Thoughts on finding Christ in the OT

Over on Dave Bish's blog I've been involved in one the monthly discussions about how Christ is revealed in the OT. So often the two 'sides' seem to go round and round and I have often felt that there was more going on beneath the surface than what shows above the water. But I've never really got what.

You could say that one group just doesn't really believe that God is Trinity, or that the other is denying the newness of the incarnation. However I don't believe that is true of either group of regular commenters all of whom I have great respect for.... Which is not to say that we all don't have a great deal to learn.

However, listening to Mike Reeves on MP3 today suddenly things became a lot clearer. Commenting on reading the OT as all being about Christ he comments:

the key issue is I don't always have to talk about the incarnation, which is what we tend to mean when we say Christ. I don't always have to talk about that. When we say "do I have to go to Christ?" the kind of language we are using is using is "do I have to fast-forward through time to the event of the incarnation when Christ became flesh?" No you don't have to do that. But you have to be talking about the true and living God who is Christ. If you are not talking about him you must be talking about another God [...] That doesn't mean that as you are preaching on Hosea 11 you have to go "oh now lets jump into the New Testament". No you don't have to do that at all. But you must be talking about the same person. I suppose that's the key. So I'm not saying you always have to nip into the New Testament. You don't at all. But you must always be proclaiming Christ. You don't always have to be proclaiming the incarnation of Christ.

(34:43-> of this lecture, the whole series here)

I don't think you would find Graeme Goldsworthy saying that (correct me if I'm wrong). It may be Trinitarian hermeneutics but is it Gospel-centred hermeneutics?

Anyhow, although I am struggling to know where I should be, I think I understand enough to make some wild generalisations:

Group 1 is looking for the person

• This group is concerned about finding the second person of the Trinity. They are looking for God the Son. They tend to be thinking vertically about the relationship of God to humanity. They would stress that you cannot know God except as Trinity.

Group 2 is looking for the gospel-event

• This group is concerned about finding the Messiah. They are looking for the promised perfect human (king/priest etc). They will be thinking horizontally about the story of the bible/world. They would stress that you cannot know God apart from the death and resurrection of Christ.

I don't think I need go to the effort of pointing out the dangers on both sides. Doing one and not the other is clearly disastrous.

The one mediator

"there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

There is a discussion going on at the Coffee Bible Club Blog concerning whether the Angel of YHWH in the OT is God the Son. It is at 166 comments and counting - I've never seen anything like it. I haven't had the time to get involved and I don't have firm enough opinions on it anyway.

But I do have a nagging question:

Can there be a mediator between God and humanity who is not human?

Further, can there be a mediator between God and sinful humanity, who does not share in the suffering which is the just punishment for our sin?

The letter to the Hebrews has been brought into the discussion on the blog, although I've only skim read how people have dealt with it. However it would seem to me that Hebrews says several things that are relevant (that I can think of off the top of my head):

• The Old Covenant was mediated by Angels but the New by God's own Son.
• The Old Covenant was also mediated by imperfect sinful priests the New by a perfect sinless priest.
• Jesus was tempted like we were and so can sympathise with our weaknesses.
• Jesus was made perfect for his mediatory role by suffering.

The OT is characterised by a distance between God and humanity. We have to take at full seriousness the verses about people being unable to see God and live because of their sinfulness. Only in the NT did God come close. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 it is 'the man' Christ Jesus who is our mediator. That is why the most common places that the NT writers see Christ in the OT are in men - the priests, the kings, the nation.

I don't think the debate is really about whether the Israelites knew the Triune God or a Unitarian God, with the Angel of YHWH as a test case. I think the debate is really about mediation and revelation.

... sorry Glen. I perfectly understand if you want to shoot me now.

Women in the Old Testament

Bruce Waltke in his lectures on Judges is asked:

• Please comment on the author's attitude to women in the book of judges.

This is his response.

In a word I would say: very, very favourably. In fact the whole Deuteronomist is very favourable to women.

Who do you know better, Deborah or Lappidoth? Deborah. You don't even know who Lappidoth is. That's her husband [Judges 4:4].

Who killed Sisera? Jael [Judges 4:21].

Who killed the wicked Abimelech? A woman of theives [Judges 9:38].

Whom did I say was smarter, Manoah or his wife? Who had the instruction to raise the boy, Manoah or his wife? His wife [Judges 13].

Who is greater Hannah or Elkanah, in the book of Samuel? Obviously Hannah.

Who is greater Abigail or Nabal? Abigail.

You see what I am driving at? This whole idea that the Old Testament puts women down is rubbish.

And that was just what he was able to rattle off from the top of his head. More could be added.

Mealtime

OT sacrifices can often be thought of offerings of food for God to 'eat'. Graciously in the OT God allows the priests especially, but the rest of the people as well, to share in these meals.

In the NT we don't bring offerings of food to God, instead God presents us with food to eat. Food that is greater and also more expensive than the spotless lambs offered by Israel to their God.

Article on the Holy Spirit in the OT

• "Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" Themelios 30 (2004), 12-22; by James Hamilton

"The Gospel of John states, 'Unless one is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). Later in John we read that the Spirit will not be received until after Jesus is glorified (7:39). If the Spirit is not received until after the cross, could Nicodemus have experienced the new birth from above prior to the cross? Did the old covenant remnant experience the new birth by the Spirit? Were individual members of the old covenant remnant indwelt by the Spirit? This essay seeks to provide an answer to these questions...."

Temple and tabernacle

I have often thought of the only notable difference between the tabernacle and the Temple to be the settled nature of the latter symbolising the rest that God through David provided for the people (if only a shadow of the reality). A more careful reading of the bible reveals my ignorance. In fact the anointing of David, and YHWH’s covenant with him is also central to the building of the temple. There are a number of ways this is demonstrated, and here are a couple I have picked up in recent reading.

1. The link to the king’s palace

One of the main differences between the tabernacle and the temple is that the king’s house is part of the temple area. 1 Kings 6:1 begins the record of the building of the Lord’s house, and this does not end until 7:51, which says that "all the work that King Solomon performed in the house of the Lord was finished." Between 6:1 and 7:51, though, the writer tells not only about the temple but about Solomon’s palace and other buildings that Solomon built for himself (7:1-8). The description of Solomon’s palace comes right in the middle of the passage talking about building talking about building the "house of Yahweh." The means that Solomon’s house and the temple are both parts of something called the "house of Yahweh." Nothing like this has happened in Israel before.

(p.156, Leithart, Peter J., A House for my Name: A Survey of the OT)

2. The two massive pillars at the entrance

It is possible that the two pillars that flanked the entrance of Solomon’s temple were large incense altars, perhaps symbolic reminders of the divine presence in the wilderness by means of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night (Exod. 14:24; 33:9-10; Deut 31:15). But the two pillars also may have had yet another symbolic function. Since the Hebrew form of the name Jachin ("he will establish") appears also in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 ("he will establish David’s throne forever"), and Boaz ("in the strength of") appears in Ps. 21:1 ("in the strength of Yahweh shall the king rjoice"), it is possible that the pillars were also symbols of the relationship between the king and Yahweh. The pillars, located in the front of the royal chapel, may have functioned as symbols of the authority of the Davidic dynasty.

(DeVries, LaMoine F.; "Jachin and Boaz" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible)