Jesus redefines the Jewish Passover meal as a drama portraying his atoning death on the cross. This drama then interprets his crucifixion in precisely those terms: a new exodus that brings about forgiveness and Reconciliation
\non the basis of the sacrifice of himself as a \u201cPassover lamb.\u201d In this drama, the cup represents \u201cmy blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.\u201d Although the exact phrase \u201cnew covenant\u201d is not recorded in Matthew\u2019s account, it is in the account given in Luke 22:14\u201323:<\/p>\n
And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, \u201cI have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.\u201d And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, \u201cTake this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.\u201d And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u201cThis is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.\u201d And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, \u201cThis cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!\u201d And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this. (ESV)<\/p>\n
The reference in Matthew to blood \u201cpoured out for many\u201d seems to be a clear allusion to Isaiah 53:10\u201312, where the servant of the Lord is a \u201cPassover lamb\u201d whose atoning death brings about forgiveness for \u201cthe many.\u201d The reference to Jeremiah\u2019s new covenant is explicit, at least in Luke, and the allusion is also clear in Matthew. Jesus\u2019s last Passover meal, then, is converted into a new ceremonial tradition in which the cup represents his life (as the Passover Lamb) sacrificed to bring about the forgiveness of sins in the new exodus defined by Isaiah and Jeremiah.
\nOnce the connection between the institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper in the Gospels and Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 31 is established, it is interesting to note that Jesus gives this meal to his disciples. That is to say, the new covenant is not made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah interpreted as all Judaism indiscriminately in the first century, but rather it is interpreted specifically as those who are followers of Jesus, regardless of ethnicity, Jew first and later on also non-Jew.
\nAnother key passage that addresses the question of how to define the human party in the new covenant is Romans 11:13\u201324:<\/p>\n
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
\nBut if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, \u201cBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.\u201d That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God\u2019s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Paul is explaining in this passage the benefits of the new covenant and, in particular, how they relate to those who are genetically Israelites, since for the most part during Paul\u2019s ministry they rejected both Jesus as Messiah and his death as the basis for the final stage of the return from exile. Paul\u2019s main mission has been to take the good news to the Gentiles, and this has met with great success. What are we to make of the fact that, during and since Paul\u2019s ministry, few Jews but many Gentiles are believing in Jesus and being added to the church? This is the painful problem addressed in Romans 9\u201311. Paul explains that the acceptance of the person and work of Jesus by the Gentiles, the nations, will arouse jealousy among those of the historical race of Israel and will motivate them to come to faith in Jesus Christ.
\nAs is well known, Paul employs the metaphor of an olive tree to represent Israel. Natural branches have been removed, and nonnative branches have been grafted into the one tree. It is common in the Old Testament to represent kings and kingdoms by stately tall trees and fruitful plants. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is an obvious example. Ezekiel 17 pictures the king of Israel this way, as does Ezekiel 31 picture the kings of Assyria and Egypt. The most common type of \u201ctree\u201d used to represent Israel is the vine (Deut. 32:32; Ps. 80:8\u201319; Isa. 3:14; 5:1\u20137; 27:1\u20136; Jer. 2:21; 5:10; 12:10\u201313; Ezek. 15; 17; 19:10\u201314; Hos. 10:1\u20132). Psalm 80 is particularly eloquent, for it develops the theme of the extension of the kingdom of God by describing how the vine (i.e., Israel) grew and spread, and it also speaks of Israel\u2019s Adamic sonship (80:15). Only rarely is Israel represented by an olive tree (Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6). Jeremiah is the one who speaks of burning the olive tree and breaking its branches (see also the vine described in this way in Jer. 5:10). So the olive tree for Paul represents Israel, and the Jeremiah passage is fundamental for his comments in Romans 11. Unbelieving and rebellious Israelites have been removed, and individuals from other nations have been joined to this one people of God, the new and transformed Zion. As we saw earlier, this theme was already adumbrated in Jeremiah, though it was not stated there as clearly as in the New Testament.
\nThe passages in Ephesians 2 and 3 are among the clearest in the New Testament:<\/p>\n
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called \u201cthe uncircumcision\u201d by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands\u2014remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
\nFor this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles\u2014assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God\u2019s grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Eph. 2:11\u20133:6 ESV)<\/p>\n
When Paul speaks in Ephesians 2:15 of \u201cone new man,\u201d he is obviously thinking of a new Adam and is saying that the church\u2014by virtue of the new creation resulting from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by virtue of the union of head (Christ) and body (church)\u2014constitutes this new Adam. It is a renewal of the Adamic role initiated with Abraham and his family.
\nThe Gentiles\u2014members of nations and peoples in the earth apart from or outside the nation of Israel, who were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel\u2014have been forged together with believers from Israel into one new humanity. Ephesians 2:14 says that \u201che made both groups \/ the two groups one.\u201d And again, 2:15 says that \u201che created in him the two (groups) into one new man\/humanity.\u201d There is no future for either Israelite or non-Israelite apart from the church, and there is no separate future for either Israelite or non-Israelite\u2014both will be part of the church. This is the body of humans who will survive the destruction of this creation and will be placed within the creation of a new heavens and new earth. Thus ethnic Israelites and ethnic non-Israelites will enjoy the new creation if and only if they have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and become part of the church. This is an inclusion for Gentiles and, as Romans 11 says, also an inclusion for ethnic Israelites, since they can be grafted back into their own olive tree, the one people of God in Scripture.
\nEphesians 3:5 says that this truth was not made known earlier; instead, it has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets of the church of Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Paul then clarifies that this truth is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Earlier, I argued that the word \u201cas\u201d indicated chronology and degree rather than kind. G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd have now demonstrated a more convincing interpretation. Certainly, Paul is not saying that this truth was not revealed at all before this time. This truth was certainly made known by the prophets of the Old Testament, as we have attempted to show. But what was not revealed is that the inclusion of the Gentiles would come in Christ Jesus. The prophets did predict that a coming king would restore the broken covenant relationship between God and Israel. They also predicted that the blessings would come to the nations through Israel. What was not revealed is that both would happen through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the true Israel: the death of Jesus is the basis of a new covenant and also of the blessings flowing to the Gentiles at the same time.
\nLuke\u2019s arrangement in the book of Acts supports Paul\u2019s teaching. Note Acts 3:22\u201323:<\/p>\n
Moses said, \u201cThe Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.\u201d (ESV)<\/p>\n
Here Peter cites Deuteronomy 18:15, 18\u201319 to show that Israelites who do not accept Jesus as the coming prophet will be cut off from the people. Luke then shows the foreigner (Samaria) and the eunuch (Ethiopia) added to the one people of God, as Isaiah 56 predicted.
\nReturning to Romans 11, we find Paul giving the following teaching:<\/p>\n
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe deliverer will come from Zion;
\nhe will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
\nAnd this is my covenant with them
\nwhen I take away their sins.\u201d (Rom. 11:25\u201327 NIV)<\/p>\n
Romans 11:25\u201327 is a debated passage among Christians, especially in classic covenant theology versus dispensationalism. Some have taught that the \u201cfull number of the Gentiles\u201d refers to the so-called \u201cchurch age\u201d and that when it is over, the geopolitical kingdom will be restored to Israel and physical Israel will be saved. They may also appeal to the book of Daniel, which describes four Gentile kingdoms followed by the kingdom of God. Unfortunately, everyone may be blinded by the assumptions they have and the way they put the metanarrative of Scripture together. We all bring such background to the reading of any particular text.
\nWhat does Paul mean in Romans 11:26 by the statement \u201call Israel will be saved\u201d? In his commentary on Romans, Colin Kruse describes six different interpretations of this text. Here are two of the most plausible: (1) by \u201call Israel\u201d Paul is indicating all ethnic Israelites who believe in Jesus Christ between his first and second coming, when the exiles are being called home; and (2) Paul is indicating a large ingathering of believers in Jesus Christ from ethnic Israel toward the end. Both possibilities have been argued well in recent scholarship.
\nIn Romans 11, Paul has just portrayed Israel in terms of an olive tree, some of whose natural branches have been removed and some of whose branches are now non-Jewish branches grafted into the one root and tree. What this means is that the new humanity and restored Israel is based on faith and covenant relationship to the Lord rather than on ethnicity. During the period in which the exiles are brought home, a large number of \u201cGentile exiles\u201d (to use Jeremiah\u2019s own imagery) will be brought home first, and this will motivate a large number of Jewish exiles to be brought home toward the end. But the Jewish exiles will be brought back to the one olive tree. We must interpret \u201call Israel\u201d within the context of Paul\u2019s teaching in Romans 11. There is no separate future for physical Israel outside the church\u2014the only humanity to inhabit the new creation. And this is not so-called replacement theology. It is what the prophets teach about the renovated and restored Zion. This is further made clear by Revelation 21:1\u20134:<\/p>\n
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, \u201cBehold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.\u201d (ESV)<\/p>\n
The community of the new exodus, the new Zion, is defined in Hebrews 12:18\u201324. This community is now being gathered before the throne of God in heaven. When the new creation is ready\u2014that is, the place where they will live\u2014this community comes down out of heaven to the new earth. In Revelation 21:2, it is called \u201cthe holy city,\u201d \u201cthe new Jerusalem,\u201d and \u201ca bride.\u201d In the New Testament the bride is a metaphor for the church, and here it is identified as the new Jerusalem. Later on, in 21:10\u201316, the same community, identified by the same names (i.e., the holy city, the new Jerusalem), is described as a cube, because it corresponds to the Most Holy Place in the Old Testament. The new creation community is the temple of God. There are twelve gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are on the gates. In addition, there are twelve foundations, and the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are on them.
\nNormally, foundations are underneath. How may we imagine twelve foundations under a cube? Probably one foundation under each corner and two in between each corner. This is fitting, since twelve gates divided by four sides would give three gates per side, or one gate between each foundation. Thus the Israel of the Old Testament and the apostolic community of the New Testament are completely and fully integrated in the new Jerusalem. This is the same as Paul\u2019s picture in Ephesians of Jew and non-Jew, forged into one united new humanity and covenant community\u2014note the Covenant Formula in Revelation 21:3.<\/p>\n
The New Covenant and the Old: Continuity and Discontinuity<\/p>\n
How is this covenant like the old (Israelite) covenant, and how is it unlike it? In other words, precisely what is new about the new covenant? Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 describes the new covenant. Scholars have debated extensively the meaning of the word \u201cnew\u201d (\u05d7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1 \/ \u1e25\u0101d\u0101\u0161) in Hebrew. Does it mean a renewed covenant or a covenant that did not exist previously? Is it a new development, or is it a bringing out of something yet again, such as a new day? As Dumbrell notes, Hebrew \u1e25\u0101d\u0101\u0161 can mean \u201crenewed\u201d (Lam. 3:22\u201323) or \u201cnew\u201d (Ex. 1:8; Deut. 32:17). Joshua Moon rightly argues that we should let the statements in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 define what is meant by a new covenant.
\nIt is important to pay attention to the grammatical and literary structures in the text. Scott J. Hafemann has helpfully diagrammed the text to aid in clarifying the flow of thought. The argument of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, according to its constituent propositions, is seen in table 13.1:<\/p>\n
Table 13.1 Argument of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334
\n31:31
\n\u201cBehold, days are coming,\u201d declares the LORD, \u201cwhen I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
\n31:32a
\nSpecifically (negatively): \u201cI will not make it like the covenant that I made with their fathers \u2026
\n31:32b
\n\u201cbecause they broke my covenant [at Sinai]
\n31:32c
\n\u201calthough I was a husband to them,\u201d declares the LORD.
\n31:33a
\nSpecifically (positively): \u201cBut this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,\u201d declares the LORD. \u201cI will put my law within them, and I will write it on their heart.
\n31:33b
\nImmediate result: \u201cI will be their God and they will be my people.
\n31:34a
\nUltimate result: \u201cThey will no longer teach each other saying, \u2018Know the LORD,\u2019
\n31:34b
\n\u201cbecause they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,\u201d declares the LORD.
\n31:34c
\nBasis for this result: \u201cI shall forgive their iniquity, and I shall remember their sin no more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Several points in Jeremiah\u2019s announcement of the new covenant must be noted.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S RESOLUTION TO ISRAEL\u2019S REBELLION. First, the new covenant is the divinely promised answer to the perennial problem of Israel\u2019s hard-hearted rebellion against the Lord. The Hebrew expression \u201cthe stubbornness of his (or their) heart(s)\u201d occurs ten times in the Old Testament (Deut. 29:18; Ps. 81:12; Jer. 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17): the one instance in Deuteronomy is picked up by Jeremiah, who uses the phrase a total of eight times. Thus nearly all the occurrences are in Jeremiah. This phrase, along with other phrases used by Jeremiah, such as \u201cthe incurable wound\u201d in chapter 30, demonstrates his emphasis on the fact that Israel\u2019s rebellion is intractable: she cannot avert the coming anger and wrath of God. Judgment is absolutely certain. The new covenant looks beyond judgment to a future in which God will provide a solution to the stubbornness of his partner in the old covenant. The direction and instruction of God for righteous relationships will be internalized and written on the heart (see Isa. 51:7). Since the heart of the people will be transformed, they will be a faithful covenant partner. The new covenant will not be like the Mosaic\/Israelite covenant, because the people broke that covenant. Now the people of the Lord will be completely faithful and loyal; they will be covenant keepers. Thus the new covenant in Jeremiah must be interpreted against the background of the faithless and stubborn heart of Israel in the old covenant. That the human partner in the new covenant will be faithful is nicely stated by Walther Eichrodt:<\/p>\n
The purport of Jer. 31:31ff., even though it does not speak of the spirit, is in effect no different from that of Is. 32:15ff.; 11:9 or Ezek. 36:26ff., namely a new possibility, created by God himself, of realizing the will of God in human life.<\/p>\n
Joshua Moon draws attention to the fact that the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 is contrasted not with a \u201cfirst\u201d or \u201cold\u201d covenant but with the broken covenant:<\/p>\n
Our first firm point for reading 31:31\u201334 can now be established: the reference to \u201cthe day when I brought them up out of Egypt\u201d (whether at 31:32 or 11:4 and 7) is not used to identify which covenant is made the point of contrast (e.g., Mosaic or Josianic). Nor does the phrase give justification for our leaping out of Jeremiah into a state of affairs described in the book of Exodus or Deuteronomy. Rather the phrase points us to the start of the relationship between Yhwh and his people, the great act by which Yhwh claimed them as his own. In other words, from ch. 11 we learn that the infidelity of the people to Yhwh\u2014the broken covenant\u2014has been broken from the very start, from the time in which Yhwh acted to call and bring them to himself.<\/p>\n
Moon is correct to emphasize that what is contrasted with the new covenant is the infidelity of the people. This clearly defines the new covenant as one in which all covenant members are faithful, that is, believers. Nonetheless, just because scholars debate whether the broken covenant is Josianic or Mosaic does not mean we need to be agnostic on this issue. As we have demonstrated earlier, the Josianic covenant, according to 2 Kings 23:3\u20135, was a covenant initiated to establish or keep the Israelite covenant made at Sinai and renewed in Deuteronomy. The phrase \u201cthe day when I brought them up out of Egypt\u201d most certainly refers to the events of Sinai and not to those of Josiah\u2019s time.
\nJeremiah employs a wide variety of expressions to refer to the infidelity of Israel as a covenant partner. Three passages in particular ought to be mentioned:<\/p>\n
Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem,
\nlook and take note!
\nSearch her squares to see
\nif you can find a man,
\none who does justice
\nand seeks truth,
\nthat I may pardon her.
\nThough they say, \u201cAs the LORD lives,\u201d
\nyet they swear falsely.
\nO LORD, do not your eyes look for truth?
\nYou have struck them down,
\nbut they felt no anguish;
\nyou have consumed them,
\nbut they refused to take correction.
\nThey have made their faces harder than rock;
\nthey have refused to repent.<\/p>\n
Then I said, \u201cThese are only the poor;
\nthey have no sense;
\nfor they do not know the way of the LORD,
\nthe justice of their God.
\nI will go to the great
\nand will speak to them,
\nfor they know the way of the LORD,
\nthe justice of their God.\u201d
\nBut they all alike had broken the yoke;
\nthey had burst the bonds. (Jer. 5:1\u20135 ESV)<\/p>\n
For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: \u201cObey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.\u201d But they did not obey or incline their ear. (Jer. 7:22\u201324 ESV)<\/p>\n
For long ago I broke your yoke
\nand burst your bonds;
\nbut you said, \u201cI will not serve.\u201d (Jer. 2:20 ESV)<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 5:1\u20135 describes a search for one person who is righteous so that the city may be saved, which recalls Abraham pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah. The phrase \u201cthe way of the LORD\u201d refers directly to Genesis 18:19, where Abram is to direct his family to keep the way of the Lord by practicing social justice. For Jeremiah to assert that the people do not know the way of the Lord is an accusation of covenant infidelity. In Jeremiah 7:23, the command \u201cObey my voice\u201d is a direct reference to Exodus 15:26 and 19:5, and therefore the refusal to hear or obey is Jeremiah\u2019s accusation of covenant infidelity. In Jeremiah 2:20, the prophet describes the exodus as breaking the yoke (of serving Pharaoh) so that Israel could give the service of a devoted and obedient son to Yahweh, but Israel would not serve. This is yet another way of referring to Exodus 19:5\u20136 and describing covenant infidelity. Moon is right in stressing that the new covenant reverses this infidelity. Nonetheless, when he contrasts the exegesis of Jerome (the new covenant is a new era) and the exegesis of Augustine (the new covenant is what is characteristic of the faithful believer in any era), he oversimplifies. The new covenant entails a new era in which all covenant members are faithful.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S TORAH WRITTEN ON THE HEART. Second, in the new covenant, the \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 (\u201cinstruction\u201d) of God will be internalized and written on the heart, the center of one\u2019s life\u2014that is, the inner person where one reasons, feels, and makes decisions and plans. The term \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 (inappropriately translated \u201claw\u201d) shows that God\u2019s direction and instruction for appropriate relationships (divine-human, human-human, human-creation) will not change. The new covenant does not mean a change in God\u2019s standards of righteousness, of right and wrong, of what is appropriate in a covenant relationship. No, what is new about the new covenant is the ability of both partners to keep the covenant.
\nThe writing of the divine instruction on the heart corresponds to the promise made earlier in Jeremiah that the ark of the covenant would become obsolete:<\/p>\n
And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the LORD, they shall no more say, \u201cThe ark of the covenant of the LORD.\u201d It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage. (Jer. 3:16\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
As Kevin J. Youngblood has noted, hints of a new covenant begin as early as Jeremiah 3:11\u201322, where Yahweh offers forgiveness to the northern kingdom of Israel if they would only acknowledge their guilt. In this context, Yahweh states that the ark of the covenant will no longer be necessary. Youngblood aptly comments,<\/p>\n
Since this was the box that housed the copy of the covenant document, the implications of its loss should be catastrophic as it was in DtH (1 Sam 4\u20136). Instead, YHWH says, no ark will be necessary in the future. Why not? Because Jer 31:31ff indicates that the new covenant document will be stored, not in a piece of cultic furniture but in the very hearts of YHWH\u2019s people.<\/p>\n
Thus, the people of God will faithfully keep the new covenant. God\u2019s instruction will be internalized; it will be ingrained in their thinking, feeling, and planning. Paul picks this up in 2 Corinthians 3:3 when he speaks of the evidence for the new covenant in the Corinthian Christians: \u201cYou show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts\u201d (NIV).<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. Third, the covenant relationship with God is the immediate result of God \u201cwriting\u201d the divine direction for living and the instruction of the new covenant on the hearts of believers. This is clear from the Covenant Formula, \u201cI will be their God, and they shall be my people.\u201d Notice, again, how Paul applies the Covenant Formula to the Corinthian Christians in 2 Corinthians 6:14\u201318:<\/p>\n
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:<\/p>\n
\u201cI will live with them
\nand walk among them,
\nand I will be their God,
\nand they will be my people.\u201d<\/p>\n
Therefore,<\/p>\n
\u201cCome out from them
\nand be separate,
\nsays the Lord.
\nTouch no unclean thing,
\nand I will receive you.\u201d<\/p>\n
And,<\/p>\n
\u201cI will be a Father to you,
\nand you will be my sons and daughters,
\nsays the Lord Almighty.\u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
Paul backs up his command not to be \u201cyoked together with unbelievers\u201d by a pastiche of citations from the Old Testament. First, from Leviticus 26:11\u201312 comes the Covenant Formula. Then, from Isaiah 52:11 is a call to the exiles to leave Babylon and join the community of the new exodus, with the promise \u201cI will receive you\u201d added from Ezekiel 20:41, where another paragraph on the same topic can be found. Finally, 2 Corinthians 6:18 seems to apply the father-son relationship of the covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7:14 to all the members of the new covenant community.<\/p>\n
THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW COVENANT COMMUNITY. Fourth, the result of inaugurating the new covenant will be that a community will be created in which \u201cthey will no longer teach each other, saying, \u2018Know the LORD,\u2019 because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, declares the LORD\u201d (Jer. 31:34). This is a most significant statement, whose import has not been well understood. To begin to grasp the meaning, it must be understood that this verse is a statement that stands in contrast to 31:29\u201330 and answers the problem posed by these words:<\/p>\n
In those days people will no longer say,<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fathers have eaten sour grapes,
\nand the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge.\u201d<\/p>\n
Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes\u2014their own teeth will be set on edge. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Verse 29 recites a proverb going around among the exiles in Babylon. Normally when a person eats sour grapes, his or her own lips pucker up. To claim that the parents ate sour grapes and the lips of the children puckered up is a way of saying that the children have been judged (i.e., exiled) for their parents\u2019 sins. One of the most illuminating comments on this text is that of D. A. Carson, which we must cite in this context:<\/p>\n
In the sixth century B. C. the prophet Jeremiah, speaking for the LORD, foresees a time when people will no longer repeat the proverb, \u201cThe fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge\u201d (Jer. 31:30). The history of Israel under the Mosaic covenant has been characterized by the outworking of this proverb. The covenant structure was profoundly racial and tribal. Designated leaders\u2014prophets, priests, king, and occasionally other leaders such as the seventy elders or Bezaleel\u2014were endued with the Spirit, and spoke for God to the people and for the people of God (cf. Exod. 20:19). Thus when the leaders sinned, the entire nation was contaminated, and ultimately faced divine wrath. But the time is coming, Jeremiah says, when this proverb will be abandoned. \u201cInstead,\u201d God promises, \u201ceveryone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes\u2014his own teeth will be set on edge\u201d (Jer. 31:30). This could be true only if the entire covenantal structure associated with Moses\u2019 name is replaced by another. That is precisely what the LORD promises: he will make \u201ca new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah\u201d that \u201cwill not be like the covenant\u201d he made with their forefathers at the time of the Exodus. The nature of the promised new covenant is carefully recorded: God will put his law in the hearts and on the minds of his people. Instead of having a mediated knowledge of God, \u201cthey will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,\u201d and therefore \u201cno longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, \u2018Know the LORD\u2019 \u201d (31:31ff.). This does not foresee a time of no teachers; in the context it foresees a time of no mediator, because the entire covenant community under this new covenant will have a personal knowledge of God, a knowledge characterized by the forgiveness of sin (31:34) and by the law of God written on the heart (31:33). \u201cI will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me\u201d (Jer. 32:39\u201340).<\/p>\n
We would agree with Carson\u2019s analysis, although the fundamental point might be stated more clearly. He claims that the difference between the old covenant community and the new covenant community is that the latter will have no mediator. This is not quite true. It will indeed have a (human) covenant mediator, namely, Jesus Christ, who is prophet, priest, and king in one person. In the old covenant community, these covenant mediators sinned, and the community suffered because of faulty mediators. In the new covenant, however, our covenant mediator is without sin, and as a result, the community will never suffer because of a faulty mediator.
\nWhat Jeremiah 31:34 is saying, however, in contrast to 31:29\u201330, is that in the old covenant, people became members of the covenant community simply by being born into that community. As they grew up, some became believers in Yahweh, and others did not. This pattern resulted in a situation within the covenant community where some members could urge other members to know the Lord. In the new covenant community, however, one becomes a member not by physical birth but rather by the new birth, which requires faith on the part of every person. Thus only believers are members of the new community: all members are believers, and only believers are members. Therefore in the new covenant community there will no longer be a situation where some members urge other members to know the Lord. There will be no such thing as an unregenerate member of the new covenant community. All are believers, all know the Lord, because all have experienced the forgiveness of sins.
\nWhat Jeremiah is teaching in 31:33\u201334 is identical to what Isaiah is teaching in Isaiah 54:13: \u201cAll your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children\u201d (ESV). Everyone in the covenant community will experience reconciliation (peace) with God, and so everyone will have a living relationship with the Lord, and so the divine instruction for living will be written on the heart. As the last part of 31:34 indicates, the basis for these characteristics of the new covenant community is the divine forgiveness of sins brought about by the establishment of the new covenant.
\nJeremiah 31:34 creates difficulties for the Presbyterian understanding of the new covenant community. The prophets of the Old Testament and apostles of the New Testament clearly teach that there are no covenant members who are not believers. This challenge must be given in humility since, by and large, Presbyterians have had a much better grasp of the meaning and role of the covenants than Baptists.
\nHow do Presbyterians interpret Jeremiah 31:34? As far as we know, their analysis of this text rests on three points.
\nThe first argument, as G. K. Beale puts it, is that Leviticus 26:9\u201313 is a passage in the Old Testament that uniquely shares three parallels with Jeremiah 31:31\u201333. We cite the text from Leviticus and list the three parallels:<\/p>\n
I will turn to you and make you fruitful and multiply you and will confirm my covenant with you. You shall eat old store long kept, and you shall clear out the old to make way for the new. I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves. And I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect. (ESV)<\/p>\n
The three things this text uniquely has in common with Jeremiah 31:31\u201333, according to Beale, are as follows:<\/p>\n
1. The placement of a \u201ccovenant into Israel\u201d
\n2. A contrast of \u201cold\u201d and \u201cnew\u201d inextricably linked to the renewal of a covenant and the new end-time conditions accompanying such a covenant
\n3. The concluding formula \u201cI will be your\/their God, and you\/they will be my people\u201d<\/p>\n
Beale thinks that Jeremiah 31 is echoing the Leviticus 26 passage and that the text in Leviticus shows \u201cthat the primary expression of the new-covenant blessing in Lev. 26 is that God will establish his tabernacle (i.e., temple) with Israel (v. 11) in order to be present among them (v. 12).\u201d
\nLet us examine his points one by one. The phrase \u201cI \u2026 will confirm my covenant with you\u201d in Leviticus 26:9 is h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet. This does not mean \u201cthe placement of a covenant into Israel,\u201d as Beale claims. What is being stated in Leviticus 26:1\u201313 is that if the Israelites obey the Mosaic covenant, Yahweh will affirm or uphold his side of the Mosaic covenant.
\nSecond, when Yahweh upholds his side of the Mosaic covenant, the harvests will be so plentiful that the grain from last year, the \u201cold,\u201d will no longer be used when the new harvest comes in. Therefore, \u201cold\u201d and \u201cnew\u201d refer directly to harvests as blessings promised in the Mosaic covenant in Deuteronomy 28 and are not speaking of an old or new covenant.
\nThird, a brief glance at Elmer Martens\u2019s book God\u2019s Design or the discussions given here of the Covenant Formula (\u201cI will be your God, and you will be my people\u201d) shows that this statement is all over the Old Testament and not uniquely common to Leviticus 26 and Jeremiah 31. Definitely, Leviticus 26:9\u201313 does not shed light on Jeremiah 31.
\nA second argument brought forward by Beale and other Presbyterians is that the statement in Jeremiah 31:34 \u201cthey will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them\u201d always in the Old Testament means all without distinction rather than all without exception.
\nPresbyterians\u2019 third argument is to apply an \u201calready-not yet\u201d to the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 so that these blessings, such as the forgiveness of sins, are initiated by the first coming of Christ but not consummated until the second coming. Thus, the second and third arguments allow them to affirm that the church is a mixed community of believers and unbelievers. This preserves their claims concerning infant baptism.
\nNote, for example, Dumbrell, who argues that \u201cinjunctions to seek forgiveness of sins committed within the new relationship established through the death of Christ abound in the New Testament,\u201d so that \u201cin Jeremiah, we are looking beyond the New Testament age to the community of the end-time, to a situation when the kingdom of God has finally come and God is all in all.\u201d
\nUnfortunately, these arguments fail for a couple of reasons. (1) How do we hear what the prophets are heralding concerning the new covenant, and (2) how are these prophecies interpreted by the apostles of the New Testament?
\nFirst, to hear accurately and correctly the prophetic teaching on the new covenant, we must consider the prophetic teaching not only according to the plot structure of each prophetic book as attempted in this work but also according to the chronological progress of revelation. This was already realized more than thirty-five years ago by T. J. Deidun. When Jeremiah says that the new covenant consists in God himself giving his instruction(s) (t\u00f4r\u00e2) within (b\u0115qirb\u0101m) the Israelites and writing (it\/them) on their hearts (i.e., minds) with the result that all will know Yahweh, we must recognize that he is developing further Isaiah\u2019s teaching given earlier \u201cthat all your children will be taught by Yahweh\u201d (Isa. 30:20\u201321; 54:13). In the new Zion, God\u2019s people will have a Teacher and will \u201chear a word behind you, saying, \u2018This is the way, walk in it.\u2019 \u201d Then we must interpret Jeremiah\u2019s teaching in the light of what Ezekiel says about thirty years later, since it is substantially the same thing. Ezekiel shows that the \u201cinteriorized\u201d instruction\/law of the new covenant is to be the Spirit of Yahweh given in the hearts of the people, effecting their inner transformation and impelling them to free obedience (Ezek. 36:27; 37:24).
\nCertainly the expression \u201cfrom the least of them to the greatest of them\u201d emphasizes all without distinction, because in the Old Testament, only covenant mediators (kings, priests, prophets) were anointed by the Spirit. This anointing will apply to all without distinction in the new covenant. This does not mean that the new covenant community is mixed. It is parallel to other passages emphasizing that all will be given the Spirit. In Acts, the sine qua non, the mark of whether one is a Christian or not, is whether one possesses the Spirit. First John 2:20 says, \u201cBut you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.\u201d In the new covenant, then, all without distinction have equal access to the knowledge of the Lord. So when Jeremiah talks about the instruction of Yahweh \u201cwritten on the heart,\u201d he is speaking of the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer and the way the Spirit teaches us what path to follow. This is how we are taught of God. And this applies to each and every member of the new covenant community.
\nAs we will see soon (below), Jeremiah 32:36\u201341 is parallel to Jeremiah 31:31\u201334. The normal pattern in Hebrew literature is to repeat, to go around the topic twice. And the parallel to Jeremiah 31:34 is Jeremiah 32:39, \u201cI will give them singleness of heart and action.\u201d We explore the meaning of this phrase throughout the New Testament below in our discussion of Ezekiel 36:26. This parallel phrase prevents understanding the new covenant community as a mixed community. How can a mixed community have \u201cone heart and one way\u201d?
\nFurther, if new covenant members have forgiveness of sins, in what way can the community be mixed and have believers and unbelievers in it? In what way can the forgiveness of sins be already and not yet? The final judgment will only confirm what believers possess now!
\nSecond, the attempt to apply the \u201calready-not yet\u201d distinction to this text is not warranted by Jesus and the apostles. We must remember that the prophets of the Old Testament could not distinguish the already from the not yet (1 Pet. 1:10\u201312). It is Jesus and the apostles who explain and teach us that some of the prophets\u2019 statements are already, while others, in the same verse, are not yet (e.g., Isa. 61:2 in Luke 4:21\u201326). The Presbyterians seem to be confusing the kingdom of God and the new covenant. There is an already but not yet to the kingdom of God, but when the apostles speak of the new covenant, it is always already and in no part not yet. Hebrews 8 cites all of Jeremiah 31 and affirms that it is here in its fullness, now!
\nConsider the teaching of the apostle John on the forgiveness of sins. The interpretation of Dumbrell appears clearly contradicted by the teaching of 1 John 1:5\u20132:2. The argument of John in this text is outlined in table 13.2, followed by a brief comment.
\nFirst John 1:5\u20132:2 consists of paragraphs arranged according to an identical pattern. First, the apostle John reports a claim made by false teachers; second, he categorically rejects this teaching; third, he provides a remedy or solution to the problem posed by the false teachers.
\nEach of the paragraphs in this series deals with different aspects of sin in one\u2019s worldview. The entire series is prefaced by a central principle in Christian teaching that describes God as pure \u201clight.\u201d Stated negatively, \u201cthere is no darkness in him at all.\u201d In his being and in his relationships, there is no evil.<\/p>\n
Table 13.2 Covenant Violation and False Teaching in 1 John 1:5\u20132:2
\nIntroduction
\n1:5
\n1. Behavior and covenant relationship to God
\na. Report of false teaching
\n1:6a
\nb. Rejection of false teaching
\n1:6b
\nc. Remedy\/response to false teaching
\n1:7
\n2. Dealing with sin (general)
\na. Report of false teaching
\n1:8a
\nb. Rejection of false teaching
\n1:8b
\nc. Remedy\/response to false teaching
\n1:9
\n3. Dealing with personal sins
\na. Report of false teaching
\n1:10a
\nb. Rejection of false teaching
\n1:10b
\nc. Remedy\/response to false teaching
\n2:1\u20132<\/p>\n
First, this affects those who claim to be in covenant relationship with God and at the same time evince behavior that is clearly evil. This claim is rejected. Then John states that those who are in covenant relationship must demonstrate a lifestyle that corresponds to the being and character of God. At this point, such behavior is not completely sinless, but nonetheless, the atoning work of Jesus constantly cleanses from all sin. So even though there is an already-not yet to the kingdom, believers in Jesus Christ currently experience full forgiveness of sins.
\nSecond, there are those who deny any participation in sin (in general). The only remedy for them is to confess their sins and put their trust in Christ. Elsewhere in the writings of John, the forgiveness of sins refers to deliverance from the penalty of sin, and therefore he is describing here \u201cbecoming a Christian\u201d or \u201cbecoming a member of the new covenant community.\u201d This paragraph deals with justification in the language of Paul.
\nThird, there are those who deny as believers that they have committed acts of sin. This appears to be the force of the perfect in Greek. These folks are claiming that since becoming believers they have achieved a condition in which they no longer commit sins. Now, says John, there is no need to go out and sin to prove that the false teachers are wrong. But moment by moment, as and if the believer sins, he or she automatically has Jesus Christ as High Priest presenting the merits of his finished work on his or her behalf. God does not wait for us to confess our sins, although this is an important act on the part of a believer. Jesus Christ, our High Priest, immediately applies his atoning work on our behalf. So we now have the full forgiveness of sins. Moreover, in Romans 5:11, Paul indicates that \u201cwe have now received reconciliation.\u201d It is not something in process, in spite of our failures as a Christian.
\nIn An Old Testament Theology, Bruce K. Waltke claims, based on Jesus\u2019s parables in Matthew 13, that the new covenant administration includes both regenerate and unregenerate members:<\/p>\n
The first parable, the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1\u201323), reveals that only a fraction of those who outwardly accept Jesus Christ as Messiah persevere and bear good fruit (i.e., love of God and of others). The second parable, the parable of the weeds (vv. 24\u201330), reveals that at present good seed (the people of God\u2019s kingdom) and weeds (the people of Satan\u2019s kingdom) coexist in the world, growing together until the final judgment at the end of the age, when the weeds will be burned and the wheat will be saved. The Lord\u2019s final parable, the parable of the net (vv. 47\u201350), climactically clarifies that the visible kingdom of God consists of good and bad fish that are caught in the same net and not separated from one another until the end of the age.
\nConsequently, the new covenant administration includes both true (regenerate) and nominal (unregenerate) followers of Jesus Christ. The latter fall away because they lack the root of regeneration and the eternal life that perseveres and prevails over temptation. The apostles confront this reality in their letters to the churches (cf. 1 Cor. 15:2; Gal. 1:6\u20139; Heb. 6:4\u20136; 10:26\u201339; 1 John 2:3\u20136, 19; Rev. 2:14, 20\u201323; 3:1\u20135, 16). In other words, true believers and nominal believers can be found in both the old and new covenant administrations. The former receive covenant blessing; the latter covenant curses.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, what is claimed in the second paragraph does not follow from the exegesis in the first; that is, the problem is with the word \u201cconsequently.\u201d This is due to a larger problem in classic covenant theology: the metanarrative of this system is not true to the Bible because it does not pay adequate attention to what the biblical texts say in defining the relationship(s) of one covenant to another. First, we cannot speak of \u201cthe covenant\u201d in the way the theologians of classic covenant theology do because this language is never found in the Bible. Instead, we can speak only of the covenants (plural)\u2014that is, the covenant with creation, the covenant with Abraham, the Israelite covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant. Furthermore, we must let the biblical texts define the relationships between them.
\nIn the Abrahamic covenant, God promises blessing for Israel and for the nations through Israel. The Israelite covenant is inaugurated to implement the promises to Abraham. The Davidic covenant reveals that the blessing will come through the king of Israel (rather than through the nation as a whole) as he administers justice to Israel and to the nations. Israel\u2019s idolatry and sin violate the covenant, and thus the plan of salvation for the world appears doomed. The new covenant restores the broken relationship between God and Israel by bringing about the forgiveness of sins. Redemption is the achievement and victory of a Davidic king who then administers righteousness to a restored Israel, in which Jew and Gentile are created to be the new humanity. The community of the new covenant is the only humanity to inherit a new creation\u2014a new heavens and new earth.
\nIn the present time, when the old creation overlaps with the new, God rescues believers in Jesus Christ from \u201cthe authority of darkness\u201d and \u201ctransfers them to the kingdom of his beloved Son,\u201d according to Colossians 1:13. In the church, believers experience the blessings of the new covenant. In what way, however, does the new covenant \u201capply to\u201d the unregenerate? The only blessings the unregenerate receive are the blessings given in the covenant with creation to all humans alike.
\nIn the parable of the sower, the field is the world, where the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the Evil One are not clearly separated. Nonetheless, the church and the world are not the same thing. This is why, in church discipline, putting people out of the church is to hand them over to Satan, that is, remove them from the protection administered by the new covenant and expose them to the dangers of Satan\u2019s kingdom (1 Tim. 1:20). This is the opposite of the transferal in Colossians 1:13.<\/p>\n
INAUGURATING A NEW COVENANT. Fifth, the expression \u201cI will cut a new covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) shows that God is not simply confirming or reestablishing or upholding the Sinai covenant in a covenant renewal; he is initiating or inaugurating a new covenant. Therefore the new covenant is not the old covenant. It is a new covenant. This automatically renders the Israelite covenant obsolete as a code or formalized agreement. Recall that the Israelite covenant is both a law treatise and a covenant or vassal treaty. A new arrangement or code will be put into place between God and his people, but the instruction in that code will be the same. As a result, when we compare and contrast the old and new covenant, we can say that we are not bound to the old covenant as a code but that the righteousness of God demonstrated in the old covenant has been enshrined and incorporated into the new.
\nThis is something that in general is poorly grasped in many discussions of the Christian life. As a Christian, I am not bound by the Ten Commandments because they are part of an agreement between God and Israel that does not apply to me. My relationship to God is based on and defined by the new covenant. Nonetheless, within the new covenant the divine instruction calls me to love my neighbor so that adultery, murder, stealing, and so forth are still covenant violations. The righteousness of God has not changed. Thus, those like the theonomists who want to put the Christian under the old covenant are false teachers.
\nSome of the similarities and differences between the old and new covenants can be diagrammed simply:<\/p>\n
Similarity of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant
\n1. Basis is the same (the grace of God)
\n2. Purpose is the same (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9\u201310)
\n3. Initiated by blood (Heb. 9:6\u201310:18)
\n4. Character of divine instruction is the same (Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14)<\/p>\n
Dissimilarity of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant
\n1. Better mediator (without sin)
\n2. Better sacrifice (Isa. 42:6; 52:13\u201353:12; Heb. 9:6\u201310:18)
\n3. Better provision (the Spirit of God, Ezek. 36:24\u201328)
\n4. Better promise (impartation of a new heart, Ezek. 36:24\u201328)<\/p>\n
The Power of the New Covenant: Daring to Draw Near<\/p>\n
Hidden and tucked away in the Book of Consolation, separate from the paragraphs on the new covenant, are some amazing statements concerning the power and promise of the coming new situation. Let us consider the amazing prediction of Jeremiah 30:21\u201322:<\/p>\n
Their prince shall be one of their own,
\ntheir ruler shall come from their midst;
\nI will bring him near, and he shall approach me,
\nfor who would otherwise dare to approach me?
\nsays the LORD.
\nAnd you shall be my people,
\nand I will be your God. (NRSV)<\/p>\n
The import of these words for the new covenant can be developed under three headings.<\/p>\n
NO ONE CAN APPROACH GOD ON HIS OR HER OWN INITIATIVE. Jeremiah employs a bold figure of speech in this text. This figure of speech is usually not translated in most English versions. Verse 21c might be rendered, \u201cFor who would mortgage his heart to draw near to me.\u201d This is a metaphor in which a comparison is drawn between a person using property as collateral for a loan and a person giving away his life for something. Just as mortgaging a house or property for money due to one\u2019s desperate financial straits is an extreme and radical step, even more so is it an act of desperation to give away one\u2019s heart, that is, one\u2019s life. The inner person is one\u2019s most precious possession. Here Jeremiah portrays a man selling his soul, as it were, to have an audience with God. Could one\u2019s most valuable possession be used as collateral to gain an audience with God? Absolutely not! The metaphor expresses the fact that there is no initiative on the part of a human that can bring him close to God; the initiative must come from God and God alone.<\/p>\n
GOD HAS BROUGHT THE KING-PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE NEAR. Although no human initiative can bring a person into the awesome presence of the divine King of kings and Lord of lords, God has brought the king of his people near. This is of greater moment than that of Esther coming before the great king of the Persian Empire. J. A. Thompson comments,<\/p>\n
To enter the divine presence unbidden was to risk death. The ruler thus appears to be undertaking a sacral or priestly function rather than one that is specifically political. The picture is of a ruler-priest performing both political and priestly duties. Such a concept was well known in the Middle East.<\/p>\n
We should carefully note the language used in Jeremiah 30:21. The text speaks of a prince (\u05d0\u05b7\u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8) or ruler (\u05de\u05b9\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dc). The first word is literally a \u201cmighty one,\u201d and the second is a participle from a generic verb \u201cto rule.\u201d Bright is right to note that the normal term for \u201cking\u201d (\u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0) is avoided for the same reasons that the author of Samuel prefers \u05e0\u05b8\u05d2\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3. Furthermore, the verb \u201cto draw near\u201d (\u05e0\u05d2\u05e9\u05c1) and the verb \u201cto bring near\u201d (\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1) belong primarily to the description of priestly service and work. The language of this text, then, portrays a coming figure who is both priest and king. The combination of priest and king is extremely rare in the messianic texts of the Old Testament (cf. Psalm 110), but it indicates that the coming figure fulfills an Adamic role planned by God from the beginning for a man over his creation. The text also speaks of the future ruler coming from the midst of Israel. This is exactly the language used in Deuteronomy 18:15 for God raising up a prophet and perhaps also in Deuteronomy 17:15 for God choosing a king for Israel.<\/p>\n
WE CAN DRAW NEAR THROUGH HIM. The implication is that those who are joined to this ruler, his people, can draw near to God through him. And this is made explicit in Hebrews 10:19\u201322:<\/p>\n
Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 31:35\u201336 speaks of the new covenant as enduring, as lasting, as permanent by affirming that it is as enduring as the divine arrangement that gave the sun to light up the day and the moon and stars to light up the night. Williamson argues that this is a reference to the covenant with Noah rather than to the covenant with creation:<\/p>\n
While some scholars have pointed to Jeremiah 33:20\u201326 for further support [that Jer. 31:35\u201336 refers to Genesis 1\u20132], the references here to a covenant with inanimate created things seem to allude more to dimensions of the Noahic covenant reflected in Genesis 8:22\u20139:13 (esp. Gen. 8:22) than to an implicit \u201ccovenant with creation\u201d in Genesis 1\u20133. Admittedly, the somewhat similar analogy drawn in Jeremiah 31:35\u201337 may indeed allude to the fixed order established at creation, although this appears to build an argument from silence.<\/p>\n
The text of Jeremiah 31:35\u201336 mentions specifically the sun as a light for the day and the stars as a light for the night. This refers more obviously to Genesis 1:14\u201316 than to Genesis 8:22. If one allows for a covenant with creation that is reaffirmed and upheld in Genesis 6\u20139, then one can have it both ways. Nonetheless, Williamson\u2019s argument appears to be special pleading, especially when he feels the force of the connection between Jeremiah 31:35\u201337 and the fixed order of creation. How is this an argument from silence when Genesis 1:14\u201316 speaks of this fixed order?
\nFinally, Jeremiah 31:38\u201340 describes the dimensions of the renovated and restored Jerusalem and claims that even the areas formerly used for refuse will be devoted to the Lord. Not all the locations mentioned in the text are known, but Jeremiah appears to move from northeast to northwest, then to southwest and around to southeast. It seems that the geography of the new Jerusalem will be different and that the Valley of Hinnom defiled by corpses and garbage will become holy to the Lord. The new Jerusalem will be both different from and expanded beyond the old.<\/p>\n
EXCURSUS
\nThe book of Jeremiah is notorious for problems in the history of the transmission of the text. Many differences exist between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint. Scholars attribute some of the differences to copyists\u2019 errors, some to the process of translation, and some to a different parent text. Frequently the argument is made that the parent text behind the Greek translation is older than and superior to what we have in the Masoretic Text.
\nOne important treatment on Jeremiah 31 in the Hebrew and Greek Bible is by Adrian Schenker. Schenker argues that the differences in the Greek translation, particularly those in 31:32, are due largely to a different parent text, which represents a different understanding. The parent text behind the Greek translation may even be older and superior.
\nHere we may briefly provide an English translation of the Greek (Septuagint) version of Jeremiah 31 and consider claims made by Schenker relevant to the discussion of the new covenant. First, a rendering of 31:27\u201334 of the Greek version is useful:
\n\u201cBehold, days are coming,\u201d says the Lord, \u201cand I will sow Israel and Judah with human seed and animal seed. And it will be, just as I was watching over them to tear down and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and plant,\u201d says the Lord. \u201cIn those days, they will no longer say, \u2018The fathers ate unripe grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,\u2019 but each will die for his own sin, and the one eating unripe grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.
\n\u201cBehold days are coming,\u201d says the Lord, \u201cand I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my covenant and I was not concerned about them,\u201d says the Lord. \u201cFor this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,\u201d says the Lord. \u201cGiving, I will give my laws in their mind, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will become a god to them, and they will become a people to me. And they will never again teach each his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, \u2018Know the Lord.\u2019 For they will all know me, from their small even to their great, because I will be propitious regarding their wrongdoings, and their sins I will never again remember.\u201d
\nA brief comparison of the Greek and Hebrew texts yields the following differences. In 31:27, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf is a plus in the Septuagint in relation to the Masoretic Text. Yet in 31:31a, where the wording in the Masoretic Text is identical to 31:27a in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint corresponds quantitatively to the Masoretic Text. The Greek translator does not render \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea in \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05b8\u05d4 by \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 as he does for the identical phrase in the Masoretic Text in 31:31. Hence, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf is a minus in the Septuagint in relation to the Masoretic Text. If the putative parent text of the Septuagint is identical to the Masoretic Text, then this represents an attempt to provide stylistic variation. In 31:28, the Masoretic Text has five bound infinitives describing a negative \u201cwatching over\u201d God\u2019s people in the past and two bound infinitives describing a positive \u201cwatching over\u201d God\u2019s people in the future. The Septuagint has two infinitives in both cases. It is possible that the parent text of the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text, but it looks more like the Greek translator made the negative and positive dependent clauses match in length. In 31:29a, 34a, and 34b, the Masoretic Text employs a negative + imperfect + \u05e2\u05d5\u05d3. This construction is rendered by \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03ae + aorist subject (i.e., emphatic future denial) in 31:29a and 34a, but more quantitatively by \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03ae + aorist subject + \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 in 31:34b. Again, apparently the Greek translator exercised freedom in his task. In 31:30b, the Masoretic Text employs a cleft sentence while the Septuagint omits \u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd and has the participle directly dependent on the subject rather than employing extraposition. The possessive pronoun \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 at the end, although corresponding quantitatively to the Masoretic Text, is redundant in Greek. For 31:32, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b6\u05d7\u05b1\u05d6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd is rendered by \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Thus the Greek translator employs a genitive absolute and demonstrates concern for the demands of the target language. As a result, a beth preposition in the Masoretic Text has no formal equivalent in the Septuagint. Moreover, the dependent clause \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 does not correspond formally to the relative clause \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b5\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 in the Masoretic Text, nor does \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f20\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd correspond to \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b8\u05dd in the Masoretic Text, although the \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce for \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9 is a wooden rendering and may suggest a parent text not greatly different. In 31:33, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 does not match \u05e0\u05b8\u05ea\u05b7\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 in the Masoretic Text but suggests a parent text like \u05d0\u05ea\u05df \u05e0\u05ea\u05d5\u05df. (Note that the citation in Hebrews 8 lacks \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9). The phrase \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd for \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd shows concern for the demands of the culture of the target language, while \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd for \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd does not, except that the \u201chearts\u201d are pluralized according to the demands of Greek. Nonetheless, \u05dc\u05b5\u05d1 is frequently literally translated in the Septuagint. The direct object \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 in the Masoretic Text, although singular, is rendered in Greek by the plural \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, and the third feminine singular suffix on \u05d0\u05b6\u05db\u05b0\u05ea\u05b2\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 is rendered by \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 to match in number. For Jeremiah 31:34, the direct objects with the third masculine plural pronominal suffixes are translated as plurals in Greek: \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd.
\nWhen one considers the character of the translation as a whole\u2014data that Schenker in general does not consider\u2014we get a more holistic perspective of the work of the translator and see that the Greek translator varies considerably from formal correspondence to functional correspondence in relation to his parent text. Moreover, the biographical notes in the book of Jeremiah clearly indicate that the work was rewritten several times. The book was sent to the exiles in Babylon, but Jeremiah himself migrated to Egypt. This history in itself suggests that perhaps the version in Egypt is not the canonical version in the library authorized by Ezra and Nehemiah. It could also be that the parent text behind the Septuagint was updated from archaic Hebrew to the demands of contemporary forms of the language at the time of translation. All these factors make it difficult to be certain about the claim that we should consider the text of the Greek translation superior at any point, especially when, as Schenker admits, the precise wording of the parent text is impossible to reconstruct. Even if the long citation in Hebrews 8:7\u201313 generally follows the Septuagint, this does not mean that the different wording in Jeremiah 31:32 is somehow a better text, when the author of Hebrews draws no specific argument based on it.
\nPerhaps what Schenker has not considered sufficiently is the possibility that the Greek translation actually represents an interpretation of a Hebrew parent text identical to that transmitted in the Masoretic Text. The clause \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 could be construed as a dynamic rendering of \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05d4\u05b5\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b5\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05b4\u05d9 in the Masoretic Text. How \u1f20\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 in the clause following might be a dynamic rendering of \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 has yet to be adequately explored. Could the translator have thought that the people did not remain in the covenant and that God said, \u201cNever mind! [I have another plan]\u201d? The apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia at least considers the possibility that the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are identical here.<\/p>\n
JEREMIAH 32:36\u201341<\/p>\n
It is normal and standard in Hebrew literature for a speaker to go around the topic at least twice. The second time, the speaker will usually approach the topic from a different perspective. When the two conversations are heard at the same time, a holographic idea can be mentally viewed. In Jeremiah 32:36\u201341, Jeremiah goes around the topic of the new covenant a second time:<\/p>\n
You are saying about this city, \u201cBy the sword, famine and plague it will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon\u201d; but this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Here the oracle of the prophet describes gathering the people from exile and bringing them back to the land of Israel. Note the Covenant Formula in 32:38: \u201cThey will be my people, and I will be their God.\u201d Verse 40 builds on this formula by announcing \u201can everlasting covenant.\u201d The people will have \u201cone heart\u201d (32:39) and will be inspired to fear the Lord (32:40).
\nWhen Yahweh says he will act so that \u201call will then go well for them and their children after them,\u201d this has been misinterpreted by covenant theologians to say that children of those who belong to the new covenant community are included (see Acts 2:39) and that therefore infants should be baptized. There is a constant concern in Jeremiah 31 and 32 for the descendants of Jeremiah\u2019s hearers (31:17, 29; 32:18, 39, 42). The return that brings the exiles home is the period between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. Thus the promise of the new covenant was given by Jesus to his hearers, and they could pass on this good news to their children and so on down through the generations. But it is not a statement that guarantees that the children of believers will automatically become believers.
\nWilliamson compares and contrasts Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 and 32:37\u201341 by means of a table (table 13.3):<\/p>\n
Table 13.3 Comparing and Contrasting Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 and 32:37\u201341
\nJeremiah 31:31\u201334 (NIV)
\nJeremiah 32:37\u201341 (NIV)
\n31:31 I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
\n32:40a I will make an everlasting covenant with them [i.e., the people of Israel and Judah; cf. 32:30]
\n31:32 It will not be like the covenant \u2026 they broke
\n32:40c They will never turn away from me
\n31:33a I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts
\n32:39a I will give them singleness of heart and action
\n32:40c I will inspire them to fear me
\n31:33b I will be their God, and they will be my people
\n32:38 They will be my people, and I will be their God
\n31:34a They will all know me
\n32:39b They will always fear me
\n31:34b I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more
\n32:40b, 41 I will never stop doing good to them \u2026 and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul<\/p>\n
Again, these are like the left and right speakers of a stereo system. Note how the titles \u201cnew covenant\u201d and \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d are interchangeable. The fact that the Israelite covenant was broken is contrasted with the faithfulness of the human partner in the new covenant. Verse 39 in the Hebrew text literally reads, \u201cAnd I will give to them one heart and one way to fear me all the days for good to them and for their sons after them.\u201d As Georg Fischer helpfully points out, this verse is based on Deuteronomy 5:29 and is closely connected to Ezekiel 11:19. Having the divine instruction in the heart will give the people undivided emotions, mind, and will focused on the Lord and his way. Again, knowing God and fearing the Lord are also looking at the same thing from different perspectives. Finally, the positive side of forgiveness is equivalent to \u201cthe good things\u201d God has planned and will do for his people.<\/p>\n
JEREMIAH 33:12\u201326<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 33:12\u201326 is basically Jeremiah\u2019s final discourse on the new covenant (apart from a brief mention in 50:4\u20135). And just as Ezekiel draws together several different strands in his last conversation on the new covenant, Jeremiah does the same thing. Return from exile and the new covenant is connected to the covenant with David, the covenant with Levi, and the covenant with creation:<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is what the LORD Almighty says: \u2018In this place, desolate and without men or animals\u2014in all its towns there will again be pastures for shepherds to rest their flocks. In the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the Negev, in the territory of Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem and in the towns of Judah, flocks will again pass under the hand of the one who counts them,\u2019 says the LORD.
\n\u201c \u2018The days are coming,\u2019 declares the LORD, \u2018when I will fulfill the good promise I made to the people of Israel and Judah.<\/p>\n
\u201c \u2018In those days and at that time
\nI will make a righteous Branch sprout from David\u2019s line;
\nhe will do what is just and right in the land.
\nIn those days Judah will be saved
\nand Jerusalem will live in safety.
\nThis is the name by which it will be called:
\nThe LORD Our Righteous Savior.\u2019<\/p>\n
For this is what the LORD says: \u2018David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.\u2019 \u201d
\nThe word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: \u201cThis is what the LORD says: \u2018If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant\u2014and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me\u2014can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.\u2019 \u201d
\nThe word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: \u201cHave you not noticed that these people are saying, \u2018The Lord has rejected the two kingdoms he chose\u2019? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what the Lord says: \u2018If I have not made my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.\u2019 \u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT AND THE COVENANT WITH DAVID<\/p>\n
Jeremiah continues the announcement of restoration for Israel that flows from the return from exile. As part of this rebuilding, renewal, and restoration, he will uphold his good word concerning a Davidic king. The NIV renders Jeremiah 33:14, \u201cI will fulfill the good promise I made to the people of Israel and Judah.\u201d In the Hebrew text the verb that is used is h\u0113q\u00eem. Similar to the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet, we have the expression h\u0113q\u00eem haddabar ha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00f4b, which means, \u201cHe will cause to stand\u201d\u2014that is, confirm, establish, uphold\u2014\u201cthe good word that he gave\u201d to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. The good word or gracious promise to which Jeremiah refers is a prophetic word given by earlier prophets (e.g., Isaiah 11) that ultimately goes all the way back to Nathan in 2 Samuel 7. It is the promise of someone from the lineage of David as king and ruler over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Jeremiah 33:26 puts it. Isaiah had used the term \u201cbranch\u201d for this, as had Jeremiah earlier:<\/p>\n
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
\nfrom his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
\nThe Spirit of the LORD will rest on him\u2014
\nthe Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
\nthe Spirit of counsel and of might,
\nthe Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD\u2014
\nand he will delight in the fear of the LORD. (Isa. 11:1\u20133 NIV)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe days are coming,\u201d declares the LORD,
\n\u201cwhen I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
\na King who will reign wisely
\nand do what is just and right in the land.
\nIn his days Judah will be saved
\nand Israel will live in safety.
\nThis is the name by which he will be called:
\nThe LORD Our Righteous Savior.\u201d (Jer. 23:5\u20136 NIV)<\/p>\n
In order to adequately grasp the meaning of these texts in Isaiah and Jeremiah and to see the relationship between them, we have to discuss the meaning of the word commonly rendered \u201cbranch\u201d in the English versions. We have discussed earlier that plants or stately tall trees are used as a common metaphor for kings and kingdoms in the Old Testament. Wolter Rose\u2019s study of \u201cbranch\u201d is superior and is the basis for the comments here. For the Hebrew word \u05e2\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7, there are two options: either (1) it refers to a part of a plant\/tree and means \u201cbranch\u201d or \u201csprout,\u201d or (2) it is used for the plant or plants as a whole and means \u201cvegetation.\u201d Rose gives a table showing all the terms in Hebrew for parts of plants and plants in general (table 13.4). What is interesting in the analysis of these terms is that those in the last column can be used in the expression \u201cthe [plants] of the field,\u201d whereas those in the first two columns cannot. Therefore, \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7 is not a plant part but rather a generic term for vegetation meaning something like \u201cgrowth\u201d and should be assigned to column three in the table.
\nWith the correct meaning of \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7 in mind, let us note that Isaiah uses the terms \u05d7\u05b9\u05d8\u05b6\u05e8 and \u05e0\u05b5\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8 in 11:1, whereas Jeremiah employs \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7 in 23:5 and 33:5. The emphasis in each prophet is different, just as the words are different. In Isaiah, the divine judgment means that the tree representing the Davidic king and kingdom is cut down. Nonetheless, in the gracious restoration brought by God the remaining stump will bring forth a shoot and grow again.<\/p>\n
Table 13.4 Possible Meanings of \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7
\nBranch
\nShoot\/Sprout
\nPlant(s)\/Vegetation
\n\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d3
\n\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b6\u05e7\u05b6\u05ea
\n\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d0
\n\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea
\n\u05e0\u05b5\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8
\n\u05d7\u05b8\u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8
\n\u05d7\u05b9\u05d8\u05b6\u05e8
\n[\u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7]
\n\u05e2\u05b5\u05e5
\n\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05e3
\n\u05e2\u05b5\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d1
\n\u05e4\u05bb\u05bc\u05d0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4
\n\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7
\n\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05d2<\/p>\n
Jeremiah 23 comes in the context of a curse brought on Coniah, so that this particular Davidic king will have no one from his line as future king in Israel. Ultimately, this means that the king will have to come from another part of the lineage of David. Note what Jeremiah says in 23:5, \u201cI will raise up for David righteous growth.\u201d We should pay attention to the little preposition \u201cto\u201d or \u201cfor\u201d in this text. Things will be so far gone in destruction that God will have to bring about restoration for the line of David; it will not be able to send out a shoot on its own. Rose summarizes well the difference between Isaiah\u2019s and Jeremiah\u2019s prophecies:<\/p>\n
The difference in terminology between Isa. 11:1 and the \u05e6\u05de\u05d7 oracles (those in Jeremiah and in Zechariah) implies that the overall thrust of these passages is substantially different. The imagery in Isa. 11:1 of a \u201cshoot from the stump of Jesse\u201d and a \u201cbranch \u2026 out of his roots\u201d leaves room for the Davidic dynasty to make a contribution to its own future. The \u05e6\u05de\u05d7 imagery in Jer 23:5 suggests that only a divine intervention can safeguard the future of the Davidic dynasty.<\/p>\n
In other words, we have to get to the place as in Abraham\u2019s experience where only the divine gift of life from dead bodies will bring about fulfillment of the promises.
\nIn the text, the growth is given the adjective \u201crighteous,\u201d because, as the next clause clearly states, \u201che will do what is just and right in the land.\u201d \u201cJust\u201d and \u201cright\u201d constitute a word pair communicating not only the notion of social justice but specifically the social justice of the Israelite covenant. Thus it is a way of summarizing the entire Torah. The king is the administrator of the Israelite covenant. Never again will the family of David fail to have a man on the throne, and a hint of the coming king is found in the name of this growth raised up by God: \u201cThe LORD Our Righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT AND THE COVENANT WITH LEVI<\/p>\n
The future restoration will see no further failure in the continued rule of a Davidic king administering the divine righteousness, \u201cnor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices\u201d (Jer. 33:18). So the new covenant will involve not only the king but also the priests.
\nA covenant that we have not discussed to this point is one made by God with the Levites. All the (few) relevant texts in the Old Testament are cited here:<\/p>\n
Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring. (Num. 18:19 NIV)<\/p>\n
Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman\u2019s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
\nThe LORD said to Moses, \u201cPhinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.\u201d (Num. 25:6\u201313 NIV)<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd now, you priests, this warning is for you. If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name,\u201d says the LORD Almighty, \u201cI will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.
\n\u201cBecause of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. And you will know that I have sent you this warning so that my covenant with Levi may continue,\u201d says the LORD Almighty. \u201cMy covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
\n\u201cFor the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,\u201d says the LORD Almighty. \u201cSo I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.\u201d (Mal. 2:1\u20139 NIV)<\/p>\n
Remember them, O my God, because they defiled the priestly office and the covenant of the priesthood and of the Levites. (Neh. 13:29 NIV)<\/p>\n
We can quickly summarize the import of these texts. As early as Numbers 18, the Israelite offerings are given to the Levites for their sustenance as a \u201ccovenant of salt\u201d (cf. 2 Chron. 13:5). Since salt was used in the ancient world to preserve things, a covenant of salt means one that is enduring and lasting, a permanent agreement.
\nThen in Numbers 25, Phinehas showed great zeal for the honor of Yahweh, and his actions atoned for the sin of the people, so God rewarded his actions by giving a covenant of peace to him and his tribe. Malachi excoriated the priests in his time for failing to live up to this covenant. The text in Malachi gives us a fuller appreciation for the covenantal role to be played by the Levites\u2014how they were to bring peace. It also demonstrates that the physical return from exile did not bring about a restoration of the priesthood.
\nJohn Davies notes how Moses\u2019s final blessing in Deuteronomy 33:8\u201313<\/p>\n
also presents Levi\u2019s position as priest in relation to a \u201ccovenant\u201d (v. 9). While other Pentateuchal references to Levi emphasize his zeal for purity and honor (Gen. 34; Exod. 32:25\u201329), Deut. 33:8\u201313 moves from singular to plural forms in a manner designed to identify the patriarch Levi with the tribe to which the priestly office was entrusted, and thus to depict the patriarch himself in priestly terms.<\/p>\n
Williamson also comments helpfully on the covenant with Levi:<\/p>\n
In any case, these priestly covenants seem to have served the same general purpose as the Mosaic covenant with which they are so closely related; namely the priests facilitated the maintenance of the divine-human relationship between Yahweh and Abraham\u2019s descendants. Significantly, it was when they failed to do their part in this latter respect that they were accused by Malachi of having \u201ccorrupted the covenant of Levi\u201d (Mal. 2:8 ESV). Thus the Priestly and Mosaic covenants, while remaining distinct, run in parallel with one another, and are closely related in purpose; namely maintaining the relationship between God and Israel.<\/p>\n
Williamson rightly sees the covenant with Levi as a mechanism to administer the Israelite covenant especially before the inauguration of kingship in Israel. Yet in the text under discussion, Jeremiah foresees countless Levites offering sacrifices. He does not describe in detail how this will work out, but Isaiah does. We have already seen how Gentiles, those from the nations, symbolized by eunuchs and foreigners in Isaiah 56, will become priests in the new temple. The New Testament speaks of their sacrifices as prayers and songs of worship in the gatherings of the church (Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15\u201316; 1 Pet. 2:5).
\nThere is an emphasis in Jeremiah 33:12\u201326 on the notion of servanthood, indicated by the Hebrew terms \u05e2\u05b6\u05d1\u05b6\u05d3 (\u201cservant\u201d) and \u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05e8\u05b5\u05ea (\u201cminister\u201d). David is called the servant of Yahweh in 33:21\u201322, and the Levites are described by the parallel term, ministers of God. In a way reminiscent of the servant, singular, becoming the servants, plural, in the last part of Isaiah, Jeremiah 33:22 says that the \u201cseed\u201d (i.e., descendants) of David and of the Levites will be countless, and the language used is that of the Abrahamic covenant\u2014the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore. Thus the new covenant brings the promises of these other covenants to fulfillment.<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT AND THE COVENANT WITH CREATION<\/p>\n
The last paragraph of Jeremiah 33, verses 23\u201326, shows that the people no longer believed that God had chosen them and that as a result they despised the people (\u2018am) of God as a nation (g\u00f4y)\u2014that is, they no longer recognized the kingdom of God. This goes back to Genesis 12:1\u20133, where in the Abrahamic covenant God considers the different groups in the world as amorphous kin groups, and only the family of Abraham will be a real and lasting kingdom, an entity with political and social structure and governmental headship. In Jeremiah 33:20 and 25, the permanence and lasting quality of the situation brought about by the new covenant is compared to the covenant with day and night, the fixed decrees or statutes of heaven and earth\u2014a clear reference to the covenant with creation (in spite of Williamson\u2019s protest).<\/p>\n
JEREMIAH 50:4\u20135<\/p>\n
There is a final reference to the new covenant in Jeremiah 50:4\u20135 in the context of an oracle against Babylon. In the end, Babylon, a nation used as an instrument to discipline the Lord\u2019s people, will be judged in turn:<\/p>\n
\u201cAnnounce and proclaim among the nations,
\nlift up a banner and proclaim it;
\nkeep nothing back, but say,
\n\u2018Babylon will be captured;
\nBel will be put to shame,
\nMarduk filled with terror.
\nHer images will be put to shame
\nand her idols filled with terror.\u2019
\nA nation from the north will attack her
\nand lay waste her land.
\nNo one will live in it;
\nboth people and animals will flee away.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn those days, at that time,\u201d
\ndeclares the LORD,
\n\u201cthe people of Israel and the people of Judah together
\nwill go in tears to seek the LORD their God.
\nThey will ask the way to Zion
\nand turn their faces toward it.
\nThey will come and bind themselves to the LORD
\nin an everlasting covenant
\nthat will not be forgotten.\u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
When Babylon is judged, a process of return from exile will begin for the people of Israel and Judah. The process of a physical return and a spiritual return is not spelled out here in terms of separate stages, but the picture presented by Jeremiah is that the people will turn toward Zion and bind themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant. This is a brief summary statement, looking back to the earlier and fuller expositions in the book of Jeremiah.<\/p>\n
TWELVE PROPHETS<\/p>\n
Explicit references to the new covenant are rare in the Twelve (Minor) Prophets. Chapter 15 is devoted to the book of Daniel. Here we may briefly consider a passage in Hosea:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen that day comes,\u201d says the LORD,
\n\u201cyou will call me \u2018my husband\u2019
\ninstead of \u2018my master.\u2019 \u201d
\nO Israel, I will wipe the many names of Baal from your lips,
\nand you will never mention them again.
\nOn that day I will make a covenant
\nwith all the wild animals and the birds of the sky
\nand the animals that scurry along the ground so they will not harm you.
\nI will remove all weapons of war from the land,
\nall swords and bows,
\nso you can live unafraid
\nin peace and safety.
\nI will make you my wife forever,
\nshowing you righteousness and justice,
\nunfailing love and compassion.
\nI will be faithful to you and make you mine,
\nand you will finally know me as the LORD.
\n(Hos. 2:18\u201322 [2:16\u201320 EV] NLT)<\/p>\n
Hosea\u2019s language is somewhat different from the others. Nonetheless, the day when God removes the many names of Baal from the lips of his people and makes Israel his wife forever is the time of the new covenant. The removal of the names of Baal is the end of idolatry and sin, all of which is accomplished between the first and second coming of the Messiah, ending in the marriage supper of the Lamb.
\nThe covenant with animals and birds, that they no longer bring harm, shows the reversal of the curse, something that is eventually brought about by the new covenant. Therefore, this prophecy must speak of the new covenant.<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT<\/p>\n
Ezekiel<\/p>\n
At the heart of establishing God\u2019s kingship in the world is worship. We saw this theme indicated by Genesis 2, which depicts Adam and Eve placed in a garden sanctuary. Only as they spent time in the presence of God would they be equipped to implement his rule in the world in the way in which God himself would relate to his creation. Israel inherited the Adamic role of son of God at the exodus (Ex. 4:22), and the priority of worship became evident right away with the instructions to build the tabernacle. When the construction of this portable tent for worship was complete, a bright cloud symbolic of the divine presence settled on the tent to show that the creator God was dwelling in the midst of his people as king (Ex. 25:8; 40:34).
\nThis is where prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel fit into the story. The people of God had repeatedly violated the terms of the Israelite covenant. Love of God and love of one\u2019s neighbor had been replaced by idolatry and the corruption of social justice in every way. As a result, Israel\u2019s worship had become hollow and hypocritical. In the Hebrew canon Jeremiah is the first of the Latter Prophets, and in Jeremiah 7\u201310, we have his famous \u201cTemple Sermon\u201d: \u201cDo not trust in deceptive words and say, \u2018This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!\u2019 \u201d (Jer. 7:4 NIV). The threefold repetition is the strongest form of emphasis possible. Jeremiah is saying, \u201cYou can\u2019t live as you please and then treat the temple like a good luck charm or rabbit\u2019s foot.\u201d The people thought they would always be protected as long as God was dwelling among them. Jeremiah\u2019s message was that covenant violation meant that God would be true to his threats and bring upon his people the curse of exile (Deuteronomy 28). Most importantly, he could no longer live among them, since their behavior and lifestyle contradicted his own character as expressed in the Torah.
\nEzekiel carries the \u201cTemple Sermon\u201d of Jeremiah one step further. The opening vision shows the bright cloud, the glory of the Lord, in motion, and the divine throne has wheels. Why? Because God is getting ready to move out! God is surrounded by social injustice and idolatry, and the temple has lost its five-star hotel status\u2014he can no longer live there. This message must have come as an awful shock to the people of Judah. In Ezekiel 8\u201311, the opening vision is developed further, and the bright cloud\u2014the glory of the Lord\u2014actually begins to move from the temple to the eastern gate. Finally, the glory of the Lord departs from the city of God. I express it in these terms to show that the city of God can no longer be the city of God when God is no longer there. A brief consideration of the structure and shape of Ezekiel\u2019s book shows the development and resolution of this problem.<\/p>\n
THE STRUCTURE AND SHAPE OF EZEKIEL<\/p>\n
Outline of Ezekiel\u2019s Book
\n1. Opening vision and call of Ezekiel
\n1:1\u20133:15
\n2. Ezekiel\u2019s role and message
\n3:16\u20137:27
\n3. The departure of the glory of the Lord from the temple
\n8\u201311
\n4. The exile symbolized
\n12\u201324
\n5. Oracles against the foreign nations
\n25\u201332
\n6. Divine leadership and restoration
\n33\u201336
\n7. The valley of dry bones
\n37\u201339
\n8. The new temple
\n40\u201348<\/p>\n
As already noted, the \u201copening vision\u201d portrays the glory of the Lord in motion because God is getting ready to move out. The second section (3:16\u20137:27) presents Ezekiel\u2019s message and role. Like all the prophets, he employs every means and method of communication to get through to the people: because of idolatry in relation to God and social injustice in relation to others, they have broken the covenant, and the curse of exile is upon them. This message is communicated through preaching but also through symbolic dramas. In 4:1\u20133, Ezekiel is commanded to draw a diagram of the coming siege of Jerusalem on a brick and to act out the attack of the Babylonians. He holds an iron pan between himself and the city to show that the prayers of the people will not get through to God. Again, in 4:4\u20138, he is commanded to lie on one side for 390 days for the sin of Israel and on the other side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. The sum is 430 days, which represents the period of bondage in Egypt. Just as prophets like Isaiah had foretold a future salvation, describing it as a new exodus, so Ezekiel indicates another \u201cEgyptian bondage\u201d before the new exodus occurs. This is similar to Daniel\u2019s vision of seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24). The exile may be over in seventy years according to the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:1\u201311), but it will take a lot longer to deal effectively with sin and to restore the broken covenant relationship with God. Unfortunately, the people did not heed Ezekiel\u2019s message. According to Ezekiel 33:32, the prophet was viewed only as an entertainer singing songs with a beautiful voice.
\nChapters 8\u201311 constitute a second vision, in which the glory of the Lord departs from the temple. This is followed by further messages to Judah in chapters 12\u201324, largely through symbolic dramas, to communicate the coming judgment and exile.
\nChapters 25\u201332 constitute oracles against foreign nations. Such oracles are included in all the Major Prophets because of the program laid out in Deuteronomy 32. The covenant violation of Israel will bring the curse of exile. At first God plans to completely erase his people (32:26), but he fears the taunt of the foreign nations (32:27). The foreign nations will conclude that they have defeated Israel by their own gods and prowess instead of realizing that God allowed them to conquer Israel only because of her sins. So the nations must be punished for their arrogance and idolatrous worldview and for their harsh treatment of the people of God.
\nThen in Ezekiel 33\u201336, Israel will be given new leadership in the form of a new David\u2014the Messiah. The messianic theme is summarized well by Stephen Dempster:<\/p>\n
Even the divided kingdom of exiles is reunited under a new leader, who is said to be \u201cmy servant David\u201d (Ezek. 37:24\u201325; cf. 34:23\u201324). But he is also described as one who will come to power through relative obscurity. In a remarkable allegorical passage, a Davidic descendant is compared to a tender shoot (yoneqet) plucked from a tall tree, taken to Mount Zion and planted there to grow into a huge tree, bearing fruit and providing shade for all the birds of the forest (17:22\u201324). Thus all the trees of the forest (peoples of the world) will know that \u201cI the LORD lower the tall tree and raise the low tree. I dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish\u201d (17:24). Later, this \u201cDavid\u201d who will come to power is remembered for his humble origins as a shepherd (34:23); he will provide true leadership, as opposed to past leaders, who are symbolized as corrupt and destructive shepherds. Both these motifs of Davidic rule (a tender shoot and a shepherd) echo Jeremiah\u2019s prediction of a \u201cplant growth\u201d from the line of David, which will bring good shepherds\u2014justice for the nation (Jer. 23:1\u20138).<\/p>\n
Then there will be a new covenant to renew the relationship with God and his people, a covenant that will deal effectively with hearts stubbornly bent on sin (Ezek. 36:24\u201332). This is followed by an announcement of return from exile described in terms of resurrection from the dead. The vision of the valley of dry bones shows the people of God miraculously restored to life and given victory over enemies.
\nThe book of Ezekiel concludes in chapters 40\u201348 with a vision of a renewed temple and of God dwelling in the midst of his people once more in a healed land. The conclusion of the book is extremely powerful: \u201cThe LORD Is There\u201d (48:35). The glory of the Lord has returned to the temple. God is once more dwelling in the midst of his people as King. Thus restoration involves the rebuilding of the Davidic house in both of its meanings in 2 Samuel 7\u2014the dynasty of David and the temple.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 11:16\u201321<\/p>\n
The first important text is Ezekiel 11:16\u201321:<\/p>\n
Therefore say: \u201cThis is what the Sovereign LORD says: Although I sent them far away among the nations and scattered them among the countries, yet for a little while I have been a sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone.\u201d
\nTherefore say: \u201cThis is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.\u201d
\nThey will return to it and remove all its vile images and detestable idols. I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD. (NIV)<\/p>\n
This prophetic text is direct and straightforward. Israel has been scattered among the nations. God will gather his people from the nations and give them the land once more. The exiles who return will be given by God \u201cone heart and a new spirit\u201d\u2014according to a literal translation of the Hebrew. Yet those who are devoted to idolatry will be judged\u2014so not all exiles are restored. We can see in Ezekiel, just as we saw in Isaiah, that the return from exile is both physical and spiritual. Verse 20 contains the Covenant Formula, so although the word \u201ccovenant\u201d is not in this passage, the text is speaking clearly about a new covenant.
\nThe statement \u201cI will give them one heart and put a new spirit in them\u201d is similar to the \u201cnew heart and new spirit\u201d in Ezekiel 36:26 and to the \u201cone heart and one way\u201d mentioned in Jeremiah 32:39. Paul\u2019s admonitions to the new covenant community in the New Testament to \u201cmind the one\/same thing\u201d (normally rendered \u201cbe in harmony\u201d) may well be based on passages such as these:<\/p>\n
Acts 4:32
\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1
\nRomans 12:16
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc
\nRomans 15:5
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc
\n2 Corinthians 13:11
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc
\nPhilippians 2:2
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd
\nPhilippians 4:2
\n\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc<\/p>\n
Indeed, perhaps when Paul speaks of one spirit in Ephesians 4:4, he is thinking of the one heart and new spirit in Ezekiel, and perhaps his one baptism refers to the instruction (i.e., Torah\u2014the entire complex of repentance, faith, and conversion) of the new covenant written on the heart.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 16:59\u201363<\/p>\n
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: \u201cI will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you. So I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD. Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation,\u201d declares the Sovereign LORD. (NIV)<\/p>\n
This passage concludes an extremely long parable (63 verses) in which Jerusalem is depicted as a bride cheating on her husband on many occasions with a long litany of lovers. Her feckless loyalty and constant and incorrigible covenant violation are compared to the sins of Samaria to the north and of Sodom to the south. This comparison turns out to be rather unfavorable for Jerusalem.
\nThe plot of the parable can be briefly summarized. Jerusalem is depicted as a child born to Canaanite ancestors who is cast away by her parents\u2014the ancient Near Eastern equivalent of abortion\/infanticide. Yahweh sees this baby abandoned in the field to die \u201ckicking about in its blood\u201d and commands it to live. Much later, after the child reaches puberty, Yahweh passes by a second time and sees a young woman ready for adornment and marriage, and he marries her. His gifts to his bride of costly garments and expensive jewelry bring her far-flung fame for her beauty and even royalty. Although historical points of reference cannot always be pinpointed in the parable, the baby appears to correspond to the Abrahamic covenant, while the mature young woman getting married would correspond to the Mosaic covenant, with royalty perhaps keeping the Davidic covenant in view.
\nNext, the parable details the downward spiral of the bride into adultery and harlotry. In the ancient Near East, harlots were frequently married women, so this is why the repeated term \u201cfornication\u201d is associated with adultery in this parable. Her sexual unfaithfulness corresponds to various forms of idolatry and alliances with foreign nations in pursuit of military support. The downward spiral reaches its nadir in child sacrifice and the fact that this harlot has to pay her lovers to have sex with her instead of them paying her for sex.
\nJerusalem\u2019s sins are so terrible in this R-rated depiction of her crimes that she completely embarrasses her pagan neighbors, designated as Samaria and Sodom and portrayed as her \u201csisters.\u201d Since Ezekiel is writing after 722 BC\u2014when the northern kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria and the people of Israel were deported and foreign peoples were imported to live there\u2014the northern neighbors of Jerusalem constitute the mixed race of Samaritans that resulted from these events. Second Kings 17:24\u201341 describes and deplores the Samaritans\u2019 behavior, lifestyle, and rejection of Yahweh\u2019s Torah. The people of Sodom are likewise condemned because an abundance of life\u2019s necessities resulted in arrogant independence from God and led to many social injustices. Nonetheless, Jerusalem\u2019s acts of covenant violation were so bad by comparison that her sins actually justified the conduct of her \u201csisters,\u201d Sodom and Samaria!
\nAs a result, Yahweh promised to gather Jerusalem\u2019s neighbors to attack and destroy her. Finally, God would restore the fortunes of all three: Samaria, Sodom, and Jerusalem (this is the order in the text). At the end of Ezekiel 16, the verses we have quoted explain the basis for this restoration.
\nAccording to 16:59, Jerusalem will experience the curses of the covenant because of her many acts of unfaithfulness. Verse 60 speaks of Israel breaking the covenant, and then it speaks of God upholding (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet) an everlasting covenant with them. The first part is clear: breaking the covenant means that Israel violated the covenant made at Sinai and reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. But what does the text mean by confirming or upholding an everlasting covenant? Two problems are entailed in this question: (1) Does the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet follow the normal meaning here as elsewhere, and (2) what is the everlasting covenant of which Ezekiel speaks?
\nEverywhere else the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto cut a covenant\u201d) is used to describe covenant making. The expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet indicates a covenant that did not exist previously and is now being initiated between partners for the first time. Excellent examples are Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 31:31; and Ezekiel 17:13; 34:25; and 37:26. Conversely, heq\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet usually indicates upholding a commitment or promise already in place. Yet Ezekiel 16:60 and 62 employ heq\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet for an everlasting covenant. How are we to interpret and understand the language of Ezekiel at this point? Is there a development in the language so that \u201ccut a covenant\u201d and \u201cconfirm a covenant\u201d are now synonyms? A change for these expressions is unlikely since Ezekiel uses both k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet (3\u00d7) and heq\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet (2\u00d7) and since a clear distinction between k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet and heq\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet can be seen in Jeremiah 34, a writing close in time to that of Ezekiel, as well as in the much later Qumran Scrolls (e.g., CD 15.8, 4Q381 69.l.8; CD 3.13, 1QS 5.21\u201322, 8.10). We should assume, then, that the distinction established between the two expressions also works in Ezekiel. God is saying he will uphold a covenant that is already initiated. The problem is in understanding \u201ceternal covenant\u201d in Ezekiel 16:60.
\nThe parable storyline suggests that the everlasting covenant is the Abrahamic covenant. God will give Samaria and Sodom to Jerusalem not on the basis of the covenant with Israel at Sinai (i.e., his marriage to the young woman) but rather on the basis of the covenant with Abraham (the aborted baby rescued). A connection between Ezekiel 16 and Leviticus 26:40\u201342 supports interpreting the everlasting covenant as the Abrahamic covenant. True, Ezekiel is describing here what will happen when God makes a new covenant with Israel. But in the text itself, he is saying that the future restoration for Israel and the gift of other peoples to Jerusalem will come about not on the basis of the Israelite covenant at Sinai but instead on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. The Israelite covenant was broken, but the Abrahamic covenant still stands. Ezekiel may be describing what will happen in the new covenant, but the term \u201ccovenant\u201d in this text refers to the Israelite and Abrahamic covenants, respectively. This interpretation better explains Ezekiel 16:60\u201362 since it is the nations (Samaria and Sodom) that receive blessing with Israel in this text and since it is the Abrahamic covenant that specifies salvation for the nations through Israel.
\nIt is interesting that the term \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d occurs sixteen times in the Old Testament: two times of the covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:16; Isa. 24:5), five times of the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:7, 19; 1 Chron. 16:17; Ps. 105:10; Ezek. 16:60), once of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 23:5; cf. 2 Chron. 13:5), five times of the new covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 37:26), and three times of covenant signs (Gen. 17:13; Ex. 31:16; Lev. 24:8). Nowhere in the Old Testament is the Israelite\/Mosaic covenant at Sinai called an everlasting or permanent covenant.
\nThus, the following interpretation of Ezekiel 16 is proposed: b\u0115r\u00eet in 16:59 is the Mosaic covenant. In 16:60, the first use of b\u0115r\u00eet is the Mosaic covenant, and the second use of b\u0115r\u00eet is the Abrahamic covenant. Likewise in 16:61, b\u0115r\u00eet is the Mosaic covenant, while in 16:62 b\u0115r\u00eet is the Abrahamic covenant. Yahweh is saying to Israel that both Samaria and Sodom will be given to Jerusalem as daughters not on the basis of the Mosaic covenant but rather on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. \u201cBeing given as daughters\u201d means that the neighboring nations (Samaritans and Sodomites) are now family. God will uphold his promises to Abraham that through him the nations will be blessed even though the nations were not blessed through the Mosaic covenant, since Israel as a nation failed as a light to the nations.
\nThus Jerusalem will be given both Samaria and Sodom but not on the basis of the Israelite covenant. This statement shows that in the new covenant, the old divisions in Israel are healed, and the Gentiles are included.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 18:1\u20134, 30\u201332<\/p>\n
The word of the LORD came to me: \u201cWhat do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, \u2018The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge\u2019? As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.\u2026
\n\u201cTherefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.\u201d (ESV)<\/p>\n
Ezekiel 18:1\u20134 sets forth the thesis of a message sent through the prophet, while 18:30\u201332 provides the conclusion. This important text deals with how the relationship between God and his people is structured under the old covenant and the difference promised in the new covenant. Jeremiah sets his passage on the new covenant (Jer. 31:30\u201334) in the context of the same proverb and problem (Jer. 31:29\u201330). As we saw earlier, the mention of \u201ca new heart and a new spirit\u201d in Ezekiel 18:31 clearly demonstrates that the prophet is describing changes brought about by new covenant realities. Under the old covenant, the corporate solidarity between the people and their fallible human leaders meant that they could suffer for the sins of another, but this will not be true under the new covenant.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 34:17\u201324<\/p>\n
As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?
\nTherefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Since this passage is in the section of Ezekiel dealing with leaders in Israel who have aggrandized themselves and have served neither the people nor the interests of the divine King over them, it is natural for Ezekiel to speak of the divine restoration of all things in terms of a coming king who will be a good shepherd of the sheep, caring for the interests of the people and serving at the same time the interests of the divine overlord. The coming king is referred to as \u201cmy servant David,\u201d similar to the manner in which the coming king is referred to in Isaiah 55:3 and in the writings of Isaiah\u2019s contemporary Hosea (Hos. 3:5).<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 36:22\u201336<\/p>\n
Therefore say to the Israelites, \u201cThis is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.
\n\u201cFor I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, people of Israel!\u201d (NIV)<\/p>\n
This famous passage on the new covenant in Ezekiel, a text to which Jesus alludes directly in John 3, speaks of God restoring his people to covenant relationship by dealing with their sin\u2014their impurities and idols. The Lord will change the intractable stubbornness and unfaithfulness of the human partners by giving them a new heart and a new spirit, as in Ezekiel 11 and 18. The divine Spirit will enable and motivate the human partners to follow the divine instructions. Fertility and fruitfulness in the land will result. God will do this not for the sake of his people but for his own sake\u2014to demonstrate that he is holy, that is, completely committed and devoted to his character, plans, and purposes\u2014as laid out in the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 37:15\u201328<\/p>\n
The sixth section of the book, on divine leadership and restoration, moves naturally into the seventh section, containing the vision of the valley of dry bones, which foresees Israel\u2019s restoration as a resurrection from the dead. As part of this vision, Ezekiel communicates divine revelation by means of a minidrama or one-act play:<\/p>\n
The word of the LORD came to me: \u201cSon of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, \u2018Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.\u2019 Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, \u2018Belonging to Joseph (that is, to Ephraim) and all the Israelites associated with him.\u2019 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.
\n\u201cWhen your people ask you, \u2018Won\u2019t you tell us what you mean by this?\u2019 say to them, \u2018This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph\u2014which is in Ephraim\u2019s hand\u2014and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah\u2019s stick. I will make them into a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.\u2019 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on and say to them, \u2018This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
\n\u201c \u2018My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children\u2019s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.\u2019 \u201d (Ezek. 37:15\u201328 NIV)<\/p>\n
Ezekiel\u2019s dramatic action of joining two sticks of wood represents God gathering the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel from exile and joining them together as one nation.
\nGod will deal with their sin and their sinfulness. Note the Covenant Formula occurring twice: \u201cThey will be my people, and I will be their God\u201d (37:23); and again, \u201cI will be their God, and they will be my people\u201d (37:27). The double formula is used in both orders.
\nThe covenant relationship will be restored once they are cleansed from sin. Ezekiel uses both the term \u201ccovenant of peace\u201d and the term \u201ceverlasting covenant,\u201d showing that these are two ways of referring to the same covenant. The former term is employed especially in contexts emphasizing reconciliation between Yahweh and his people, made necessary because of their disloyalty through idolatry and violation of his covenant instructions. The latter term is employed to stress that the problem in the Israelite covenant (and indeed, in earlier covenants) of the faithless human partner will be permanently addressed: Israel will be truly holy\u2014committed, devoted, and faithful to the Lord.
\nA Davidic king will be established as ruler over the renewed Israel, and the people will carefully keep the instructions in the covenant. As a result, the temple will be restored: \u201cMy sanctuary is among them forever\u201d (37:28).
\nVerse 25 is a powerful statement drawing together several significant strands in the Old Testament: \u201cThey will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children\u2019s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.\u201d Readers who have been carefully following the development and progression of thought in Ezekiel\u2014and indeed, in Isaiah and Jeremiah as well\u2014will realize that the promise concerning the renewed Israel living in the land is fulfilled in that the new Jerusalem and the new creation are coextensive. Indeed, the apostle John in Revelation 21\u201322 recognizes the new creation in Ezekiel\u2019s description of the new temple in chapters 40\u201348. Careful readers will also draw the conclusion from what has preceded in Ezekiel 16 that the renewed Israel is no longer based on ethnic parameters but is defined as those who are reconciled to the Lord and believing in him: Jerusalem will be given both Samaria and Sodom but not on the basis of the Israelite covenant (16:61). In the new covenant, the old divisions in Israel are healed, and the Gentiles are included. Only faithful human partners (i.e., believers) constitute the covenant community. And the Davidic Messiah is ruler over all.
\nThis passage, then, draws together all the different strands dealing with the new covenant that are treated in earlier passages in Ezekiel. Preston Sprinkle has demonstrated that Leviticus 18:5 is fundamental to the literary framework of Ezekiel and functions to tie the themes together. The key verse with some of its context reads,<\/p>\n
\u2026 and do not walk in their [i.e., the Canaanites\u2019] statutes. You are to practice my judgments and keep my statutes by walking in them; I am Yahweh your God. And you shall keep my statutes and my judgments; if a person practices them, he will live by them. I am Yahweh. (Lev. 18:3\u20135)<\/p>\n
First, just as other prophets employ the word pair love (\u1e25esed) and faithfulness (\u2019\u0115met) or the word pair justice (mi\u0161pa\u1e6d) and righteousness (\u1e63\u0115d\u0101q\u00e2) as summaries of the entire Torah, or instruction, in the covenant, so Ezekiel is using \u201cjudgments and statutes\u201d from Leviticus 18:5 as a summary for the instruction in the Torah.
\nSecond, Ezekiel indicts Israel in chapters 18; 20; and 33 and shows that they are dying as a result. Ezekiel 18:9, 17, and 19 are clear allusions to Leviticus 18:5. Ezekiel 20, another retelling of the history of Israel, makes clear allusions to Leviticus 18:5 at the giving of the Torah at Sinai (Ezek. 20:11), at the rebellion in the wilderness (20:13), and at the rebellion of the second wilderness generation (20:21). Finally, in Ezekiel 33, the life language (33:10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19) picks up the life theme of Leviticus 18:5, brought to a climax in Ezekiel 18:31: \u201cWhy will you die, O house of Israel?\u201d
\nThird, all this development via Leviticus 18:5 results in the death and resurrection of Israel pictured in the vision of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). In Ezekiel 36:27, God says, \u201cI will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will keep my judgments and do them,\u201d which resolves the entire issue; in 37:1\u201314, the Spirit gives life; and in 37:24\u201328, the Davidic king enables Israel to \u201cwalk in my statutes and observe my judgments.\u201d Putting the two texts, 36:27 and 37:24, together yields a remarkable result: in 36:27, it is the Spirit who causes the Lord\u2019s people to fulfill the instruction (t\u00f4r\u00e2) in the new covenant (summarized by \u201cstatutes and judgments\u201d), but in 37:24, it is the future Davidic Messiah who enables all who are members of the new covenant community to follow the covenant requirements (again, \u201cstatutes and judgments\u201d). This is another way in which Ezekiel 37 draws together the different strands and themes developed earlier in the book.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 40\u201348<\/p>\n
How to interpret the final section of Ezekiel has been hotly debated among Christians. Some think that this is a blueprint for a future temple to be built in the city of Jerusalem. Such an interpretation is not at all likely. Space permits only a couple of key observations.
\nFirst, note that this section is described as \u201cvisions of God\u201d in Ezekiel 40:2. This heading is used elsewhere only of the visions of chapter 1 and chapters 8\u201311. If we interpret chapter 1 and chapters 8\u201311 as symbolic visions, we must be consistent and interpret 40\u201348 the same way. This also fits with the fact that Ezekiel frequently communicates via symbolic dramas, and the description of the restoration of Israel in the vision of the valley of dry bones is also symbolic.
\nSecond, note the use of the terms \u201clength,\u201d \u201cwidth,\u201d and \u201cheight\u201d in the Old Testament. Careful examination of all instances show that 80 percent of all references occur in three texts: (1) the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 25\u201340), (2) the building of the temple (1 Kings 6\u20137), and (3) the future temple of Ezekiel. Note, however, that the accounts of building the tabernacle and temple contain instances of length, width, and height, whereas the description in Ezekiel contains only length and width, no height. This vision is two-dimensional because unlike the cases of the tabernacle in Exodus and the temple in Kings, Ezekiel\u2019s temple is not a blueprint for a real building. It is a symbolic portrayal of the restoration of God dwelling in the midst of his people as King and of a renewed covenant relationship. This is clearly the interpretation of Jesus, who identified himself as the true temple (John 2:19). Both Paul (1 Cor. 3:16) and Peter (1 Pet. 2:4\u20135) understand the church, those who are joined to Christ, to constitute the final temple. This is also the picture in Revelation 21. We must follow Jesus and the apostles in their interpretation of the Old Testament.
\nSo the last section of the book depicts the restoration of Israel by means of symbolic vision. Two passages are relevant for the Gentiles, or non-Jewish nations.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 44:6\u20139<\/p>\n
Then he brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple, and I looked, and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the temple of the LORD. And I fell on my face. And the LORD said to me, \u201cSon of man, mark well, see with your eyes, and hear with your ears all that I shall tell you concerning all the statutes of the temple of the LORD and all its laws. And mark well the entrance to the temple and all the exits from the sanctuary. And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations, in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.
\n\u201cThus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. But the Levites who went far from me, going astray from me after their idols when Israel went astray, shall bear their punishment. They shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the temple and ministering in the temple. They shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before the people, to minister to them. Because they ministered to them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Israel, therefore I have sworn concerning them, declares the Lord GOD, and they shall bear their punishment. They shall not come near to me, to serve me as priest, nor come near any of my holy things and the things that are most holy, but they shall bear their shame and the abominations that they have committed. Yet I will appoint them to keep charge of the temple, to do all its service and all that is to be done in it. (Ezek. 44:4\u201314 ESV)<\/p>\n
In the restored future temple, no foreigners, those uncircumcised in heart and flesh, will enter the sanctuary of the Lord. Apparently, in the past, Levites permitted foreigners who were circumcised in flesh but not in heart to enter the sanctuary. Although the text does not state this, the implication is that foreigners who are circumcised in heart will be permitted in the future temple. That is at least what Isaiah 56 portrays. Here the Levites care for the temple but do not serve as priests. In Isaiah 56, foreigners are offering sacrifices.<\/p>\n
EZEKIEL 47:21\u201323<\/p>\n
So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord GOD. (ESV)<\/p>\n
In Ezekiel 47:21\u201323, clearly foreigners are included in the future Israel and have full citizenship. They have an inheritance among the tribe where they dwell. Thus, even in Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the future Israel, folks from the nations are included.
\nFinally, to conclude our analysis of Isaiah and Ezekiel, note how Paul brings together the teaching of Ezekiel 36:26 and Isaiah 54:13 in 1 Thessalonians 4:7\u201312:<\/p>\n
For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
\nNow concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one. (ESV)<\/p>\n
T. J. Deidun demonstrates decisively that the phrase \u201cGod, who gives his Holy Spirit to you\u201d comes directly from Ezekiel 36:26 and that the phrase \u201cYou yourselves have been taught by God\u201d is based on Isaiah 54:13. In his analysis of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 (\u201ctaught of God\u201d), Deidun rightly explains \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd on the basis of l\u0101mad in the Old Testament: \u201clike lmd (in Pi.) \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd means to \u2018form\u2019 or \u2018train\u2019 rather than to \u2018instruct.\u2019 What is communicated necessarily issues in action, for it is addressed not so much to the intellect as to the will; better still, it is addressed to the whole man.\u201d Furthermore, the syntactic structure of Ezekiel 36:27 (i.e., \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9 \u2026 \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1) is reflected by \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 in 1 Thessalonians 4:10. The syntax of the Greek in the Septuagint also matches perfectly that in the Hebrew text: \u201cI will act,\u201d says God, \u201cthat you may act.\u201d Thus, to know the Lord, to be taught by him, is to have his Spirit impel the believer to act, and the action specified in 1 Thessalonians 4 is to \u201clove one another.\u201d<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT IN DANIEL\u2019S SEVENTY WEEKS<\/p>\n
Daniel 9 is famous for the vision of the \u201cseventy weeks.\u201d Although the interpretation of the \u201cseventy weeks\u201d is greatly debated, we argue in detailed exegesis that this text directly predicts the coming of the Messiah and his atoning death as the basis of a new covenant for \u201cthe many\u201d who are united to him by faith. It also indicates that the Jewish people will reject their Messiah and, as a result, bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
\nUnfortunately, interpretation of this text has been troublesome, not only for average readers but for scholars as well. Many scholars have carefully analyzed the cultural and historical setting and the linguistic and textual data. Yet they have given insufficient attention to the literary macrostructures\u2014namely, the arrangement of the text\u2019s smaller sections and the meaning of that arrangement; the apocalyptic genre of the text; the relation of Daniel 9 to other texts in the Old Testament; and the metanarrative, or biblical-theological framework, crucial for making sense of any individual text. Thus, a failure to understand how apocalyptic and prophetic literature communicates has hindered the church, especially in the past century. Furthermore, instead of seeking to discover the larger story that correctly makes sense of the details in this text, a framework or metanarrative foreign to the text has been imposed on it. Finally, since the prophets themselves did not distinguish the \u201calready\u201d from the \u201cnot yet\u201d in regard to the first and second comings of the Messiah, we must pay attention to the teaching of Jesus and his apostles in order to correctly interpret the book of Daniel. We must learn from them what is already fulfilled and what is not yet fulfilled.
\nIn what follows we will focus first on the literary structure of the book of Daniel and how Daniel 9 fits into the literary structure of the book as a whole. Then, after an overview of chapter 9, we shall delve into exegetical issues such as the end of the exile, the literary structure of 9:25\u201327, and the chronological issues in the fulfillment of the prophecy. The relation of the visions in Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 to the \u201calready\u201d and \u201cnot yet,\u201d respectively, is important for correct interpretation. Thus, interpretation has to be evaluated in light of the use of Daniel in the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n
THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF DANIEL<\/p>\n
No aspect of the study of the text is harder to discern than the literary structure. Here we want to ask the question: In what form is this message given to us? What is the shape of the text? This question is as important as the music composed to accompany the lyrics. Lyrics alone do not convey the entire message; the message is also conveyed significantly by the music that is written for the lyrics. Likewise with Scripture, we are concerned not only with the content or the meaning of individual propositions in the text but with the form as well. We must explain the form and show how the literary structure conveys meaning. Nowhere is this more important than in apocalyptic literature (i.e., Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation).
\nOn the basis of content, one can easily divide the book of Daniel into six chapters of narratives and six chapters of visions. Although chapter divisions derive from the medieval period, in the case of the book of Daniel, they correspond for the most part to the grammatical and literary markers in the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n
Part 1: Six Stories
\n1. Daniel and friends in the court of Babylon
\n1
\n2. King\u2019s dream: The huge statue and a small stone
\n2
\n3. Daniel\u2019s friends rescued from a furnace (treachery)
\n3
\n4. King\u2019s dream: A huge tree (humbling)
\n4
\n5. Belshazzar and the writing on the wall (humbling)
\n5
\n6. Daniel rescued from the lion\u2019s den (treachery)
\n6
\nPart 2: Four Visions
\n1. A vision of Daniel: The beasts and the son of man
\n7
\n2. A vision of Daniel: The ram and the goat
\n8
\n3. A prayer of Daniel and vision of the seventy weeks
\n9
\n4. A vision of Daniel: The book of truth (about the future)
\n10\u201312<\/p>\n
Thus the book of Daniel consists of twelve chapters that divide equally into six narrative (1\u20136) and six visionary (7\u201312) chapters. In the Hebrew canon, Daniel follows the poetic section, which ends with Lamentations\u2014a book focused on the theme of exile. The narratives of Daniel 1\u20136 take up this theme of exile and describe how faith in the God of Israel, the one true and living God, is to be maintained in the face of defilement, idolatry, and prohibitions of prayer backed up by savage beasts, fire, and great persecution. The dreams and visions of chapters 7\u201312, apocalyptic in nature, give hope to the people of God. They show God in control of history through four periods of domination by foreign nations until a decisive end is made to rebellion and sin. This final blow is followed by a renewal of the broken covenant and the restoration of the Davidic king and temple with the establishment of God\u2019s kingdom as eternal and final.<\/p>\n
CHRONOLOGICAL LINKS<\/p>\n
How has the author arranged his material? An obvious possibility is chronology. The stories and visions, however, are not presented in chronological sequence. The visions of chapters 7 and 8 are given to Daniel before the events of chapters 5 and 6 occur; chronology interconnects and intertwines both parts.<\/p>\n
LINGUISTIC LINKS<\/p>\n
Another possibility is division according to language. The book of Daniel is bilingual: part is in Hebrew (1:1\u20132:4a; 8:1\u201312:13) and part in Aramaic (2:4b\u20137:28). This linguistic partition, however, does not match the division of stories and visions but rather ties the two tightly together since the section in Aramaic begins in the middle of the stories and continues partway into the section of visions.<\/p>\n
LITERARY LINKS<\/p>\n
Another possibility is an artistic or literary arrangement. James Hamilton has provided a constructive critique of earlier proposals I made, and based on his own study, he has argued for a chiastic arrangement to the different sections. An improved outline of Daniel is offered below, influenced in part by the analyses of Hamilton and Andrew Steinmann and in part by my own further study:<\/p>\n
a Prologue: Exile
\n1:1\u201321
\nb Four kingdoms followed by the kingdom of God
\n2:1\u201349
\nc Deliverance of the faithful from the fiery furnace.
\n3:1\u201330
\nd Humbling of proud Nebuchadnezzar
\n4:1\u201337
\nd\u2032 Humbling of proud Belshazzar
\n5:1\u201331
\nc\u2032 Deliverance of the faithful from the lion\u2019s den
\n6:1\u201328
\nb\u2032 Four kingdoms followed by the kingdom of God
\n7:1\u201328
\nc Expansions on kingdoms 2 and 3
\n8:1\u201327
\nd Vision concerning the end of the exile (kingdoms 4 and 5)
\n9:1\u201327
\nc\u2032 Expansions on kingdoms 3 and 4
\n10:1\u201311:45
\na\u2032 Epilogue: Return from exile
\n12:1\u201313<\/p>\n
Whether the chiastic arrangement offered by Hamilton or the above outline of the literary structure is criticized by other scholars, no one can deny the connection between chapters 2 and 7. This connection inextricably links the two sections of the stories and the visions.
\nThus, although the basic division of the book is six chapters of narratives and six chapters of visions, the visions are inextricably linked to the stories in Daniel 1\u20136 in three ways: (1) chronologically, (2) linguistically, and (3) structurally. Chapters 2 and 7 are dreams referring to the same thing, and the stories and visions are linked tightly together by sections that are thematically parallel. The book is a unity and comes from one author. What is the significance of this unity? It is just this: the first half of the book establishes and proves that Daniel has a gift of interpreting dreams and visions in events that could be verified independently by his contemporaries; therefore, we ought to believe and trust the predictions in the visions in the second half of the book, which deal with the distant future and therefore were not open to verification by Daniel\u2019s original audience.
\nIn addition, the first six chapters emphasize dominion and authority. First, the stone cut out from the mountain represents a kingdom that will endure forever (Dan. 2:44\u201345). Second, a Babylonian king was forced to recognize that the Most High God\u2019s dominion and kingdom are eternal (4:34), as was his son (chap. 5). And finally, we read about a Persian ruler (6:26) who acknowledges Daniel\u2019s God as sovereign. This emphasis on divine sovereignty prepares the reader for the description of God\u2019s control of future history through troubled times as portrayed in chapters 7\u201312.<\/p>\n
THE PLACE OF DANIEL 9 IN THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF DANIEL 7\u201312<\/p>\n
The literary structures are the key to interpretation. We need a clear view of the whole in order to understand the parts and their relationship to each other. First, we must grasp that the dream of chapter 2 and the vision of chapter 7 are at the center of the book and that they communicate the same message in different ways.
\nChapter 2 places a gigantic image of a man front and center in the Babylonian king\u2019s dream. Its head consists of gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, and its feet of iron and clay mixed together. It is struck down by a stone\u2014cut without hands from a mountain\u2014which then grows to fill the entire earth. According to the \u201cexplanation section\u201d (2:36\u201345), this dream predicts four successive human kingdoms succeeded by the kingdom of God, which will endure forever.
\nChapter 7 begins the second half of the book, in which the Babylonian king\u2019s dream is expanded in a series of visions presented like maps with blow-up inserts. Each successive vision is an enlargement of part of the previous vision, and each provides greater and greater detail of the same scene. Daniel, rather than the king, now dreams and sees four beasts coming out of the chaotic sea. Then, in a picture of the court of heaven, one like a son of man (i.e., a human being) is given the kingdom. This vision again foretells four successive human kingdoms succeeded by the kingdom of God.
\nThe books in the Hebrew canon are arranged with prophets and poets between large narrative sections. The prophets and poets are a commentary on the narrative. Thus the arrangement is narrative\u2014commentary\u2014narrative. Daniel is placed right at the spot where the narrative resumes after the commentary of the prophets and poets. This arrangement invites the reader to compare Daniel with Genesis, since both books begin the narrative sections.
\nThere are echoes and reminders of Genesis 1 in the dream of the king in chapter 2. The dream is really a parody of the divine creation, where God makes humans in the divine image to rule the world. Here in Daniel 2, this gigantic figure is made by human hands to rule the world. Pride, the original sin, is at the heart of the earthly kingdoms. A gigantic image brought down by a stone also recalls to mind another story in Scripture: David\u2019s confrontation with Goliath and resultant defeat of the giant with a small stone from the brook. Furthermore, the stone in the vision is cut out of a mountain without hands. In the Old Testament, the only stones \u201ccut without hands\u201d pertain to building the temple. Thus the stone is a symbol of the Davidic house, a play on words because it represents both a descendant of David and the temple. In Daniel 2, then, this stone is a Davidic stone that will grow to be a kingdom\/temple without borders.
\nThe first vision, in chapter 7, also recalls Genesis 1. Instead of a monstrous human image, a parody of the divine image, there is a parody of creation in Daniel 7, an anticreation, if you will. Like Genesis, at the beginning the Spirit or wind blows over the sea. But instead of the creation of light and land, culminating in the divine image, there emerges from the chaotic sea four beasts in succession, each one more horrifying than the previous, until the last one emerges\u2014a gruesome spectacle, the embodiment of evil. Each of the beasts are given authority to rule (Dan. 7:6, 12). The final, most bizarre and powerful of the creatures distinguishes itself with the faculty of proud speech, bringing to mind the beast that spoke at the beginning (Dan. 7:7\u20138; cf. Gen. 3:1\u20135).
\nThen the scene shifts from earth to heaven, and a court is sitting with a divine Judge on the throne, opening up books and pronouncing a verdict. When the verdict is rendered, the beast on earth is destroyed, and the others are also stripped of their authority. After this scene, an individual like a son of man (i.e., a human being) approaches the divine court in the clouds of heaven, and all power, rule, and honor is given to him. He rules over all the nations, and his kingdom endures forever. In this vision, the symbols are more complex. The beasts \/ human figure represent a heavenly ruler, an earthly ruler, and the people ruled in that kingdom all at the same time. The human figure is the house of David\u2014both a heavenly and an earthly ruler in one person. The human figure also represents his people as well as the new temple (based on the wordplay on \u201chouse\u201d in 2 Samuel 7).
\nAbove, it was noted that each vision successive to Daniel 7 is an enlargement of part of the central vision in chapters 2 and 7, and each vision provides greater and greater detail of the same scene. The vision of chapter 8 expands on the second and third kingdoms; the vision of chapter 9 expands on the fourth kingdom, followed by the kingdom of God. The vision of chapters 10\u201312 provides another expansion\u2014in greater and greater detail\u2014of events in the third and fourth kingdoms. The successive visions, then, allow the reader to \u201czoom in\u201d on the details\u2014as represented in figure 15.1 below.<\/p>\n
Figure 15.1 God\u2019s Progressive Revelation of Detail<\/p>\n
Note how the allocation of space to discussing Persia, Greece, and Rome changes between the second and fourth visions (see table 15.1).
\nWe now have a detailed road map through the maze of powers arrayed against the people of God throughout successive human kingdoms. One of my students created a diagram to show this development (see figure 15.2). Daniel 2 and 7 give us the basic map, whereas chapters 8; 9, and 10\u201312 are blowups of parts of the big map.
\nNote that chapters 7 and 8 contain \u201cvisions\u201d (i.e., events portrayed symbolically), and each vision is followed by an interpretation section. Chapters 9 and 10\u201312 are not symbolic visions; rather, they describe future events in plain speech, however abbreviated and cryptic the descriptions may seem. So chapters 9 and 10\u201312 are not presented as a symbolic vision plus an interpretation section. This diagram may be a bit too tidy to deal fully with the different focus of chapter 9 in relationship to the visions of chapters 7; 8; and 10\u201312.<\/p>\n
Table 15.1 God Reveals in Greater and Greater Detail
\nSecond Vision
\nFourth Vision
\nPersia
\nPersia
\n8:2\u20134
\n11:2
\n8:20
\nGreece
\nGreece
\nAlexander
\n8:5\u20138
\n11:3\u20134
\n8:21\u201322
\nLater kings
\n(Small horn)
\n11:5\u201335
\n8:9\u201314
\nRome
\n8:23\u201326
\n11:36\u201345<\/p>\n
Figure 15.2 God\u2019s Progressive Revelation in Daniel<\/p>\n
DETAILED OVERVIEW OF DANIEL 9<\/p>\n
We can now examine chapter 9, beginning by noting its literary structure:<\/p>\n
Outline of Daniel 9
\nA. The Motivation for Prayer
\n9:1\u20134a
\nB. Daniel\u2019s Prayer for Favor
\n9:4b\u201319
\n1. Invocation and confession
\n9:4b\u201314
\n2. Appeal for favor and mercy
\n9:15\u201319
\nC. Revelation through Divine Messenger
\n9:20\u201327
\n1. Occasion for angelic message
\n9:20\u201323
\n2. Vision of the seventy weeks
\n9:24\u201327<\/p>\n
SETTING OF THE VISION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS (DAN. 9:1)<\/p>\n
Daniel 9 begins in the usual way by giving a chronological notice. The date is the first year of Darius, \u201cwho was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom\u201d (9:1). This is significant, for this was the year in which the Persians conquered the Babylonians, whose empire, under Nebuchadnezzar, had defeated and exiled Judah many decades earlier. This was also the first year of Cyrus the Great, who gave the decree that permitted the exiles of Judah to return to their homeland.
\nNonetheless, chapter 9 is different in many ways. It begins with an extensive prayer by Daniel\u2014the only major prayer recorded by him in the book (cf. 2:20\u201323). Although the section includes a \u201cvision\u201d (9:23), the Hebrew word that describes it, mar\u2019eh, is different from the one that describes the earlier visions, \u1e25\u0101z\u00f4n (7:1; 8:2, 15; 9:23). There is no symbolic vision followed by an explanation section. There is only description in plain speech as in chapters 10\u201312. While one can describe chapter 9 as a blowup concerning the fourth kingdom and the kingdom of God, this vision has a different focus from the others, which proclaim a sequence of four human kingdoms followed by the kingdom of God. Instead, it is dealing with the question of the end of the exile. So interpretation of the vision of the seventy weeks must show how this is related to the other visions in Daniel 2; 7; 8; and 10\u201312.<\/p>\n
PRAYER MOTIVATED BY SCRIPTURE (DAN. 9:2\u20134A)<\/p>\n
Daniel\u2019s prayer is motivated by Scripture and based on Scripture. In 9:2\u20133, Daniel indicates that he understands by the word of the Lord given through the prophet Jeremiah that the length of time to complete and end the divine judgment of the exile is seventy years. Although Daniel could not give a particular reference as to the passage(s) he had in mind as we would do today, he is clearly thinking of Jeremiah 25:1\u201315 and 29:1\u201323.
\nHis prayer is also based on 1 Kings 8:33\u201334, 46\u201351, where Solomon outlines the necessity and possibility of praying toward the temple when the people sin, whereupon God will hear and forgive and bring the people back to the land.
\nThe prayer of Solomon is based in turn on Deuteronomy 30:1\u201310, where Moses promises a restoration from the covenant curse of exile, a restoration contingent on repentance for sin.<\/p>\n
ADDRESSING GOD (DAN. 9:4B)<\/p>\n
Daniel does not begin his prayer by requesting something. He begins by addressing God properly and by acknowledging his character and person. Daniel speaks of God as \u201cthe great and awesome God, who keeps the covenant and loyal love [\u1e25esed] for those who obey the requirements and terms of the covenant.\u201d The focus here is on God\u2019s loyal love within the covenant relationship. He does not quickly punish his people, and he stands ready to bless them when they obey his laws.<\/p>\n
CONFESSING SIN (DAN. 9:5\u201310)<\/p>\n
The next part of the prayer is devoted to confession of sin. Daniel is not concerned to demonstrate his own personal innocence and piety. Instead, he completely and fully identifies with his people and acknowledges their sin. He confesses that God\u2019s people have not obeyed his commands but instead have rebelled against him. They have not listened to the warnings of the prophets who were sent to persuade them to change their attitudes and behavior to conform to the directions and instructions for their lifestyle given by God in the covenant. The prophets are like the lawyers of the covenant. When the covenant is broken, they appear in order to accuse the people with the ultimate intention of restoring their love and faithfulness to God. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many others were used by God to carry the message of warning and repentance, but they went largely unheeded.
\nThe prophets were sent, according to Daniel, to all strata of society\u2014from kings to common people. None of them, however, responded. Rather, they persisted in their foolish and perilous rebellion.
\nNext, Daniel marks a contrast between the sin of the people and the mercy of God: God is faithful; his people are rebellious. The prophet is brutally honest in acknowledging the responsibility of God\u2019s people for their present dire condition. They are in exile because they have rebelled against the covenant that God made with them through Moses.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S PUNISHMENT (DAN. 9:11\u201314)<\/p>\n
Then, in verses 11\u201314 of his prayer, Daniel draws a direct connection between the sin of the people and their present suffering (cf. Lam. 2:2\u20135). The present suffering is due to the curses promised to those who violated the covenant (Deut. 28:15\u201368).<\/p>\n
APPEALING FOR COMPASSION AND MERCY (DAN. 9:15\u201319)<\/p>\n
Finally, Daniel calls on God, as the one who delivered his people out of Egypt, to lift the covenantal curse and to restore the city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary. The exodus was a pivotal event in the life of God\u2019s people. It defined them as a nation. Through it, God freed them from slavery and brought them into the Promised Land. The prophets before Daniel saw an analogy between the exodus and the future deliverance that would free them from the shackles of the exile (cf. Isa. 40:3\u20135; Hos. 2:14\u201315). In essence, the return from the exile would be a second exodus, a new exodus.<\/p>\n
GOD\u2019S RESPONSE: THE VISION OF SEVENTY WEEKS (DAN. 9:20\u201327)<\/p>\n
As Daniel 9:20\u201323 shows, the brief message supplied by vision in 9:24\u201327 constitutes a direct divine response by way of an angelic messenger to the appeal and request Daniel made on the basis of Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy. What follows is a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text to show how the numerous problems in the text have been understood. Space does not allow us to treat all the exegetical issues fully.<\/p>\n
Literal Translation of Daniel 9:20\u201327<\/p>\n
And I was still speaking and interceding in prayer and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my plea for favor before the LORD my God to fall on the holy mountain of my God. I was still speaking in the petition, when the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning\u2014while I was made weary by fatigue\u2014was touching me, about the time of the evening offering. And he explained and spoke with me and said, \u201cDaniel, I have now come to give you clear insight. At the beginning of your supplications a word went out, and I came to declare [it], for you are beloved. So pay attention to the word and consider the vision:
\n\u201cSeventy sevens are determined for your people and your holy city, to end wrongdoing, and to finish with sin, and to atone for guilt\/iniquity, and to bring in eternal righteousness, and to seal up prophetic vision, and to anoint a most holy place\/person, so you must know and understand, from the issuing of a word to rebuild Jerusalem until an Anointed One, a leader, are seven sevens and sixty-two sevens. It will be rebuilt in square and trench and in distressing times. And after the sixty-two sevens, an Anointed One will be cut off but not for himself, and the people of the coming leader will ruin\/spoil the city and the sanctuary, and its end will come with a flood. And until the end war\u2014desolations are what is decided. And he will bring into force a covenant with the many in one [final] seven, and at the half of the seven he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease, and on a wing of abominations is one bringing desolation and until an end and what is decided gushes out on the one being desolated.\u201d<\/p>\n
PUNCTUATION IN THE HEBREW BIBLE<\/p>\n
Among many difficulties encountered in lexical and syntactic issues facing the translator, the most problematic is the clause division in Daniel 9:25. According to the accents in the Masoretic Text, \u201cseven sevens\u201d belongs to the first sentence, while \u201csixty-two sevens,\u201d along with the conjunction preceding this noun phrase (i.e., \u201cand sixty-two sevens\u201d), begins a new clause. One could argue that beginning a new sentence with the conjunction and noun phrase before the imperfect verb t\u0101\u0161\u00fbb (from the hendiadys for \u201cit will be rebuilt\u201d) is a natural reading according to the rules of syntax in Hebrew. Moreover, if the author desired to delineate sixty-nine weeks, why not just say so specifically? Why divide the period into seven and sixty-two weeks? On the other hand, according to the rules of macrosyntax, beginning a clause by t\u0101\u0161\u00fbb without a conjunction (asyndeton) would signal a comment or explanation on the previous sentence rather than supply new information. An explanation for dividing the period into seven and sixty-two can be given (see below), but the problems of interpretation arising from following the accents in the Masoretic Text are insurmountable. Who is to be identified as the Anointed One after seven weeks? Further, the most natural reading is to identify \u201cAnointed One\u201d and \u201cleader\u201d in 9:25 with the same terms in 9:26, but this identification is not possible according to the division in the Masoretic Text. In a detailed historical study, Roger Beckwith has demonstrated that the clause division represented by the Masoretic Text represents a reaction against messianic interpretation of the text, while the clause division accepted in the translation above follows the Septuagint, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the Syriac Peshitta. Thus the clause division adopted here is both strongly and widely supported early in the textual tradition.<\/p>\n
UNDERSTANDING THE END OF THE EXILE<\/p>\n
In order to grasp properly the request as raised by Daniel and the answer as provided through the vision of the seventy weeks, we need to understand the prophetic teaching concerning the end of the exile.
\nAccording to the context, Daniel is concerned about the end of the exile. God\u2019s people had broken the covenant (Exodus 19\u201324 \/ Deuteronomy), and as a result, the covenant curses had fallen on them. The final curse or judgment was exile (Deut. 28:63\u201368). Nonetheless, exile was not the last word; God had a plan from the start for his people to return (Deut. 30:1\u201310). Isaiah indicates that the return from exile entails two separate stages: (1) return from Babylon to the land of Israel, and (2) return from covenant violation to a right relationship to God so that the covenant relationship is renewed and restored (see Isa. 42:14\u201343:21 and 43:22\u201344:23, respectively). The first stage is the physical return from exile. But as previously noted, \u201cYou can get the people out of Babylon, but how do you get Babylon out of the people?\u201d The physical return from exile gets the people out of Babylon, but the problem of getting Babylon out of the people must be dealt with by a second stage. The second stage is the spiritual return from exile: it deals with the problem of sin and brings about forgiveness and reconciliation in a renewed covenant between Yahweh and his people. According to the structure of Isaiah\u2019s message, Cyrus is the agent for the return from Babylon, and the servant of the Lord is the agent for the return from sin. Thus there are two distinct agents, and they correspond to the two distinct parts of the redemption that brings about the end of the exile. This can be clearly seen in the structure of Isaiah 38\u201355, as outlined previously:<\/p>\n
Overview of Isaiah 38\u201355
\na Historical prologue\u2014Hezekiah\u2019s fatal choice
\n38:1\u201339:8
\nb Universal consolation
\n40:1\u201342:17
\n1. The consolation of Israel
\n40:1\u201341:20
\n2. The consolation of the Gentiles
\n41:21\u201342:17
\nc Promises of redemption
\n42:18\u201344:23
\n1. Release
\n42:18\u201343:21
\n2. Forgiveness
\n43:22\u201344:23
\nc\u2032 Agents of redemption
\n44:24\u201353:12
\n1. Cyrus: liberation
\n44:24\u201348:22
\n2. Servant: atonement
\n49:1\u201353:12
\nb\u2032 Universal proclamation
\n54:1\u201355:13
\n1. The call to Zion
\n54:1\u201317
\n2. The call to the world
\n55:1\u201313<\/p>\n
Daniel\u2019s prayer is focused on the physical return from Babylon\u2014the first stage in redemption\u2014but the angelic message and vision of the seventy weeks are focused on the forgiveness of sins and renewal of covenant and righteousness\u2014the second stage in return from exile. Note the six purposes of the message and vision in Daniel 9:24:<\/p>\n
Three Negative Purposes<\/p>\n
1. To end wrongdoing
\n2. To do away with sin
\n3. To atone for guilt\/iniquity<\/p>\n
Three Positive Purposes<\/p>\n
4. To bring in everlasting righteousness
\n5. To seal up prophetic vision
\n6. To anoint the most holy place or person<\/p>\n
When one considers the plan of redemption as outlined by Isaiah, clearly the angelic message is concerned not with the first stage but with the second stage of return: the forgiveness of sins and restoration of a right relationship to God.
\nThe end of the exile is frequently portrayed in terms of the exodus. Just as God brought his people out of Egypt in that great event known as the exodus, so he will now bring about a new exodus in bringing his people back from exile. In fact, many aspects of the return from exile parallel the original exodus. In Ezekiel 4:4\u20136, for example, the prophet is instructed to lie on one side for 390 days for the sin of Israel and on the other side for 40 days for the sin of Judah: in each case a day for each year. The sum of 390 and 40 is 430\u2014exactly the length of the period of bondage in Egypt. What is being portrayed by the drama of Ezekiel is that just as the people endured a period of bondage in Egypt before God brought about the exodus, so now will they endure a long period of foreign overlords before he brings about the new exodus. Outside of Daniel 9, this longer period of subjugation before the new exodus is referred to as the \u201ctime of wrath\u201d (Dan. 8:19 NIV).
\nThe vision of Daniel 9 communicates the same truth. From the prophecy of Jeremiah, Daniel expects a literal period of seventy years for the exile to be completed. This seventy-year period apparently begins with the attack of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC and extends to the edict of Cyrus the Great in 537 BC permitting the Jews to return. When Daniel brings this issue to God in prayer, the answer is that this seventy-year period deals only with the first stage of the return from exile. Before the new exodus, there will be a longer period of exile. Thus the real return from exile\u2014a return including the forgiveness of sins, renewal of the covenant, and consecration of the temple\u2014will take not just seventy years but rather seventy \u201csevens,\u201d that is, a much longer time. This fundamental point of the vision has unfortunately escaped the attention of both dispensational and nondispensational theologians in the last hundred years.
\nAlthough the focus of the message is on the city and the people (Jerusalem and Israel), there are broader implications for the nations. This passage must be seen in the light of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. The Abrahamic covenant promised blessings for the nations through the family of Abraham (Gen. 12:1\u20133). The Mosaic covenant directed and instructed the family of Abraham as to how to live in a right relationship with God, a right relationship with one another in covenant community, and a right relationship to the earth (as stewards of the creation), so that they could be a blessing to the nations (Exodus 19\u201324). With the Mosaic covenant broken, Israel now needs the forgiveness of sins so that the covenant is renewed and the blessings can flow to the nations. Thus, the final and real return from exile is achieved by dealing effectively with Israel\u2019s rebellion: the first objective in the list of six is to end \u201cthe rebellion\u201d\u2014namely, that of Israel. Then the blessing can flow to the nations, and this blessing finds fulfillment in the apostolic preaching of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when each one turns from their wicked ways (Acts 3:26). In this way, the second stage of return from exile has implications specifically for Israel but also universally, for the nations.<\/p>\n
THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF DANIEL 9:25\u201327<\/p>\n
Daniel 9:25\u201327 is not to be read in a linear manner according to the logic of prose in the Western world, based on a Greek and Roman heritage. Instead, the approach in ancient Hebrew literature, as we have noted previously, is to take up a topic and develop it from a particular perspective and then to stop and begin anew, taking up the same theme again from another point of view. This approach is repetitive but also creates ideas that are full-orbed or like 3-D images. It is like hearing music from stereo speakers sequentially instead of simultaneously. First comes the music of the right speaker; then comes the music of the left speaker. And then the person hearing or reading puts the two together into a three-dimensional whole.
\nDaniel 9:25 introduces the first period of seven weeks and the uneventful period of sixty-two weeks to the climactic seventieth week. This last week is described twice in 9:26 and 9:27. Verses 26a and 27a describe the work of the Messiah in dying vicariously to bring into force a covenant with \u201cthe many\u201d and to deal decisively with sin, thus ending the sacrificial system. Verses 26b and 27b show that, ironically, supreme sacrilege against the temple at this time will result in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. Thus 9:26\u201327 has an a\u2013b\u2013a\u2032\u2013b\u2032 structure. This fits the normal pattern in Hebrew literature to deal with a topic recursively. The literary structure can be diagrammed as follows:<\/p>\n
a The beneficial work of the Messiah
\n26a
\nb The ruination of the city by his people
\n26b
\na\u2032 The beneficial work of the Messiah
\n27a
\nb\u2032 The destruction of the city by one causing desolation (via abomination)
\n27b<\/p>\n
Observing this literary structure is crucial because one can explain difficulties in one section using the parallel section. For example, \u201cthe people of the coming leader\u201d in 9:26b bring ruin to the reconstructed Jerusalem. And 9:27b provides further details showing that the \u201cone causing desolation\u201d does so in association with an extreme abomination. Below we will see how this makes perfect sense of the role played by both Jewish and Roman people in the fall of the temple. The literary structure also clarifies how the terms m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 and n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25 and 9:26 refer to one and the same individual and moreover makes perfect sense of the \u201cbringing into force a covenant\u201d in 9:27a.<\/p>\n
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SEVENTY \u201cWEEKS\u201d<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word for \u201cweek\u201d in Daniel 9 is \u0161\u0101v\u00fba. It may refer to a period of seven days, like the English word week (Gen. 29:27, 28 [cf. Judg. 14:12; Tob. 11:19]; Lev. 12:5; Deut. 16:9 [2\u00d7]; Jer. 5:24; Ezek. 45:21; Dan. 10:2, 3). Still referring to a period of seven days, it occurs in the phrase \u201cFeast of Weeks\u201d (Ex. 34:22; Deut. 16:10, 16; 2 Chron. 8:13; and without the headword \u201cfeast,\u201d Num. 28:26). It also occurs in Daniel 9:24, 25 [2\u00d7], 26, and 27 [2\u00d7], apparently referring to a period of seven but not seven days. This is clear from the occurrences in Daniel 10:2 and 3, where we find the phrase \u201cweek of days,\u201d because the author wants to return to the literal and normal use of the word \u201cweek.\u201d Daniel 10:2 and 3 are the only instances of the phrase \u201cweek of days\u201d in the Old Testament, a phrase required by the context in proximity to chapter 9, where the word has a different sense.
\nThe number seventy is clearly connected by the context (Dan. 9:2) to Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy concerning the end of the exile (Jer. 25:1\u201315; 29:1\u201323). Chronicles explains the fulfillment of Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy of seventy years as lasting \u201cuntil the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths\u201d (2 Chron. 36:21 ESV). Chronicles explicitly connects the seventy years of exile to the principle of sabbatical years, although this is not spelled out by Jeremiah. The explanation given in Chronicles is based squarely on Leviticus 26:34\u201335 (cf. 26:40\u201345):<\/p>\n
Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate, while you are in your enemies\u2019 land; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it lies desolate it shall have rest, the rest that it did not have on your Sabbaths when you were dwelling in it. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Paul Williamson is therefore right on target when he correlates the \u201cseventy sevens\u201d with sabbatical years and the jubilee:<\/p>\n
The \u201cseventy sevens\u201d chronography is probably best understood against the background of Jewish sabbatical years, and the Jubilee year in particular (cf. Lev. 24:8; 25:1\u20134; 26:43; cf. 2 Chr. 36:21). Thus understood, the seventy sevens constitutes ten jubilee years, the last (the seventieth seven) signifying the ultimate Jubilee (cf. Isa. 61:2). Given the Jeremianic context that prompted this revelation (Dan. 9:2; cf. Jer. 25:11\u201312; 29:10), some explicit association between this climactic Jubilee and the anticipated new covenant is not unexpected.<\/p>\n
Thus the \u201csevens\u201d or \u201cweeks\u201d are periods or units of seven years, or sabbaticals. Understood this way, the \u201cseventy sevens\u201d constitute ten jubilees, the last (the seventieth seven) signifying the ultimate jubilee. In Luke 4, when Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah, he sees the ultimate jubilee promised in Isaiah 61:2 as being fulfilled in his own life and ministry.
\nRetributive justice, the foundation of divine righteousness in the Mosaic covenant, requires a symmetry to the experience and history of the nation of Israel. The period of time from the beginning of the Israelite kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem is essentially seventy sabbaticals. Then come seventy years of exile, a period when the land enjoys its Sabbath rests. This is followed by seventy sabbaticals, before the exile is finally over (see table 15.2).<\/p>\n
Table 15.2 A Symmetry of Sabbaths in Israelite History
\nSeventy sabbaticals
\nSeventy years of exile
\nSeventy sabbaticals
\n= Cause of exile
\n= Sabbaths for the land
\n= Solution to exile<\/p>\n
Thus the amount of time required to resolve the problem of Israel\u2019s sin is precisely the same amount of time it took to create the problem in the first place.<\/p>\n
THE DIVISION OF THE WEEKS AND THE STARTING POINT<\/p>\n
Interpretation requires a chronology of seventy sabbaticals that corresponds appropriately to the divisions of the seventy \u201cweeks\u201d specified in the text and also allows the details concerning the events and persons predicted for these times to be easily identified. According to Daniel 9:25\u201327, the period of seventy sabbaticals is divided into three parts: seven sabbaticals in which the city of Jerusalem is rebuilt (9:25), sixty-two sabbaticals in which nothing noteworthy or remarkable happens in relation to the purposes specified in this vision, and the climactic seventieth sabbatical, when a covenant is made and offerings and sacrifices are ended, somehow in connection with extreme sacrilege to the temple and someone who causes desolation (9:27). As Daniel Block similarly notes,<\/p>\n
Despite the textual problems raised by these verses, the focus of attention in this seventieth week of years is on an Anointed One, who is \u201ccut off, but not for himself.\u201d Ironically, within the very week that the root problem of Israel\u2019s exile (sin) is solved through the death of the Messiah, the city of Jerusalem is destroyed.<\/p>\n
In the history of interpretation, four possible dates for the beginning of the period of seventy weeks have been proposed:<\/p>\n
1. 586 BC = God\u2019s word at the fall of Jerusalem (Jer. 25:11\u201312; 29:10)
\n2. 537 BC = Cyrus\u2019s word allowing the return from exile (2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:1\u20134)
\n3. 457 BC = Artaxerxes\u2019s commission to Ezra (Ezra 7:11\u201326)
\n4. 444 BC = Artaxerxes\u2019s commission to Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1\u20136)<\/p>\n
The first proposal is the least likely. The \u201cword\u201d coming from Jeremiah is actually dated by Jeremiah 25:1 to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 605 BC, and predicts the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Beginning the seventy sabbaticals at either date does not yield a satisfactory solution for the three periods of time or the events occurring in them and the identity of the Anointed One.
\nMany scholars opt for the fourth proposal because Artaxerxes\u2019s commission to Nehemiah specifically entails building the walls, and this accounts for the word to rebuild Jerusalem. Yet this proposal faces many problems. It requires that the Messiah be cut off in the sixty-ninth sabbatical and leaves the seventieth sabbatical in Daniel 9:27 unexplained. This option also simply does not work if we are counting sabbaticals and years in a literal sense. To make this proposal work, Harold Hoehner, one of its most able proponents, uses so-called \u201cprophetic years\u201d of 360 days but with scant support for such a calendrical definition or evidence that this is typical in prophetic predictions. Scholars who argue that the death of the Messiah occurs in the sixty-ninth sabbatical explain that \u201cafter sixty-nine weeks\u201d really means \u201cin the sixty-ninth week\u201d in ordinary language or reckoning of the time. Such an argument constitutes special pleading.
\nAccording to Ezra 1:1\u20134 and 2 Chronicles 36:23, the \u201cword\u201d of Cyrus in 537 BC is focused on building a house for the Lord at Jerusalem. This word matches perfectly the prophecies of Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13, which predict Cyrus giving leadership to rebuild the city and temple of Jerusalem. Cyrus\u2019s divinely appointed purpose (Ezra 1:2) led him to allow the people to return to accomplish this task (1:3). After the altar was rebuilt and foundations were laid for the new temple, opposition brought the work to a halt. A decree of Darius allowed it to be finished (Ezra 6), spurred on by the ministries of Haggai and Zechariah. In Ezra 7, the \u201cword\u201d of Artaxerxes (ca. 457 BC) is focused on support for the new temple. Yet Ezra 6:14 speaks of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes as though they issued a single decree. Darius\u2019s decree (Ezra 6) was based on the fact that Cyrus had already issued the decree to permit the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem (see 5:17\u20136:7). Darius\u2019s decree was therefore a renewal (6:6\u20137) and an expansion (6:8\u201312) of Cyrus\u2019s original decree (6:3\u20135). Ezra 6:14 shows that Artaxerxes\u2019s decree to Ezra (in Ezra 7) is also an extension of Cyrus\u2019s original decree. So the decree that Cyrus drafted in 537 BC to restore the temple is not completed until 457 BC under Artaxerxes, which is therefore the date of the \u201cword to rebuild Jerusalem,\u201d starting with its sanctuary. Artaxerxes\u2019s commission to Nehemiah in 444 BC is not connected to Cyrus\u2019s decree in Ezra 6:14 because the decree of Ezra 6:14 has to do specifically with rebuilding the temple, not the walls, of Jerusalem. No doubt the rebuilding of the city was incomplete until Nehemiah restored the walls, but rebuilding the city and rebuilding the temple were one and the same thing to the Jewish people (cf. Isa. 44:28).
\nThe year 457 BC, then, is the correct date to begin marking off the seventy sabbaticals because this \u201cword\u201d to rebuild the city is associated with the return of Ezra and the reestablishing of the judiciary, central to the concept of a city (Ezra 7:25, 26). Ezra is a central figure in the return. (As already noted, the commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra connects with the earlier contributions of Cyrus and Darius.) In addition, the book of Nehemiah (not separate from Ezra in the Hebrew canon) is about rebuilding and restoring the city of God. While Nehemiah 1\u20136 focuses on restoring the city in physical terms, Nehemiah 7\u201313 focuses on restoring the city as a group of people devoted to the service and worship of their God. So rebuilding the city for Nehemiah is not merely about bricks and mortar. Daniel had computed the first year of Cyrus (537 BC) as the end of the exile, according to Daniel 9:1\u20132. Ezra 1:1\u20134 acknowledges Cyrus as the fulfillment of Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy. But it seems that the point of the vision of seventy weeks is to mark a beginning after the word of Cyrus in 537 BC. Thus Ezra\u2019s return commissioned by Artaxerxes is the next possible point. More importantly, the command in 457 BC is actually at the beginning of a sabbatical cycle. When one begins the computation from this point, the three periods of the seventy weeks and the events and personae associated with them fit both precisely and simply. First, the literary structure of the text must be observed; then the explanation of the chronology and events is straightforward (see table 15.3).<\/p>\n
Table 15.3 The Division of the Weeks
\nSeven weeks
\nSixty-two weeks
\nFinal week
\nJerusalem rebuilt
\nNothing of importance
\nArrival of Messiah\/leader<\/p>\n
THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY<\/p>\n
Daniel 9:25 speaks of the issuing of a word (or command) to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah, the leader, comes, as a period consisting of (1) seven and (2) sixty-two sevens. During the seven weeks, the city is rebuilt fully with plaza and town moat. The sentence \u201cIt will be rebuilt with plaza and trench and in distressing times\u201d has no sentence connector (asyndeton) and thus, according to discourse grammar, indicates a comment on the previous statement that specifies the time. This clause adds the comment that the city will be fully restored and that the restoration will occur during distressing times. The seven sabbaticals cover the period roughly 457\u2013407 BC and include the efforts of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. If one uses the command of either Cyrus in 537 BC or Artaxerxes in 444 BC as a beginning point, the period of approximately fifty years does not correspond well to our records of the history of Israel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
\nThen for sixty-two sevens, there is nothing significant to record as far as God\u2019s plan is concerned. There is a good reason, then, for dividing the sixty-nine weeks into seven and sixty-two weeks: in the sixty-nine weeks to the time of the Messiah, active reconstruction of the city and temple occupies only the first seven weeks.
\nWhen the \u201cword to restore Jerusalem\u201d is understood to refer to the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC, the passing of sixty-nine sabbaticals, or weeks of years, brings the time to AD 27. The calculation of sabbatical years in Israel for antiquity is based on evidence from Maccabees, Josephus, inscriptions, the Talmud, and Maimonides. The standard treatment derives from Benedict Zuckermann in 1866. More recently, Ben Zion Wacholder has analyzed the data differently and provided a table of sabbatical years from 519 BC to AD 441. Here I follow the standard view of Benedict Zuckermann (based on Bob Pickle\u2019s critique of Wacholder), although the difference between the chronologies reconstructed by these two scholars is only one year. Thus, the seventieth sabbatical is from AD 27 to 34 following Zuckermann or from AD 28 to 35 following Wacholder.
\nHalfway through this time\u2014AD 31\u2014the Messiah is cut off but not for himself. Astonishingly, he dies, but his death is vicarious. The phrase \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d5, commonly rendered \u201cand he will have nothing\u201d is better translated \u201cbut not for himself\u201d (Dan. 9:26). The quasi-verbal \u05d0\u05d9\u05df in Late Biblical Hebrew can function precisely as the Standard Biblical Hebrew negative \u05dc\u05d0. The point in the vision is that the coming king dies vicariously for his people.
\nSerious students of Scripture have not always agreed on the date of the crucifixion. Robert Newman, John Bloom, and Hugh Gauch have an excellent response for this issue:<\/p>\n
In any case, if the traditional scheme for the location of the sabbatical cycles is followed instead of Wacholder\u2019s, the 69th cycle shifts by only one year, to AD 27\u201334, which still fits equally well. Likewise an error by a year or two on either end\u2014for Artaxerxes\u2019s 20th year or the date of the crucifixion\u2014would not change the result. The prediction fits Jesus even allowing for the largest possible uncertainties in chronology.<\/p>\n
Thus, by employing sabbaticals, the prophecy remains an astounding prediction finding fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth and yet allows for differences as well in calculating the crucifixion. The crucifixion is almost always dated between AD 27 and 34.
\nIf we put Daniel 9:26a and 27a together\u2014as the literary structure based on the pattern of repetition in Hebrew literature demands\u2014the vicarious death of the coming king brings about making a covenant with \u201cthe many,\u201d almost certainly \u201cthe many\u201d referred to in Isaiah 53:10\u201312. Without a doubt, Isaiah 53, describing a future Davidic king and servant of the Lord, who is also both priest and sacrifice, laying down his life for the many, is the background to the brief comment in Daniel\u2019s vision. His death will bring an end to the sacrificial system because it is a final solution to the problem of sin. The expression \u201che put in force a covenant\u201d occurs only here in the entire Old Testament. Nonetheless, what are we to make of the expression \u201chigb\u00eer b\u0115r\u00eet\u201d (\u201cto put in force a covenant\u201d) in Daniel 9:27?
\nOne explanation is that the phrase should be translated \u201che will confirm (make strong) a covenant with the many.\u201d If this is Jesus the Messiah, it could refer to the fact that he kept fully the Mosaic covenant.
\nThe best explanation is one proposed by Jason Parry. He notes that the construction higb\u00eer b\u0115r\u00eet in Daniel 9:27 is similar to the Aramaic expression tqp (pa\u201cel = \u201cstrengthen\u201d) plus \u2019\u0115s\u0101r (\u201cinjunction\u201d or \u201cprohibition\u201d), that is, \u201cto put in force an injunction.\u201d This Aramaic expression occurs in 6:7 (6:8 MT), where the enemies of Daniel want the king to create a new law that they wish to use to trap Daniel, and is parallel to the expression \u201cenact a statute.\u201d Moreover, a cognate adjective of tqp in Imperial Aramaic and Nabataean has the meaning \u201clawful\u201d or \u201clegitimate.\u201d Thus, though the basic meaning of tqp in the pa\u201cel is \u201cstrengthen,\u201d a meaning like \u201cmake lawful\u201d is appropriate, especially when the object is \u201cinjunction.\u201d The Hebrew expression higb\u00eer b\u0115r\u00eet in 9:27 could be viewed, therefore, as a calque of the Aramaic expression in 6:7 and, as a result, would be equivalent in meaning to k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, that is, initiating a covenant rather than upholding an existing commitment or promise. The covenant of 9:27 is the new covenant, which was effected by the sacrificial death of the Messiah in order to restore the broken covenantal relationship between God and his people.
\nIronically, at the same time that the Messiah comes and effects a final solution for sin, 9:26b says that the people of the coming ruler will destroy the city and the sanctuary. There is no grammatical issue in identifying object and subject in this sentence. The meaning of the sentence is clear and straightforward. The coming ruler must be the Messiah of 9:25 according to the context and normal rules of literature. Therefore \u201cthe people of the coming ruler\u201d are the Jewish people. The statement is telling us that it is the Jewish people who will ruin\/spoil the restored city and temple at the arrival of their coming king. Historical records confirm that this is precisely right. We have firsthand accounts of the fall of Jerusalem from the first century in The Wars of the Jews by Josephus. Anyone who has read and studied these texts will understand the author\u2019s point. Although the Roman army actually put the torch to Jerusalem, the destruction of the city was blamed squarely on the Jewish people themselves. Josephus wrote his work to try to exonerate the masses by blaming the few, namely, the Zealots. Thus, he wanted people to believe that the fall of Jerusalem was not the fault of the people as a whole but rather was due to a few extreme rebels who brought down the wrath of Rome on them. So Josephus is adequate historical proof that the destruction of Jerusalem was entirely the fault of the Jewish people, just as Daniel 9:26b predicts. Since few interpreters find it possible to accept the straightforward statement of the text, ingenious alternative proposals are multiplied. These cannot be detailed here except to say that many of them assume rather unnaturally that the \u201cruler\u201d in 9:26 is different from the one in 9:25, when 9:25 clearly connects the \u201cruler\u201d with the \u201cAnointed One,\u201d and no contextual signals exist to suggest that this is a different person.
\nMoreover, the literary structure of Daniel 9:26\u201327 helps to explain the cryptic phrase in 9:26b, since 9:27b returns to the topic of the destruction of the restored Jerusalem and elaborates on it, providing further details and information. Verse 26b states that the \u201cpeople of the coming ruler\u201d ruin the city and sanctuary. The Jewish people are responsible for destroying city and temple. Verse 27b explains how this works: \u201cOn a hem\/skirt or extremity of abomination(s) is one causing desolation.\u201d The word frequently translated \u201cwing\u201d can also mean \u201cedge, hem, skirt\u201d or \u201ccorner, end, edge, extremity.\u201d This might refer to the robe of the high priest as a \u201chem of abomination,\u201d or if \u201cextremity\u201d is intended, it might mean on \u201cthe basis of extreme abomination(s).\u201d A similar expression, but not exactly the same, is used to predict the act of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 in desecrating the temple. Here in 9:27b, however, the agent of abomination is the Jewish people, not a foreign ruler.
\nIn understanding what this act refers to, we need to remember that the Gospels present Jesus as both genuine Messiah and true temple:<\/p>\n
So the Jews said to him, \u201cWhat sign do you show us for doing these things?\u201d Jesus answered them, \u201cDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d The Jews then said, \u201cIt has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?\u201d But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:18\u201322 ESV)<\/p>\n
Also recall that the paralytic lowered through the roof by four friends, for example, was not only healed but was also forgiven of his sins. This angered the leaders because Jesus was claiming to do something that could happen only at the temple; thus he was claiming to be the true temple. So when the Jewish people rejected Jesus as the Anointed One \/ Messiah and the high priest blasphemed Jesus, who was the true temple, the Herodian temple supported by the Jewish people had to fall, and the city had to be destroyed.
\nThe \u201cone causing desolation\u201d (9:27b) is responsible for the \u201cwar\u201d in 9:26b since there it is the war that brings about \u201cdesolations.\u201d Moreover, \u201cdesolations\u201d in Daniel\u2019s prayer (9:17\u201318) are the result of a foreign nation that was brought against Israel for breaking the covenant (e.g., Lev. 26:31\u201335). The \u201cabomination\u201d refers to the high priest rejecting Jesus, the true temple. It could also refer to the abominations that resulted from the struggle between John, Simon, and Eleazar (\u201cpeople of the coming ruler\u201d) for control of Jerusalem, and thus the \u201cwar\u201d would refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Vespasian\/Titus (the \u201cone causing desolation\u201d). The \u201cone causing desolation\u201d (either Titus or, perhaps, the Jewish people, as in Dan. 9:26b) does so \u201cbecause of extreme abominations\u201d (the high priest \/ Zealots). At the end of 9:27b, \u201cthe one being desolated\u201d is certainly the Jewish people. Jesus\u2019s mention of the \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d in the Olivet Discourse supports this understanding since he is speaking of the abominations of the high priest during his trial (or of John of Gischala during the Jewish war with Rome in AD 66\u201370), which forewarns of the impending \u201cdesolation\u201d of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans.
\nAccording to 9:26b, this destruction is something that would happen after the sixty-ninth sabbatical. In 9:27b, there is nothing stated that actually requires the desolation of Jerusalem to happen precisely in the seventieth week, although this event is associated with the events happening at that time. Thus, the fall of Jerusalem sometime later does fit suitably because it is the final outworking of the Jewish response to Jesus in the seventieth week. When the Jewish people rejected the Messiah and the high priest blasphemed Jesus, the true temple, the Herodian temple had to fall, and the city had to be destroyed. The coming destruction, symbolized by the curtain being torn, finally came to pass in AD 70, within the time of the generation that committed this sacrilege.
\nNor can the interpretation proposed here be accused of being contrary to texts in the New Testament. What may be at stake is our interpretation of New Testament texts with which we want to make our interpretation of Daniel 9 cohere. The approach to Daniel 9 advanced here may fit well with various views of texts such as Matthew 24 and Mark 13 or 2 Thessalonians 2:3\u201313 and Revelation 13 and 17. We have not appealed to Josephus over against these texts; rather, we have used Josephus as a source of historical information in the same way that we use 1-2 Maccabees to demonstrate that certain predictions in Daniel were fulfilled by Antiochus IV.
\nBy way of summary, the context strongly suggests that n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25 and 9:26 refers to the same individual. Second, the literary structure of the text does not suggest connecting 9:27a to 9:26b. Third, the larger literary structure of Daniel as a whole is against this view. Chapter 7 entails a vision of four successive kingdoms followed by the kingdom of God. In the fourth kingdom there is a ruler who is boastful against God (7:8) and oppresses the saints (7:25). In the \u201cblowup maps\u201d or \u201czooming in\u201d of chapters 8 and 10\u201312 that expand on the basic vision of chapter 7, there is a ruler who sets himself against the prince of the host (8:12\u201314). This ruler is clearly in the Greek kingdom, according to 8:21. The last vision of chapters 10\u201312 expands further on 8:12\u201314 and speaks of the abomination causing desolation (11:31; 12:11), ultimately fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a ruler within the Greek kingdom. Since we would identify the fourth kingdom as Roman and the third as Greek, it is problematic to relate 7:8, which belongs to the fourth empire, to 11:31 and 12:11, which belong to the third. That consideration aside, we can see from the literary structure of the book that the vision of the seventy weeks is by virtue of its content not directly related to the three visions portraying the sequence of foreign overlords in chapters 7; 8; and 10\u201312. The fact, then, that the vision in chapter 9 is not related to the other three visions is a powerful reason against connecting 9:26b and 9:27a with 8:12\u201314; 11:31; and 12:11. The literary structure of the book prevents the reader from connecting them in spite of some superficial similarities.<\/p>\n
THE ROLE OF THE DAVIDIC KING IN ENDING THE EXILE<\/p>\n
The angelic message specifies sixty-nine sevens, or weeks, from a command to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of an \u201canointed one\u201d (m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25), a \u201cleader\u201d or \u201cruler\u201d (n\u0101g\u00eed). Various proposals have been made for the identification of this person in 9:25. Note that these two terms are in apposition, which requires that both terms refer to one and the same person and that one noun is a further definition of the other. The same two terms occur again in the next verse, 9:26. Without any grammatical or literary signals to indicate otherwise, the most natural interpretation is that the same two terms in 9:26 also refer to one and the same person, that is, the same individual referred to in 9:25.
\nLet us focus, first, on the terms \u201canointed one\u201d (m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25) and \u201cleader\u201d or \u201cruler\u201d (n\u0101g\u00eed) in 9:25 before considering the occurrences in 9:26. As noted, 9:25 presents the two terms together, m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 n\u0101g\u00eed, so that the second term is clearly in apposition to the first and thus both refer to the same individual.
\nThe first term, m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 (\u201canointed\u201d), is usually used in the Old Testament of the high priest (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15) and the king of Israel (1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16; 19:21; 22:51; 23:1; 2 Chron. 6:42; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; 89:38, 51; 132:10, 17; Lam. 4:20; Hab. 3:13). Cyrus the Persian is also called Yahweh\u2019s anointed (Isa. 45:1), as are the patriarchs in one instance (Ps. 105:15 = 1 Chron. 16:22), no doubt because Abraham functioned as a king. When we include Daniel 9:25\u201326, this accounts for all thirty-eight instances in the Old Testament.
\nThe \u201canointed one\u201d is further specified as a n\u0101g\u00eed, a \u201cleader.\u201d In the case of n\u0101g\u00eed, etymology and noun formation are useful. The verbal root has the meaning \u201cbe in front\u201d or \u201cbe in full sight of everyone.\u201d The noun formation is the same as m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25. Nouns formed in this way have either an active or a passive sense. For m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25, the sense is passive, that is, one anointed. For n\u0101g\u00eed, the sense is also passive. Thus, the word means \u201ca person placed out in front,\u201d that is, a leader. The Oxford Lexicon gives \u201cleader\u201d as the first equivalent and afterward also lists \u201cruler\u201d or \u201cprince,\u201d since most of the \u201cleaders\u201d indicated by n\u0101g\u00eed are kings. All kings are leaders, but not all leaders are kings.
\nSome may question the preference here for rendering n\u0101g\u00eed as \u201cleader\u201d in the translation of 9:20\u201327 and instead favor the rendering \u201cprince\u201d due to its royal connotations in some contexts. Yet since n\u0101g\u00eed does not always refer to royal figures, and since the root ngd does not have specifically royal connotations, probably n\u0101g\u00eed is higher in the hierarchy of semantic domains than \u201cprince,\u201d so that \u201cleader\u201d would be a more accurate rendering than \u201cprince,\u201d although a prince could be one type of n\u0101g\u00eed.
\nFurther consideration of the term n\u0101g\u00eed is useful. The term is found in forty-three instances in the Hebrew Bible, which can be classified as follows:<\/p>\n
1. King of Israel (Saul: 1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; David: 1 Sam. 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam. 5:2; 6:21; 7:8 = 1 Chron. 11:2; 1 Chron. 17:7; 28:4; 2 Chron. 6:5; Solomon: 1 Kings 1:35; 1 Chron. 29:22; Abijah: 2 Chron. 11:22; Jeroboam: 1 Kings 14:7; Jehu: 1 Kings 16:2; Hezekiah: 2 Kings 20:5; unnamed awaited future king = \u201cmessiah\u201d: Isa. 55:4; Dan. 9:25, 26?)
\n2. Zadokite priest over the house of God (1 Chron. 9:11, 20; 26:24; 28:7; 2 Chron. 31:12, 13; 35:8; Neh. 11:11; Jer. 20:1)
\n3. Military leaders (1 Chron. 12:28; 13:1; 2 Chron. 11:11; 19:11; 32:21)
\n4. Tribal leader (1 Chron. 27:4, 16)
\n5. Generic leader (Job 29:10; 31:37; Ps. 76:13 [76:12 EV]; Prov. 8:6; 28:16)
\n6. Foreign leader (Ezek. 28:2; Dan. 11:22)<\/p>\n
It is clear that the most frequent referent of both m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 and n\u0101g\u00eed is a king. Frequently, however, scholars identify the \u201canointed one\u201d as the high priest Onias III, whose murder in 171 BC is reported in 2 Maccabees 4:33\u201338. There are four cogent reasons to reject this identification: (1) It depends on dating the composition of the book of Daniel to the second century BC, a position that is untenable, as I have argued, according to the chronological, linguistic, and literary data. (2) The arrival of this person is associated with the rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem, so that one naturally thinks of a Davidic figure. (3) Although n\u0101g\u00eed, \u201cleader, ruler,\u201d is used elsewhere of cultic officials, n\u0101g\u00eed plus m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 or m\u0101\u0161a\u1e25 are conjoined elsewhere only with reference to an anointed king (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 2 Sam. 5:2\u20133; 1 Kings 1:34\u201335; 1 Chron. 11:2\u20133; 29:22). (4) While the Old Testament speaks of a coming king who will function as a priest, it never speaks of a coming priest in royal terms. In this way, the Old Testament consistently distinguishes the Aaronic\/Zadokite priesthood from Davidic royalty. As John Oswalt notes, the reference in Daniel 9 is the only unambiguous reference to m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 (\u201cthe Messiah\u201d) as the eschatological Anointed One in the entire Old Testament.
\nThere is a good reason why the future king is referred to in Daniel 9:25 and 26 by the term n\u0101g\u00eed, \u201cruler,\u201d rather than by the term melek, the standard word in Hebrew for king. This is best explained by Donald F. Murray, who has provided the most recent and thorough treatment of n\u0101g\u00eed, particularly in the context of 2 Samuel 5:17\u20137:29. His conclusion is worth citing:<\/p>\n
In our texts the melek is one who sees his power from Yahweh as susceptible to his own arbitrary manipulation, who obtrudes himself inappropriately and disproportionately between Yahweh and Israel, and who treats Israel as little more than the subjects of his monarchic power. The n\u0101g\u00eed, on the other hand, is positively portrayed as one who sees his power as a sovereign and inviolable devolvement from Yahweh, who acts strictly under the orders of Yahweh for the benefit of Yahweh\u2019s people, and holds himself as no more than the willing subject of the divine monarch.<\/p>\n
In short, n\u0101g\u00eed communicates kingship according to God\u2019s plan and standards, whereas melek communicates kingship according to the Canaanite model of absolute despotism and self-aggrandizement. That is why the term n\u0101g\u00eed dominates in the passage on the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) and is also the term used here in Daniel.
\nThe Davidic king ruling in Jerusalem was removed from the throne by the exile in 586 BC. Yet according to the eternal and irrevocable promises of Yahweh to David, the prophets spoke of a coming king from David\u2019s line. The message and vision given to Daniel associates the king\u2019s return with the end of the exile and the climactic purposes for Israel and Jerusalem but with great personal tragedy: he will be cut off but not for himself. Thus the coming king will give his life to deliver his people.
\nAlthough the term m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 can refer to a priest, the majority of uses refer to the person anointed as king of Israel. Moreover, the collocation of m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 with n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25 indicates that n\u0101g\u00eed refers to the type of n\u0101g\u00eed found in the particular use of the term as defined by Samuel and continued throughout Kings and parallels in Chronicles. Many instances of n\u0101g\u00eed in Samuel are found in connection with the anointing of a king. Thus the collocation of m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 and n\u0101g\u00eed most probably connotes a future anointed king over Israel and refers to the same Davidic figure symbolized by the stone in Daniel 2 and by the \u201cson of man\u201d in Daniel 7. The term melek is avoided in the vision given to Daniel probably for the same reasons it is avoided in Samuel.
\nAlthough most interpreters understand m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 in 9:26a as referring to the same individual mentioned in 9:25, they interpret n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:26b as referring to an evil prince, perhaps even the Antichrist, different from the n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25, which refers to the Messiah. This is bolstered by interpreting 9:27a as referring to this evil ruler making a false covenant that disrupts sacrifice in a way similar to the abomination causing desolation in 8:12\u201314; 11:31; and 12:11. A supporting connection may even be drawn between the fact that several texts in Daniel appear to speak of a three-and-one-half-year period (7:25; 12:7, 11, 12; cf. 8:14, 26). Substantial reasons will be provided to show that this is a faulty interpretation.
\nFirst, we can draw several clear conclusions concerning the usage of n\u0101g\u00eed from the data. The word n\u0101g\u00eed is really a generic term for leader. The leader can be high or low in the hierarchy of society. So he can be a king or priest, a military or tribal leader, or just someone in any kind of leadership position.
\nSecond, in itself, n\u0101g\u00eed is a neutral term. A n\u0101g\u00eed can be a good or a bad leader. Pashhur in Jeremiah 20:1 is a bad leader. The n\u0101g\u00eed of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is a bad leader as well and receives divine censure. It is interesting to note that the ruler of Tyre is called a n\u0101g\u00eed in 28:2 and a melek in 28:12, which is the parallel section of this unit of text according to its own literary structure. Since the king of Tyre is presented in Adamic terms in the first section, this explains the use of n\u0101g\u00eed according to Murray\u2019s analysis. That is, he had a responsibility under God to which he was unfaithful. So even when an evil person is called a n\u0101g\u00eed, it may be to emphasize a responsibility or stewardship gone awry. In addition, the n\u0101g\u00eed of Daniel 11:22 is an evil person.
\nFurthermore, the observation that Saul is called a n\u0101g\u00eed and was a bad leader is irrelevant to the argument that the author of Samuel employs the term n\u0101g\u00eed and avoids the term melek in order to avoid Canaanite notions of kingship and promote what is expected of the person God chose to rule his people under him. The authors of Samuel and Kings use n\u0101g\u00eed of both bad and good rulers, all the while emphasizing the kind of king God is seeking. Indeed, throughout the entire history of Israel, each generation is thinking, \u201cMaybe the next king is the promised son of David, but not this one.\u201d As an illustration, Isaiah 1\u201339 shows that the future king who fulfills God\u2019s intentions is neither bad King Ahaz nor good King Hezekiah.
\nNonetheless, whatever the range of usage, it is context that determines the meaning of a specific instance of a word. Moreover, the nearby context is, as a rule, more important than the less proximate context.
\nFirst, n\u0101g\u00eed in Daniel 9:26b is most proximate to n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25. If n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25 refers to a coming Davidic king, then the author would have to give some clear indication to his readers that a different referent for n\u0101g\u00eed is intended in 9:26. Those who hold to the view that this is Antichrist have not articulated satisfactorily how the author has indicated to his reader that both the positive connotation and the messianic referent of n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:25 have suddenly changed to a negative connotation and adversarial referent in 9:26. An adversarial connotation of n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:26 cannot legitimately be inferred from the actions of the \u201cpeople of the n\u0101g\u00eed\u201d against the city and sanctuary, since the actions of a king\u2019s subjects are not necessarily endorsed by the king.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jesus redefines the Jewish Passover meal as a drama portraying his atoning death on the cross. This drama then interprets his crucifixion in precisely those terms: a new exodus that brings about forgiveness and Reconciliation on the basis of the sacrifice of himself as a \u201cPassover lamb.\u201d In this drama, the cup represents \u201cmy blood … <\/p>\n