reception of the first commandment in the garden parallels the storage of the book of the law in the Israelite tabernacle.94 Adding to all this, Beale has noted the verbal similarities between the arboreal imagery in Genesis 2–3 and in the description of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6–7.95 Jon Levenson has demonstrated the verbal parallels between the description of Eden and the Temple Mount, particularly in Ezekiel. Ezekiel 28:14 locates Eden on a mountain much like Zion.96

From these parallel descriptions we can discern a unity of purpose between creation and the Israelite tabernacle/temple. What has been partially realized in the Israelite liturgy is the restoration of the original creation. Creation is an immense tabernacle dedicated to divine worship. Israel, according to the Pentateuchal narratives, has taken up the position abdicated by Adam and Eve.97 Israel is a liturgical community, a “priestly nation.” Not only do Adam and Eve and all faithful Israelites worship and praise God as a result of God’s creative Word, but there is some suggestion that the rest of the created order does as well. Each day of creation ends with the refrain, “And God saw that it was good.” Such a phrase implies that as a temple of divine worship, creation reflects divine goodness back to God in a manner of almost personified thanksgiving (“glory” one might say) for having received itself from the divine Word. The praise of creation as a response to the gracious giving of the divine Word is a theme present elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isa 55:11–2).

The embodiment of divine graciousness and its echoed praise have other implications for the interpretation of Genesis 1–3. The fact that Adam and Eve are engaged in liturgical activities in Eden (mentioned above) also suggests how the shape of the divine image spoken of in Genesis 1:26 should be understood. The divine image is spoken of in connection with ruling over and maintaining creation (1:28), which, as we have observed, is a temple of divine presence. Wenham’s interpretation of Adam and Eve’s activity in Genesis 2 allows us to see liturgical themes throughout the entire text of Genesis 1–3. If, indeed liturgical service is a reflection of divine goodness and glory, it is an act of receiving and reflecting back divine glory. After all, kavod (“glory”) has both the connotation of light (as in the divine light seen by Moses [Exod 33:18] and reflected by him in his luminous face in Exodus 34) and of praise.98 If God is fundamentally glorious, then his image reflected in creation must be as well (Ps 19, Rom 1:19–21). Therefore, following Beale’s thinking, it might be suggested that the first humans are portrayed as priests presiding over the cosmic temple and reflecting divine goodness and glory back to God; this constitutes the embodied divine image.99

Hence, from the perspective of the Pentateuchal narratives (and much of the rest of the Old Testament), liturgical worship is built into the very structure of creation. God sends forth his gracious Word and Spirit (Gen 1:2–3, Ps 33:6), thereby bringing about the created order and communicating to it a reflection of his divine glory. As a great cosmic tabernacle, creation functions as an arena of embodied and reflected glory. This divinely established order reflects back to God his goodness and glory in a sacrifice of praise. In this protological order, humanity exemplifies this glory through its priestly ministrations in the maintenance of creation. Through these activities, they express the divine image of glory within them. The Israelite tabernacle/temple and its liturgy are merely restorations of this order among the particular worshiping community of the chosen people, who function as the new Adam and Eve.

Such sacrificial worship of praise carried out in Eden is restored and receives a more concrete form in the Israelite tabernacle. Israel, as we have seen, prefigures Christ and is called to be the image of the restored Adam. If the true human vocation is to preside over the tabernacle of creation as its true priestly ruler, then the Aaronic high priest must be the highest representative of the true humanity, Israel. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis summarizes a lengthy list of ways in which the high priest embodies Adam and true humanity taken from both scripture and post-biblical Jewish commentaries:

The High Priest is obviously a human being. He is the new Adam, wearing the garments that Adam lost on leaving Eden, doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-as-restored-Eden. He represents, or embodies the people of God, Israel (who are, in turn, the true humanity); wearing on his breastpiece and lapels the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 28:9–21). He brings humanity and Israel to God. He also brings the cosmos, the created world, to God since this is represented by his garments in its various parts.100

As a mediator and representative of Israel before God and Israel, the priestly mediator offered up thank-offerings as an expression of praise for God’s graciousness in the form of his gifts of creation and redemption. This is the first major category of sacrifice that Leviticus discusses. Within this category, Leviticus gives the subdivisions of burnt offerings (Lev 1, 6:8–13, 8:18–21, 16:24), grain offerings (Lev 2, 6:14–23), and fellowship offerings (Lev 3, 7:11–34).

After the Fall, it is necessary for sacrifice to also take on the functions of confirming covenants and making atonement for sin.101 “Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!” (Ps 50:5). These two functions are tied up with binding together two parties whose relationship has been broken. This takes the form of either binding by the promise of grace, or reconciling one party via an act of atonement. We will first discuss how covenantal sacrifice functions and then move onto the question of atoning sacrifice.102

According to Scott Hahn, the sacrifices that establish a covenant function in such a way as to represent the content of the covenant, particularly in regard to the curses that would accompany it if not fulfilled.103 Hahn posits this interpretation because he mainly (though not exclusively) understands the covenant sacrifices in light of the ancient practice of fealty oaths which also involved sacrifice. The biblical texts describe such sacrifices (often in a manner that directly parallels secular practice!) as occurring between YHWH and Israel/the patriarchs. Nevertheless, whereas the fealty oaths were about the subjection of the lesser party to the greater party (law), most of God’s covenant sacrifices are concerned with the promise of blessing and redemption (gospel). Hence, they are more often meant to convey God’s own subjection to Israel and not Israel’s subjection to God. For this reason, it will be our argument that it is therefore fitting to read the symbolism of the sacrifice as prefiguring the ultimate fulfillment of redemption and grace that they promise. Reading scriptures, as it has been our method, we therefore must take the content of all covenants as being Christ. Indeed, as the Apostle Paul writes, Christ is the “yes” to all of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:21). Therefore below we will observe how each covenant and covenantal ceremony points ahead to the advent of Christ.

From the very beginning of Old Testament history, covenants were established by an act of sacrifice. After the Fall, God covered Adam and Eve’s shame by clothing them with the skins of animals (Gen 3:21). This occurs in connection with the promise of a redeemer (v. 15).104 The redeemer will reestablish Adam and Eve in a state of life and freedom. He will cover their shame and he will return to them dominion over the animals (in that he will strike the head of the serpent in 3:15). It should not go unnoticed that one of the possible meanings of the Hebrew word kap·pêr (commonly translated as “atone”) is to “cover.”105 This is also signified by the fact that animals are killed to make their clothing, suggesting (as it will become explicit in the Noahic covenant) that their dominion on the earth is being reaffirmed in their ability to kill animals.

This promise of deliverance of the whole of creation from the power of sin and its condemnation comes again in Genesis 8 and 9 in the form of the Noahic covenant. Prior to the flood Noah is told that he will be blessed by the promise of the protevangelium given to Adam and Eve, whereas the rest of the earth will perish: “But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark” (6:18).106 In light of the fact that we are told of no other covenants than the one established with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15, we must assume that it is the same covenant as the protevangelium. After the flood, Noah makes a burnt offering (8:20). The burnt offering of animals is significant because it symbolizes the blessing of being given dominion over the animals in Genesis 1:28.107 In effect, Noah and his sons are also given the same blessings that Adam and Eve receive: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered” (Gen 9:1–2). God sets his “bow” in the sky, thereby establishing his promise of peace with every living creature (vv. 12–17).

The question nonetheless still remains as to how God will establish universal peace with his fallen creation. One must refer back to the promise of the coming “seed,” which will reverse the effects of sin and make the establishment of universal peace possible. More specifically, Genesis 9 posits that God’s promise of the “seed” for the restoration of universal dominion and life is given to Shem and his line (vv. 26–27). Shem will be blessed and Japheth will live in his tents. What this suggests is that Shem (the progenitor of the Semitic peoples) will finally reunite all creation in his universal reign and blessing. This includes the incorporation of the descendants of Japheth, who is the progenitor of the majority of the Gentiles.108 Throughout the Old Testament, this coming of the messianic reign is anticipated in both Joseph’s reign in Egypt (who has a coat of many colors like the rainbow and who reigns over both Egyptian Gentiles and Semites, see Gen 41–50).109 It should also be observed that Solomon reigns over a kingdom of Israelites and Gentiles (1 Kgs 1–11).110 That Japheth will dwell in Shem’s “tents” is suggestive of the participation of the Gentiles in the cult of the one God in the temple (originally a tent, the tabernacle) as is predicted in Isaiah 45.111 This identification seems to be deepened by the fact that “Shem” means “Name,” and the temple is a “house for My Name” (2 Sam 7:13).112 In the New Testament, this is finally realized in Christ the true Temple (John 2:19–22) and his body the Church, the eschatological temple of God (Eph 2:11). Revelation 4:3 places this rainbow behind Christ and therefore sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise of peace with creation.

Abraham’s covenant must be thought of as a continuation of this promise, in that it reverses the curses of the Fall by making him a blessing to all nations (Gen 12:3). Abraham is also told that “kings shall come from you” (17:6).113 We know from Genesis 49:10 that specifically an everlasting kingly line will come from Judah. This again represents a restoration of the promises made to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1. Such promises of restoration are partially fulfilled in the Davidic monarchy and finally fully fulfilled in the universal dominion of Christ (Pss 2, 110).

This covenant is confirmed in Genesis 15:9, when God tells Abraham to cut a series of animals in two and arrange them in two columns while at the same time leaving space between them. As many scholars have noted, there is evidence of this same covenant ceremony in the other cultures in the Ancient Near East, as well as the Old Testament.114 According to many (but not all) of those who interpret the rite in this manner, the covenant ceremony referred to here consisted of the lesser party walking through the split animals and making an oath to the greater party (often a king) to the effect that they should be split in two just like the animals if they were to break the covenant. In contrast to how the covenant normally would have functioned, Abraham (clearly the lesser party) does not walk through the animals but rather falls asleep. God comes to him in a dream and promises him the land of Canaan. God’s presence then appears in the form of a “smoking fire pot and a flaming torch” (Gen 15:17) and passes through the split animals. The covenant is then confirmed by God’s own unilateral promise to die by being split in two if he fails to bless Abraham.115

This promise is confirmed again in Genesis 17 through the mark of circumcision. Circumcision is in sense a bloody sacrifice, insofar as it causes the male member to bleed.116 The LXX more strongly emphasizes the bloody aspect of circumcision by translating a later passage dealing with the subject, Exodus 4:25 (which describes God’s attempt to kill Moses for his tardiness in the circumcision of his son) in this way: “Behold the blood of the circumcision of my child.”117 This differs from the original Hebrew, which reads: “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” Since God’s anger is abated by Moses’s wife’s action of circumcision, it appears that many Jews (or at very least the translators of the LXX) associated this and the blood of circumcision with propitiatory sacrifice.118

This makes a great deal of sense in that the act of circumcision is s sign of the coming final redemption in the Old Testament. Abraham is informed earlier that the covenant involves his “seed” (17:7, as it is found in the more literal translation of the KJV). Being that the same term is used in the protevangelium, and Abraham and his descendants are clearly the chosen agents to carry out this plan of redemption, we are clearly dealing with the same subject.119 The coming seed will bless the nations by justifying and sanctifying them. Elsewhere in the Bible circumcision of the heart is a metaphor for the renewal of the mind and sanctification (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4). Therefore circumcision suggests new creation. It is performed on the eighth day (Gen 17:12). The eighth day is the day after the final seventh day of the original creation. Noah had eight people in the ark with him (6:9). Christ rose on the eighth day. Therefore the putting off of the flesh signifies a new and purified nature. For this reason, the sign of circumcision represents what the coming seed will accomplish.120

In an immediate sense, Isaac is the fruit of Abraham’s body and therefore his “seed.” While we might say that he does not represent the ultimate fulfillment (in light of Gal 3), Isaac still plays a role in the final confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant. In Genesis 22, after stopping Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, God speaks his promises to Abraham: “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore” (16–17). God then provides a ram caught in a bush as a sign that he will provide for the fulfillment of the promise of universal blessing: “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (v. 18).121 Again, the promissory sign represents the content of the covenant. God will bless all nations through Abraham’s seed being given over to death and returning to life (Heb 11:19). God will also work redemption by offering a substitute. This sign is also present in the Passover ritual where the lamb is substituted for the firstborn son (Exod 13:12–13).

Beyond these examples, the idea of the death and resurrection of a beloved son also carries over into the other narratives in Genesis and the story of the Passover. These historical events serve as signs to the patriarchs that God is faithful to his promises to preserve the holy seed. In this manner, these narratives serve the same function as the promissory signs. Jon Levenson has drawn attention to the fact that there is an overall pattern of death and resurrection of a beloved son throughout Genesis.122 Jacob goes to a far off land and returns to his family before his father’s death (Gen 35:27). Joseph is sold into slavery and believed dead, but then is returned to his father Israel (formerly Jacob) in his old age (Gen 45). Although Levenson does not mention the exodus, the death and resurrection of the beloved son can be seen here as well. YHWH describes Israel as “my firstborn Son” (Exod 4:22). Slavery is a contradiction to their true creaturely status as God’s viceroys in creation (Gen 1:26–28) and it is therefore a living death. The exodus means new life of God’s firstborn son Israel.

Surveying this history of covenant sacrifice, the content of the divine promise that they represent becomes clear. These sacrifices point ahead to the promise of the covering of humanity’s shame through sacrifice (Gen 3:21), the renewal of creation and universal peace through an act of sacrifice (8:20, 9:12–17), the restoration of human dominion and blessing (9:1–2), the promise of the death of God himself (15), the coming of the holy seed (17), a father offering his only son in the form of sacrifice (22), the offering of a substitute (Gen 22, Exod 13), and the death and resurrection of a beloved son (Gen 22, 35, 45, and the whole exodus narrative). Seen from the proper perspective of the New Testament, all these signs find their fulfillment and perfectly prefigure the person and work of Christ.

The Sinaitic covenant differs from the Abrahamic covenant in that it is a bilateral covenant, whereas the latter is a unilateral covenant (more appropriately, a testament, Gal 3:15–18). The covenantal ceremony clearly symbolizes this as well. We are told in Exodus 24:6–7 that Moses confirmed the Sinaitic covenant through the sacrifice of bulls. Half of the blood of the bulls was sprinkled on the altar (a sign of God’s presence), while the other half was sprinkled on the people. If the life of the animal was in the blood, the sprinkling of the blood signifies the offering of one’s life to live by the covenant.123 Hahn also convincingly argues that the sacrifice of the bull is also significant because it represents what will happen to those who violate the covenant.124

As was previously noted in the introduction, the Abrahamic covenant stands in a kind of existential conflict with the Sinaitic covenant. The Sinaitic covenant is bilateral and therefore demands obedience on the part of Israel for its fulfillment. This means it demands the self-dedication and the self-giving of Israel to YHWH. The history of the Fall and the exodus narratives clearly demonstrate that Israel cannot do this. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 27–32 (after the Sinaitic covenant’s restatement and renewal in the second generation) emphasizes the impossibility of the fulfillment of the covenant (without the circumcision of the heart, see 30:6) and plans for the covenant’s obsolescence. The Abrahamic covenant, on the other hand, involves the self-donation of God and giving of the divine being to his people in the form of a promise. To engage in an act of unilateral promise is an act of self-donation. By making such a promise, God pledges his entire being to the task of fulfilling the terms of the promise. The biblical texts recognize this and therefore in making covenants (Gen 22:16) and sending forth his redemptive Word of grace (Isa 45:23), God repeatedly states: “I swear by myself.” Particularly within the cultural context of the Ancient Near East, to swear by one’s self is therefore to give the whole self over to curse and death, as we observed in the covenantal ceremony of Genesis 15.125

In Exodus 40, the self-donation of God in the confirmation of the promise also takes the form of the descent of the divine presence into the tabernacle. This descent of the divine kavod prefigures the incarnation. Therefore the New Testament and the church fathers rightly see the ceremonies of Leviticus (that center around this pre-Incarnation-incarnation) as being shadows of the work of Christ. In fact, as we will see, the New Testament identifies Jesus with the kavod, and therefore the preincarnate Christ is the agent who gives his righteousness to humanity before and after the incarnation. In this, God becomes present to Israel as a sign of his unilateral commitment to them by the giving of the divine being to them. By this action, God enables the cult, which as we will show below, is meant to channel his holiness to Israel. Giving his own holiness to Israel, YHWH acknowledges that his people do not possess holiness of their own.126

YHWH himself is holy and therefore gives his holiness to Israel, thereby making them holy: “I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel” (Ezek 37:28). As John Kleinig has shown, holiness is not a demand per se, in that it is not something humans produce or generate.127 Rather, it is something God alone possesses: “The Lord alone is inherently and permanently holy. His holiness is his godliness, his nature, and his power as God. It is inseparable from him and his presence.” For this reason, “Holiness is derived only from him. People and things borrow their holiness from their association with him at Mount Sinai and at the sanctuary.”128 Therefore, holiness is properly defined as God’s otherness and godliness, including his righteousness and moral perfection.

Such a share in God’s uncreated righteousness and glory is not generated by human activity, but rather is received passively. Humans of course can lose such a share in God’s own holiness if they do not remain with the boundaries that God has established and consecrated: “Consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. Keep my statutes and do them; I am the Lord who sanctifies you” (Lev 20:7–8, emphasis added). Violating God’s commandments and opposing the proper boundaries of creation moves Israel out of the realm of God’s holiness and into the realm of uncleanness. Becoming unclean causes Israel to be destroyed by God’s holiness and unable to participate in his holiness (Lev 10; 1 Sam 6; 2 Sam 6). God enacts the cult to maintain his promise of self-donating holiness to Israel. By participating in God’s own holiness and not placing blocks in front of the flow of divine holiness, Israel maintains itself within the realm of the clean (holy and clean, and common and clean, as opposed to common and unclean).129 This means primarily (as Kleinig has convincingly argued) avoiding idolatry and being weaned off of animistic modes of thought.130 This way of understanding the divine-human relationship forms the first set of rationales for the ritual laws of the Pentateuch.

Expanding on Hahn’s earlier suggestion regarding covenantal sacrifice, we can shed much light on the need for atoning sacrifice.131 Atoning sacrifice prefigures the final new testament of forgiveness. Such a new testament represents the resolution in the tension between the Abrahamic and Siniatic covenants (Rom 3:25, 8:3–4). In effect, atoning sacrifice would be impossible if it were not for a prior commitment of God to Israel. It too represents the content of the two great covenants. It enacts the judgment of the Sinaitic code on a substitute in order to maintain the life of Israel promised in the Abrahamic covenant. It also represents God’s own giving of an atoning sacrifice to Israel: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life” (Lev 17:11, emphasis added). Moreover, atoning sacrifice represents and mediates the self-donation of God’s own holiness to his people.132

Regarding the specifics of blood atonement, we should observe that this category of sacrifice comprised a number of different kinds of offerings: sin offerings (Lev 4:1—5:13, 6:24–30, 8:14–17, 16:3–22) and guilt offerings (5:14—6:7, 7:1–6).133 Offerings for guilt involve the death of an animal, and just as in Genesis 3, humanity’s disobedience resulted in their condemnation to death (Gen 3:19). All sin for Israel is tied up with the rejection of the creator who is the source of life. That all sin is ultimately sin against God is expressed most clearly in the fact that the first commandment recorded in Exodus is the prohibition of idolatry and apostasy (Exod 20:3). Hence, just as with regard to civil matters where Israel is to take an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (21:24), so too the rejection of God (the source of life) must result in death. In the book of Genesis it is not insignificant that animal sacrifice is first instituted in connection with God’s authorization of lex talionis: “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:5–6). The only way to remedy sin is the substitution of life through the pouring of blood. This necessarily occurs through animal sacrifice, since as YHWH states, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11). For this reason, sacrifice for sin means a separation of blood from the flesh and not simply the death of the animal.

The choices of blood atonement and animal sacrifice are important for a number of other reasons. First, since blood contains life, it cries out and thereby gives a testimony. When Cain kills Abel, God tells Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (4:10). Later the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that Christ’s blood also cries out and thereby “Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24, emphasis added). Living blood therefore gives testimony of forgiveness that has been paid for. In the case of covenants, it also stands as a witness to the truthfulness of the divine promise.

Secondly, the choice of animals as sacrifices for sins (as opposed to, for example, grain offerings) is not arbitrary, but represents the restoration of human vocation in creation. As we noted earlier, the first real animal sacrifices by Noah coincide with the reiteration of the promises of dominion over creation given to Adam and Eve. In killing the animal, not only are the sins paid for by substitution, but humans are restored to their position of dominion in creation by being given the right and ability to kill the animals (Gen. 9:2). Where there is the forgiveness of sins, as Luther notes, there is also life and salvation.134

There has been some controversy whether or not these passages state that the blood actually atones for sin. John Kleinig comments on the grammatical construction in the passage above and states that the verse “presupposes that the life of the animal substitutes for the life of those who present the animal for sacrifice.”135 The meaning of the Hebrew word for “atone” (kap·pêr) here has frequently been disputed, since it is used differently in a number of other contexts in the Old Testament.136 Nevertheless, it appears to have the very definite meaning of an atoning payment of sacrificial blood in the context of Leviticus.137 Working from the varieties of meaning that the term has in other Old Testament books, liberal scholar Jacob Milgrom considers the best translations to be to “cover,” “wipe away,” or “smear” all of which have connotations of the removal of sin through cleansing blood.138 Therefore, even if one were to accept this wider variety of meaning as applicable to the Leviticus usage (which as Kleinig points out, is very difficult to do), these usages still bear the connotation of propiatory sacrifice when read within the context of Leviticus and the larger Pentateuch’s notion of lex talionis. In other words, for Leviticus it is through blood and propiatory sacrifice that God “covers” and “wipes away” human sin. This is in fact really the only appropriate interpretation in that the text of Leviticus explicitly states that this is the function of the sacrifices and hence there can be little ambiguity that the term is meant to be understood this way. Therefore Kleinig concludes: “The legislation for the sin offering quite explicitly states its theological function. The Lord instituted this sacrifice for the performance of atonement and the reception of forgiveness from it.”139 Beyond this, there is also extra-biblical evidence that the sacrifices were understood this way. Josephus, who served as a priest in the Second Temple at the time of Jesus, quite explicitly understands the sacrifices as working atonement in this manner.140 His remarks shed light not only on how sacrifice was understood in the priestly tradition passed down to him, but also how Jews in general and the New Testament authors in particular understood atoning sacrifice.

The propiatory and substitionary nature of blood sacrifice is made even clearer by the consequences of sins that went unatoned. Sacrifice was a way of atoning for only some sins, but not others. Unintentional sins, though still worthy of death, could be atoned through substitutionary sacrifice. Intentional sins could not be atoned. Since all sin was worthy of death, intentional sins (no matter how trivial by the standards of human judgment) could only be met with capital punishment.141 From this fact it is clear that in the sin offerings of Leviticus, forgiveness is not merely conveyed, retributive justice is also satisfied.

Other features of Israelite atonement theology should be recognized. Within Israelite cultic life, a wide variety of sacrifices (particularly sacrifices atoning for sin) also symbolically united in themselves both righteousness and sin. The Passover sacrifice (a substitutionary sacrifice for the life of the firstborn) was enacted by the sacrifice of a lamb without blemish, suggesting cultic and moral holiness. At the same time, the lamb was killed as a substitute of the firstborn male livestock and children of Israel, whom God insists must be ransomed: “you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem” (Exod 13:12–13). Therefore, the lamb who united both purity and condemnation in itself served as the sacrifice to redeem the firstborn of Israel.

A similar pattern may be seen in the ritual of the Day of Atonement.142 First, the high priest had to be pure before he was capable of administering the rite. In order to gain this purity, he was instructed to sacrifice a bull for himself and his household (Lev 16:6). Nevertheless he must also be a sin bearer by placing his hands on the scapegoat and confessing the sins of Israel over the animal (vv. 20–22).143 In this, the high priest unites both holiness and sin in his person. The two goats within the ritual also continue this pattern. One goat was sacrificed for the sins of Israel without having those sins pronounced over him. The blood of this animal made atonement for Israel by being placed upon the mercy seat, that is, the cover of the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies where the divine kavod is hidden within a cloud of incense (vv.15–17). The other goat, (the scapegoat who has the sins of Israel confessed over him) then escaped condemnation for sin, but at the same time was consigned to the oblivion of the wilderness thereby carrying the sins of the people with him (vv. 20–22). The two goats therefore represent both sin and purity united with one another.

That the high priest moves into the holy of holies through the blood of this goat on the Day of Atonement appears to lend further evidence to Fletcher-Louis’s thesis that the high priest represents a new Adam. Though Fletcher-Louis does not make this direct connection, it could be suggested that just as Adam withdrew and “hid from the Lord God” (Gen 3:8) as a result of breaking the law, the high priest moves back into the representation of Eden (the holy of holies) and into the divine presence, through the fulfillment of the law. Interpreted in this manner, the ritual itself appears to be a representation of the end of universal exile. In enacting this ritual then, the high priest represents both Israel’s sin and the actualization of its righteousness.

The high priest also represents the righteousness of God before God in having graciously enacted the cult to save his people from judgment. Fletcher-Louis states that “the high priest brings the one creator God to Israel and to the created world. He is the embodiment of God’s Glory.”144 We may observe this first by looking at the high priest’s consecration and clothing. The anointing oil consecrates the priest (Lev 8:10–13). It could very well be argued that this makes him glow in a similar fashion to the divine kavod. Also, much of the high priest’s clothing is made out of gold which is again suggestive of divine glory. As Fletcher-Louis puts it, he wears “garments of glory.”145 He wears a golden diadem with the divine Name engraved on it (Exod 39:30).146 He also wears a golden ephod (vv. 2–7). The ephod is particularly significant not only because it is golden (suggesting divine glory), but in the Ancient Near East, it is now generally agreed that ephods were originally coverings of idols or garments worn by deities.147 The use of incense is also suggestive: “On the stage of the cultic microcosm he is the creator. He is the divine warrior, who is surrounded by clouds of incense (Exod 40:27, 34; 1 Kgs 8:10; 2 Chr 5:11; Lev 9:22–24, 16:12–13).”148 Fletcher-Louis also mentions that he carries “fiery coals, dressed in garb that (according to Josephus B.J. 5:231, Ant. 3:184) symbolizes thunder and lightning, his garments sprinkled with the blood of God’s victories (Exod 29:19–21; cf. esp. Isa 63:1–6, but also Deut 33:2–3; Judg 4–5; Ps 68:8–9, 18).”149 His clothing then makes him, according to Fletcher-Louis, “the true idol, the image (Gen 1:26–27) of the one creator God . . . [he is effectively] . . . the “statue” of the living God.”150 Therefore, just as the statue or image of the deity in the Ancient Near East stood in the sanctuary (being representative of heaven), so Adam in the original creation and the high priest on the Day of Atonement stood in the divine sanctuary as the divine image.151

As God within the cosmic microcosm, the high priest’s actions repeat the work of Genesis 1. Just as sin destroyed God’s original order, so the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement within the cosmic microcosm renews creation. By purifying creation from sin, the high priest prefigured the eschatological renewal of God through the giving of his personal holiness through bloody sacrifice. The work of the Day of Atonement is also suggestive of the role of the divine warrior, who, much like the protevanglium promises, overcomes the negative effects of the serpent in creation. As we will see below, there is a significant connection between high priestly figures in Old Testament prophecy with the theme of the divine warrior.

Cosmological renewal is a theme elsewhere tied to sacrifice in the Old Testament. We should mention in passing, that Levenson has argued that the sacrifice of Passover is strongly tied to the reintegration of the created order.152 Though he does not draw out all the implications of this, we might point out that the plagues of Egypt result in the systematic de-creation of that civilization through the different powers of nature. Such judgment culminates in the return of the Egyptians to watery depths of chaos in the Red Sea (echoing the original creation of Genesis 1 and the destruction of the first creation in Genesis 6–8), whereas the Israelites, freed through the substitution of the paschal lamb, are brought to Sinai. At Sinai they are established as the true worshiping community, and build the tabernacle, the microcosm of the original creation. This furthers reinforces Israel’s identification as the true reconstituted humanity and suggests that the exodus was a recapitulation of creation.153

The priestly mediation was not successful throughout the Old Testament. As early as the priesthood of Eli, the ministrations of the priests were condemned and it is prophesied that YHWH “will raise up for [himself] . . . a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever” (1 Sam 2:35). Though this prophecy might find a preliminary fulfillment in God’s choice of the line of Zadok later in the narrative, as we will see later in the writings of the New Testament (particularly Hebrews), there is recognition that the priesthood would need a final fulfillment and renewal by the Messiah.

Ultimately, the mediation of the priesthood could not hold off the exile. Furthermore, the priesthood could not by its own ministrations communicate holiness, but rather was dependent on God’s presence and justifying power. Beyond the texts in Leviticus we have examined, in Zechariah 3, the Angel of YHWH purifies the high priest Joshua so that cult will be able to function. What this suggests is that the Angel of YHWH is present in (as the kavod) and enables the cult.154 He is also a heavenly high priest in that he cleanses the earthly high priest from his sins. In the same manner that he functions as heavenly high priest, he also functions as a prophet speaking to the patriarchs (Gen 18, 22) and a heavenly king, leading the armies of YHWH (Exod 23, Josh 5, Dan 10).155 Daniel 10:4 in particular suggests that the Angel of YHWH (who here is pictured dressed in the robes of a high priest) is at the same time the leader of YHWH’s heavenly armies (Dan 10:20).156 In this passage, the Angel of YHWH possesses the dual roles of a heavenly priest and king, also held by the mysterious “lord” of Psalm 110.

The heavenly high priest, the Angel of YHWH, also appears to be identical with the “one like a Son of Man” in Daniel 7. As Fletcher-Louis notes, the Son of Man must be a high priestly figure because he undoes all the impurity in creation (symbolized by the mixed animal breeds that come from the sea) by coming on clouds (reminiscent of clouds of incense that the high priest rides within upon entering the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement) while entering into the divine presence.157 He is also given universal dominion (7:14) a prerogative of the Israelite king/Messiah described in Psalm 2:2, and a position held by the protological high priest Adam in Genesis 1:28. This figure must also be identified with the divine kavod, because he comes on the glory cloud, which is a sign of the glorious divine presence from elsewhere in the Old Testament (see Exod 40; 1 Kgs 7–8). Moreover, as a human figure he is pictured in an almost identical way to the vision Ezekiel has of the divine kavod in Ezekiel 1–2.158 Again, all these prophetic visions bear a striking resemblance to the figure that appears in Psalm 110. Here the psalm refers to a heavenly figure who is both the “lord” (v. 1) at the right hand of God and also a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4).159

Not only does the Old Testament suggest that there is a parallel between the earthly high priest and a heavenly high priest who is the Angel of YHWH/kavod, but it predicts an eschatological fulfillment to priestly mediation. We are told in Numbers 25:13 that God has promised the Levites an eternal priesthood.160 Nevertheless, the priesthood still is under the Sinaitic covenant and its curses. If so, then the whole of the priesthood’s failure and sinfulness would logically disqualify them to possess a perpetual priesthood as it did with the house of Eli in 1 Samuel. To maintain the promise of eternal priesthood, God must act to purify creation and to make the priesthood function in a final eschatological act.

Such an implicit eschatological expectation becomes more explicit in the writings of the later prophets. In Malachi 3:3, we are told that God himself will come to purify the sons of Levi.161 The text also tells us that God himself will come to his temple to purify it in the form of the Angel of the Lord: “Behold, I send my messenger [or “My Angel”], and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant [or “Angel of the Covenant”] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal 3:1, emphasis added).162 This connects with the expectation of the return of God to Zion, found in Isaiah 40 and Ezekiel 37–39.163 In Zechariah 3, we are told that the Angel of YHWH’s purification of the high priest (v. 8) prefigures God’s eschatological action of redemption: “I will remove the iniquity of this land in a single day” (v. 9).164

Descriptions of the actions of the eschatological high priest are scattered throughout the Old Testament in a variety of interconnected texts. As we have already noted, the Servant of YHWH in the later chapters of Isaiah is identified as the new Passover lamb, necessitated by the new exodus. He is, as we have also suggested, identified in chapters 49 and 63 with the Angel of YHWH and the kavod. This identification is deepened by the description of the Angel of YHWH in Isaiah 63:9 as possessing both robes soaked in blood (63:2) and the role of the divine warrior (vv. 1–5), much like Leviticus’s portrayal of the high priest. As was previously noted, the Angel of YHWH is also said in Isaiah 63:9 to be afflicted with the afflictions of the people in order to redeem them. Isaiah then hearkens back to the time of the exodus and states that this same angel (as is clear from the text of the Pentateuch as well) guided and redeemed Israel in the first exodus. He is described as being “his [God’s] glorious arm” (v. 12). This is identical with the description of the Servant in Isaiah 53:1 as “the arm of the LORD.” This wording therefore further identifies the sufferings of the Angel of YHWH and the Servant, and thereby positively demonstrates them to be the same figure. In the same way also atonement leads to a universal Jubilee. We are told that the Servant announces such a Jubilee in Isaiah 61 and that he will justify many in chapter 53.165

Isaiah 53, 61, and 63 find an intertextual echo in Daniel 7 and 9.166 The kavod is described as functioning in Daniel 7 as a universal and heavenly high priest coming to God’s throne to enact a universal Day of Atonement. If the Son of Man comes to God’s throne, he must like the earthly high priest on the Day of Atonement possess an offering to make to God. Like the suffering Servant, he therefore implicitly makes “intercession for the transgressors” (Isa 53:12) by this offering. The Son of Man is also exalted to the divine throne in the same manner as the Servant, who after his sufferings has a “portion with the many” (v. 12). In light of the New Testament’s identification (which we will examine below) and these striking parallels, we must posit that this text is suggesting that the Son of Man is the same person being spoken of in Isaiah 53 as the Servant.

Daniel 9 also describes these same themes of eschatological atonement and redemption. We are told: “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” (Dan 9:24). Seventy “sevens” (or “weeks” as the KJV translates) represent the fulfillment of ten Jubilees (Lev 25). The number appears to suggest not an actual timeline, but rather symbolically conveys a supreme and definitive Jubilee.167 The finality of this Jubilee is deepened by the statement that in this period there will be an “end of transgression” and the establishment of “everlasting righteousness.” The agent of this transformation must be a divine and heavenly high priest (described as the Son of Man earlier), since God alone can bring “everlasting righteousness.”168 This also parallels the “year of the Lord’s favor” of Isaiah 61 enacted by the Servant.

The seventy weeks (or as it is restated “sixty-two sevens and seven-sevens, i.e., sixty nine sevens, that is, a “seven” before ultimate fulfillment) will culminate in the coming of the “anointed one, a prince” (v. 25).169 This prince or anointed one “will confirm a covenant with many” (v. 27), which will end sacrifice. The confirmation of this covenant is presumably tied up with a new order of redemption.170 Because of the universal Day of Atonement and a supreme Jubilee, sacrifice for the sake of atonement will no longer be necessary.171 The anointed one is therefore also identical with the Servant who is a “covenant to the nations,” the “Angel of the covenant” of Malachi 3, and the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18. He is indeed like Moses, in that he also mediates a covenant. Lastly, since this covenant is tied up with “ending sacrifice” and bringing “everlasting righteousness” (i.e., forgiveness and sanctification), it must be thought to be identical with Jeremiah’s new covenant. This parallel is further suggested by the fact that Daniel at the beginning of the chapter is reading a scroll of Jeremiah (v. 2). Part of God’s promise to Jeremiah regarding the new covenantal order is that Israel will never lack a priestly mediator to stand before him (Jer 33:18). This finds fulfillment in the announcement that the anointed one “will be cut off and will have nothing” (Dan 9:26).172 This again directly parallels the fate of the Servant of Isaiah 53 (who is also “cut off” v. 8), and implicitly the Son of Man of Daniel 7 (who as we saw, has an offering to offer the Ancient of Days). For this reason, the anointed one must be both the heavenly high priest, who is the Angel of YHWH/kavod, and the eschatological suffering Servant, who brings about a new covenant through his earthly vicarious suffering and death. In a word, this must be the “seed of the woman,” whom we know to be Christ.173

Kingly Mediation

Walter Brueggemann has appropriately emphasized the need for a kingly mediator who arises within Judges and 1 Samuel as a response to the problem of military subjugation by neighboring civilizations.174 Nevertheless, it must also be observed that this kingly mediation ultimately has the same goal in mind as the prophetic and priestly mediations. As Rolf Rendtorff accurately notes, the book of Judges presents us with a continuous cycle of Israel’s apostasy to foreign gods and its subsequent conquest by the other peoples of the land.175 Such apostasy, notes Rendtorff, also has the aspect of the failure of Israel in its vocation, that is, the conquest of Palestine to the end of the expulsion of false foreign gods.176 The author of the book of Judges views the conquest by foreign peoples as the punishment for the failure on the part of Israel to live by the divine grace of election, and thereby act as a true worshiping community that destroys and expels idolatry.

This places the kingship as a response to the conquest of foreign powers in a new light. If conquest is the response to apostasy, then military success and the expulsion of hostile pagan peoples logically means the expulsion of idolatry and the establishment of the true worship. True worship is the vocation of Israel as a priestly nation. It also means to establish creation in true rest from their enemies, as many biblical texts emphasize.177 Such a rest, as we shall see, prefigures the true and eternal Sabbath of the people of God at the eschaton.

The book of Judges also demonstrates the need within Israel for the institution of the monarchy with the oft repeated refrain that “everyone did as he saw fit” (Judg 21:25). If Israel could not receive the law or obey the law, then it must be necessary for the law to be enforced. Deuteronomy emphasizes that the king is subject to the rule of the revealed law of Moses. He must keep his own copy of the law and study it diligently (Deut 17:18–20). The so-called Deuteronomistic history characterizes the rule of any given king as either righteous or unrighteous to the extent that they enforce the worship of the true God. Solomon initially comes off well insofar as he who builds the temple. Early in 1 Kings he is described as an embodiment of divine wisdom. Similarly, Josiah, who is described in 2 Kings as the most righteous of all the later kings (2 Kgs 23:25) is the one who purifies the Israelite cult and nation from idolatry (vv. 24–25).

Initially 1 Samuel reports that YHWH is not pleased with the prospect of a king. This is because it represents a rejection of God’s own divine kingship (1 Sam 8:7). It should be observed that this does not mean that God will not use the people’s apostasy to his own ends. Similarly, Peter Leithart points out that this does not necessarily mean that God rejects the entire notion of kingship, as has frequently been asserted by liberal biblical scholars.178 Deuteronomy, as we have previously seen, assumes that the Israelites will eventually have a king. It would appear then that God does not like the idea simply because the occasion for kingship shows their lack of trust in his gracious rule. Such rejection has come about not only because of Israel’s apostasy, but also the failure of previous mediators to fulfill the law on Israel’s behalf. Eli the high priest, who does not curb the corruption of his sons, is a prime example of this (2:12–36). Similarly, Samuel the prophet does not curb his sons’ corrupt actions (8:1–2).179 From 1 Samuel it is therefore clear that both priestly and prophetic forms of mediation have failed. Such failure has resulted in Israel’s continuing apostasy.

Despite God’s initial hostility to the idea of kingship, the author of 1 and 2 Samuel shows that God uses kingship in Israel as a means of mediating both his presence and will to Israel. In fulfilling this vocation, the kingly mediators of Israel are described as uniting and representing God and Israel, much like the prophetic and priestly mediators. David fights the battles of YHWH throughout 1 and 2 Samuel, and thereby disestablishes idolatry and establishes the true cult of YHWH. In this, David becomes a temporal embodiment of the Angel of YHWH, who is as we have seen, the primary agent of Israel’s conquest (Exod 23, 33; Josh 5). In fact, on a number of occasions he is compared to an angel of God (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 19:27), although it is not entirely clear from the context whether or not the Angel of YHWH is meant. Nevertheless, such language is highly suggestive.

There are other parallels as well. David is also represented as wearing an ephod as he engages in a cultic dance before the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 6:14). This occurs as the ark is being brought to Jerusalem to be established as the basis for a unified royally led cult. As we previously noted, the ephod was a garment worn by deity. We are also told later on that David’s sons serve as “priests” (8:18 NIV has “royal officials”).180 In 1 Kings 3:4, we are told that Solomon engaged in priestly sacrifice. This connects David with the role of priest and therefore also binds him to the other associations that we noted throughout the Old Testament between priestly mediation and the Angel of YHWH/kavod. As we will see, many texts in the Old Testament appear to connect the king to the presence of YHWH with Israel.

Royal psalms, like 110, appear to strongly connect the Davidic monarchy with priestly mediation. A figure, referred to as “my lord” possesses a heavenly throne and the role of priest-king much like the mysterious figure Melchizedek spoken of in Genesis 14.181 It would appear (as even some critical scholarship seems to suggest182) that this figure is associated with the Davidic king while at the same time possessing a heavenly throne and being an eternal priest.183 As we saw in the last section, these characteristics are highly suggestive of the Angel of YHWH and therefore this Psalm appears to connect the Davidic king with him.

In keeping with these parallels, Scott Hahn convincingly argues that David understood himself as a new Melchizedek. He did not choose Zion as the location of his capitol by accident. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Jerusalem is identified with Salem (see Ps 76:1–2), where Melchizedek was the priest-king.184 We observed that David dressed in priestly garb when the ark (the seat of divine presence) was brought to Jerusalem.185 We are also told that David feeds his guests “a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one” (2 Sam 6:19). Hahn argues that the second item, “a portion of meat” (frequently translated as “meats” based on how Vulgate understands the difficult Hebrew word,186 though NIV and other translations have “dates”) could better be translated as “wine.”187 If so, all this suggests that David meant to identify himself as a new Melchizedek, who also feeds the people bread and wine (Gen 14:18). The bread and wine also connects David to the promises given to the patriarchs. The giving of bread and wine also hearkens back to Isaac’s blessing to Jacob that God may give him “plenty of grain and wine” (Gen 27:28). This oracle is connected also to Isaac’s prophecy to Jacob that “nations [will] bow down to you” (v. 29), which seems to be echoed in Genesis 49:8:12 and in Psalms 2 and 110.188

There is also a more direct connection between David and the Abrahamic narratives. Mount Moriah (the location of the Solomon’s temple and David’s capitol) was the place of God’s confirmation of his promise to Abraham in the binding of Isaac (2 Chr 3:1).189 Just as God told Abraham he would make his name great (Gen 12:2), he tells David the same thing (2 Sam 7:9).190 Hahn notes here that we can observe a connection to and a preliminary fulfillment of the blessing of Shem, whose name means, “Name.”191 Shem is also told that Japheth (i.e., the Gentiles) will dwell in his tents (Gen 9:27). Solomon’s kingdom includes both Israelites and non-Israelites (1 Kgs 9:20–21) and builds the temple as a house for God’s Name. During the reign of Solomon, the Bible states that the “people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (1 Kgs 4:20), fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17. Indeed, this promise is itself made on Mount Moriah. This establishes David not only as heir of the Abrahamic testament, but also establishes the Abrahamic testament as a continuation of the blessing of Shem and the protevangelium. Just as the Abrahamic testament is meant for the blessing of the nations, so David exclaims after the oracle promising him an eternal house: “this is instruction for mankind” (7:19).192 Hence, David’s covenant fulfills the restoration of Adam’s dominion and accomplishes Abraham’s blessing of all nations.

Just as there is a connection between the promises given to David and Abraham, the narrative of 2 Samuel 24 connects David’s sacrifice and establishment of the locale of the temple with the binding of Isaac. Just as the Angel of YHWH appeared to Abraham on Mount Moriah, so too he appeared in the same location to David in 2 Samuel 24 in connection to the plague resulting from David’s census (2 Sam 24:16–17). Just as Abraham drew his knife to kill Isaac (Gen 22:10), so David sees the Angel of YHWH drawing his sword to strike down Jerusalem (24:16–17).193 In the same manner that God gave a substitute to the patriarch (22:13–14), so too David offers himself as a substitute for the people (2 Sam 24:17).194 Just as Abraham constructed an altar at that place (Gen 22:9), David did as well (24:18).

These connections are hardly coincidental. They clearly identify David and his descendants with the promises to Abraham sworn in this location. For this reason, the Davidic line also becomes the focus of God’s plan for the restoration of Edenic harmony present in his promises to Abraham. The temple is, as we have noted, the new Eden. David and his descendants will reign over all creation like Adam, the protological priest-king. Finally, neither is it an accident that Golgotha is a hillock in the same area as Mount Moriah. The New Testament tells us that Jesus fulfilled the Abrahamic and Davidic testaments by the testament of his own body and blood communicated through bread and wine.195

David’s preliminary fulfillments of the Abrahamic testament and the protevangelium find an even more sharp expression in the oracle of Nathan. David’s son is to “build a house for my Name” (1 Sam 7:13, emphasis added). As we have previously noted, the divine Name and the temple were the means by which the presence of God was mediated throughout the Old Testament.196 This becomes even clearer in the description of the descent of the divine kavod into the Solomonic temple (2 Kgs 8:10–14). Much like God’s presence in the tabernacle with a sign of his commitment and self-donation to Israel, God’s personal presence in the temple meant a promissory guarantee of the Davidic testament. The Levitical and Deuteronomic codes do not (contrary to the claims of Wellhausen) anticipate the building of a temple.197 Therefore the temple is specifically tied to the house of David. Just as David desired to build God a house, so God would make David a house (2 Sam 7).198 We will observe the ultimate fulfillment of this in John’s gospel when Jesus claims to be the true Temple (John 2:22). In this, God’s fulfillment of his promise of an eternal “house” for David, and David’s building of a house of the Lord coincide. God builds David’s house through his preservation of the holy seed. He thereby makes David and his line a house for the dwelling of the divine glory in the form of the incarnation.199

In that he represents the divine rule and presence, the kingly mediator represents YHWH before Israel. He is, as he is addressed by YHWH in the royal enthronement hymn of Psalm 2, “my Son” (v. 7). Hans-Joachim Kraus claims that sonship in this context has a connotation of designating the Israelite king as an heir of the property of YHWH’s creation.200 As the embodiment of YHWH’s universal reign, God states, “I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). Of course, Kraus may indeed be correct about the original use of the psalm (there is no way to verify this). Nevertheless, he has no explanation as to why the Israelite king should be promised the nations if in fact no Davidic king ever actually ruled all the nations or attempted to do so. In fact, what we must conclude is that these verses in their ultimate sense point ahead to an eschatological fulfillment in the Messiah.201 The Messiah would be divine and therefore reign over all creation in an unrestricted way, not just Israel and the surrounding nations, as did the kingly mediators of the Old Testament.202 This being said, we should not forget that an anticipation of this universal rule can be found in Solomon’s reign. The Chronicler tells us that Solomon sat “on the throne of the Lord” (1 Chr 29:23, emphasis added). Peter Leithart also notes that he rides on a mule (1 Kgs 1:38), which being a beast of mixed stock is a “cherubic” animal similar to those that pull the chariot thrown of the divine kavod (see Ezek 1).203 Lastly, both Solomon (1 Kgs 1:39) and David (1 Sam 16:13) are anointed with oil. In a similar manner to the priestly anointing that was discussed earlier, this suggests the glow of the divine glory.

Solomon not only embodies divine rule over all creation, but also divine creative activity. Much like Moses embodied the divine kavod when he spoke forth the tabernacle in seven divinely given speeches, so too Solomon is the builder of the temple, the cosmic microcosm. What is even more remarkable about this is how it creates a parallel between Solomon as the embodiment of divine wisdom (1 Kgs 3:7–13) and God’s hypostatized Wisdom as it is described in Proverbs 8. This scripture describes holy Wisdom as an offspring of the deity (Prov 8:22–29). Solomon/Israelite king is described as God’s Son (2 Sam 7:14, Ps 2:7) and as one that has also been begotten of God (Ps 2:7). Solomon is the builder of the temple (1 Kgs 6–8), the cosmic microcosm. God’s hypostatized Wisdom is described as a “craftsman at his [God’s] side” (Prov 8:30) in creation. Therefore, as the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic testament, it is not for arbitrary reasons that the Apostle Paul identifies Christ as the hypostatized Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:29, Col 1:16). It was therefore fitting that Christ was a carpenter (Mark 6:3) in that both Solomon and holy Wisdom are builders, and the Messiah is promised as one who will build God’s house (2 Sam 7:13). Just as Christ in his preincarnate state as God’s hypostatized Wisdom brought about creation, so he brings forth new creation through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection (2 Cor 5:17). Solomon, as a type of Christ, prefigures his coming incarnation and divine creativity as the wise builder of the cosmic microcosm.

Beyond these connotations of divinity, there is (as has previously been mentioned) a prevalent use of the language of sonship in monarchic and messianic texts throughout the Old Testament: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam 7:12–14).204 Traditions describing the king as divine are by no means unprecedented within the environment of the Ancient Near East. Kraus has noted Egyptian and Mesopotamian parallels.205 Eichrodt has pointed to Urgaritic examples.206 This prevalence of divine kingship language should not surprise us in the least. In light of the protevangelium’s promise of a divine Messiah that would renew creation, it would appear that many ancient peoples understood their divine kings as fulfilling this role.

Nevertheless, although the Israelite king embodies God’s rule, he is not divine himself. Gerhard von Rad and Sigmund Mowickel emphasize that the Hebrew Scriptures do not designate the king as divine, but rather the king embodies the divine to the extent that he is a representative of YHWH’s rule.207 The king is, as Walter Brueggemann notes, an Israelite among Israelites, standing under the authority of the law.208 Kraus also observes that the formula of the public pronunciation of someone as one’s own “Son” (such as in Psalm 2) was a common way of designating them as an heir by adoption in ancient law codes (he mentions the code of Hammurabi).209

Beyond its divine connotations, it should also be noted that the language of divine sonship meant the Israelite king represented the restoration of Adamic humanity. Israel is also referred to in Exodus as “my firstborn Son” (Exod 4:22). We also have seen that Genesis views Israel as a type of the ultimate fulfillment and restoration of human freedom and dominion. For this reason, the kingly mediators also stand as representatives of Israel before God and Israel.

Through the historical record of the Old Testament, this representative quality becomes clearer in that the nation fares as well as the behavior of its king allows. According to the accounts of the so-called Deuteronomistic history, Israel prospers during the righteous reigns of David, the younger Solomon, and Hezekiah (even if in this last case “prosper” means a last minute reprieve from destruction (see 2 Kgs 18–22). In the same manner, David’s sins result in the punishment of the nation (2 Sam 24), just as the nation is punished because of the wickedness of the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–17).

This relationship is a two-way street, in that some kings also suffer for the sins of the nation. At the end of 2 Kings, during the reign of Josiah, though righteous, he was still cursed by God because of the previous sins of Manasseh and the people of Judah in general (2 Kgs 23:26–27). Although 2 Chronicles connects his death with disobedience to God (2 Chr 35:22), this is not incompatible with the account in 2 Kings. His death could represent both punishment for Manasseh and his own disobedience. In any case, Josiah is killed at Megiddo and the exile follows not far behind (2 Kgs 23:29–30). Therefore Josiah bears the nation’s sin and thereby represents them before God and the nation. The king then stands as a sin bearer, much as we observed both Moses and the high priest doing earlier. This role of the Israelite king was also prefigured earlier in the history of Genesis, where Judah (David’s forefather and the inheritor of an eternal kingship) offers himself as a substitute for his brother Benjamin (Gen 44:33).

For the Old Testament, God’s promises to David (2 Sam 7) would find fulfillment in spite of human failings.210 David’s kingship is an eternal one and not dependent on obedience to the law. This promise was a fulfillment of Israel’s prophecy to Judah that eternal kingship would come from his line (Gen 49:8–13).211

Just as Isaiah prophesies about the fulfillment of the prophet like Moses, he also predicted the fulfillment of the Davidic testament. The Davidic Messiah, much like the figures prophesied to fulfill priestly and prophetic mediation, takes on divine qualities. He is described as “Immanuel” (Isa 7:14), that is, “God with us.”212 In chapter 9, he is also described as giving those in darkness a “great light” (v. 2). This is more than reminiscent of the Servant of YHWH in chapter 49, who is therein described as a “light to the nations,” a phrase we earlier connected to the manifestation of the divine kavod.213 In Isaiah 42:7 the Servant’s task is described as to “bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness” (emphasis added). In Isaiah 9 he is described as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (v. 6). The adjectives “Mighty” (’êl gib·bō·wr,) and “Everlasting” (which is one word in Hebrew with “Father,” ’ă·bî·‘ad) are consistently associated with God elsewhere in the Old Testament.214

There also might be a connection between the Messianic figure of chapter 9 and the Angel of YHWH. The LXX translates the verse not as “Wonderful Counselor” but rather as the “Angel of Great Council.”215 There is little in the Hebrew text that would definitively suggest this translation. Nevertheless, Hengstenberg believes that the title “Wonderful” is a divine one, in that it parallels the name (or is a description of the name) of the Angel of YHWH in Judges 13.216 If the translators of the LXX connected the use of the term in the two texts, it might mean that they thought that the messianic title was a reference to Judges 13, and therefore that the coming Messiah was identical with the Angel of YHWH.

This divine identity of the Messiah is suggested elsewhere in the prophets. Ezekiel describes the situation at the eschaton as thus: “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd” (Ezek 37:24, emphasis added). Earlier, God states that he will shepherd Israel: “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (34:15). Though the text does not appear to explicitly teach a divine Messiah, what seems to be implicit is that because there is only one shepherd, God and the Davidic Messiah are a single subject.217 It should also be noted that Ezekiel’s prophecies of the Messiah are connected with the coming of a new covenant (“I will make with them a covenant of peace” 34:25, an “everlasting covenant” 37:26) and the divine act of cleansing from sin (“I [will] cleanse you from all your iniquities” 36:33, emphasis added), which in turn connect the texts to the prophecies of Isaiah 53, 61, Jeremiah 31, and Daniel 7, 9.

Moving on to Isaiah chapter 11, the Davidic Messiah is described as “a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit” (v. 1). This is very similar language to what we find elsewhere in the Old Testament. We read in Jeremiah 23 that the Davidic Messiah is also referred to as a “branch” (Jer 23:5). His name will be “The LORD Our Righteousness,” which again suggests divinity. The language of “branch” and “shoot” is remarkably similar to that used in Isaiah 53: “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground” (v. 2, emphasis added). The common wording of these passages suggests then that the “branch” is the same person as the Servant.218 On a typological level as well, it also makes sense that the Davidic Messiah would be connected with the Servant, who acts as a new Passover lamb for a new exodus. Previously, in the case of Judah and Josiah, the Davidic line acted as a substitute for others. David and Solomon also engaged in explicitly priestly activities. Therefore the Davidic Messiah acting as a substitute for sin, and a new Passover lamb makes perfect sense.

The description of the “shoot” coming “out of dry ground” also might connect Isaiah 53 with Isaiah 7.219 We are told in Isaiah 7 that “Immanuel” will be born of a virgin.220 The figure of the Servant is also divine in that he is called “the arm of the Lord” (53:1). Ground that has not been watered might very well be a metaphorical way of talking about virginity. This not only connects the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 7, 9, and 11 to the Servant songs, but also connects them to the protevangelium’s “seed of the woman.”

82. See discussion in Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 146–47. Hahn posits the interesting theory that because all firstborn sons were originally consecrated to YHWH, they served as priests in Israel prior to the golden calf incident. Afterwards, the Levites take over their position. Hahn then goes on to argue that this is why it is emphasized in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Christ is a firstborn son. In other words, he has restored by his life, death, and resurrection the original situation of Israel.

83. Much of the material in this section has previously appeared in my article, “Creation’s Praise,” 314–25.

84. See Gunkel, Creation and Chaos; Gunkel, Genesis. Also see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 77–144.

85. Kearney, “Liturgy and Creation,” 375–87.

86. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 83.

87. Ibid., 78.

88. Ibid.

89. Beale, Temple, 31–36.

90. See discussion in Beale, Temple, 46. Also see Jewish War, 5.5.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 707.

91. Ibid., 35.

92. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 19–37.

93. Gordon Wenham mentions verbal parallels found in Num 3:7–8, 8:26, 18:5–6.

94. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 64.

95. Beale, Temple, 23–29.

96. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 93.

97. This has also been suggested by N. T. Wright in his argument regarding the covenantal promise throughout the Pentateuch. There is a parallel between Adam and Eve’s promise of fertility and dominion, and the same promise to Israel. See N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 3:720. Wright lists the example of Gen 12:2, 17:2–8, 22:16, 26:3, 26:24, 28:3, 35:11, 47:27, 48:3.

98. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:30–32.

99. Beale, Temple, 35.

100. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 5.

101. On the concept of sacrifice in the Old Testament see K. Hanson, “Blood and Purity,” 215–30.

102. Quell, “Diatheke,” 2:113. Quell argues that covenants are solemn oaths that have the form of a specific covenantal ceremony:

a. bә·rît “to cut” is used in summary description of the whole transaction recorded; b. there is a record of the divine attestation and the unalterable validity of the compact; c. more precise details are given of the mutual agreement; d. there is an oath in acknowledgment of the divine guaranteeing of correct intention; e. a sacrifice is offered; and f. the covenant brethren share a common meal. (Modified slightly; Hebrew and Greek letters transcribed into English.)

Also see Hahn, Father Who Keeps, 20–30. Hahn describes the difference between a covenant and a contract: 1. Covenants involve solemn oaths that curse those who break them, opposed to contracts that merely involve promises. 2. Covenants involve an exchange of persons. This is similar to what we have seen with the idea of self-donation being present in God’s promises.

103. Hahn, “Broken Covenant,” 428–29. Hahn thinks that the symbolism revolves around death. Perhaps, but that is not the only symbolism we will observe. Also see Hahn’s aforementioned Kinship by Covenant. Beyond Hahn’s own work, he helpfully provides the following contemporary bibliography (Hahn, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments,” 263–92): Baltzer, Covenant Formulary; Brueggemann, Covenanted Self; Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 3–21; Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation; Faley, Bonding with God; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant; McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant; McKenzie, Covenant; Mendenhall, Law and Covenant; Nicholson, God and His People; Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament; Rendtorff, Bundesformel; Walton, Covenant; Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 184–203; P. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations.

104. See AE 1:221–22. Luther makes a similar argument.

105. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1079–84.

106. Luther interprets the statement this way. See AE 2:70–73.

107. See argument in von Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 1st ed., 2.1:143–50. Also see Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 44–48. Hahn makes the interesting suggestion that animal sacrifice is also significant because it points to the destruction of idolatry. In other words, a great deal (in fact most) idol worship in the ancient world was directed to images of idols (see Rom 1:23). In Exodus, Moses tells Pharaoh that the children of Israel must take their livestock with them because sacrificial activity would offend the Egyptians (Exod 8:25–27). Hahn suggests that this occurred because the Egyptians worshiped these animals as gods. Later on, the Israelites worship a calf. On the Day of Atonement, a bull is sacrificed (Lev 16:3, 8). It is also strongly implied that they worship goats or goat gods of some sort (17:7). Two goats are offered up on the Day of Atonement (16:5).

108. The same passage condemns Ham descendants, most notably the Canaanites and the Egyptians who will be judged by God because of their wickedness. Nevertheless, Hagar the Egyptian later in Genesis is shown to be an inheritor of some of God’s promises (though certainly not the promised seed as Muslims claim). Similarly, Isaiah 19:19 tells us that the Egyptians will eventually believe in the one, true God and that he will rescue them. Ultimately, as the Abrahamic covenant states and the prophets attest later on, all peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham and his descendants. Therefore, it appears that descendants mean those who follow his sin. Hence Ham’s spiritual descendants are intended by Noah’s curse. Likewise, it is obvious not all Israelites or descendants of Japheth are blessed, but only those who have faith. See Luther’s argument to this effect in AE 2:174–86.

109. See comments in Peter Leithart, House for My Name, 64–65. Joseph also hearkens back to Adam, the protological priest-king and anticipates Christ, the eschatological priest-king. He not only reigns in Egypt, but he is married to the daughter of an Egyptian priest. See Gen 41:50.

110. See Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings, 51–52.

111. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 98.

112. Kass, Beginning of Wisdom, 201.

113. See discussion in Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 116–22.

114. Many interpretrs have acknowledged this. See Boice, Genesis, 118; R. Davidson, Genesis 12–50, 45; Gill, Exposition of Genesis, 271–72; Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 429–38; Hasel, “Meaning of the Animal Rite,” 61–78; Leupold, Genesis, 1:480; Maher, Genesis, 102–4; von Rad, Genesis, 181; Van Seters, Abraham in History, 100–103; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 228.

115. See argument in R. Davidson, Genesis 12–50, 45; Leupold, Genesis, 1:488–89.

116. R. Daly, Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, 41–44.

117. Ibid., 42.

118. Ibid., 43.

119. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:53–56. Obviously the covenant between God and Abraham includes the coming of the “seed” that will bless all nations, but also the possession of the land and the many descendants. This is, quite literally, fulfilled in the exodus and growth of the nation in the Old Testament history. It is spiritually fulfilled in Christ through all who have faith becoming heirs to the promise (as Paul shows in Galatians and Romans) and through the possession of the new heavens and earth. The land of Israel is of course included within the whole of creation.

120. Leupold, Genesis, 1:520–21.

121. See discussion in Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 123–30.

122. Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 55–143.

123. Noth, Exodus, 198.

124. Hahn, “Broken Covenant,” 429.

125. See general discussion of divine swearing in the Abrahamic covenant in Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 103–11.

126. For discussions of the divine presence in the temple, Charles Gieschen helpfully lists the following (Gieschen, “Real Presence of the Son,” 108): Adams, “Present God,” 279–94; Phythian-Adams, People and the Presence; Congar, Mystery of the Temple; Clements, God and Temple; Hummel, Word Becoming Flesh, 78–79; Terrien, Elusive Presence.

127. Kleinig, Leviticus, 4–13.

128. Ibid., 5.

129. Ibid., 6.

130. Ibid., 4–6.

131. For a discussion of atoning sacrifice in Leviticus, see Balentine, Leviticus, 125–49; Bonar, Book of Leviticus, 300–20; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 32–46, 288–326; Levine, Leviticus, 100–117; Noth, Leviticus, 115–32; Radner, Leviticus, 284–99; Rooker, Leviticus, 211–37.

132. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4:293–323. This was the approach of all pre-critical Christian orthodoxy, notably also Lutheran orthodoxy. See Franz, Commentarius in Leviticum. And also see J. Osiander, Commentarii in Pentateuchum Pars Tertia.

133. See very good discussion of sacrifice in Leithart, House for My Name, 87–95.

134. SC 6; CT 557.

135. Kleinig, Leviticus, 357.

136. Ibid., 117.

137. Ibid., 357.

138. Milgrom, Leviticus1–16, 1079–84. In spite of the connotations that Milgrom’s translation suggests, he still considers the idea of the “sin offering” to be erroneous and theologically “foreign” (254) to Leviticus. He believes that the offering has nothing to do with personal guilt, but rather has the function of the “ritual detergent” of sacred space. Japanese scholar Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, who points to the fact that the texts of Leviticus are extremely clear that sin offerings are meant to cleanse from personal guilt, challenges this interpretation (held by several other scholars as well). See his masterful Purification Offering. Also see Kleinig, Leviticus, 117.

139. Kleinig, Leviticus, 117.

140. Antiquities of the Jews, 7.13.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 206. We read: “and he [David] built an altar, he performed divine service, and brought a burnt offering, and offered peace offerings also. With these God was pacified, and became gracious to them again” (emphasis added). Also see E. Sanders, Judaism, 106–7, 251–57. Sanders has some doubts about how much sacrifice was seen as propitiation, but adds some good facts to the discussion. Also see the older and somewhat outdated, but essentially correct assessment of the nature of sacrifice in Kurtz, Der Mosaische Opfer.

141. See discussion in Kleinig, Leviticus, 100, 123, 136, 119–20. For unintentional sins see Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27. For intentional sins see Num 15:27–31. Though it is not clear how much in actual practice this was really carried out.

142. See discussions of the Day of Atonement in Hartley, Leviticus, 201–16; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 288–311; Kleinig, Leviticus, 327–353; Rodriguez, “Leviticus 16,” 269–86.

143. See the following sources on the scapegoat: Westbrook and Lewis, “Who Led the Scapegoat?,” 417–422; McLean, “Revision of Scapegoat Terminology,” 168–73; Roo, “Was the Goat?,” 233–42; Feinberg, “Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” 320–33; R. Helm, “Azazel in Early Jewish Tradition,” 217–26; Grabbe, “Scapegoat Tradition,” 152–67.

144. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 6.

145. Ibid.

146. The engraving on the diadem of the high priest in Exod 39 is typically translated as “Holy to YHWH.” This disagrees with Antiquities of the Jews, 3.7.6, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 90, and Jewish War, 5.5.7, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 708. Josephus claims there that it is merely the Tetragrammaton that appears on the high priest’s diadem. This discrepancy can be resolved by suggesting that the Exodus text might be translated as “the holy inscription: ‘YHWH.’” J. E. Hodd has convincingly argued that Exodus should be interpreted in the direction of the later evidence from Josephus and other Jewish sources. See. Hodd, “Note on Two Points,” 74–75.

147. Fletcher-Louis, “High Priest as Divine Mediator,” 188–89.

148. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 6.

149. Ibid.

150. Ibid., 6–7.

151. Beale, Temple, 83. Beale makes a similar observation about divine kingship in the Ancient Near East. The divine king would stand for the living image of the god.

152. Levenson, Creation, 74–77.

153. See similar observations regarding the unity of cult and creation in Prenter, Creation and Redemption, 193–97.

154. See Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:283–89.

155. See discussion in Harstad, Joshua, 252–55. See also Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:128. Hengstenberg connects this with Matt 26:53 where Jesus claims the role of being the leader of the heavenly hosts.

156. Steinmann, Daniel, 489.

157. Fletcher-Louis, “High Priest as a Divine Mediator,” 169–74.

158. See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 80–89; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:75–76; Steinmann, Daniel, 490. Also see Mitchell, Song of Songs, 921–22, 944–61. Mitchell connects this figure with the angel of Rev 10, and suggests that both are Christ. Also see discussion of the christological nature of the Ezekiel vision in Hummel, Ezekiel, 1:49–50.

159. See argument in favor of traditional messianic interpretation in Leupold, Psalms, 770–78. Also see discussions of Melchizedek in Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek,” 63–69; McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 1–31; Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 81–94.

160. One might ask how a promise of an eternal priesthood squares with Christ’s own priesthood in the NT. Although Christ was not a Levite (Heb 7:14), all who are in him are eternally priests (1 Pet 2:9, Rev 5:10) and therefore Christ’s eschatological priesthood fulfills this promise to the Levities who have faith in him as their eternal high priest.

161. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4:172–75.

162. Ibid., 4:167–71.

163. Ibid., 4:162.

164. Leupold, Zechariah, 77–78.

165. See discussion in Bergsma, Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 198–203.

166. Keil, Biblical Commentary on Daniel, 270–75, 320–402.

167. See Collins, Daniel, 352; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:89–90. See Leupold, Daniel, 408–9. Leupold disagrees with the reference of Jubilee, but considers the numbers of seven and ten as emblematic of the highest perfection of divine work. Either interpretation fits with our insistence that it does not refer to literal time, but to the divine completion of redemption.

168. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:100–102.

169. Ibid., 3:117–21.

170. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:142–46; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. For an alternative view, see Leupold, Daniel, 431–32. Leupold holds that it is in fact the antichrist who is making the covenant in order to imitate Christ.

171. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:146–48.

172. See Keil, Daniel, 360–62; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. Also see Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, 51–62. Pitre holds this text to directly predict a suffering Messiah who atones for sin.

173. See comments in Keil, Commentary on Daniel, 354–55.

174. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 601.

175. Rendtorff, Canonical Hebrew Bible, 101.

176. Ibid. Also see Exod 23:32, 34:12; Deut 7:1–5.

177. Exod 33:14; Deut 12:9–10, 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15, 11:23, 14:15, 21:44, 22:4, 23:1; 2 Sam 7:11–12; 1 Kgs 5:41, 8:56; 1 Chr 22:9.

178. Leithart, Son to Me, 71–72.

179. See discussion in ibid., 70–73.

180. NIV translates this as “royal advisors” but some translators (notably the ESV) suggest “priests.”

181. See discussion in Leupold, Genesis, 1:462–66; Leupold, Psalms, 770–78.

182. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 346–47.

183. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:151.

184. Ibid., 190.

185. Ibid., 180, 190–91.

186. In the Vulgate 2 Sam 6:19 reads: “Et partitus est multitudini universae Israhel tam viro quam mulieri singulis collyridam panis unam et assaturam bubulae carnis unam et similam frixam oleo et abiit omnis populus unusquisque in domum suam.”

187. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 180.

188. Ibid.

189. Ibid., 117.

190. Hahn, Father Who Keeps, 211.

191. Ibid.

192. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 119. Though this is how the ESV translates the text, it is also Hahn’s preferred translation.

193. Ibid., 191.

194. Ibid., 191–93.

195. See comment and discussion in Hahn, Lamb’s Supper, 14–28.

196. McBride, “Deuteronomic Name Theology.”

197. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 20–43. Wellhausen asserted (without any evidence) that the “tabernacle” was simply a code word in Leviticus for the Second Temple. Kitchen demonstrates that tent-shrine like the tabernacle were frequently used in the late second-millennium BC. Also, it was not too large for the Israelites to carry around in the desert (as many have claimed) because other peoples of the era carried around much larger tent-shrines. See Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 279–83. Also, Kitchen notes, Deuteronomy’s statements prohibiting worship at sites other than where YHWH places his Name (Deut 16:6, etc.) does not necessarily designate the temple in Jerusalem (Jerusalem is never mentioned or implied!), but rather simply refers to a place God designates (Reliability of the Old Testament, 302). Even if it did designate Jerusalem, from the perspective of faith, this does not pose a problem in that God who knows the future can reveal things to the prophets. This only becomes a problem if one, due to their worldview, rejects rectilinear prophecy.

198. See similar argument in Leithart, House for My Name, 130–31.

199. This is Peter Leithart’s insight in a personal conversation.

200. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 132.

201. Augustine interpreted this purely messianically and suggested that the “today have I begotten you” was the today of eternity. See Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms: Psalm 2:6; NPNFb 8:3. He writes:

Although that day may also seem to be prophetically spoken of, on which Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh; and in eternity there is nothing past as if it had ceased to be, nor future as if it were not yet, but present only, since whatever is eternal, always is; yet as today intimates presentiality, a divine interpretation is given to that expression, Today have I begotten You, whereby the uncorrupt and Catholic faith proclaims the eternal generation of the power and Wisdom of God, who is the Only-begotten Son.

In this he was followed by most of the western exegetically tradition.

202. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:150–52; Leupold, Psalms, 41–58.

203. Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings, 32.

204. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:130–49.

205. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 131.

206. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:448.

207. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 172; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:320.

208. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 606–7.

209. Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 131–32.

210. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:130–52.

211. Ibid., 1:57–98; Leupold, Genesis, 2:1176–85.

212. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 1:220–23.

213. Leupold, Isaiah, 2:179–80. Leupold concludes that the Servant must be divine, in that he serves as a light to the nations in a way that only God could.

214. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:89–90. Also see Leupold, Isaiah, 1:185–86.

215. Daniélou, History of Early Christian Doctrine, 333.

216. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 2:37.

217. Hummel, Ezekiel, 2:1003–7. Dr. Hummel sees this as a prediction of the Davidic Messiah unification of the Church. Nevertheless, he also sees an ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s theandric nature, in that he is a ruler who unifies divine and human rule.

218. A. Pieper, Exposition of Isaiah 40–66, 436. Also see argument in Block, “My Servant David, 17–56. Block makes the argument that the Servant is clearly a Davidic king.

219. See A. Pieper, Exposition of Isaiah, 436. Pieper disagrees and claims that “dry ground” refers to the political situation.

220. See a defense of this interpretation of Isaiah and its application to Christ in Gibbs, Matthew 1–11, 99–104; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 2:44–50; Leupold, Isaiah, 1:155–57; Niessen, “Virginity of the ‘Almah,” 133–50; Rydelnik, Messianic Hope, 152–54; E. Young, “Immanuel Prophecy,” 97–124. Also see a Jewish defense of the word “almah” (virgin) in C. Gordon, “Almah in Isaiah,” 106.