But we might ask How does Moses’ word have any power? God says that he has pardoned the people according to Moses’ word. Does Moses have authority over the LORD? How is this possible? This is the difficulty that open theists relish in.  Let me propose that to understand this passage we need to consider Moses’ relation to our ultimate intercessor Jesus Christ.

Though Moses’ work had a unique, historical significance, he ultimately points us to the work of Christ. Just as Moses led God’s people out of slavery from Egypt and then on a path through the wilderness to inhabit the promised land, Jesus Christ has led his people out of the slavery of sin, through the wilderness of our struggles in this world toward our ultimate rest in the new heavens and new earth.

1 Timothy 2:5 is very clear that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. But insofar as Moses was a true mediator, his mediation was founded upon the true mediation of Jesus Christ. Moses was a mediator because Christ would be the mediator. So how does the LORD pardon his people according to Moses’ word? It’s because Moses was a priest who through God’s power spoke and mediated in the power of the coming Messiah.

In a somewhat Klinian sense, Moses’ office is sacramental of Christ’s office as our great high priest.  Moses’ words and actions have authority insofar as they are congruent with and anticipate the words and actions of Jesus Christ.  I’m inclined to think that this line of thinking could be developed toward a better understanding of the authority of the church’s ordained officers and particularly, the authority of the preached word.  Granted, we no longer have [earthly] priests who intercede for us, but I do believe we could learn a lesson on the source of ministerial authority from Numbers 14.

Much of the clean/unclean and holy/unholy aspects in Leviticus can be viewed in order and spatial categories. For instance, abnormalities are generally viewed as unclean. Any natural defects or things out of the ordinary were considered unclean.  For instance, animals were typically unclean for not being consistent or orderly.  Consider that Israelites could not eat monkeys because they walked on their hands and feet (Waltke, 467).  We can extend this idiom to other areas of attention in Leviticus.  Certainly diseases are unclean for health reasons, but there is an added dimension regarding leprosy and other skin diseases. These types of diseases caused the skin to turn different colors – a visual indication of abnormality.  Any spots that came up would have to be inspected.  Once declared unclean, a person was not clean again until the spot went away and the subject became normal or orderly again.

This same principle sheds light on the laws against mixing different types of fabric, mating different kinds of species [read: non-human] or planting with various types of seeds (cf Lev. 19:19).  Mixing fabric or seeds is not an inherently unholy activity.  The idea was to embed an illustration of purity within the everyday life of an Israelite.  Just as the Israelites were set apart as a holy people to remain distinct from the world, they were to keep the holy and unholy – the clean and unclean – distinct and separate.  We can see how right order is the general principle since deviations were unclean or unholy.  In his commentary, R. Laird Harris quotes Mary Douglas “holiness requires that different classes of things shall not be confused… all the rules of sexual morality exemplify the holy. Incest and adultery are against holiness, in the simple sense of right order.” (Harris, 527)

The “right order” dimension certainly starts to remove the veil from much of Leviticus for the contemporary reader, but there is another dimension.  We must consider a spatial dimension in terms of who or what is closest to God.  This spatial aspect is demonstrated in the levels of access within the tabernacle and temple. The Holy of Holies was most closely identified with God’s presence. Certainly God is omnipresent, but there is a special presence, a special holiness to the innermost part of the temple. We may then proceed out into lesser and lesser degrees of holiness. We move to the inner court, then to the outer court – then even to the city of Jerusalem. Finally we move to outside the city.  This was the worst place to be for it was the farthest from God.

This spatial dimension can also be applied to people.  We begin with the priests, then the ceremonially clean Jews (particularly men). Further down the chain are the ceremonially clean women, then Gentiles and the ceremonially unclean.  Each class had varying degrees of access to God and consequently possessed varying levels of holiness.  The spatial dimension encompasses much of what is not covered under the heading of orderliness.

Keeping in mind these two categories can certainly help today’s reader appreciate much more of Leviticus.  Once these basic ideas are grasped, the typological and redemptive dimensions of the book begin to open up.  The inclusion of the Gentiles, the sacrifice of the Messiah, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and many other themes are seen with greater appreciation.

Works Cited

The eschatological idea influencing the constitution of the theocracy becomes dependent on the interaction of the type and the antitype. The future state imposes its own stamp on the theocracy, an actual institution of Israel. The theocratic structure projects its own character into the picture of the future. Heaven reflected itself on Israel and Israel became part of the future. The type inevitably influences the conception of the antitype. The future is depicted in terms drawn from the present, earthly, material reality. There is somewhat of the shadowy, inadequate character of the prefiguration that passes over into the description of what the eschatological will be like when it comes. The antitype impresses its stamp upon the theocratic structure and imparts to it somewhat of its transcendent, absolute character. The theocracy has something ideal or unattainable about it. Its plan, as conceived by the law, hovers over the actual life of Israel. The theocracy in the idea transcends its embodiment in experience.1

In 21st Century English vernacular, Vos has explained, in the afore mentioned quote, that God worked within the theocratic structure of Israel to show the reality of the theocratic nature of heaven. The laws given to Israel were good, and were God-ordained, but they were unattainable. They were meant to show the people of God, throughout all generations, that God is Holy, and that His rule is holy. But, at the end of the day–or you might say, “At the end of the old age”–they passed away because they were the earthly type of the heavenly reality. This is confirmed constantly throughout the NT when the writer to the Hebrews draws the parallel between the earthly mountain and the heavenly mountain, between the land here and the land there, between the voice shaking the earth and the voice that now also shakes the heavens. There is an antitype for all of the typical elements of the OT, and this is no less true of the theocracy than it was for anything else.

But how does this help us understand the particular case laws given to Israel? Are we simply to dismiss them as irrelevant and unnecessary? Or are we to seek to apply them wholesale to the New Covenant economy in Gentile governments? Here, I think, Vos supplies us with the balanced answer. He noted:

“Eschatological revelation is presented in the language of the Mosaic institutions. The New Testament first transposes it into a new key. Here in the New Testament it is spiritualized. In the Old Testament it is expressed in terms of perfection of the forms of Israel’s theocracy. The holy city is center; offices, organizations, peace, abundance, etc. are there, but this all is to be eternalized in the Messainic era, and will be free of the vicissitudes of the present era. All this is the content of revelation.”2

Notice the way that Vos made use of the words “spiritualized” and “eternalized” in order to describe the theocratic forms of the Old Covenant, as they relate to the Messianic era. Certainly we find, in the book of Hebrews, a clear statement of this in regard to the ceremonial system of Old Covenant worship. It is not that the Old Covenant is supplanted by the New with no relation whatsoever. Rather, it is that the Old was the foundation of typical forms and shadows, and, as Vos noted, “heaven reflected itself on Israel” in order that these types might reflect something of the heavenly antitypes.

But, I want to point out that this is also true with regard to the civil system of theocratic Israel. How does the New Testament use the civil legislation given to Israel? In brief, it “spiritualizes” them so that they are seen to be “eternailzed in the Messianic era.” This can be demonstarted from one brief illustration–Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, and 24:7. This oft repeated verse, in its theocratic setting, had reference to stoning the idolatrous, the false witness, and the fornicator.

1 Corinthians 5:13 is the New Covenant setting, in which this Old Covenant sanction now has reference to excommunicating the impenitent adulterer. The penal legislation is “spiritualized” with regard to the New Covenant church. Certainly the discipline excercised by the apostle Paul in this case had an “eternalizing” principle. Jesus Himself had told the apostles, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.” We know that God in His mercy and grace brought the man of 1 Corinthians 5 to repentance, so that he was restored to communion with the saints–as is evident from 2 Corinthians.  But we must take the greatest of care in understanding the spiritualizing principle of the theocratic system. God has given us examples, such as Paul’s use of Duet. 17:7 in 1 Corinthians 5:13, so that we might realize the applicability of the Old Covenant civil law, without missing its eschatological spirituality.

1. Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2001) pp. 117-118

2. Ibid., p. 118

]]> http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/03/03/the-theocratic-sanctions-in-redemptive-history/feed/ 4 http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/ http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/#comments Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:16:46 +0000 Nicholas T. Batzig http://www.historiasalutis.com/2009/02/06/a-biblical-theology-of-the-trees-of-the-garden-part-1/ There has been no shortage of writing on the nature of the two trees in the center of the Garden of Eden. From the earliest time in New Testament church history, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life have been understood to be fundamental elements of human history. While there is no shortage of writing about these trees there is, nevertheless, much disagreement as to their precise purpose in Paradise. There is, perhaps, no more helpful treatment on the trees of the Garden than that found in Geerhardus Vos’ Biblical Theology.

When he came to treat the subject of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Vos explained that the tree served a twofold purpose. First, it was meant to be a probation–to test Adam’s obedience to his Creator. Satan would turn the test into a temptation thus making it a temporary probation. Second, it was meant to give Adam the knowledge of Good and Evil. If Adam obeyed he would learn the evil from the prospect, and in contrast to, having chosen the good. If he disobeyed, he would have learned the evil by experience and would know the good, remembering what he once was, in contrast with having chosen the evil. Vos explained this in the following manner:

To attain to a knowledge of good and evil is not necessarily an undesirable and culpable thing. It could happen in a good way, in case man stood in probation, no less than in an evil way, in case man fell. The name is neutral as to its import. That this is so frequently overlooked is due to the prohibitive form which the probation-test assumed. Because man was forbidden to eat of the tree associated with the knowledge of good and evil, it has been rashly assumed that the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden him. Obviously there is in this a confusion of thought. The prohibitive form of the test has quite a different cause, as will be presently shown.

If now we inquire how the maturity designated as ‘knowledge of good and evil’ was to be attained, either in a desirable or in an undesirable sense, regard must be had first of all to the exact form of the phrase in Hebrew. The phrase is not ‘knowledge of the good and the evil’. It reads, literally translated: ‘knowledge of good-and-evil’, i.e., of good and evil as correlated, mutually conditioned conceptions. Man was to attain something he had not attained before. He was to learn the good in its clear opposition to the evil, and the evil in its clear opposition to the good. Thus it will become plain how he could attain to this by taking either fork of the probation-choice. Had he stood, then the contrast between good and evil would have been vividly present to his mind: the good and evil he would have known from the new illumination his mind would have received through the crisis of temptation in which the two collided. On the other hand, had he fallen, then the contrast of evil with good would have even more vividly impressed itself upon him, because the remembered experience of choosing the evil and the continuous experience of doing the evil, in contrast with his memory of the good, would have shown most sharply how different the two are. The perception of difference in which the maturity consisted related to the one pivotal point, whether man would make his choice for the sake of God and of God alone…

From the true conception of the purpose of the tree we must distinguish the interpretation placed upon it by the tempter according to Gen. 3.5. This carries a twofold implication: first that the tree has in itself, magically, the power of conferring knowledge of good and evil. This lowers the plane of the whole transaction from the religious and moral to the pagan-magical sphere. And secondly, Satan explains the prohibition from the motive of envy. … Again, the divine statement in Gen. 3.22 alludes to this deceitful representation of the tempter. It is ironical.¹

It is interesting to note that it was Satan’s purpose to lead man to believe that the tree had in itself a magical power of conferring knowledge of good and evil. Vos elsewhere noted, as did Calvin, that the two tress in the midst of the Garden were sacramental. It is important to see that Satan was, from the beginning, trying to get man to misunderstand the nature of a sacrament, and to look to them as the thing in itself, working, as it were, ex opere operato.

Adam did indeed attain to the knowledge of good and evil, but, as Vos noted, he attained it from the standpoint of becoming evil and remembering the good in contrast to the evil he performed. If we make Genesis 1-3 our starting point, and then consider all the occasions in which man is called to make judgments (i.e. to decided between good and evil) we soon discover that he will always choose the evil over the good in his natural state.

When the LORD comes to assess Israel’s actions through the prophet Jeremiah this is what He concludes: ” For My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge (Jeremiah 4:22).” A little later the Lord says of Israel, “they proceed from evil to evil, And they do not know Me,” says the LORD.” It is knowledge of the LORD that men lack. This knowledge is the knowledge of good. There are many similar verses in the prophets, in which the LORD brings the charge that men, including His people Israel, had not learned how to do good. Of course, we know that this is because most of the visible church did not have regenerate hearts. We see the culmination of their evil ways as we approach the second tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, namely, the cross on which our Lord Jesus died in our place.

On the night when our Lord was betrayed and brought before human judges, He was struck by one of the soldiers. Explaining that He always taught openly, and that He never said anything in secret, He was vindicated His uprightness. To the soldier that struck Him, Jesus replied, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if good, why do you strike Me (John 18:23)?”

The knowledge of good and evil is always before us, and, it is evident, natural men will inevitably and irrationally choose evil each and every time they make a decision. We must understand that Jesus is the Good, just as He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Everything that involves Jesus involves the Good and the True. But this is–more than anything else–what causes the evil in man’s heart to surface. There is no greater example of this than at the cross.

The cross is the “tree” (as spoken of by Peter in 1 Peter 2: ) of the knowledge of good and evil. At Calvary the Jews and Romans (representative of all men) make the ultimate decision for evil. In the face of there cry, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” the Divine judge shows to a world blinded by evil, His verdict on that evil. But it is there that the One who did no evil was made sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The words of Joseph never rang so loudly, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” The One who hung on the tree restores the knowledge of the Good that Adam lost by choosing the evil for all those who trust in Him. God has chosen to reverse, in His image bearers, all that Adam lost by means of the One who hung on this tree, even our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other tree that so fully manifests the knowledge of good and evil. This is the final probation. What we do with God’s command concerning this tree is the only thing that matters now.

¹Vos, Geerhardus, Biblical Theology (1948), pp. 27-33.

photo by garry61

Mountains are prominent, high, and imposing figures. As such they naturally evoke images of the divine. (Ryken, Wilhoit and Longman III 1998, 574) It is apparent that mountains are a strong allusion then to God’s presence. He has appeared on several significant mountains in redemptive-history beginning in the Garden of Eden. Though not readily apparent in the Genesis account, Ezekiel 28:13-15 reveals that Eden was on a mountain. Regardless of whether Ezekiel is speaking geographically or metaphorically, the prophet is evoking a strong and persistent image.

The mountain theme advances through redemptive-history and appears in the flood narrative when God destroyed much of his creation as a result of sin. In order to stage a re-creation, as it were, God sent the flood as an reintroduction of chaos into the world that he had ordered. God was present with Noah and his family as he delivered them from the judgment that fell upon the world and he eventually delivered Noah and his family by bringing the ark to rest on Mt. Ararat, thereby linking God’s presence and judgment to the mountain theme.

Another significant mountain is Mt. Moriah (Gen 22). God called Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice on the mountain. God ultimately provided a ram instead of his son, and Abraham worshiped God for his gracious provision. Worship and sovereignty were dominant themes at Mt. Moriah and God was present in the voice of his angel from heaven (Gen 22:14). His presence is even seen proleptically in his provision for a sacrifice in that it foreshadows the future sacrifice of the Messiah.

Mountains are also closely linked with the covenants. The covenant of works was made on the Edenic mountain. The Noahic covenant is bound up with Mt. Ararat. The Mosaic covenant was made at Horeb, the region around Mt. Sinai. The mountain is linked with the constitution of God’s people by way of covenant. (Donaldson 1985, 35) The covenant is renewed on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Josh 8:30-35). God promised Israel a king that would always reign on the throne through the Davidic covenant and coupled with this promise are the Psalms that speak of God’s servant David reigning on a mountain and Mt. Gerazim and Mt. Ebal as the center for God’s curses and blessings (Deut 27-28). The Davidic covenant is woven into the theme of Mt. Zion because it is the location from which God’s king reigns (2 Sam 7:8-13).

Though these mountains are prominent features of Scripture, the most significant mountains in the Bible are Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion. Mt. Sinai is linked with the prophet Moses as the site on which God gave the Law to his chosen people Israel (Ex 19-Num 10). God’s presence was on Mt. Sinai as he appeared to Moses. Mt. Zion becomes prominent after David captured the Canaanite city (2 Sam 5), made it the center of political and religious attention, and relocated the Ark of the Covenant to it (2 Sam 6). The ark also symbolized God’s presence, and placing the ark on Mt. Zion in effect translated the presence motif to Mt. Zion. Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4 illustrates the themes associated with these two mountains. Sarah is likened to Zion and is the mother of the free children whereas Hagar, the slave woman, is the mother of slaves born under law (Gal 4:24-26).

The concept of worship naturally flows from the theme of God’s presence. God specially dwells in the places where he commands his people to worship. Initially, God called out a people from the nations and commanded them to worship at Mt. Sinai, the new mountain of God (Ex 19:1-15). After Israel was divided into northern and southern kingdoms, Mt. Zion remained the center of worship in the south, but Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal became the worship center in the north. (Alexander, et al. 2000, 589)

The dwelling place of God is also compared with Zaphon, a worship place of pagans (Ps 48:2). The temple-mountain had significance in surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures and Mt. Zaphon was the dwelling place of the gods in Canaanite mythology. (Ryken, Wilhoit and Longman III 1998, 51) It was considered a sign of a god’s triumph over chaos and symbolized deity’s rule-dominion over the land. This triumph theme appears on another mountain as God triumphed over the priests of Baal through his prophet Elijah upon Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:20-40). The mountains were also seen as gateways into heaven. (Waltke 2007, 209) Isaiah’s prophecy builds upon this thought as it declares that Mt. Zion will be the clear location of the true king as it is established and all other mountains are made low (Is 40:4).

Micah unfolds the eschatological worship of God. His prophecy describes a day when Mt. Zion will be established as the chief of all mountains. Worship from all peoples will be at the mountain of the Lord rather than the mountains of pagan gods (Mic 4:1-2; cf. Is 2:2-3; 4:1-5; 25:6-26:2; Ezek 40-48; Rev 21:9-10). (Beale and Carson 2007, 1151) As such, Zion becomes a source of salvation and blessing (Ps 14:7; 20:2; 53:6; 128:5; 133:3). In Psalm 46:4 it is even the source of a river that waters the earth. (Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology 1985, 39)

The Lord himself will rule over the whole earth on that day (Zech 14:9, Ps 132:13; cf. Ezek 20:33). Jesus is the Messianic king and the antitype to the temple which symbolized God’s presence. This king is Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev 17:14). He came from the line of David to rule over his people and the world with power like that of an iron rod (Rev 19:15). The themes of mountains and cities are so closely linked with God’s presence and kingship that the psalmist even speaks of Zion being the footstool of God’s heavenly throne (Ps 99:5; 132:7). (Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology 1985, 38)

God was present on a mountain physically in the incarnated Son of God. Jesus Christ’s glory was revealed on the “holy mountain” at his transfiguration (2 Pet 1:18). Significantly, Moses and Elijah were present. Moses and Elijah are two prophets whose ministry was clearly linked to mountains (Ex 3:1; 1 Kg 18:30; 19:8). Elijah was to be a new Moses and Jesus is the ultimate prophet. God was evoking grand images as he revealed Christ, who is the convergence of the themes of God’s presence, power, glory, judgment, and sovereignty. (Ryken, Wilhoit and Longman III 1998, 673)

The mountain theme is incredibly rich and draws out the majesty of God’s sovereign reign over all things.  As we contemplate our LORD’s reign, let us remember that we have come to the heavenly Mt. Zion and to the city of the living God (Heb 12:22).  As the church, God’s redeemed people, we are in his presence and will worship him for eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth.