Second, consider the function of the article on the participle habb\u0101\u2019 (\u201cthe coming one\u201d). Verse 26 may be literally rendered, \u201cAnd after the sixty-two heptads, \u2018anointed\u2019 is cut off but not for himself, and \u2018people of leader, the coming one\u2019 [habb\u0101\u2019], will destroy the city and the sanctuary.\u201d Both grammatically and rhetorically, the articular participle habb\u0101\u2019 (\u201cthe coming one\u201d) is anaphoric. It refers backward in the text to something that is already mentioned. It is clear that the participle habb\u0101\u2019 is in apposition to the nomen rectum (\u201chead noun\u201d) of the bound phrase \u201c(the) people of (the) nagid,\u201d so that the function of habb\u0101\u2019 is to specify which n\u0101g\u00eed is intended, that is, the previously mentioned n\u0101g\u00eed, who is to come after sixty-nine heptads. Perhaps the whole phrase could be more accurately rendered in English \u201cthe people of the leader, that is, the one who is coming.\u201d To support the view that this n\u0101g\u00eed is Antichrist, the text would have to say, \u201cthe people of another leader who is to come.\u201d As it is, the proponents of this view have not provided any acceptable grammatical reason to explain the article or why habb\u0101\u2019 is even in the text. If habb\u0101\u2019 is announcing that another, adversarial n\u0101g\u00eed will come after the text has already stated that the people of that n\u0101g\u00eed will ruin the city and sanctuary, the construction would be rather awkward.
\nThis somewhat tedious analysis is necessary to reveal the assumptions behind the interpretation of the traditional view. Proponents of that position assume what the text does not explicitly state, that after the messianic leader is cut off, (another) leader (this one evil) comes on the scene. The text does not say this. It says that the people of the leader, the one who is coming (i.e., who was just referred to in 9:25) will destroy the city and temple. The traditional view seems to beg the question. Let us be as clear as possible here: in Daniel 9:26b, the text only says that the people of the leader, the one coming, will destroy the city and sanctuary. So it does not say that another leader comes on the scene. It says that the people of the coming leader will bring destruction. The text also does not say that a n\u0101g\u00eed will destroy the city and sanctuary; it says that the people of the coming n\u0101g\u00eed will do this.
\nAlso noteworthy is the fact that 9:26 is a bit like a couplet in poetry, with the word pair m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 n\u0101g\u00eed from 9:25 now split over parallel lines:<\/p>\n
And after the sixty-two sevens, an Anointed One will be cut off but not for himself,<\/p>\n
and the people of the coming leader will ruin\/spoil the city and the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
After 9:25 says that m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 n\u0101g\u00eed is coming, 9:26a says that the m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 is cut off and that the people of the coming n\u0101g\u00eed destroy the city and sanctuary. The separation of the words in 9:26 may be significant but not in the way normally suggested. The fact that the m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 is cut off does not indicate that another n\u0101g\u00eed comes on the scene. According to the text, it is the people of the n\u0101g\u00eed who come on the scene after the m\u0101\u0161\u00eea\u1e25 is cut off, not the n\u0101g\u00eed himself. In general, we should not drive a wedge between the king and his people, but the text does drive a wedge between them in this case when it indicates that the coming king is cut off on the one hand and that his people ruin the city and sanctuary on the other. The two sentences do seem like contrasting statements in an antonymic couplet. And this is exactly what happened: Jesus came and was cut off, and the people of the Messiah, the Jews, ruined the city and sanctuary. It was Caiaphus\u2019s blasphemous statement at the trial of Jesus that meant that the temple had to fall. At the crucifixion, the Jewish people called for the death of Jesus, the true Holy One (Most Holy Place, Dan. 9:24) and the true temple (Most Holy Place, Dan. 9:24). This will be demonstrated shortly.
\nIn addition, the next statement, \u201cand its end will be in a flood,\u201d does not show that \u201cthe coming one\u201d is another leader, and in this instance an evil one, different from the leader in the previous verse. To be sure, the expression does appear to refer to enemy armies, which are sometimes compared to a flood (e.g., Isaiah 8). It could be that the Messiah\u2019s people bring down the city and temple, and its end entails foreign armies aiding and abetting this destruction. Once again, we should not assume what is not explicit in the text.
\nIt may be natural for one to expect destruction from outsiders, but it is also natural for destruction to come from within. What happened in the exile is both destruction from without and destruction from within. Judah and Jerusalem brought judgment on themselves; armies from other nations aided and abetted this destruction as divine instruments (Assyria = the rod of Yahweh, Isa. 10:5).
\nOne may appeal to the broader context of Daniel to argue for an evil n\u0101g\u00eed in 9:26 different from that of 9:25. The theme of persecution from outsiders is in the book of Daniel. However, this theme is not the only theme in the book. There is an additional theme in Daniel: the continued sin of Israel even after their physical return to the land (see 8:12, 23; 11:36, passages indicating that persecution is due to Israel\u2019s sin, and note also the consciousness of deserved judgment in 2 Maccabees). Daniel 8:19 also speaks of \u201cthe time of wrath\u201d (cf. Zech. 1:12). We can argue that the cutting off of the Messiah and the ruin of the city and sanctuary by the people of the Messiah are the culmination of this continued transgression of Israel after the physical return, rather than the culmination of the persecution of the outsiders, as some suggest. This interpretation, moreover, better suits the controlling purpose of the paragraph as stated in 9:24. The culmination of the persecution of the outsiders is indeed found in the next part of 9:26: \u201cAnd its end will come with a flood, and until the end will be war\u2014desolations are determined.\u201d This second part refers to the final destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70, that is, the culmination of the persecution of outsiders. In sum, the Jews cut off their Messiah and ruined the city as the culmination of their continued transgression, and the Romans destroyed the city \u201cin a flood\u201d as a culmination of the persecution from outsiders, at the end of the \u201cextended exile\u201d that continued after they returned physically to the land. Consequently, 9:26 describes the culmination of two important themes in Daniel: (1) Israel\u2019s continued transgression after the physical return from exile and (2) the persecution of outsiders. Thus the broader context coheres with the understanding of the passage proposed here.<\/p>\n
THE LAST HALF OF THE SEVENTIETH WEEK<\/p>\n
An important question raised by many who read Daniel concerns the last half of the seventieth week. At the middle of the seventieth week, we argue that the Messiah is killed and a new covenant is made, based on his atoning death for the many. How should the last half of the seventieth week be explained?<\/p>\n
\u201cSEVENTY WEEKS\u201d: LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC?<\/p>\n
Related to this question is the interpretation of the \u201cseventy weeks\u201d as a whole. We have argued that the \u201cseventy weeks\u201d are to be understood as a literal seventy sabbaticals. Other scholars argue instead that the \u201cseventy weeks\u201d are symbolic. Examples are Sam Storms in his excellent treatment of amillennialism and Zach Maxcey in an equally excellent study of Daniel 9. A common argument is that since the seventy years of exile are imprecise (at best sixty-six to sixty-eight years), and since the arguments for 490 years (instead of seventy sabbaticals) from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the time of Jesus, the Messiah, are unacceptable, we must rather interpret the seventy weeks as symbolic. Admittedly, they are not \u201cweeks\u201d in the sense of a period of seven days, as the expression \u201cweek of days\u201d in Daniel 10:2 and 3 show. This unique expression was necessary in 10:2 because the author was returning from an unusual sense of \u201cweek\u201d back to the normal meaning of a period of seven days. Once the argument is made that the \u201cseventy weeks\u201d are symbolic, these same scholars argue that the last week or last half of the last week covers the entire period from the first coming of Christ to his second coming (or something similar).
\nThis logic of a \u201csymbolic view\u201d is difficult to follow. Admittedly, sixty-six or sixty-eight years is not exactly seventy. Moreover, scholars may not be satisfied with our arguments that it is precisely seventy sabbaticals from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the coming of Jesus. But the exile was roughly seventy years, and the time from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the coming of Jesus is roughly seventy sabbaticals, however one calculates the time. Does that give us the right to interpret the last half of the seventieth week symbolically as the, at minimum, two-thousand-year period between the first and second comings of Christ? Once one accepts the periods of time as symbolic, this still feels like a huge jump, a non sequitur.
\nAt the center of this problem is how the prophecy of Daniel correlates with the first and second comings of Christ. The ultimate jubilee is inaugurated at the first coming of Christ but not consummated until the second coming of Christ. This is clear because we have explained earlier that bringing the exiles home in the new exodus is the period between the first and second comings of Christ.
\nMany interpreters understand the last half of the seventieth week to refer to a period in the \u201cgreat tribulation\u201d with the church age as a parenthesis in between. Others understand the three and a half years to be symbolic of the church age as a whole, between the first and second comings of Christ.
\nA period of roughly three and a half years is referred to in Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:7, 11, and 12. In 7:25 and 12:7, this period is designated as \u201ctime, times, and half a time.\u201d In 8:14, the exact phrase is \u201c2,300 evenings and mornings.\u201d In 12:11 and 12, the text speaks of \u201c1,290 days\u201d and \u201c1,335 days,\u201d respectively. The phrases in 7:25 and 12:7 are connected directly with the fourth kingdom, while the references in 8:14; 12:11; and 12:12 are clearly connected to the third kingdom (i.e., Greece).
\nA period of three and a half years is referred to in Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; and 13:5 as \u201cforty-two months,\u201d \u201c1,260 days,\u201d \u201c1,260 days,\u201d \u201ca time, times, and half a time,\u201d and \u201cforty-two months,\u201d respectively. We know that the book of Revelation is influenced by and linked to the book of Daniel in many instances. The instances in Revelation will be discussed shortly.
\nA simple solution to explain these texts can be suggested. In the book of Daniel, the references in 8:14; 12:11; and 12:12 clearly refer to the third kingdom, and in particular, to a period of suffering during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This is a literal, roughly three-and-a-half-year period of suffering caused for the faithful in Israel during the persecution brought by the Greeks (ca. 167\u2013164 BC). The period of suffering under Antiochus IV is, in turn, typological of the \u201ctime, times, and half a time\u201d period of suffering caused for the holy ones, or saints, during the fourth kingdom. The book of Revelation interprets this suffering to be endured by those who believe in Jesus Christ for being faithful to him in the period between his first and second comings and will be explained below.
\nObserve, in particular, that in the book of Daniel, this period in the fourth kingdom is indicated by the \u201ctime, times, and half a time,\u201d whereas the period under Antiochus IV is designated by actual numbers of days or months. We suggest that the instances indicated by numbers refer to a literal period of time, while the more vague expression \u201ctime, times, and half a time\u201d in 7:25 and 12:7 is to be interpreted symbolically.
\nNote, furthermore, that Daniel 7 consists of a symbolic vision plus an explanation section, as does Daniel 8. Daniel 9, however, has no symbolic vision but consists solely of detailed description\/explanation, and the same is true of Daniel 10\u201312. (However cryptic some of the statements are to Daniel, they are no longer cryptic to historians of the Maccabean era.) Thus the more vague expression \u201ctime, times, and half a time\u201d is found as part of the text of symbolic visions, while the numerical specifications of the abomination caused by Antiochus IV are all in explanation sections. This means that the numbers specified for the desolation under Antiochus IV are literal, while the time specified for the desolation under \u201cthe little horn\u201d in the fourth kingdom is symbolic.<\/p>\n
INTERPRETING THE SECOND HALF OF THE SEVENTIETH WEEK<\/p>\n
We must now show how the last half of the seventieth week in Daniel 9 is to be interpreted exegetically from the texts in Daniel and according to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
\nFirst, as a general rule, when we read prophecies in the Old Testament, the predictions may refer to events at either the first or the second coming of Jesus the Christ\/Messiah since the Old Testament prophets were not permitted to understand that there would be two comings of the Messiah. Only the teaching of Jesus and the apostles can clarify for us whether the text in the Old Testament is to be applied to the first or to the second coming. I would suggest that the little horn in Daniel 7 represents Antichrist. I use this word because the little horn is opposed to the \u201cson of man,\u201d which represents Jesus Christ and his people via the same symbol. I also suggest that the vision in Daniel 7 applies to both the first coming and the second coming. In the first coming, the little horn is the Jewish nation. They are anti-Christ, or opposed to the Messiah in general: he came unto his own, and his own people did not receive him (John 1:11). As Daniel 9:26a says, it is the people of the coming Messiah who are responsible for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. This fulfillment is then typical of the final Antichrist, who works at the very end times.
\nSecond, in the prophecy in Daniel 9:24\u201327, the text is connected directly to Jeremiah 25. The seventy years are to be interpreted literally as the time necessary to bring about physical release from exile in Babylon, and the time of the seventy sabbaticals is to be interpreted literally as the longer period of time necessary to bring about release from the spiritual exile of a broken relationship with God. Note carefully that Daniel 9:25\u201327 says absolutely nothing about the last half of the seventieth week. Therefore we should not try to use this text to affirm that the seventy sabbaticals are symbolic just because we know that Revelation interprets the last half of the seventieth week symbolically.
\nThird, while Daniel 9:25\u201327 describes nothing for the last half of the seventieth week, Daniel 9:24 may contain a hint of what will happen in this time. The last of the six purposes in 9:24, \u201cto anoint the Most Holy Place,\u201d suggests the notion of someone or something that is both a Davidic king and the true temple at the same time. One of the most extensive and thorough treatments of this phrase is by Steinmann. Part of his lengthy treatment ought to be cited:<\/p>\n
The final infinitive states this purpose: \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05de\u05b0\u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u0596\u05d7\u05b7 \u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e7\u05b8\u05bd\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05bd\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cto anoint a Most Holy One\u201d (9:24). This phrase has been understood in two ways. Most critical scholars and some evangelicals understand it to be a reference to the rebuilt second temple in Jerusalem. The superlative phrase \u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e7\u05b8\u05bd\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, \u201choly of holies, most holy,\u201d is always used in association with the tabernacle or temple: It describes objects used in the tabernacle or temple, including the altar, utensils, basin, and incense (Ex 29:37; 30:10, 29, 36; 40:10). More often it refers to the sacrifices offered there. Once it describes Aaron (1 Chr 23:13; see NASB), and once it is used for the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) in Ezekiel\u2019s temple (Ezek 45:3). The related phrase with the article, \u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d4\u05b7\u05e7\u05b8\u05bc\u05bd\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, is used most often to denote the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle or temple; it is used to describe the most holy offerings or things. However, the only other verse besides Dan 9:24 that refers to \u201canointing\u201d (\u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05b7\u05c1\u05d7) and \u201cmost holy\u201d (\u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e7\u05b8\u05bd\u05d3\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd) is Ex 40:10.
\nMany other interpreters have understood the anointing to point to the \u201cAnointed One, Messiah\u201d (\u05de\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7) mentioned in Dan 9:25\u201326. Since Aaron as high priest and the temple appointments could be called \u201cmost holy,\u201d how much more appropriately does it apply to the Messiah, \u201cthe Holy One of God\u201d (Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; see also Acts 2:27; 13:35: Rev 3:7)? A messianic interpretation was adopted by some older Jewish commentators, including Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman or Ramban). The Christian messianic interpretation is the traditional view held by Hippolytus, Tertullian, Theodoret, and Calvin, as well as contemporary evangelical scholars. In the NT, the equivalent Greek verb \u201canoint\u201d (\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9, from which Christ is derived) refers to the anointing of Jesus (Lk 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb 1:9). It is also applied to baptized believers in Christ (2 Cor 1:21), who \u201chave the anointing from the Holy One\u201d (\u03c7\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1 Jn 2:20; cf. 1 Jn 2:27).<\/p>\n
As Steinmann goes on to show, we do not have to decide between these two views. The text is ambiguous on purpose. The verb \u201cto anoint\u201d is normally used of consecrating persons for offices, such as priest (Lev. 4:3), prophet (Ps. 105:15), and most often king (1 Sam. 2:35). It can also be used to refer to the consecration of the Mosaic tabernacle and its holy objects (Ex. 29:36; 30:26; 40:9, 10, 11; Lev. 8:10, 11). Only in Daniel 9:24 do we have the \u201cMost Holy Place\u201d being anointed. Thus the phrase \u201cMost Holy Place\u201d suggests the temple, while the verb \u201canoint\u201d suggests a person. As already pointed out, Jesus is both Messiah and true temple. The play on the words \u201chouse of David\u201d in 2 Samuel 7, meaning Davidic dynasty and temple, pursued all the way through the Old Testament in places like Amos 9, is also the correct interpretation here. What is \u201cmost holy\u201d is both a person, the coming Davidic king, and a place, the true temple.
\nI would suggest that the phrase \u201cto anoint a most holy place\/person\u201d entails more than just the death of the Messiah. It must include his resurrection, his ascension to the right hand of God to begin his rule, and the inauguration of his body as the church in the book of Acts.
\nThus, the last phrase of Daniel 9:24 opens up an alternative suggestion for the second half of the seventieth week. According to generally accepted chronologies, approximately three to four years after the death of Christ, an event happened that was the spiritual fulfillment of the destruction of the temple: God announced to his prophet that the time had come for God\u2019s presence to be taken to the Gentiles, and Israel no longer had his name exclusively attached to them:<\/p>\n
But Ananias answered, \u201cLord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.\u201d But the Lord said to him, \u201cGo, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.\u201d (Acts 9:13\u201315 ESV)<\/p>\n
Paul also reports this shift in Acts 26:<\/p>\n
But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles\u2014to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:16\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
The later destruction of the temple was the physical repercussion of this spiritual event: the commissioning of Paul to go to the Gentiles (to build the real temple).
\nIn Acts 1:8, Jesus answers the question \u201cLord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d Luke shows how this begins in Jerusalem and Judea. Then, with Isaiah 56 in mind, Luke shows next the foreigner (Samaritans) and eunuch (from Ethiopia) being included in the new Israel. In Acts 9, the commissioning of Paul begins extending the kingdom of Israel to include Gentiles.
\nAlso, Acts 9 falls at the end of part three of the seven parts of Acts, with a striking closing formula in 9:31. Part four of Acts documents the shift of the center of gravity of the church from Jerusalem to Antioch, from Jew to Gentile.
\nFourth, Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 are the basis for interpreting the last half of the seventieth week symbolically according to the teaching of the New Testament. This is where the \u201calready\u201d and \u201cnot yet\u201d are explained. From one point of view, referring to the first coming and the destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy sabbaticals are to be interpreted literally. What could not be understood until the coming of Jesus and the teaching of the apostles is that the \u201ctime, times, and half a time\u201d in Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 are to be understood symbolically as a period of suffering for believers, the saints who inherit the kingdom of the Messiah, and this refers to the period between the Messiah\u2019s first and second comings, which ends with the Antichrist of whom Daniel 7:25 speaks. So Daniel 7 applies to both the first and second comings of the Messiah, while Daniel 9 focuses on the first coming and does not address the last half of the seventieth week.<\/p>\n
THREE AND A HALF YEARS IN REVELATION<\/p>\n
We can now explain briefly how all instances of the references to \u201cthree and a half years\u201d are used in the book of Revelation. This discussion is based on the literary structure of the book of Revelation provided by Andrew M. Fountain.
\nThe book of Revelation is structured in a way that indicates its close links with Daniel. The \u201cseventy times seven\u201d of Daniel 9 becomes \u201cseven times seven,\u201d that is, seven sections of seven paragraphs. In Revelation, however, the chronology is symbolic rather than literal, and the sevens are not periods in chronological sequence; rather, some sections provide blowups or expansions of the ends of others sections.
\nEach of the two scrolls begins with a sequence of seven visions that spans the whole period between the first and second coming of Christ. These are section two (the seven seals) and section four (the seven visions of warfare).<\/p>\n
Three and a Half Years in the First Scroll<\/p>\n
What is interesting is that both scrolls divide the whole age into seven years. In Revelation 11:1\u20132 (the interlude near the end of the first scroll), the holy city is trampled by the Gentiles for forty-two months. Then in 11:3, the two witnesses prophesy for 1,260 days. What period does this cover? The start of the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles is explicitly linked to the destruction of the temple in Luke 21:24. The end of the two witnesses prophesying is linked to the resurrection in Revelation 11:12, after which Christ returns. So the entire period is divided into two three-and-a-half-year parts. Note that since the seven years are symbolic, there is no need to assume that the three-and-a-half-year periods will divide exactly into two. (In fact, there is evidence that the first \u201chalf\u201d is much longer than the second.)<\/p>\n
Three and a Half Years in the Second Scroll<\/p>\n
Once again, in the second scroll we have two periods of three and a half years. In Revelation 12:6, the people of God are protected from the full violence of Satan for 1,260 days. In 13:5\u20137, the beast from the sea (Antichrist) is given authority for forty-two months to make war on the saints and conquer them. What period does this cover? The first three and a half years start with the ascension of Christ (12:5) The second three and a half years end with the beast going to destruction (17:8). So once again we have seven years spanning the period between the first and second coming of Christ divided into two.<\/p>\n
What Is the Difference between the Two Three-and-a-Half-Year Periods?<\/p>\n
Both section two (the seven seals) and section four (seven visions of warfare) have a natural division. For section two the division follows the fourth element, and for section four it follows the third. The second half of both periods is introduced with similar phrases:<\/p>\n
Revelation 11:7: \u201cThe beast that rises from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Revelation 13:7: \u201c[The beast from the sea] was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them.\u201d<\/p>\n
The second three-and-a-half-year period seems to be associated with a major intensification in spiritual warfare, which ushers in the final conflict of Christ\u2019s church with the forces of darkness. This can be identified with elements in the eschatology of both Jesus and Paul: (1) Matthew 24:15\u201324: great tribulation, triggered by the revelation of an abomination doing \u201cgreat signs and wonders\u201d; (2) 2 Thessalonians 2:3: revelation of the lawless one with \u201cfalse signs and wonders.\u201d Note that the references in Revelation 11:2\u20133 are in the period of the sixth trumpet, a period that corresponds to an expansion of the references in 12:6 and 14 and 13:5. Again, the references in 12:6 and 14 and 13:5 belong to a sequence that corresponds to the entire time between the ascension and final return of Jesus Christ.
\nSo these two three-and-a-half-year periods refer to two different periods of time: one is in general the period of the church age when the church is conquering the nations, and one is in a special time of tribulation at the end when the church appears to be destroyed by the nations.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
The Apocalypse reflects the sevenfold imagery of the prophecy of Daniel but in a symbolic manner. The period between the first and second advents is pictured as seven years, divided (not necessarily at the chronological center) by the revelation of the forces of Antichrist. The people of God are thrown into an intensified conflict, culminating in the return of Christ.
\nThus, when Sam Storms argues that the seventy sevens must be interpreted \u201ctheologically,\u201d it seems that an agenda to prove amillennialism overtakes careful attention to the details of the text of Daniel. I repeat: we cannot build a theory of the last half of the seventieth week from Daniel 9, but we can from Daniel 7:25 and 12:7. The cryptic language used in Daniel 7:25 differs from the other references in Daniel to three and a half years, and this allows a symbolic interpretation, while the language in Daniel 9 requires a literal interpretation because the notion of sabbaticals is directly tied to Jeremiah 25 and 2 Chronicles 36.<\/p>\n
THE PLACE OF DANIEL 9 WITHIN DANIEL 7\u201312<\/p>\n
The question may be raised, quite legitimately, What is the relationship of the vision of seventy weeks to the other visions? How does it fit into the larger literary structure of the book as a whole? This question urgently needs to be addressed.
\nAs already noted, the visions in Daniel 7; 8; and 10\u201312 focus on a series of four Gentile\/human kingdoms succeeded finally by the kingdom of God. I attempted to show in an earlier examination of the issue of the \u201cson of man\u201d in Daniel 7 that the \u201cson of man\u201d represents at the same time a divine figure, a human king, and the constituent people of his kingdom: in the end, the saints of the Most High receive the kingdom of God (7:18, 22, 27). These three visions, then, focus on the question, What is happening to God\u2019s kingdom now that Israel is in exile, without a king on earth, and subject to foreign powers? Chapter 9, nicely sandwiched between the second and fourth visions, deals with a different but closely related issue: How long will Israel be in exile? How long will the kingdom of God suffer at the hands of the foreign nations? The final, or real, return from exile, equivalent to the forgiveness of sins, is prerequisite to the saints receiving a kingdom, and so the vision of the seventy weeks reveals how and when the ultimate jubilee is ushered in.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
The vision of Daniel\u2019s seventy weeks, then, can be explained simply. It refers to a period of seventy sabbaticals or periods of seven years required to bring in the ultimate jubilee: release from sin, the establishment of everlasting righteousness, and consecration of the temple. During the first seven sabbaticals, the city of Jerusalem is restored. Then for sixty-two sabbaticals there is nothing to report. In the climactic seventieth week, Israel\u2019s king arrives and dies vicariously for his people. Ironically, desecration of the temple similar to that by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Greek Empire is perpetrated by the Jewish people themselves, resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem. These events are fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the coming King. His crucifixion is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and the basis of the new covenant with the many. His death is \u201cnot for himself\u201d but rather vicarious. The rejection of Jesus as Messiah and the desecration of him as the true temple at his trial by the high priest result in judgment on the Herodian temple, carried out eventually in AD 70. The notion of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week is contrary to a vision of chronological sequence. The prophecy is remarkable both for its precision and its imprecision as it fits the events concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, with the notion of the already and the not yet, the little horn of Daniel 7 may find fulfillment not only in Jesus\u2019s first coming in Israel as a nation (the blasphemous high priest) but also at his second coming (the Antichrist).<\/p>\n
PART 3<\/p>\n
THEOLOGICAL SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
A Theological Summary from Creation to the Promise of the New Covenant<\/p>\n
Much territory has been covered in the previous chapters. We turn now in part 3 to the task of reviewing and summarizing what has been discussed, thinking through how Christ Jesus brings to fulfillment all the promises, hopes, and expectations of the Old Testament as disclosed through the progression of the covenants, and then asking the famous question, So what? How does our understanding of the relationships between the covenants help make sense of the Bible\u2019s storyline? And what are some of the implications of our proposal for biblical and systematic theology? In this chapter, we will offer a summary of our view from the creation covenant to the promise of the new covenant and highlight some key points of our proposal, especially points that distinguish it from its alternatives. In chapter 17, we will turn to the New Testament and discover how the progression of the covenants is brought to fulfillment in Christ and his new covenant-new creation people, the church. In chapters 18\u201319, we will discuss some implications of progressive covenantalism for areas of systematic theology, especially on issues related to the differences between dispensational and covenant theology as highlighted in part 1, chapters 2\u20133.
\nIn part 2, the truth of kingdom through covenant\u2014the glue that unites the Bible\u2019s entire metanarrative from creation to consummation\u2014emerged from a detailed exposition of the covenants. Let us now unpack this phrase in two steps. First, we will describe our understanding of the term kingdom and how the idea of the kingdom of God is developed in the Old Testament, before we see in chapter 17 how it is fulfilled in Christ. Second, we will summarize our understanding of the relationship between kingdom and covenant and how it is through covenantal progression that God\u2019s plan unfolds and anticipates the dawning of God\u2019s saving rule in this world centered on our Lord Jesus Christ. This discussion will also set the stage for chapter 17, where we will see how we as the church, constituted as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, are the beneficiaries of Christ\u2019s glorious new covenant work and recipients of all God\u2019s promises in and through Messiah Jesus.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
The idea of the kingdom has already been highlighted and discussed in previous chapters, but now we want to summarize it biblically and theologically. We agree with Thomas Schreiner that the kingdom or the kingdom of God is \u201cof prime importance in NT theology,\u201d but this assertion is also true for the entire Bible. In this regard, Graeme Goldsworthy correctly asserts that \u201cthe idea of the rule of God over creation, over all creatures, over the kingdoms of the world, and in a unique and special way, over his chosen and redeemed people, is the very heart of the message of the Hebrew scriptures.\u201d Four points capture what we affirm about the kingdom and how we understand the term and idea in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
GOD AS UNIVERSAL KING<\/p>\n
Scripture begins by declaring that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the sovereign ruler and King of the universe. In this important sense, the entire universe is God\u2019s kingdom since he is at present Lord and King. From the Bible\u2019s opening, God is introduced and identified as the all-powerful Lord who created the universe by his word, while he himself is uncreated, independent, self-existent, self-sufficient, and in need of nothing outside himself (Pss. 50:12\u201314; 93:2; Acts 17:24\u201325). He rules with perfect power, knowledge, and righteousness (Pss. 9:8; 33:5; 139:1\u20134, 16; Isa. 46:9\u201311). And in this rule, God loves, hates, commands, comforts, punishes, rewards, and strengthens, all according to the personal covenant relationships that he establishes with his creation. As the Creator and covenant Lord, he is not some abstract concept or impersonal force. He is the triune Lord who is the moral standard of the universe, and as Creator he demands perfect love, devotion, and complete obedience from his image bearers. The triune God of the Bible is the only true God, utterly unique, and unwilling to share his glory with any created thing (Isa. 42:8). For this reason, God alone is to be worshiped, trusted, and obeyed; he is the King, and the entire universe is his kingdom. This truth is nicely captured by Psalm 103:19: \u201cThe LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all\u201d (NIV; cf. Ps. 47:8; Dan. 4:34\u201335).
\nScripture also presents this one triune Creator-covenant Lord as the Holy One over all his creation (Gen. 2:1\u20133; Ex. 3:2\u20135; Lev. 11:44; Isa. 6:1\u20133; 57:15; cf. Rom. 1:18\u201323). The common understanding for the meaning of holiness is \u201cset apart,\u201d but holiness conveys much more than God\u2019s distinctness and transcendence. God\u2019s holiness is particularly associated with his aseity, sovereignty, majesty, and devotion to himself. As the one who is Lord over all, he is exalted, self-sufficient, and self-determined both metaphysically and morally, and thus he is categorically different in nature and existence from everything he has made. He cannot be compared with the \u201cgods\u201d of the nations or be judged by human standards. God alone is holy in himself; God alone is God. Furthermore, tied to God\u2019s holiness in the metaphysical sense is God\u2019s personal-moral purity and perfection. He is \u201ctoo pure to behold evil\u201d and unable to tolerate wrong (Hab. 1:12\u201313; cf. Isa. 1:4\u201320; 35:8). God must act with holy justice when his people rebel against him, yet he is the God who loves his people with a holy love (Hos. 11:9), for he is the God of \u201ccovenant faithfulness\u201d (\u1e25esed). Often, divine holiness and love are set against each other, but Scripture never presents them as being at odds. Not only do we see this truth taught in the Old Testament, but also the New Testament, while maintaining God\u2019s complete holiness (see Rev. 4:8), affirms in 1 John 4:8 that \u201cGod is love.\u201d But it is important to note that through the progression of the covenants a great tension results in how God will simultaneously demonstrate his holy justice and covenant love, which is truly resolved only in the new covenant mediator and his work. Why? Because it is only in Messiah Jesus as God the Son incarnate that we have a fully devoted and perfectly obedient covenant keeper who can obey for us and act as our propitiatory sacrifice, thus reconciling divine justice and grace in his cross (Rom. 3:21\u201326).
\nIn addition, God\u2019s kingly work in creation is never presented as an end in itself; rather, it is the beginning of God\u2019s eternal plan in time (Eph. 1:11; Rev. 4:11), which he now directs and governs toward a specific eschatological end, or telos. Creation begins a drama that drives the course of history to the end designed for it by its Creator-covenant Lord. In this way, creation is foundational to the Bible\u2019s entire storyline; it leads to providence, and both creation and providence establish the eschatological direction of God\u2019s plan, purposely worked out in terms of specific covenantal relationships that God enters into with his creation, which, in the end, all lead to a precise goal centered on Christ (cf. Col. 1:15\u201320). In light of such teaching, although the specific wording \u201ckingdom of God\u201d is not found until much later in Scripture, the idea of \u201ckingdom through covenant\u201d is taught in the opening pages of the Bible. As Graeme Goldsworthy rightly points out,<\/p>\n
The kingdom of God is a name that is not used in the Bible until much later, but the idea of it immediately comes to mind as we think of creation.\u2026
\nHow may we describe the kingdom of God as it has been revealed up to this point in Scripture? God\u2019s rule involves the relationships that he has set up between himself and everything in creation. In other words, God makes the rules for all existence. Both accounts of creation show mankind as the center of God\u2019s attention and the recipient of a unique relationship with him. Thus the focus of the kingdom of God is on the relationship between God and his people. Man is subject to God, while the rest of creation is subject to man and exists for his benefit. The kingdom means God ruling over his people in the material universe.<\/p>\n
In short, God made a good creation as the proper habitation in which his kingdom people could live under his covenant rule. God establishes his rule in the lives of his image-sons not by force but through loyal love (\u1e25esed) and faithfulness (\u2019\u0115met), which are at the heart of God\u2019s covenant relationship with us, hence kingdom through covenant. And because this state of affairs is central to the desire of the Lord of history, the goodness of creation and the presence of his kingdom are central to the storyline that unfolds his plan. The fact that rebellion within God\u2019s kingdom corrupted all creation means that the events of history are moving under the governance of the Creator-covenant Lord in an eschatological direction toward a \u201cnew creation\u201d and the consummation of an eternal kingdom (see Isa. 65:17\u201325; Rom. 8:19\u201322; Rev. 21:1\u20134).
\nThis is not to say that the coming creation replaces an original creation that God somehow failed to keep on course. Renewal of both creation and humanity, rather, was part of God\u2019s eternal plan (1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5\u201311; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2); the \u201cnew creation\u201d represents the original eschatological goal of the old creation. The week of creation itself culminated in the rest of God on the seventh day (Gen. 2:1\u20133). And this one day of completion and rest became a typological pattern that grounds observance of the Sabbath day under the old covenant (see Ex. 20:8\u201311) but ultimately points to a final \u201cSabbath rest for the people of God\u201d (Heb. 3:7\u20134:13) under the new covenant that will never end (see Rev. 21:22\u201325), due to Jesus\u2019s work that inaugurates the great salvation rest anticipated from the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
THE FALL AND GOD\u2019S SAVING REIGN<\/p>\n
Although the triune God is universal King and Lord, the fall changes everything. Before the fall, God as Creator and King creates a world that is beautifully summarized by the phrase \u201cIt was very good\u201d (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Even though the nature of this goodness is disputed, in light of Genesis 3, it must minimally convey moral goodness and purity. Yet now, in light of human rebellion, God\u2019s rightful rule over the entire creation is foolishly rejected by his creatures. Sin is essentially rebellion against the claims of the King\u2014moral autonomy\u2014and so, as a result of our sin, we now stand under God\u2019s judicial sentence of condemnation, guilt, and death (Gen. 2:16\u201317; Rom. 3:23; 6:23).
\nIt is in light of the fall that the Old Testament makes an important distinction between the sovereignty and rule of God over the entire creation and the coming of his saving reign in the context of a rebellious creation to make all things right. The creation, which was originally created good, has now gone wrong because of sin. If God graciously chooses to make things right, he, as the Lord and King, must act savingly, which sets the stage for the development of the Bible\u2019s redemptive storyline, for the coming of a Redeemer to set creation right\u2014to usher in the saving reign of God in this world. As D. A. Carson reminds us, \u201cUltimately that plot-line anticipates the restoration of goodness, even the transformation to a greater glory, of the universe gone wrong (Rom. 8:21), and arrives finally at the dawning of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21\u201322; cf. Isa. 65:17), the home of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13).\u201d On the one hand, the kingdom of God will exclude all sin and rebellion. On the other hand, it will include all that is redeemed according to God\u2019s gracious will and action. Eventually, when all sin and evil is put down, we will see the fullness of God\u2019s kingdom in new covenant relationship, which Scripture describes in new creation categories, in contrast to that which was lost in the old creation due to Adam\u2019s sin and rebellion, acting as our representative head.<\/p>\n
THE COMING OF GOD\u2019S REDEMPTIVE KINGDOM<\/p>\n
How does God\u2019s kingdom come, in this saving sense? As the Old Testament unfolds, God\u2019s kingdom is revealed and comes through the biblical covenants in two ways. First, it comes synchronically\u2014through the covenant relationship God establishes with his creatures. Our triune God has graciously chosen to create humans as his image bearers\u2014that is, his priest-kings\u2014to be in covenant relationship with him. Our covenant Lord has given us the supreme privilege of knowing him, and as we give our life to his worship as his servant-kings and are fully devoted and obedient to him in every domain of life, God\u2019s rule is extended in his covenant people and to the entire creation. Although God is completely self-sufficient and does not need us to achieve his purposes, he has, amazingly, chosen us to realize his sovereign rule in this world in the context of a covenant relationship of loyal love (\u1e25esed) and faithfulness (\u2019\u0115met). Thus, it is through covenant relationships that we fulfill the purpose of our existence in relationship to our Creator-covenant Lord. Yet, sadly, we have failed in our calling, which leads to another use of through.
\nSecond, God\u2019s kingdom also comes diachronically\u2014through the covenants over time. In other words, it is through the progression of the covenants that God chooses to reverse the disastrous effects of sin and usher in his saving reign in this world. Following the loss of Eden, redemption is linked to the election of a people and by means of a promised human (Gen. 3:15), all of which is given greater definition through Noah and his family, Abraham and his seed, the nation of Israel, and uniquely David and his sons\/kings. These people, uniquely tied to the nation of Israel, are promised a land to dwell in; they will be the means of blessing to the nations. Through covenantal progression, these covenant promises, which ultimately stretch back to God\u2019s initial promise in Genesis 3:15, are realized. In the exodus, which becomes a type\/pattern of redemption, God reveals his redemptive plan. At Sinai, the people of God are constituted as a theocratic nation\u2014a kingdom of priests and a holy nation called to serve the Lord (Ex. 19:6), to reveal God to the nations, and through Israel as a nation to usher in God\u2019s saving reign to this world (cf. Gen. 12:1\u20133). Though rebellion leads to delay, the nation is eventually given possession of the land. Here the structures of government develop toward kingship under the dynasty of David in Jerusalem. Solomon builds the temple as the place where reconciliation and fellowship with God are established, a temple that stretches back to the garden-sanctuary of Eden itself. The rule of the Davidic kings is representative of the rule of God over his kingdom. But Israel and the kings disobey; the kingdom divides and judgment falls. God\u2019s saving reign is not realized through these people and covenant heads; it is only typified, foreshadowed, and anticipated, as God had planned from eternity. Ultimately, it awaits the coming of the great antitype of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, and David and his sons: Jesus Christ our Lord. It is only through this obedient Son\u2014God the Son incarnate\u2014that God\u2019s long-awaited kingdom is inaugurated in this world through the new covenant. Thus, through the covenants, synchronically and diachronically, God reveals how his image bearers ought to live and how he will establish his saving reign and restore creation through a promised, obedient Son.<\/p>\n
THE PROMISES PROCLAIMED BY THE PROPHETS<\/p>\n
In the Old Testament, these promises, hopes, and expectations are announced by the prophets, who all minister and write after the establishment of the epitome of the Old Testament covenants, namely, the Davidic covenant. As the prophets look to the future, God announces, through them, hope for Israel and the Gentile nations. The prophets not only call Israel back to covenant loyalty but also proclaim an overall pattern of renewal by recapitulating the past history of redemption as developed through the typological patterns of the covenants. They anticipate that in the \u201clast days\u201d Yahweh, the Creator-covenant God, will come to save his people through a new exodus, the establishment of a new temple and new Jerusalem, a new Davidic king to rule in a glorious and eternal kingdom\u2014all of which is tied to the dawning of the new covenant age. In this way, the prophets anticipate the coming of Yahweh and his Messiah, specifically associated with the Davidic king, who will usher in God\u2019s kingdom, making all things right and reversing the effects of sin and death for this poor, lost world (e.g., Psalms 2; 45; 110; Isa. 7:14; 9:6\u20137; 11:1\u201316; 42:1\u20139; 49:1\u20137; 52:13\u201353:12; Ezek. 34:1\u201326). But what is crucial to note is that this coming of God\u2019s kingdom will occur only through the inauguration of the new covenant by the work of the Messiah, who is closely identified with Yahweh, thus bringing to fulfillment all God\u2019s promises as revealed through the covenants.
\nThis synopsis of the kingdom takes us to the end of the Old Testament and the prophetic hope of God\u2019s future saving work\u2014truths that the New Testament proclaims have now come in Christ. At this point, it is vital to note that it is this Old Testament teaching that serves as the basis for the New Testament\u2019s teaching on the kingdom and its inauguration in Jesus, a topic we will return to in chapter 17.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
Scripture organically ties kingdom and covenant together: it is through the progression of the covenants that God\u2019s saving reign comes to this world, ultimately in the incarnation, life, and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. The relationship between God\u2019s kingdom and the covenants is tight. For this reason, thinking through the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression is central to understanding how God\u2019s kingdom comes in Jesus, how God\u2019s redemptive promise is realized, and how the Bible\u2019s metanarrative hangs together, since the covenants constitute the framework and backbone for the entire storyline of Scripture.
\nAs noted in parts 1\u20132, the relationship between the covenants has been and remains today disputed in biblical and systematic theology. However, before we highlight differences, it is important to acknowledge various agreements. Minimally, all Christians have affirmed that God has one plan of salvation and that history is the working out of that plan centered on Christ. In addition, most within historic Christianity, especially evangelical theology, agree that the Bible\u2019s storyline moves from creation to fall, from Abraham to David, and finally to Christ.
\nYet contrary to covenant theology, which has the tendency to speak of God\u2019s one plan of salvation in terms of the \u201ccovenant of grace\u201d and then subsume all the biblical covenants under this larger category, or dispensational theology, which tends to partition history in terms of dispensations, it is more accurate to think of God\u2019s one plan revealed through a plurality of covenants (e.g., Gal. 4:24; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:7\u201313), which reaches its fulfillment and terminus in Christ and the new covenant. This allows us to speak properly of the continuity of God\u2019s plan across time, now fulfilled in the new covenant, and it also helps us avoid \u201cflattening\u201d the differences between the covenants and downplaying the significant progression between them. This, in turn, allows us to see specific covenantal discontinuities in God\u2019s unfolding plan, especially when it comes to the fulfillment of the previous covenants in Christ and the new covenant, which has import for a variety of theological issues.<\/p>\n
CRUCIAL HERMENEUTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL POINTS TO REMEMBER<\/p>\n
Before we summarize our understanding of the progression of the covenants, let us briefly recap five key hermeneutical-methodological points central to our proposal. These points will not only offer a summary of our view but will also allow us to set our view over against the theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology.<\/p>\n
Progressive Revelation<\/p>\n
Progressive revelation is highly significant for the unfolding of the biblical covenants. Everyone agrees that Scripture, as God\u2019s word-act revelation, comes to us over time. God\u2019s self-disclosure, alongside his redemptive work, unfolds progressively by unique twists and turns, epochally demarcated by the covenants. In this way, God\u2019s one eternal plan\u2014what Paul refers to as the \u201cmystery\u201d of God\u2014unfolds step-by-step, ultimately culminating in Christ. The progression of the covenants is the primary means by which God\u2019s plan is unveiled, and God\u2019s promises and intended typological patterns are given, developed, and fulfilled in Christ and his people. Given this fact, it is best to view all the covenants as interrelated and mutually dependent.
\nAs God acts to redeem, the covenants disclose God\u2019s plan and reveal many truths. For example, they reveal who God is\u2014the triune God of \u1e25esed and \u2019\u0115met\u2014his character and way. They also reveal the purpose of our creation, the nature of the covenant relationship, and how we are to live in relationship with God and each other. Most importantly, in light of the tragedy of human sin, the covenants teach us how God graciously chooses to redeem a fallen people for himself and set everything right, while also revealing a growing tension in the covenant relationship between God and his image bearers. We discover how God is always faithful to his promises and obligations while we are not, even though he demands perfect obedience from his responsible creatures. Through covenantal progression, we discover how God\u2019s promises to restore his elect to covenant relationship with him from every tribe, nation, people, and tongue are ultimately achieved through the obedient work of God the Son incarnate, which was God\u2019s plan from eternity (Eph. 1:4, 9\u201310).<\/p>\n
The Three Horizons of Biblical Interpretation<\/p>\n
The three horizons\/contexts of biblical interpretation are critical for understanding the Bible\u2019s storyline via covenantal progression. Related to a diachronic reading of the Bible\u2019s storyline and the covenants are the three horizons of interpretation as discussed in chapter 3. In part 2, each covenant was placed within three expanding contexts. First, the covenant in question was interpreted within its own immediate, redemptive-historical context (i.e., textual horizon). Second, to understand properly how that covenant fits in God\u2019s unfolding plan, it was placed in relation to what preceded it (i.e., epochal horizon), and interbiblical connections were explored to understand better the interrelations between earlier and later revelation. Third, the covenant was then placed in relation to later covenants and, ultimately, in relation to the coming of Jesus and the inauguration of the new covenant (i.e., canonical horizon).
\nBy tracing out the covenants in this fashion, we are able to see how the entire plan of God is organically related and how it reaches its culmination and fulfillment in Christ. Also, it is only when we do this that we rightly see how the parts of God\u2019s plan fit with the whole and see that the theological conclusions we then draw are truly biblical and thus warranted.<\/p>\n
Typological Patterns and the Progression of the Covenants<\/p>\n
The typological patterns of Scripture are developed through the progression of the covenants. In chapter 3, we noted the importance of the promise-fulfillment theme and Scripture\u2019s typological patterns for understanding Scripture. We also noted how central the progression of the covenants are to both of these areas. By grasping the unfolding nature of the covenants, we better understand how all God\u2019s promises are yes and amen in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20) and how all the typological patterns find their fulfillment first in Christ and then to us, his people. Thus, by starting in creation and tracing the development of God\u2019s promises through the covenants, we discover the full depth of their meaning and how specific God-intended patterns, centered on specific persons, events, and institutions, reach their telos in Christ and the new covenant age.
\nFor example, Adam, as the covenant head of the old creation, anticipates and looks forward to the coming of the \u201clast Adam,\u201d our Lord Jesus, who is the head of the new covenant. In the meantime, as the biblical covenants are introduced and then progressively develop, \u201cother Adams\u201d show up on the stage of human history who take on the role of the first Adam (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Israel, David). Yet none of these \u201cother Adams\u201d are the ultimate fulfillment, although they point beyond themselves in prophetic expectation of the \u201clast Adam\u201d to come. In this way, through the diachronic and interbiblical\/intertextual unfolding of the covenants, these typological patterns take on greater definition and clarity until the antitype arrives. What is true of Adam is also true of other typological patterns, whether they be various persons or groups of people (e.g., Moses, Israel, David, prophets, priests, and kings), events (e.g., the exodus), or institutions (e.g., the sacrificial system, the tabernacle-temple). It is by this means that Scripture moves from lesser to greater and speaks of Christ as greater, along with the better and everlasting new covenant he establishes.
\nWhy is this point important? For the reason that it helps illuminate some of the similarities and differences between our proposal and those of dispensational and covenant theology. For example, in order to discern properly how Old Testament types\/patterns are brought to fulfillment in God\u2019s plan, we must first observe not only how those types are interbiblically developed within the Old Testament but also how they are fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus and the new covenant, then, become the hermeneutical lens by which we interpret the fulfillment of the types\/patterns of the Old Testament. This may not sound earthshaking, but it is our conviction that it is not consistently applied in the biblical-theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology. As discussed in chapter 3, this is how we believe the New Testament has priority over the Old. There we made the point that to be \u201cbiblical,\u201d we must first do justice to the Old Testament context, and in the case of typology we must discern whether something is a legitimate type\/pattern. Then we must think through that pattern\u2019s interbiblical development across the covenants and finally ask how it is brought to fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant age.
\nIn contrast to dispensational thought, as noted previously and to which we will return in chapters 18\u201319, we argue that the land promise to national Israel is a promise and a typological pattern. Thus God\u2019s intent in giving the promise tied to the Abrahamic covenant cannot be understood apart from a backward and forward look: backward to the archetypal reality of Eden and the entire creation, and forward, through the covenants, to its antitypical fulfillment in the new creation that Jesus inaugurates in his person and work. Thus, in Christ, as the first man of the new creation (last Adam) and the true Israel, the new creation is already here in him and his people, and it will reach its fullness in the new creation in the consummation. In the New Testament, then, built on the Old Testament teaching and anticipation, the land promise is not fulfilled simply to national believing Israel in a localized land somewhat \u201cdistinct\u201d from believing Gentiles but to the entire church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, in the glory of a new heavens and new earth. The new creation has \u201calready\u201d arrived in Christ, individual Christians (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8\u201310), and the church (Eph. 2:11\u201321), and at Christ\u2019s return, it will be consummated in a land that will be coextensive with the entire new creation (Revelation 21\u201322). Minimally, two reasons lead us to this conclusion. First, because the story of God\u2019s redemptive plan begins with creation, the land of Eden, and Adam\u2019s role to expand Eden\u2019s borders to the ends of the earth, this sets the context to the later promise given in the Abrahamic covenant. Yet, sadly, Adam disobeyed and was removed from Eden. Second, as God\u2019s redemptive promise is given, starting in Genesis 3:15, and is unpacked through covenantal progression from Adam to Christ, the old creation leads to the new creation, and the land, which functions as a microcosm of Eden, becomes a typological pattern that through the covenants reaches its inaugurated-consummated fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant age.
\nIn a similar fashion, in contrast to covenant theology, the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant does not remain unchanged as the biblical covenants unfold. Rather, as Adam and other covenant heads function as types that reach their antitypical fulfillment in Christ, so the genealogical principle changes in relation to Christ and his people. Under the new covenant, the relationship of Christ to his people is not Christ, then you as a believer, and then your children, but it is Christ as the head of all those he represents, namely, believers born of the Spirit, circumcised of heart, and forgiven of their sin. The natural-biological genealogical link from the Abrahamic covenant signifies a number of important truths, but it also points to the need for an internal circumcision of the heart, which the prophets say will occur for the entire community in the new covenant (e.g., Jer. 31:29\u201334; Ezek. 36:25\u201327; Joel 2:28\u201332). What the Old Testament itself anticipates, then, the New Testament says has occurred in the church, which is constituted as a transformed, regenerate people from every people and nation (Eph. 2:11\u201321; Rev. 5:9)\u2014the spiritual, believing seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26\u201329). This new people is new in the redemptive-historical sense: now that Jesus has come and accomplished his work, believing Jews and Gentiles are equally constituted as God\u2019s new covenant-new creation people receiving the same inheritance in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. More examples could be given, but the point is that in order to discern properly how Old Testament types are brought to fulfillment in God\u2019s plan, Jesus and the new covenant must become the hermeneutical lens by which we interpret the antitypical fulfillment of the Old Testament patterns.<\/p>\n
The New Covenant as the Fulfillment of the Covenants<\/p>\n
The new covenant is the fulfillment, telos, and terminus of the biblical covenants. Since all the biblical covenants are part of the one plan of God and since no covenant is unrelated to what preceded it and since no covenant can be understood apart from its fulfillment in Christ, it is right to say that all the biblical covenants reach their telos in Christ and the new covenant. Obviously, we are not minimizing the truth that what Jesus has inaugurated must still be consummated, a topic we will discuss in more detail in chapter 17. Nor are we minimizing that we still live in an overlap of the ages and that not until Christ returns will this \u201cpresent age\u201d end and thus that the creation order and structures of the Noahic continue until the end, a point we will return to below. Instead, we contend that now that Christ has come, all the previous covenants find their telos, or are \u201csummed up,\u201d in him.
\nFor this reason, the new covenant is the fulfillment of the previous covenants; it has brought the other covenants to their God-intended end. Fulfillment in the New Testament primarily means that what the previous covenants revealed, anticipated, and predicted through instruction and various patterns is now here, albeit in inaugurated form. That is why our Lord is presented as the new covenant head, who in his person and work is greater than Adam by undoing what Adam did and thus winning for us the new creation; as the true seed and offspring of Abraham, who brings blessings to the nations by his cross work; as the true Israel, fulfilling all that she failed to be; and as David\u2019s greater Son, who rules the nations and the entire creation as King of kings and Lord of lords.
\nHowever, the fact that Christ has fulfilled the previous covenants does not entail that the earlier covenants have no value for us today or that we can jettison the Old Testament from our Bibles. After all, not only did the previous covenants serve their role in redemptive history as part of God\u2019s redemptive plan and revelation of himself, which is crucial for us, they are also forever part of Scripture, which Paul reminds us is God-breathed and useful for our instruction, growth, and ministry (2 Tim. 3:16\u201317). Yet now that Christ has come, Christians are no longer under these previous covenants as covenants (other than the Noahic, since it, being tied to the overlap of the ages, is in force until the consummation). Instead, we are under the new covenant and all that it entails.
\nA crucial implication of this point is that we, as new covenant believers, must view and apply the previous biblical covenants to ourselves in light of Christ, to whom each of the previous covenants pointed and who fulfills every aspect of them\u2014a point that is vital to grasp in a proper application of the Old Testament to believers today and a topic we will return to in chapter 18. This is consistent with the New Testament\u2019s presentation of our Lord who, as D. A. Carson rightly notes in his discussion of Matthew 5:17\u201320, \u201cpresents himself as the eschatological goal of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance.\u201d
\nFor example, in regard to covenant theology, this very issue is at the center of debates regarding the continuing validity of the genealogical principle in the church and its application to the subjects of baptism and regarding the tripartite division of the law-covenant and how to discern what \u201cmoral\u201d law is. To make headway in these debates, we have to decide what features of the Abrahamic covenant, if any, are to be applied to the church today now that Christ has come. What was the role of the Abrahamic covenant in God\u2019s overall plan? How is it brought to fulfillment in the new covenant? And did Christ\u2019s coming bring about any changes? Furthermore, we also have to decide whether the tripartite distinction within the law-covenant of moral, civil, and ceremonial is, first, true to the law-covenant and, second, true to how we determine what the moral law is and what \u201ccarries over\u201d from the law-covenant to Christians today, who live under the new covenant.
\nOr, for example, in relation to dispensational theology, how ought we to think of the role of national Israel across the covenants, especially in relation to Christ as the true Israel and the last Adam? Furthermore, what exactly is the meaning of the land promise given in the Abrahamic covenant? Should we understand the promise to mean that God only intends for its fulfillment to national, believing Israel in a specific location, which she will receive in the future in a \u201cdistinct\u201d or different way from believing Gentiles in Christ? Or is the intent of the promise, as unpacked from creation and through the covenants, much greater? Is the promise best understood as one part of a larger promise rooted in creation, typologically foreshadowed in Israel\u2019s land, but ultimately anticipating its God-intended fulfillment in Christ and the dawning of the new creation, which the entire church, including believing Jews and Gentiles, will receive and enjoy equally?
\nOther examples could be given, some of which we will highlight in chapters 18\u201319, but viewing the new covenant in the flow of redemptive history as that which fulfills the previous covenants and brings them to their God-intended end does have implications for how we put together the Bible\u2019s entire storyline. In contrast to other theological positions, our approach of kingdom through the progression of the covenants wants consistently to view and apply the previous covenants through the lens of Christ and his work and the arrival of the new covenant age. It is only when we do so that our theological conclusions will do justice to God\u2019s overall plan and intent and let Scripture interpret Scripture at the canonical level.<\/p>\n
Conditional and Unconditional Categories<\/p>\n
Categorizing the biblical covenants as either unconditional or conditional is inadequate. A common way to distinguish the biblical covenants is to employ the unconditional-unilateral (royal grant) versus conditional-bilateral (suzerain-vassal treaty) distinction. It is on this basis that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are often characterized as royal-grant covenants (unconditional), while the covenant of works and the Mosaic\/Israel covenant are described as suzerain-vassal covenants (conditional). From here a variety of theological conclusions are drawn, depending on the issue.
\nFor example, on the basis of this distinction, Paul Williamson argues that there are two Abrahamic covenants: an unconditional one made in Genesis 15 and a conditional one made in Genesis 17. Or this distinction is often used as part of the larger law-gospel contrast (which is linked to the larger faith-works contrast) so that the covenant of works and the Mosaic\/Israel covenant are viewed as \u201claw,\u201d or the latter as a republication of the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the new covenants are viewed as \u201cgospel,\u201d or examples of the covenant of grace. Or from another theological angle, dispensational theology argues that the land promise to Israel, which was given in the Abrahamic covenant, was an unconditional promise since it is part of an unconditional covenant. For this reason, this promise (understood in a very specific way) still requires a future fulfillment to national Israel in the millennium and consummated ages, since not all aspects of it, so dispensationalists claim, have been realized\u2014such as the ruling of the Davidic king in the land of Israel over the nations. On the other hand, covenant theology not only views the \u201cland\u201d more typologically but will also often argue, as Michael Horton does, that the promises made to Israel, especially in relation to the land, were conditional and were in fact forfeited and are now spiritually fulfilled in the church. Or in relation to the genealogical principle, covenant theology argues that this principle is given in the unconditional Abrahamic covenant so that it continues unchanged and unchanging even in the new covenant, since the new covenant is basically a continuation and renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, with allowances made for obvious differences due to Christ\u2019s work.
\nHowever, as discussed in the previous chapters, we dissent from this common way of categorizing and distinguishing the biblical covenants. As the exposition has demonstrated, this way of viewing the covenants is problematic and reductionistic. Instead, the covenants consist of unconditional (unilateral) and conditional (bilateral) elements blended together. In fact, it is precisely due to this blend that there is a deliberate tension within the covenants\u2014a tension that is heightened as the Bible\u2019s storyline unfolds through the progression of the covenants and is only resolved in Christ.
\nOn the one hand, the covenants gloriously reveal our triune Creator-covenant God who makes and keeps his promises. As Creator and Lord, he chooses to enter into relationships with his creatures, and in those relationships he always shows himself to be the faithful partner. He always remains true to himself, his character, and his promises, and it is on this basis alone that we can hope and trust in him. The author of Hebrews captures this point well. As he reflects on the certainty of God\u2019s covenant promises in Christ, he writes,<\/p>\n
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (Heb. 6:17\u201318 ESV)<\/p>\n
The covenants, then, reveal first and foremost our gracious triune God who is the promise maker and keeper and who unilaterally guarantees that his promises will never fail. Whether it is with Adam in Eden or with other covenant heads, God\u2019s commitment to his image bearers and creation, tied to his promise in Genesis 3:15, will never fail. That same promise runs across the entire canon, and it is through the progression of the biblical covenants that it takes on greater clarity and expansion until it reaches its crescendo in the person and work of Christ. It continues in the Noahic covenant; it is given more definition and expansion in the Abrahamic; it undergirds the old covenant and the Davidic; and, as noted, it reaches its fulfillment in Christ.
\nOn the other hand, all the biblical covenants also demand an obedient, human covenant partner. God as our Creator and Lord demands from his image bearers, who were made to know him, complete devotion and obedience. For this reason, there is a conditional or bilateral aspect to the covenants. This is certainly evident with Adam as he is given commands and responsibilities to fulfill with the expectation that he will do so perfectly, faithfully, and in full devotion. Although we demur to some aspects of covenant theology\u2019s \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d on this point they are correct. Furthermore, in the Noahic covenant, obedience is also demanded, which is true as well of Abraham, the nation of Israel, David and his sons, and in the greatest way imaginable the Son, who obeys perfectly and completely in his entire life and supremely in his death on a cross (Phil. 2:6\u201311).
\nHowever, as the covenants progress through redemptive history, this tension grows, since it becomes evident that it is only the Lord himself who remains the faithful covenant partner. From his initial promise in Genesis 3:15 to reverse the effects of sin and death; from his increasingly greater promises made through the covenants; from the beautiful picture of covenant initiation in Genesis 15, which demonstrates that God takes the covenant obligations solely on himself; from the provision of a sacrificial system to atone for sin (Lev. 17:11); from repeatedly keeping his promises to a rebellious and hard-hearted people, God shows himself time and time again to be the faithful covenant partner. By contrast, all the human covenant partners\u2014Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David and his sons\u2014show themselves to be unfaithful, disobedient covenant breakers, some to a greater extent than others. As a result, there is no faithful, obedient, human son who fully obeys the demands of the covenant. Obedience must be rendered; it is not an option for us. God is holy and just; he is the moral standard of the universe, but we have sinned against him. And in light of Genesis 3:15, God\u2019s promises are tied to the provision of an obedient son, who will undo Adam\u2019s disastrous choice. But where is such a son who fully obeys and meets God\u2019s moral demands? How can God remain in relationship with us unless our disobedience is removed, our hearts are transformed, and our sin is paid for in full? It is through the covenants that this tension increases, and it is through the covenants that the answer is given: God himself\u2014our covenant maker and keeper\u2014must unilaterally act to keep his own promise by the provision of an obedient covenant partner that a new and better covenant can be established. It is only in the giving of his Son and through the Son\u2019s obedient life and death for us as God the Son incarnate that our redemption is secured, our sin is paid for, and the inauguration of an unshakable new covenant is established.
\nIt is only by maintaining the dual emphasis of unilateral and bilateral elements in the covenants, leading us to their fulfillment in the unbreakable new covenant in God\u2019s obedient Son, that we appreciate Scripture\u2019s glorious Christological focus. The Bible\u2019s storyline as told by the covenants leads us to him. Jesus alone, who is God the Son incarnate and our great Prophet, Priest, and King, can secure our salvation. In Christ alone, the covenants are fulfilled and this built-in tension is resolved.
\nWith these five hermeneutical-methodological points in mind\u2014points that highlight similarities and differences between other ways of putting together the biblical covenants and ours\u2014let us now sketch out how the covenants unfold in the Old Testament from creation to the promise of the new covenant. Obviously, in what follows only the most salient points of part 2 will be stressed in order to give the big picture of progressive covenantalism.<\/p>\n
A SUMMARY OF THE COVENANTS FROM CREATION TO THE PROMISE OF THE NEW COVENANT<\/p>\n
Adam and the Covenant with Creation<\/p>\n
Covenant theology has primarily spoken of the covenant in Genesis 1\u20132 as the \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d and dispensational theology rarely speaks of a covenant with creation\u2014at least, such a covenant does not factor much into their theological system. For covenant theology, the covenant of works was made with Adam as the head and representative of the entire human race. To him and his entire posterity, eternal life was promised on the condition of perfect obedience to God\u2019s law. However, due to his disobedience, Adam, along with all humanity, was plunged into a state of sin, death, and condemnation. But God, by his own sovereign grace and initiative, did not leave the human race in this condition but instead gave a saving promise, which is identified with the \u201ccovenant of grace\u201d\u2014a covenant made with the elect\u2014wherein God graciously offered to sinners life and salvation through the last Adam, the covenantal head of his people, the Lord Jesus Christ.
\nEven though this formulation is standard for covenant theology, some people have questioned the validity of a covenant of works\u2014or any covenant in creation. We will not rehearse all the arguments for rejecting such a covenant since those arguments were covered in detail in chapter 6. Instead, we will focus on the most central objections. First, exegetically, since the word \u201ccovenant\u201d (b\u011br\u00eet) is not found in the text and is not used until Genesis 6:18, some have concluded that we should not speak of a covenant prior to Noah. Second, theologically, some have questioned the notion of a covenant of works. Is Adam attempting to earn his salvation? Does he not already stand in a right relationship with God? And, though he obviously has everything to lose if he disobeys, should we think of it in a \u201cworks\u201d sense?
\nWhy, then, do we argue that there is a \u201ccreation covenant\u201d with Adam serving as the covenant head of humanity? Five points summarize our overall argument, and by highlighting these points, we also want to stress the foundational role that Adam plays in the development of the covenants.<\/p>\n
A COVENANT WITHOUT THE WORD \u201cCOVENANT.\u201d The absence of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d in Genesis 1\u20132 does not entail that there is no covenant. Exegetically, as argued in chapters 5\u20136, William Dumbrell is correct to note the crucial distinction between the two words \u201ccut\u201d and \u201cestablish\u201d in reference to a covenant. In Genesis 6:17\u201318 and 9:8\u201317, the covenant with Noah is \u201cestablished\u201d and not \u201ccut.\u201d Generally, the word \u201ccut\u201d refers to the initiation or origination of a covenant, while the word \u201cestablished\u201d either assumes that a covenant relationship is already in place or refers to a covenant partner fulfilling an obligation or upholding a promise in a covenant previously initiated\u2014that is, one makes good on his promise (cf. Gen. 17:7, 18, 21; Ex. 6:4; Lev. 26:9; Deut. 8:18; 2 Kings 23:3; Jer. 34:18). It is legitimate, then, to conclude that the phrase \u201cestablish my covenant\u201d in Genesis 6:18 (and in Gen. 9:9, 11, 17) refers to the maintenance of a preexisting covenant relationship, which can only be found in Adam and rooted in creation. Later, Scripture confirms this point (e.g., Jer. 33:19\u201326; Hos. 6:7).<\/p>\n
THE COVENANTAL CONTEXT OF GENESIS 2. Contextually, when we turn to Genesis 2, it is not improper to see a \u201ccovenantal context.\u201d Though the word \u201ccovenant\u201d is not used, all the elements of a lord-vassal agreement are in the context, including conditions of obedience with sanctions for disobedience. In addition, God identifies himself by his covenant name: Yahweh (Gen. 2:4, 5, 7, 8; Ex. 3:13\u201315). When the Israelites would have read the Pentateuch, they would have identified God\u2019s covenant name from Exodus 3 with Adam in creation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Moses identifies the covenant God of Israel with Adam and creation. However, instead of viewing it as a \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d it is probably best to view it as a \u201ccovenant with creation,\u201d that is, an original and unique situation that involved, especially in light of the rest of Scripture, Adam in a representative role on behalf of the human race (cf. Rom. 5:12\u201321; 1 Cor. 15:20\u201321).
\nThis point is further warranted by the truth that Adam and the entire human race are created as God\u2019s image bearers and by the link between image and sonship, terms that we have shown in chapter 6 are covenantal terms and assume a covenant relationship with God and creation. Although scholars dispute the exact meaning of the imago dei\u2014the terms \u201cimage\u201d (\u1e63elem) and \u201clikeness\u201d (dem\u00fbt) are rare in the Old Testament as applied to humans, and the terms are not used in a technical sense \u201cwith firm semantic borders\u201d\u2014a clear understanding of the concept is possible in view of its ancient Near East background. In the ancient world, the concept of the \u201cimage of the god\u201d conveys the idea of a physical representation of the \u201cgod,\u201d which underscores how Adam and the entire human race are viewed as vice-regents who are to rule and function in the place of God, as God\u2019s representatives, as God\u2019s servant-priest-kings. However, unlike the ancient Near East, where this concept is applied only to the king, Scripture teaches that the entire human race, under the headship of Adam, was created to be \u201cking\u201d over all creation, thus emphasizing the dual relationship of Adam and the human race to God and to the created order. This is borne out in Genesis 1:26c, where it is best translated as a purpose clause: \u201cin order that they [human beings] may have dominion\u201d\u2014that is, function in a kingly and royal way. This does not entail that dominion is the definition of the image, as some have sought to argue, but instead, as Graeme Goldsworthy rightly contends, dominion is best viewed as \u201ca consequence of\u201d the image. A crucial text that buttresses this point is Psalm 8, which describes human beings in royal terms. In an important way, this text is developed in Hebrews 2:5\u201318, where it is applied to Christ, who is not only the true \u201cimage of God\u201d as the divine Son (see Col. 1:15; cf. Heb. 1:3) but also the \u201cimage of God\u201d as the obedient Son, who takes on himself our humanity, identifies with us, and fulfills the role of Adam by winning for us our salvation.
\nIn all these ways, \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness\u201d are terms that signify our uniqueness, our dignity before God, and the representative role we play for the entire creation as God\u2019s servant-priest-kings. This entails that God deals with creation on the basis of how he deals with human beings, and all this implies a unique, covenantal relation as mediated through Adam as our representative and covenant head. Goldsworthy confirms this point when he writes,<\/p>\n
Although God commits himself to the whole of his creation for its good order and preservation, humanity is the special focus of this care. Creation is there for our benefit. Humanity is the representative of the whole creation so that God deals with creation on the basis of how he deals with humans. Only man is addressed as one who knows God and who is created to live purposefully for God. When man falls because of sin the creation is made to fall with him. In order to restore the whole creation, God works through his Son who becomes a man to restore man. The whole creation waits eagerly for the redeemed people of God to be finally revealed as God\u2019s perfected children, because at that point the creation will be released from its own bondage (Rom 8:19\u201323). This overview of man as the object of God\u2019s covenant love and redemption confirms the central significance given to man in Genesis 1\u20132.<\/p>\n
In addition, we must also link the concept of \u201cimage\u201d\/\u201clikeness\u201d to \u201csonship\u201d and then \u201csonship\u201d to the biblical covenants. Just as \u201cimage\u201d\/\u201clikeness\u201d carries a strong functional and representational meaning, so does \u201cson.\u201d As Stephen Dempster points out,<\/p>\n
By juxtaposing the divine creation of Adam in the image of God and the subsequent human creation of Seth in the image of Adam, the transmission of the image of God through this genealogical line is implied, as well as the link between sonship and the image of God. As Seth is a son of Adam, so Adam is a son of God. Language is being stretched here, as a literal son of God is certainly not in view, but nevertheless the writer uses an analogy to make a point.<\/p>\n
In fact, the New Testament draws this same connection as Adam is called the \u201cson\u201d of God in Luke 3:38. This is possible to do because \u201csonship\u201d carries a strong representational-functional meaning. Adam is the \u201cimage\u201d and \u201cson\u201d because he is the representative of God, as is the entire human race. He is to act and function in a way similar to God, under his sovereign rule, as a creature of God. Later in the Old Testament covenants, this same notion of \u201cson\u201d is applied to Israel (Ex. 4:22; cf. Hos. 11:1), as well as to the Davidic king(s) tied to the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14\u201317; Psalm 2). In every instance Israel as a nation and David and his sons are to stand as representatives of the Lord and to carry out God\u2019s rule in this world, as Adam did before them. In light of this, it is very difficult not to think in covenantal terms when we see this emphasis on \u201cimage\u201d and \u201cson.\u201d Furthermore, this emphasis is also foundational in making sense of New Testament Christology and Christ as the head of the new covenant, since Scripture applies to the eternal Son the expressions \u201cimage\u201d and \u201cSon\u201d (though greater) and then describes him as precisely the antitypical fulfillment of Adam, Israel, and David.<\/p>\n
ADAM IN RELATION TO CHRIST. Canonically and theologically, the Bible\u2019s entire storyline is centered on two foundational, representative individuals: Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12\u201321). It seems difficult to think of Christ as the head of the new covenant without Adam being the head of some kind of covenant in the original situation. What best explains this relationship is a \u201ccovenant with creation,\u201d where Adam stands in a unique and singular situation as head of the human race. As God\u2019s image bearers and children, Adam and Eve are given the mandate to rule over God\u2019s creation, to put all things under their feet (cf. Ps. 8:5\u20138) for God\u2019s glory, and to establish the pattern of God\u2019s kingdom in this world whereby everything that God has made stands in right relationship to him as God intended. But sadly, Adam did not obey and thus fulfill the purpose of his existence. Rather, he rebelled against God and as the covenant head of the human race plunged us down with him, bringing into God\u2019s good world the reality and power of sin and death. In Adam, unless God acts in grace and power, the original creation will stand completely under divine judgment. However, thankfully, God chooses to act on our behalf. He promises that his purposes for creation and the human race will continue through his provision of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), a Redeemer, which in this context has to be understood as ultimately bringing about the reversal of the disastrous effects of the fall.
\nBiblically and theologically, we cannot overestimate the importance of the Adam-Christ typological relationship for understanding the storyline of Scripture (see Rom. 5:12\u201321; 1 Cor. 15:20\u201323; cf. Heb. 2:5\u201318). In fact, Scripture teaches that all human beings fall under the representative headship of either Adam or Christ. Adam represents all that is tied to the \u201cold creation\u201d and \u201cthis present age,\u201d characterized by sin, death, and judgment. Christ represents all that is associated with the \u201cnew creation\u201d and the \u201cnew covenant,\u201d which from the perspective of the Old Testament Prophets are identified with the \u201cage to come,\u201d characterized by salvation, life, and restoration of what was lost in the fall. This is why Scripture subsumes Jew and Gentile under Adam, so that anyone who is \u201cin Adam,\u201d given Adam\u2019s disobedience, now comes into this world dead in his or her sins and under the judicial sentence of God (see Eph. 2:1\u20133). In this way, Adam\u2019s headship has the deeper privilege of more than ordinary fatherhood. It also includes the dignity of defining what it means to be human, for he stands not merely as our physical or seminal head but also as our covenantal head. Being human, then, is equivalent to bearing Adam\u2019s image (1 Cor. 15:49).
\nNow, in light of the fall, being \u201cin Adam\u201d is equivalent to being part of the old creation and an age associated with sin, death, and judgment, while being \u201cin Christ\u201d is equivalent to being part of the new creation and an age associated with salvation and life. As Douglas Moo says,<\/p>\n
All people, Paul teaches, stand in relationship to one of two men, whose actions determine the eternal destiny of all who belong to them. Either one \u201cbelongs to\u201d Adam and is under sentence of death because of his sin, or disobedience, or one belongs to Christ and is assured of eternal life because of his \u201crighteous\u201d act, or obedience. The actions of Adam and Christ then are similar in having \u201cepochal\u201d significance.<\/p>\n
This is so even though, as Moo rightly notes, there is discontinuity between these two men in terms of their identity and actions. The two men are not equal in power, since \u201cChrist\u2019s act is able completely to overcome the effects of Adam\u2019s.\u201d
\nThe significance of starting with the creation covenant for understanding the Bible\u2019s storyline and how the covenants relate to each other cannot be overstated. The creation covenant is foundational for all future covenants since all subsequent covenants unpack Adam\u2019s representative role in the world. Adam\u2014indeed, all humanity\u2014is created as God\u2019s image-son, a priest-king to rule over creation. Adam is created in relationship with God as he mediates God\u2019s rule to the world; he does not need to merit favor before God. Yet God, as holy and just, demands perfect obedience from his covenant partner. All subsequent covenant heads function as subsets of Adam, who, in God\u2019s plan, points forward to Christ, the last Adam, who by his obedience ushers in a new covenant.
\nIn Christ, the original situation is recovered, though of course in a greater or a fortiori manner, thus bringing God\u2019s plan to its eschatological goal. In Christ and the new covenant, all the previous covenants find their telos and terminus, which underscores why the new covenant age is greater than what preceded it. Even though the amount of space devoted to Adam is small, his role as the representative head of creation defines what comes after him, and the entire work of Christ (Heb. 2:5\u201318).
\nWe have sought to capture this emphasis in figure 16.1, where the first covenant\u2019s scope is as universal as creation, even though in subsequent covenants it is narrowed. Yet as the Bible\u2019s storyline unfolds through covenantal progression, the narrowing focus of subsequent covenants is restored in Christ, who comes as the new covenant head and who through his obedience brings about the inauguration of a new creation (see figure 16.2).<\/p>\n
Figure 16.1 Time versus Scope of Covenant Membership<\/p>\n
Notes: The line corresponding to the Abrahamic covenant is bold to show that both the Israelite and new covenants are the means of fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant. The Davidic covenant is a single line because, formally, the Davidic covenant is between God and David. The Abrahamic covenant promises blessing to the nations, the Israelite covenant locates Israel in the land bridge between Mesopotamia and Egypt, and the Davidic covenant is a charter for humanity. So they all have worldwide implications in principle, but the diagram is specifically about the scope of covenant membership. The new creation eventually replaces the old creation completely. In the Old Testament God first makes the people (Israel) and then the land (Palestine), and in the New Testament God first makes the people (Christians) and then the land (new heavens and earth).<\/p>\n
Figure 16.2 Time versus Covenant Partners\/Roles<\/p>\n
Notes: The middle horizontal section identifies the servant-king(s) \/ \u201cson(s) of God\u201d who is\/are set up over creation \/ the nations by the corresponding covenant. The \u201cNew Creation = New People\u201d section is provisional and attempts to account for the following:
\n\u2022 1 Cor. 15:23\u201324: \u201cBut each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ\u2019s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power\u201d (NASB). The final scene is difficult to portray, since on the one hand, Christ \u201chands over the kingdom\u201d to the Father, but on the other hand, God and the Lamb share a throne in the new heavens and earth (Rev. 22:1, 3), just as they do after Jesus\u2019s resurrection (Acts 2:33). I take \u201chanding over the kingdom\u201d to the Father therefore to mean that Jesus has fulfilled both his first-advent role of creating a new people and his second-advent role of purging the nations of the nonelect, so that he \u201chands over\u201d a regenerate kingdom to the Father, having completed his assigned roles as Priest and Judge. Then the Father and the Lamb corule this new heavens and earth; Christ\u2019s \u201chanding over the kingdom\u201d to the Father apparently does not mean laying aside his role as King over the new creation.
\n\u2022 Rev. 20:4: Christ and those \u201cmade alive\u201d in Christ reign during the millennium (= interadvent period).
\n\u2022 Rev. 21:1: The new heaven and earth.
\n\u2022 Rev. 21:3: \u201cAnd I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, \u2018Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them\u2019 \u201d (NASB).
\n\u2022 Rev. 21:7: \u201cHe who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son\u201d (NASB).
\n\u2022 Rev. 22:5: The servants of God will reign forever in the new heaven and earth.<\/p>\n
TYPOLOGICAL PATTERNS FROM ADAM TO CHRIST. Given the foundational role of the creation covenant for all subsequent covenants, it is not surprising that crucial typological patterns begin here that eventually, through the progression of the covenants, reach their fulfillment, terminus, and telos in Christ and the new covenant. For example, think of the creation week, which culminates in God resting on the seventh day, after he declared everything \u201cvery good\u201d (Gen. 1:31). This not only speaks of God\u2019s entering into covenantal enjoyment of his creation and our enjoyment of God as we carry out our creation mandate as servant-kings but also lays down a structure\/pattern that grounds the later Sabbath law under the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 20:8\u201311), which in turn functions as a type that looks back to creation and forward to the new creation and a greater \u201crest\u201d to come in Christ (Heb. 3:7\u20134:13). Or think of the close connection between Eden as a garden-temple sanctuary, the emphasis on the land tied to creation, and how these patterns eventually find their fulfillment in our Lord Jesus, who is the antitypical fulfillment of the temple and who inaugurates the new creation, both of which have a spillover effect and benefit for the church. Or think of the establishment of marriage in Genesis 2:24\u201325 and how through the biblical covenants marriage pictures a greater reality, namely, God\u2019s relation to his people and Christ\u2019s relation to the church, which ultimately points forward to the consummation. All these patterns eventually terminate eschatologically in Christ and his people. In these ways, the creation covenant plants in seed form structures and patterns that, as the covenants unfold, reach their full mature growth in Christ, the new covenant age, and the church.
\nAt this point, it may be helpful to reflect on where our view is different from a more traditional covenant of works. Although we are sympathetic with the traditional view, we do not think it fully captures the covenant relation in creation. We affirm that Adam is created as God\u2019s image-son, a priest-king, and humanity\u2019s representative head, to rule over creation and to put everything under his feet (Gen. 1:26\u201331; Psalm 8). We also affirm that God, as Creator and Lord, rightly demands perfect obedience from his covenant partner, which, sadly, Adam does not render, thus bringing sin and death into the world and placing all humanity under guilt and condemnation (Gen. 2:16\u201317; 3:1\u201324; Rom. 5:12\u201321; Eph. 2:1\u20133). Furthermore, in light of the end of the Bible\u2019s story, we affirm that Adam\u2019s original situation was temporary and not permanent, which the tree of life seems to imply, as a fully obedient Adam at some point would have been granted eternal life.
\nHowever, it is best to view the creation covenant in more gracious terms\u2014or better, in less contractual terms and in more continuity with creation itself. As a result of God\u2019s creation of the world and humans in his image, God graciously created us for a covenant relationship, which he entered into with us, as beautifully portrayed by his enjoyment of rest after his work of creation (Gen. 2:1\u20133). The command, then, given to Adam in Genesis 2:16\u201317 did not create a \u201ccovenant of works\u201d relationship subsequent to creation; instead, Adam, by virtue of his creation as God\u2019s image-son, was already in a filial relation with his Creator-covenant Lord. No doubt, Adam was to obey God fully, but as a creature, this is \u201cessential to all human dealings with God, simply by virtue of who God is.\u201d Yet Adam, as God\u2019s image-priest-king, was already created in a good and gracious standing before God, which implies that he did not have to merit or earn more favor to remain in his present covenant relationship. As a creature, what was required of Adam was full devotion, obedience, and covenant loyalty to his Creator and Lord. Even if the tree of life implies some kind of subsequent granting of eternal life, as Anthony Hoekema reminds us, it still \u201cmust be understood as a gift of God\u2019s grace.\u201d Adam\u2019s relationship to God, then, was \u201cnot an impersonal relationship between \u2018contracting parties\u2019 \u201d in which a certain amount of merit must be earned but rather a relationship to be lived and fully enjoyed. Adam knew God by personal fellowship and communion, and it was his privilege and calling to fulfill the purpose of his creation, namely, to rule over the earth by building a community and society, grounded in marriage and the family, thus obeying God in love and ruling over creation to God\u2019s glory.
\nYet Adam did not remain fully devoted and faithful to God. He disobeyed God\u2019s command and failed to rule as God\u2019s image-son and priest-king. In judgment, God expelled him from Eden, and sadly, sin and death were transmitted from Adam to the human race. But thankfully, God did not leave Adam and humanity under judgment; instead, he gave a word of promise to redeem and restore. In contrast to a covenant of works, which tends to create too sharp a disjunction between creation and the subsequent redemptive covenants, it is better to view the covenant of creation in more continuity with later covenants, as foundational to them and not as their foil. In this way, continuity between the covenants is maintained while also preserving important discontinuities, as we move from the old to the new creation. Greg Nichols captures this point well when he writes,<\/p>\n
The gulf of sin separates creation from redemption. The relationship also exhibits harmony. Redemption is not against creation. It is against sin. Furthermore, there is progress and advancement. Creation was \u201cvery good.\u201d Redemption is superior to very good. The restoration achieved in redemption is not retrogressive. It doesn\u2019t take man back to pre-fall Eden. It produces something better than Eden. God restores sinless hearts, but not pre-fall innocence. The end result of redemption is greater than original creation minus sin. In sum, the relation between creation and redemption displays harmony and improvement.<\/p>\n
By starting with the creation covenant, then, we discover in a greater way how this covenant is foundational for all future covenants and in a more glorious way how the first Adam leads us to the greater, last Adam. Moreover, by starting with Adam and his covenant headship as foundational to all later covenant heads, we also discover how Christ, by his obedient life and death, does not merely recover the original creation but transforms it by the inauguration of God\u2019s kingdom through the new covenant, thus bringing God\u2019s eternal plan to its eschatological goal in himself and to the dawning of a new and better creation.<\/p>\n
THE DISASTER OF SIN AND THE PROMISE OF HOPE. We cannot think of the covenant with creation without mentioning the twofold emphasis on the entrance of sin into the world and God\u2019s first redemption promise\u2014a promise that receives greater definition, clarification, and expansion in subsequent covenants. Let us highlight both of these emphases since they are central to the Bible\u2019s entire storyline as unpacked through the covenants.<\/p>\n
The entrance of sin into the world. Genesis 3 is crucial in describing how, in history, sin and evil came into the human race\u2014and along with them the desperate nature of human depravity, which God alone can remedy. Scripture, from beginning to end, takes the reality of sin and evil seriously. In moving from Genesis 1\u20132, we see how quickly human beings transfer from a \u201cvery good\u201d world (1:31) to an \u201cabnormal\u201d and cursed one (3:14\u201324), one now under God\u2019s judgment and under the sentence of death. After having received every blessing imaginable from God as well as the direct command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and with the warning still ringing in his ears\u2014\u201cFor in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die\u201d (2:17 ESV)\u2014Adam acts in willful, autonomous rebellion against God and thus, tragically, turns the created order upside down. The first temptation and subsequent act of rebellion is stated matter-of-factly in the text: \u201cSo when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate\u201d (3:6 ESV). But behind this statement is the awful reality that human beings preferred their own will and choice to that of the glorious God of creation. In the words of Paul, human beings chose to worship and serve \u201cthe creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!\u201d (Rom. 1:25 ESV).
\nThe punishment, sadly, fits the crime: death. The human race is now under a death sentence, described in a variety of ways in Scripture\u2014bondage to sin; dead in our trespasses; under the power of sin, death, and the Evil One; and so on (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:1\u20133). But worse than all these terrible results is that human beings, who were made to know, love, and serve God, are now enemies of God, living under his judgment and wrath and no longer in a living relationship with him\u2014spiritually dead to God (Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:1\u20133; 4:17\u201319). This in the end is death\u2014physically and spiritually\u2014for to live in relationship and fellowship with God as image bearers for his glory is life, but to live apart from him is death.
\nAs the text unfolds, the punishment of our sin is described in terms of initial and immediate consequences, and then in terms of more explicit and prolonged consequences. Initially, we are told, the act of rebellion \u201copens\u201d the eyes of Adam and Eve, an opening that is viewed negatively, unlike what the serpent had promised (Gen. 3:7). They depart from God\u2019s presence in flight and shame, blaming each other and God for what has happened (3:8\u201313). Explicitly, God acts judicially by bringing judgment on the serpent, on Eve, and then on Adam, which culminates in the Lord taking two steps that initiate the execution of the punishment announced in Genesis 2. First, God drives the human beings from the garden. Second, God blocks the way to the tree of life, signifying that we are no longer in life-giving fellowship with the Lord, living in his presence in terms of blessing, privilege, and relationship. In order to forbid access to the tree of life, God places the cherubim (cf. Ezek. 1:5\u201314; 10:15; Rev. 4:6\u201311) and adds \u201ca flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life\u201d (Gen. 3:24 ESV). The flaming sword represents the justice and holiness of God at work in his judgments (cf. Jer. 47:6; Ezekiel 21). By all this description, Scripture is clear: as we move through the covenants, the only way back to the presence of God is through God\u2019s way and God\u2019s provision, which eventually is seen through the covenants and through the provision of the tabernacle, the temple, and ultimately the one who is the fulfillment of the temple, our Lord Jesus Christ (see John 2:19\u201321; cf. Revelation 21\u201322).
\nIn addition, there is no doubt that Adam\u2019s sin is passed on to subsequent generations, as evidenced in Cain\u2019s murderous action (Genesis 4), in the common refrain \u201cAnd he died \u2026\u201d in the genealogical list in Genesis 5 (5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31), and in the flood (Genesis 6\u20139). Repeatedly, throughout the canon, whether it is the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) or even the people of God as represented by Abraham, Moses, or David, we find that sin has spread to all of them without exception. Paul\u2019s summary statement in Romans 3:23\u2014\u201cFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God\u201d\u2014is not only given by divine revelation but is also true to the Bible\u2019s entire story. From Genesis 3 on, Scripture underscores the fact that all of us are under the condemnation of sin and that the only hope for our desperate condition is found in God\u2019s provision alone. The only hope for Adam\u2019s helpless race is found in another Adam, the last Adam, who, unlike the first man (and the entire human race), does not fail and who secures our redemption, salvation, and justification\u2014literally, a \u201cnew creation.\u201d However, before we come to Christ, the covenants progressively reveal and anticipate, in instruction and type, the coming of our Lord.<\/p>\n
The first promise of hope and redemption. Genesis 3 is also crucial in giving us God\u2019s initial promise of redemption\u2014a promise that drives the entire storyline of Scripture, including the covenants, leading us to Christ. Genesis 3 is situated in the canon not only to establish the nature of the human problem but also to prepare for God\u2019s gracious redemption. The effects of sin are described in terms of a horrible twofold alienation, which is the reversal and breakdown of the covenant relationship: (1) alienation between God and humans and (2) alienation between humans and creation (which results in further alienation with others, ourselves, our inheritance in the garden, and the entire created order). After describing the awful effects of sin on God\u2019s good creation, the narrative wonderfully unfolds God\u2019s word of promise (3:15), which leads us ultimately to the incarnation of God\u2019s Son and his redemptive work on our behalf to reverse the alienating effects of sin in all its depth and dimensions. In this regard, it is important once again to note the first Adam\u2013last Adam typological relationship. In the biblical storyline, it is precisely because the first Adam sinned in history that the last Adam had to come.
\nScripture is clear: our greatest problem as human beings is our sin before God. This may seem like an obvious point to many, but in today\u2019s world such an understanding is not something we can take for granted. We have lost not only the biblical conception of God but also the biblical conception of humans and sin. Whether we are talking about the fallout of modernism or postmodernism, the end result is the same: sin and evil are not viewed primarily in relation to God but are reduced to the things of this world. Yet without viewing sin and evil in relation to God, they begin to be misunderstood and radically removed from a biblical conception of them, which will make it more difficult to grasp correctly how the biblical covenants become redemptive and lead us to the full forgiveness of sin achieved by the work of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant (see Jer. 31:34; cf. Hebrews 8\u201310).
\nEver since Genesis 3, given who God is and who we are as fallen creatures, there is a tension in covenantal relations between God and humans. Covenants allow for intimacy with God. God, as our Creator-covenant Lord, is present with his people, and his people enjoy rest and relationship with him as we carry out our responsibilities before him. However, given our sin, how can the holy, just, and righteous God dwell with us? Or better, how can we dwell in his presence? How can God declare us right before him? Since God is self-sufficient, holy, and personal, he requires the punishment of our sin; we cannot dwell in his presence apart from our sin being vanquished. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that our sin and God\u2019s holiness are incompatible. God\u2019s holiness exposes our sin, and it must ultimately be dealt with. Sin cannot approach God, and God cannot tolerate it. Furthermore, closely related to God\u2019s holiness is his wrath, that is, his holy reaction to evil. Scripture speaks of the wrath of God in high-intensity language, and it is important to note that a substantial part of the Bible\u2019s storyline turns on God\u2019s wrath. No doubt, God is forbearing, gracious, and long-suffering, but he is also a God of holiness, wrath, and judgment. The wrath of God, unlike the love or holiness of God, should not be thought of as an intrinsic perfection of God; rather, it is a function or expression of God\u2019s holiness against sin. Where there is no sin, there is no wrath, but there will always be love and holiness. Where God in his holiness confronts his image bearers in their rebellion, there must be wrath; otherwise, God is not the jealous and self-sufficient God he claims to be, and his holiness is impugned.
\nNow it is precisely this necessity of God to judge and punish human sin that twists a tension into the covenantal relationship and the Bible\u2019s metanarrative, what John Stott labels the \u201cproblem of forgiveness.\u201d He nicely explains it this way:<\/p>\n
The problem of forgiveness is constituted by the inevitable collision between divine perfection and human rebellion, between God as he is and us as we are. The obstacle to forgiveness is neither our sin alone, nor our guilt alone, but also the divine reaction in love and wrath towards guilty sinners. For, although indeed \u201cGod is love,\u201d yet we have to remember that his love is \u201choly love,\u201d love which yearns over sinners while at the same time refusing to condone their sin. How, then, could God express his holy love?\u2014his love in forgiving sinners without compromising his holiness, and his holiness in judging sinners without frustrating his love? Confronted by human evil, how could God be true to himself as holy love? In Isaiah\u2019s words, how could he be simultaneously \u201ca righteous God and a Savior\u201d (45:21)?<\/p>\n
Whereas sin is an internal moral problem for humanity, forgiveness is an intrinsic moral problem for God. It is an intrinsic problem for God in the sense that it arises due to tensions in God\u2019s own moral nature. As holy, righteous, and just, God, in order to forgive us, cannot also deny himself; he cannot arbitrarily forgive without full satisfaction of his own moral character and nature, for he himself is the moral standard of the universe. But as Stott asks, \u201cHow can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously?\u201d How can God express his holiness without consuming us and his love without condoning our sins? How can he satisfy his holy love? Or how can God be, in the words of Paul, \u201cjust and justifier\u201d of the ungodly (Rom. 3:25\u201326)? How can he be both subject and object in salvation\u2014that is, take the initiative yet satisfy his own righteous requirements? Scripture\u2019s answer to this problem is that God himself must solve the problem. God himself\u2014the Creator of the universe and the covenant-making God\u2014will have to take on himself the initiative to save; he will have to act in perfect justice consistent with his own righteous requirements. Yet at the same time, he will choose to manifest his amazing, sovereign grace. If there is going to be a solution at all, he must act.
\nNow it is in this context that we should understand God\u2019s initial promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15. In addition, as Graeme Goldsworthy rightly observes, \u201cThe background to God\u2019s work of rescuing sinners is his commitment to his creation.\u201d Given the fact that God\u2019s plan for the universe is eternal, comprehensive, and unchangeable\u2014a plan that includes and ordains all things, including the free, responsible choice of his creatures to sin\u2014there is no hint that God\u2019s creation of the universe was \u201con a trial basis, or with a view to scrapping it after a period of time.\u201d Rather, the Genesis narrative, especially with the pronouncement that everything was very good (1:31), is best understood as acknowledging not only God\u2019s approval of all that he had made but also his commitment to it. In this regard, Goldsworthy is right to argue, \u201cThe strength of God\u2019s commitment becomes clearer as the narrative progresses. Mankind\u2019s rebellion brings judgment but not instant destruction. God preserves order in the universe and in human society, and at the same time begins to reveal his purposes to overcome the effects of human sin.\u201d And it is precisely these purposes to reverse the effects of sin in all its diverse dimensions, to destroy the powers of \u201cthis present age,\u201d and ultimately to usher in a new creation that the storyline of Scripture unpacks in terms of the triune God\u2019s great plan of redemption unfolded through the biblical covenants.
\nIn terms of the promise itself, God promises to put enmity between the \u201cseed\u201d of the woman and the seed of the serpent; the woman\u2019s seed will strike the serpent on the head, signifying defeat, while the serpent\u2019s seed will strike a blow to the woman\u2019s seed on the heel, signifying some kind of battle and conflict. In the textual horizon (the immediate context), as Stephen Dempster is surely right to argue, \u201cthe triumph of the woman\u2019s seed would suggest a return to the Edenic state, before the serpent had wrought its damage, and a wresting of the dominion of the world from the serpent.\u201d In other words, it is through the seed of the woman that the Adamic role in creation will be restored, that the curses will be removed, and that the serpent will be destroyed. In addition, it is important to observe that the promise entails that the one to bring about this triumphant work will come from the human race. As Dempster notes, \u201cJust as the woman was built from the man to complete the old creation, so a seed will be built from the woman with the task of restoring the lost dominion of the old creation to its rightful heirs.\u201d
\nThis narrative fits with what we have seen about the role of humans in creation as God\u2019s image bearers. Humanity is the representative of the whole creation, and specifically, Adam is the representative head of the human race. It should not surprise us, then, that God deals with creation on the basis of how he deals with humans. When Adam falls because of sin and the creation is cursed as a result, in order to restore the whole creation God promises to provide and work through the seed of a woman, another man, in order to restore what was lost. In many ways, what is at stake in this context is who will have dominion over the created order\u2014human beings or the serpent. The man and the woman in Genesis 1\u20132 were already told to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion over the earth. But in light of the fall, their dominion over the earth is thwarted. The hope for the human race, then, is now found in the seed of the woman who will restore the lost glory. In truth, as Dempster rightly notes, in the seed of the woman, \u201chuman\u2014and therefore divine\u2014dominion will be established over the world. The realization of the kingdom of God is linked to the future of the human race.\u201d
\nAs the text unfolds, there is evidence that Adam lays claim on the promise. For example, Adam names his wife \u201cEve\u201d\u2014the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20), which seems to imply more than a mere embracing of life. Rather, in this context, it is evidence that Adam is reclaiming dominion in faith \u201cthrough naming his wife the mother, which cannot help but allude to the more specific role she will have as the one who will provide a seed who will strike the serpent.\u201d In addition, God provides clothes to cover the shame and nakedness of Adam and Eve (3:21), which signifies that God will not let his creation project be lost. However, at this point in the storyline, it is no doubt the case that this promise is given in \u201cseed form,\u201d and it is truly an enigmatic prediction, which will be fleshed out in far more detail as God discloses more of his unfolding plan through the covenants.
\nIn this light, the church was correct to conclude that Genesis 3:15 is rightly called the protevangelium, that is, the first gospel proclamation. God is stating that \u201csomeone out of the human race itself (\u2018the woman\u2019s offspring\u2019), although fatally \u2018wounded\u2019 himself in the conflict, would destroy the serpent (Satan).\u201d In fact, it is this promise that the Bible\u2019s entire storyline unfolds through the progression of the covenants, reaching their fulfillment and telos in Christ (see Rom. 10:4; 16:25\u201327; Gal. 3:16). Also, it is here that we see the start of the important truth that each covenant unpacks in greater detail, namely, that God requires an obedient covenant partner. Yet this is precisely the problem: God remains faithful to his promises, but we do not. It is only if God himself provides an obedient son\u2014his Son\u2014that the covenant relationship will be what it was intended to be from the beginning.<\/p>\n
The Noahic Covenant<\/p>\n
The word \u201ccovenant\u201d first appears with Noah (Gen. 6:18; cf. 9:9\u201311), but it should be viewed as a continuation of the prior creation covenant. The Noahic covenant is the reinstatement and upholding of God\u2019s commitment to creation, now in light of sin. The Noahic covenant is a \u201ccreation covenant\u201d; however, the difference from the original situation is that creation is now fallen, as evidenced by God\u2019s judgment on the human race in the universal flood, which becomes a typological pattern culminating in final judgment (Genesis 6\u20138; 2 Pet. 3:1\u201313). It would seem that God\u2019s commitment to humans and creation is threatened in light of human sin and depravity, but given God\u2019s promise in Genesis 3:15 and the description of the Noahic covenant\u2014lasting as long as \u201cthe earth remains\u201d (8:22)\u2014this covenant reinforces God\u2019s intention that creation will not be lost and that our role in it will continue as God\u2019s image bearers and priest-kings. We will continue to relate to God in terms of obedient sonship and to the world as its servant-kings. Furthermore, the \u201cseed of the woman\u201d is given more definition: he will now come through Noah, the covenant head, and through his seed\/family, and it is he who will reverse the effects of sin and usher in a \u201cnew creation\u201d where God\u2019s rule and reign are brought to this world and we obey God in covenant loyalty, love, and faithfulness.
\nIn this way, Noah functions as \u201canother Adam\u201d (Gen. 9:1\u20137; cf. 1:26\u201330), as the new head of the human race\u2014hence the reason for speaking of the Noahic covenant as a creation covenant. He is given the same creational mandate, and the scope of the Noahic covenant is universal, as it was in Adam. In Noah, the covenant reminds us that God\u2019s purposes encompass not just one people but all nations and the entire creation. The universal emphasis of creation that is stressed in Genesis 1\u201311 is not lost entirely in the subsequent chapters of Genesis (or beyond), despite their narrowing focus in later covenants (see figure 16.1 [p. 673], which pictures the scope of the Noahic covenant as being as wide as the creation covenant).
\nThe Noahic covenant establishes three further points. First, even though God demands obedience from Noah, as he demands from the entire human race, Noah disobeys, like Adam did (Gen. 9:18\u201328). In fact, by the time we reach Genesis 11, we have Genesis 3 all over again. Although the entire human race is wiped out except for Noah and his family, and God makes a new start with them, the problem of the human heart remains (see Gen. 6:5\u20137 with 8:21\u201322). Ultimately what is needed, which the progression of the covenants will clarify, is a greater heart transformation by the Spirit for every person, tied to the forgiveness of sin, so that humans will live out the purpose of their creation in relation to God and each other. Yet at this point in the story, the heart transformation of all the people is still future. Instead, what we see is the contrast between the rebellious human attempt to make a name for itself apart from God and God graciously electing\/choosing and calling Abraham to make his name great (see Gen. 11:4 with 12:1\u20133).
\nSecond, the Noahic covenant explains why fallen humanity simultaneously exists alongside God\u2019s people until the consummation. Instead of continually wiping away fallen humanity and starting over again, two kingdoms emerge until the end: God\u2019s kingdom or saving reign, which is seen in his people through specific covenant relationships, as evidenced in Noah and then later in Abraham, Israel, and David; and the kingdom of man or of this world\u2014identified with Satan\u2014which stands in foolish opposition to God. Obviously, there is a tension between these two kingdoms, which is evidenced throughout the Old Testament and which emerges in the New Testament by the larger church-state distinction. In fact, in the New Testament, even though Christ has come and already inaugurated the future age, given the Noahic promise, an overlap of the ages continues until Christ returns and brings \u201cthis present age\u201d to its end.
\nThird, the Noahic covenant also explains why creation order and structures and some typological patterns associated with creation continue until the end, even though Christ began to transform them when he inaugurated the new covenant. For example, think of marriage. Marriage and family are part of the creation order (Gen. 2:18\u201325), which, given the Noahic promise, will continue until the end (8:22; 9:12\u201317). Yet as the covenants unfold, we discover that marriage also functions as a typological pattern that ultimately reaches its fulfillment in the consummation, where there is no giving in human marriage (Matt. 22:29\u201330; Eph. 5:31\u201332). Although Christ has come, due to the overlap of the ages tied to the Noahic covenant, while others have already reached their fulfillment in Christ\u2019s first coming, some creation structures\/patterns continue to the end (e.g., various persons such as Adam, Moses, and David; the tabernacle-temple; the sacrificial system; and the priesthood). In this sense, although Christ fulfills all the covenants in himself and the new covenant, we will still have to think carefully about how various aspects of the covenants are fulfilled due to Christ\u2019s two advents. We will return to this important subject in chapter 17 as we wrestle with inaugurated eschatology. Yet the observation that the Noahic covenant and thus creation order and its various God-given structures (e.g., human dignity, a proper use of our sexuality, monogamous heterosexual marriage, the family, work) continue to the consummation is important in determining creation norms for us today and how to apply the Old Testament to Christians today, a subject we will discuss in chapter 18.<\/p>\n
The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
Given its location in Scripture, the Abrahamic covenant plays a crucial role in the Bible\u2019s storyline. In truth, Abraham and his family function as another Adam, called to be God\u2019s true humanity, and it is through them alone that salvation comes to the world and God\u2019s kingdom arrives. The hope for the human race is found in Abraham and his seed (Israel, David, and ultimately Christ). In the New Testament, Paul stresses this point when he argues that the singular use of \u201cseed\u201d in Genesis 12:3 (cf. Gen. 22:17\u201318a; 24:60; Ps. 72:17) is ultimately fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16). Here Paul picks up the promise theme from Genesis 3:15, traced through a distinctive line of seed beginning with Adam, running through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and David, and eventually culminating in Christ. In Christ, we have the promised seed, the mediator of God\u2019s people, the one who fulfills all God\u2019s promises, not least the Abrahamic promises. In addition, Paul\u2019s argument in Galatians 3:1\u201325 is that the Abrahamic covenant preceded the law-covenant in redemptive history, thus demonstrating that the latter covenant does not set aside the former and that the former is foundational to the latter.
\nIt is also significant that the Abrahamic covenant plays a distinctive role in the biblical-theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology. As discussed in chapter 3, both systems appeal to the Abrahamic covenant to justify their core beliefs. Dispensational theology appeals to the role of national Israel in God\u2019s plan tied to the unconditional land promise given in the Abrahamic covenant, while covenant theology appeals to the genealogical principle first given in Genesis 17, which remains unchanged across the covenants, including the new covenant. In light of this, how do we view the nature of the Abrahamic covenant and its relation to the other biblical covenants? Four points will summarize our view.<\/p>\n
A SINGLE COVENANT. The Abrahamic covenant is one covenant, not two. It starts with God\u2019s election and calling of Abraham, God\u2019s giving of promises to him (Genesis 12), and the cutting, or inauguration, of the covenant (Genesis 15). The initial promises are further expanded throughout Abraham\u2019s life as God gives greater definition and clarity of the covenant (see Genesis 17; 22).<\/p>\n
UNIVERSAL PROMISES. In terms of its textual-epochal context, it is important to note the location of the Abrahamic covenant in the storyline of Scripture, coming after Genesis 1\u201311. Similar to the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant stands in contrast to the judgments of God on human sin and presents anew the plan of creation. This can be seen in the way that important elements in the creation of humans are repeated in the blessing to Abraham: God\u2019s promise of a great name and seed, the multiplication of humans, the provision of the land, a peaceful relationship between God and humanity, and the restoration of the nations (Gen. 12:1\u20133; cf. 15:4\u20135; 17:1\u20138; 18:18\u201319; 22:16\u201318). However, unlike the situation with Noah, where God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family, God does not destroy the human race. Instead, God allows the nations to exist and then calls Abraham out of the nations to become a great nation (g\u00f4y), that is, a world community, a political entity, a kingdom in the proper sense of the word. (See figure 16.1 [p. 673], which emphasizes this narrowing feature of the Abrahamic covenant.) But because it is the answer to Adam\u2019s sin, the Abrahamic covenant ultimately has a universal telos, and it is through the Abrahamic covenant that God will undo the effects of sin and death and bring a new creation.
\nHere we discover further grounding for Scripture\u2019s contrast between two kingdoms, especially since the fall and the Noahic covenant. On the one hand, we have the kingdom associated with Babel and all that stands in opposition to God (Genesis 11). On the other hand, we have another kingdom, associated with God\u2019s saving initiative and sovereign grace, which will fulfill the role of Adam, bring salvation to the nations, and display to the world the kind of relationships that God originally intended for all humanity. Throughout Scripture these two kingdoms are contrasted, but it is only through Abraham and his seed that God\u2019s saving rule will come and the resolution to sin and death will occur. It is only through Abraham and his seed that we will have a recovery of the divine goal for creation and humans, that is, the establishment of God\u2019s kingdom and divine rule over this world through this redeemed human society. This is ultimately fulfilled in the arrival of the new covenant, the church as God\u2019s royal priesthood and holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9), and the consummated state of the new creation (Revelation 21\u201322).
\nIn this light, it is best to view the Abrahamic covenant as the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity, especially in light of Genesis 3:15. In this way, Abraham and his family constitute \u201canother Adam,\u201d a calling into existence of something new, parallel to creation but in this case a \u201cnew creation\u201d (see Rom. 4:17). The Abrahamic covenant functions as a subset of the \u201ccovenant with creation\u201d yet narrowed now through one family\/nation. In Abraham and his seed, first in Isaac, then in Israel (Mosaic covenant), and then epitomized by the Davidic king (Davidic covenant), all God\u2019s promises for the human race will be realized\u2014promises that God unilaterally keeps, as beautifully portrayed in the covenant inauguration ceremony in Genesis 15. N. T. Wright correctly captures the centrality of the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible\u2019s storyline in these words: \u201cAbraham emerges within the structure of Genesis as the answer to the plight of all humankind. The line of disaster and of the \u2018curse,\u2019 from Adam, through Cain, through the Flood to Babel, begins to be reversed when God calls Abraham and says, \u2018in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed.\u2019 \u201d
\nWithin the Abrahamic narrative, there is a hint that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant will occur in two stages. First, the nation of Israel will live in the Promised Land and serve as a kingdom of priests under the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 19:4\u20136; Deut. 4:5\u20138) and the Davidic king (Davidic covenant). In the Davidic covenant, the king of Israel is the administrator and mediator of the Mosaic covenant, representing God\u2019s rule to the people and representing the people as a whole (2 Sam. 7:22\u201324). Second, Christ, Abraham\u2019s royal, singular seed, will bless all nations (Gen. 17:4\u20136; cf. 22:17\u201318a; 24:60; 49:8, 10; Ps. 72:17; Isa. 9:6). Even in Genesis, Abraham\u2019s \u201cfatherhood\u201d is expanded \u201cbeyond ethnic Israelites to include the nations.\u201d This seems to entail not only the promise of a global inheritance but also an expansion of the Promised Land \u201cto include the planet and its numerous people (Gen 1:28; Matt 5:5; Rom 4:13; cf. Eph 6:2\u20133; Heb 11:13\u201316).\u201d This point is significant in answering the question of what God intended by his promise of land to Abraham. Did God intend for the land promise to be exhausted in a specific location, or did he intend for it to encompass something far greater? At this point in the story, there are hints that God intended for the land to reach to the ends of the earth. Yet we will have to await further covenantal unfolding to see precisely what God intended by this specific promise. At this point, as Jason DeRouchie notes, \u201cThis kind of expansion is suggested in Gen 22:17b\u201318 where we are told that the unique, male deliverer will not only bless \u2018all the nations of the earth\u2019 but will also possess \u2018the gate of his enemies,\u2019 claiming once-enemy territory, his kingdom expanding to fill the earth (cf. Gen 24:60).\u201d Once again, this makes perfect sense since, in covenantal progression, the Abrahamic covenant is the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity (Gen. 3:15).<\/p>\n
MULTIFACETED ASPECTS. The nature of the Abrahamic covenant is multifaceted and diverse. In its textual and historical context, it not only encompasses spiritual-internal aspects that link it ultimately to the new covenant but also consists of national and typological elements that must be carefully unpacked through the covenants, which results in some significant discontinuity in the new covenant. This complexity is illustrated by thinking about how Scripture speaks of Abraham and his seed.
\nFirst, the \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d refers to a natural (biological) seed, namely, every person who was in any way biologically descended from Abraham, such as Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah, and by extension Esau, Jacob, and so forth. In each case, all these children received the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, namely, circumcision, even though many of them were unbelievers and even though it was only through Isaac that God\u2019s promises and covenant were realized (Gen. 17:20\u201321; cf. Rom. 9:6\u20139).
\nSecond, the \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d refers to a natural (biological) yet special seed tied to God\u2019s elective purposes, namely, Isaac, by extension to Jacob and the entire nation of Israel, and to the Davidic king. Built into the Abrahamic covenant is the promise both of Abraham\u2019s seed to be a mighty nation (Israel) and of the arrival of kings\u2014realized in the Davidic covenant yet ultimately fulfilled in a singular royal seed (Gen. 17:6\u20138; 22:17\u201318a; 24:60; 49:8\u201312; etc.). Yet even within this special sense of Abraham\u2019s seed, the nation remains a mixed people\u2014that is, the individual within the nation may be a believer or unbeliever. Concerning the nation of Israel, salvifically speaking, not everyone in it was the elect, although they, unlike the mere natural-biological seed (e.g., Ishmael), had the supreme privilege of being God\u2019s covenant people under the Mosaic covenant. Furthermore, this special seed also functioned typologically to point to Abraham\u2019s singular, royal seed who, in himself, would bring salvation to the world.
\nThird, the ultimate \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d refers to the true\/unique seed, namely, Christ (Gal. 3:16), the antitype of the previous special seeds of Abraham. In Christ, then, we have the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, rooted in Genesis 3:15, so that in the truest sense he is the seed of Abraham, the true Isaac and Israel, and David\u2019s greater Son. In this way, Jesus is the unique seed of Abraham since he biologically comes from Abraham\u2019s specific genealogical line, while at the same time, he is greater than those who preceded him since he is the antitype of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and David.
\nFourth, the New Testament teaches that all believers, regardless of nationality are the spiritual \u201cseed of Abraham\u201d now that Christ has come and inaugurated a new covenant. This includes all believing Jews and Gentiles in the church (Eph. 2:11\u201321), thus fulfilling the Abrahamic promises of blessings to the nations. In this last sense, only those who have experienced an internal circumcision of the heart by the transforming power of the Spirit and who are united to Christ by faith are Abraham\u2019s spiritual seed (Gal. 3:26\u201329). Under the new covenant, being a true member of Abraham\u2019s family, and thus part of the church, does not involve biological birth in a specific national lineage or merely receiving the external sign of circumcision but believing in God\u2019s covenant promises centered now in Christ and being born of the Spirit.
\nWhat is significant about noting the multifaceted nature of the Abrahamic covenant? At the very least, it does justice to the Abrahamic covenant in its historical context, and it is a crucial point of difference between dispensational and covenant theology, as discussed in chapter 3. Let us first focus on covenant theology.
\nDispensational theology has often criticized covenant theology for its tendency to \u201cflatten\u201d the Abrahamic covenant by reducing it primarily to its spiritual aspects while neglecting its national and typological aspects. On this point we tend to agree with the overall dispensational critique. This is why, in the Israel-church relationship, covenant theology so easily views the church as the \u201cnew Israel\u201d with the entailment that just as Israel was a mixed entity, so is the church. And, they say, just as the genealogical principle operative in the Abrahamic covenant\u2014\u201cyou and your seed\u201d (Gen. 17:7)\u2014applies to Israel, so also it applies to the church in exactly the same way. And just as the covenant sign of circumcision functioned in Israel, so paedobaptism functions the same way in the church. However, the problem with this view is that it fails to do justice to the multifaceted nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and it reads too fast into the Abrahamic covenant many of the legitimate spiritual realities of the new covenant. In doing so, it fails to exegete the Abrahamic covenant first in its own immediate context and then think through how it is picked up in later covenants before reaching its fulfillment in the new covenant.
\nHowever, it is also important to add that dispensational theology criticizes covenant theology at this point because dispensationalists are convinced that this is the reason why covenantalists do not do justice to the role of national Israel in the future, especially related to the land promise. Yet dispensationalists\u2019 critique is only fair if they can demonstrate that their overall understanding of Israel\u2019s role in God\u2019s plan is correct, something we contend that they have not demonstrated because they have not consistently put together God\u2019s plan from creation to new creation as progressively unveiled through the covenants, which is now fulfilled in Christ and the church.<\/p>\n
UNCONDITIONAL AND CONDITIONAL ELEMENTS. The Abrahamic covenant consists of unconditional\/unilateral and conditional\/bilateral elements, and it is not reducible to one of those features alone. As already discussed in previous chapters, it is common to view the Abrahamic covenant as primarily an unconditional covenant (royal grant), especially as communicated by the unique covenant inauguration in Genesis 15, or, as Paul Williamson argues, to see in it two Abrahamic covenants, due to the unilateral emphasis in Genesis 15 and the bilateral demands in Genesis 17 (patterned after the suzerain-vassal treaties). Both of these approaches are inadequate; instead, the Abrahamic covenant is one covenant, and Genesis 17 is the confirmation of God\u2019s covenant with Abraham initiated in Genesis 15, which is grounded in God\u2019s promises in Genesis 12. No doubt, as promises are given to Abraham and his seed, and as God then inaugurates the covenant by the dread symbol of a divine dismemberment (Gen. 15:12\u201321; cf. Jer. 34:18\u201320), there is an undeniable unilateral emphasis. God unilaterally obligates himself to accomplish his promise to make Abraham and his offspring into a great nation and to give them a place to live with God in peace and prosperity. God will keep his promise regardless of what Abraham does, and Abraham receives God\u2019s promises by faith, which is counted to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). Craig Blaising captures this point well:<\/p>\n
The way in which Abraham received the covenant also supports the covenant\u2019s unconditionality. In Genesis 15, the Lord repeats His promise to Abraham, and Scripture tells us that in spite of circumstances that made the promise seem impossible, \u201cAbraham believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness\u201d (15:6).\u2026
\nIn Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul argues that Genesis 15 is foundational for understanding the promissory nature of the Abrahamic covenant. The blessing was not given to Abraham because he performed certain works. Rather, he received it through faith. God gave Abraham a promise. Abraham believed God. God counted him righteous and formalized the promise to him as a grant covenant.<\/p>\n
However, in keeping his covenant promises, God still demands complete obedience from his human covenant partner (Gen. 17:1; 18:19; 22:16\u201318). God\u2019s demand for obedience does not nullify God\u2019s promises and make the covenant bilateral; instead, it creates an antinomical tension within the covenant relationship. God, as the covenant maker and keeper will always keep his promises, despite human disobedience, because that is the kind of glorious God he is. And yet, God will always demand perfect obedience from a faithful human covenant partner that, as the covenantal story makes clear, sinful humanity cannot produce. This growing tension between God unilaterally keeping his promises and demanding an obedient covenant partner is resolved neither here nor in later covenants, as evidenced by Israel\u2019s and the Davidic kings\u2019 disobedience. Yet even within the Abrahamic covenant is a hint at how it will be resolved: \u201cGod himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering\u201d (Gen. 22:8). However, as the covenants unfold, God\u2019s provision will not merely be a lamb in our place (nor the entire priestly-sacrificial system under the law-covenant); God\u2019s provision is his own dear Son, the true seed of Abraham, who, because he is God, can satisfy God\u2019s own righteous demand and who, because he is human, can fully obey for us as the faithful human covenant partner.<\/p>\n
The \u201cOld Covenant,\u201d or the Covenant with Israel<\/p>\n
In the Old Testament, the amount of space devoted to the \u201cold covenant\u201d is vast, yet Scripture teaches that it functions as a means to a larger end that culminates in a new and better covenant (Jer. 31:29\u201334; Hebrews 8). This is why Scripture views the old covenant as temporary in God\u2019s plan; or better, it has a crucial part in God\u2019s plan, yet when that to which it points arrives, the covenant with Israel as a covenant unit comes to its end, and Christians are no longer under it as a covenant (Gal. 3:15\u20134:7). Unlike first-century Judaism, which viewed the law-covenant as imperishable, immutable, and eternal, Paul, for example, places the old covenant in its proper redemptive-historical\/covenantal sequence. He argues, as D. A. Carson points out, that it is almost \u201ca parenthesis (Gal 3:15\u20134:7)\u201d in God\u2019s plan, and as such, that which precedes it, namely, the promise to Abraham (which cannot be understood apart from the creation covenant), \u201ccannot be annulled by the giving of the law (3:17), regardless of how much space is given over to the law in the sacred text, or how large a role it played in the history of Israel.\u201d As Carson also notes, this inevitably leads to the question of Galatians 3:19: \u201cWhat, then, was the purpose of the law?\u201d No doubt the answer is complex and diverse, but at its heart the old covenant revealed and intensified sin and functioned \u201cin preparation for the coming of Christ \u2018when the set time had fully come\u2019 (Gal. 4:4), which is itself the fulfillment of the promise.\u201d
\nThus, to understand properly the role of the old covenant in God\u2019s plan, one must think about how it is organically related to what preceded it, how it advances the Genesis 3:15 promise, and how it predicts and anticipates, in diverse ways, the coming of Christ and the dawning of the new covenant. Four points will summarize the nature of the old covenant and its overall place and role in the covenants.<\/p>\n
LINKS TO EARLIER COVENANTS. When we place the old covenant in its textual and epochal-covenantal context, it becomes evident that God\u2019s establishing his covenant with Israel cannot be understood apart from his promises to Abraham, which are also confirmed and passed to his sons Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 26:3\u20135; 28:13\u201315; 35:9\u201312). Due to God\u2019s patriarchal promises, God calls Moses to deliver his people from Egypt (Ex. 3:6; cf. 2:24\u201325; Deut. 4:36\u201338; 2 Kings 13:22\u201323; 1 Chron. 16:15\u201319). God did not set his love on Israel because they were better image bearers or more numerous than the nations (Deut. 7:7). Neither was it for their righteousness that they were given the land of Canaan. The basis for God\u2019s election of Israel was not found in them but instead in God\u2019s sovereign choice and his covenant loyalty to Abraham (Ex. 19:4; Deut. 7:8). The old covenant, then, cannot be understood apart from the Abrahamic covenant, which in turn cannot be understood apart from the creation covenant in Adam. Moreover, in placing the old covenant in relation to the previous covenants, we also see with greater clarity how the \u201cseed\u201d of Abraham is narrowed to the nation of Israel through Isaac and Jacob (see figure 16.1 [p. 673], which presents the old covenant\u2019s scope as if it is as broad as the Abrahamic\u2019s, particularly through Isaac, since it is now through the nation of Israel that God will bring blessings to all nations).
\nIn addition, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, Israel is called to be a \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d and a \u201choly nation\u201d (g\u00f4y, Ex. 19:5\u20136), which speaks of the nation not only in kingdom terms but also in Adamic terms. Israel, as a nation, is called to be \u201canother Adam,\u201d a corporate representative of Yahweh and to exercise kingly rule as priest-kings. In so doing, as a nation, Israel was to demonstrate to the other nations what God intended for humanity, to enjoy access to God\u2019s presence through the tabernacle-temple structures in the land. In this way, the Promised Land is to Israel what Eden was for Adam. In that land, the people were to know their covenant Lord and to learn from his Torah what it means to be true image bearers and thus fully obedient sons who are wholly devoted to Yahweh in worship and service. By their covenant relationship with Yahweh, God\u2019s rule was to be extended through them, and Israel was to make known the ways of God to the nations and to bring the nations into a right relationship to God.
\nFurthermore, given the placement of the old covenant in Scripture, this also entails that it is through Israel that God will fulfill his Genesis 3:15 promise, namely, to bring about a resolution of the sin and death caused by the first Adam. Evidence for this assertion is seen in corporate Israel being described as God\u2019s \u201cson\u201d (Ex. 4:22\u201323). In Exodus 4, God threatens judgment on Pharaoh\u2019s son unless Pharaoh releases Israel, God\u2019s son, since as God\u2019s son, Israel was to serve the Lord in complete devotion and obedience, something Pharaoh was not allowing. This relationship between Yahweh and Israel, described as a \u201cFather-son\u201d relationship, not only hearkens back to Adam but is also picked up later in the Davidic covenant, where the Davidic kings are viewed in this same relationship with Yahweh, thus linking these covenants together in God\u2019s overall redemptive plan, which first starts with Adam. Israel, then, as a nation, was called to serve as God\u2019s son\/representative\u2014servant-kings, priests\u2014on the earth. They were to demonstrate what true humanity was to look like, and it was through them that the Abrahamic blessing was to be realized and thus God\u2019s redemptive promise brought to pass.<\/p>\n
A COVENANTAL PACKAGE. It is best to view the old covenant as an entire unit or package. As an entire package, one of its primary purposes is to reveal who God is and how we are to live before him (see Lev. 11:45)\u2014that is, God\u2019s character (\u0161\u0113m) and way (derek). Further, as the revelation of God\u2019s character and ways, the law-covenant also demands our conformity to it. The entire covenant, then, is revelatory of God\u2014not just what some identify as the moral law or the Ten Commandments. In fact, Scripture does not partition the law-covenant into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws; rather, it is a unity that governed Israel\u2019s life and now, in Christ, is fulfilled. Even though within covenant theology this is a common way of dividing up the law-covenant and then thinking of its fulfillment in Christ\u2014namely, the moral law continues, while the civil and ceremonial laws are fulfilled\u2014there is little justification for this in Scripture. The old covenant is a covenantal package: as an entire unit, it governs Israel\u2019s life, and as a unit, it is brought to fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.<\/p>\n
TYPOLOGICAL PATTERNS. Building on the previous point, the old covenant, as a covenant package, develops in greater detail a number of typological patterns that find their antitypical fulfillment in Christ and his people. For example, within the old covenant, Israel, as a kingdom of priests, needs Levitical priests to represent them before God. In fact, one cannot think of the old covenant apart from its grounding in the priesthood; the Levitical priesthood is the foundation for the entire covenant relationship, which means that the covenant and the priesthood are intertwined with each other (see Heb. 7:11). This makes sense given the fact of sin, since one cannot have a covenant relationship with the holy and righteous covenant Lord without atonement for sin. Israel, as a kingdom of priests, is to enjoy access to God\u2019s presence, as Adam enjoyed in Eden. But given who God is as holy and just, how do sinful people dwell in God\u2019s presence, a burning issue that erupted in the episode of the golden calf debacle (Exodus 32\u201334). So given the problem of sin that results in the larger problem of forgiveness, Israel, as a kingdom of priests, needs specific priests to represent them before God and to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins (Heb. 5:1). But as Israel\u2019s covenant will also reveal, God\u2019s righteousness did not come through the Levitical priesthood and law-covenant (Rom. 3:21). Instead, God\u2019s righteousness comes to us \u201capart from the law-covenant\u201d in Messiah Jesus, who is our Great High Priest and by his work inaugurates a better covenant in his cross (Rom. 3:21\u201326; Hebrews 7\u201310).
\nRelated to the priesthood is the entire tabernacle-temple-sacrificial system. All these institutions not only served as a means by which Israel dwelt in the land enjoying God\u2019s presence as his king-priests but also pointed to their antitypical fulfillment in Christ and the full forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:1\u201318). In God\u2019s provision of his Son-Messiah, the servant of the Lord (Isa. 52:13\u201353:12), the role of the Levitical priest is fulfilled and transcended by Christ, who inaugurates an entirely different order (Heb. 5:1\u201310; 7\u201310). In Christ, the entire tabernacle-temple typological pattern is fulfilled and then applied to us, the church, as God\u2019s new temple (see, e.g., John 2:19\u201322; Eph. 2:19\u201322).
\nWhat is said about priests is also true of the role of the prophet and the anticipation of the king, two other offices that take on typological significance and reach their antitypical fulfillment first in Christ and then in application to the church (e.g., prophet: Deut. 18:15\u201318; 34:10\u201312; Acts 3:22\u201326; Heb. 1:1\u20133; king: Gen. 17:6, 16; 49:8\u201312; Num. 24:17\u201319; cf. 24:7; Deut. 17:14\u201320; 2 Sam. 7:8\u201316; Matt. 1:1\u201317; Rom. 1:3\u20134; Heb. 1:5, 13; 5:4\u20136). Or think of the paradigmatic events of the Passover and exodus, which first establish Israel in covenant relationship with God. Through the covenants, the Passover and the exodus become patterns of a greater, new exodus\/redemption to come, which is fulfilled by Christ and applied to his people (see Ex. 15:14\u201317; cf. Isa. 11:15\u201316; 40:3\u20135; 41:17\u201320; 42:14\u201316; 43:1\u20133, 14\u201321; 48:20\u201321; 49:8\u201312; 51:9\u201311; 52:3\u20136, 11\u201312; 55:12\u201313; Jer. 16:14\u201315; 23:4\u20138; 31:32; Hos. 2:14\u201315; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4\u20135).<\/p>\n
BILATERAL AND UNILATERAL ELEMENTS. Although the old covenant is predominantly bilateral, with God rightly demanding an obedient covenant partner, it is more than this. As with all the covenants, God unilaterally keeps his promises to bring about our redemption. In fact, this is what grounds our hope and confidence that God\u2019s plan of salvation will actually come about, regardless of our sin and rebellious hearts. Yet as in the other covenants, God demands that Israel be an obedient son. Israel is called to be a loyal, fully devoted, obedient son, as was Adam and the entire human race. Yet, like Adam, Israel failed. Through Israel, as another Adam, the lost dominion of humanity is to be reclaimed, but the people are unfaithful sons. While the law-covenant held out the promise of life (Lev. 18:5), Israel broke the law and came under its curse of death and exile, as they served as a microcosm of the entire human race. The law was \u201choly and righteous and good\u201d (Rom. 7:12), but Israel was internally corrupt with sinful desires and thus incapable of keeping the law. The law graciously provided a system of sacrifices to atone for the people\u2019s sin under Israel\u2019s covenant with God, but it was \u201cimpossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins\u201d (Heb. 10:4). The entire priestly-sacrificial-temple system functioned typologically, ultimately to point forward to the antitypical fulfillment in Christ. Human sin requires human death. So God did not design his law-covenant with Israel to provide a permanent solution to the \u201cproblem of forgiveness\u201d or to restore the nation from its corruption into a righteous kingdom that would spread over the earth (Gal. 3:10\u201312, 21\u201322; cf. Deut. 27:26). In this very important way, the law-covenant as a whole pointed forward to God\u2019s provision of redemption, but in the end, that righteousness comes apart from the law-covenant (Rom. 3:21), tied to God\u2019s promise and provision, in our Lord Jesus Christ and the new covenant. That is why Scripture can view the law-covenant as prophetic\u2014it anticipates a greater redemption to come in God\u2019s own giving of his obedient Son (Matt. 11:13; cf. Rom. 3:21\u201331; Heb. 2:5\u201318; 7\u201310).
\nThe old covenant, then, is part of God\u2019s unfolding plan and covenantal progression leading us to Christ. Yet as with the other covenants, it continues and increases the antinomical tension in the coming of God\u2019s kingdom through his covenants with fallen humans. God continues in his unilateral determination to keep his unconditional promise to bring forth the offspring of Abraham, now through an Israelite. And yet, by breaking the bilateral terms of the covenant, Israel proves that it cannot produce such a man to be the obedient son and faithful covenant partner that God demands. The law-covenant holds out life, but due to sin, it cannot save. In fact, as the history of Israel unfolds, the law-covenant brings greater condemnation because it reveals more and more of Israel\u2019s sin, it increases sin quantitatively by defining explicitly what is contrary to God\u2019s character and demands (Rom. 5:20), and it imprisons Israel under sin\u2019s power and condemnation (Rom. 3:19\u201320; Gal. 3:10, 13; Col. 2:14). Even God\u2019s provision of a sacrificial system, because it was only typological and provisional, functioned as a \u201creminder of sins\u201d (Heb. 10:3), pointing forward to the need for a new and better covenant, bound up with the full forgiveness of sin and the transforming work of the Spirit.
\nHowever, the old covenant, as part of God\u2019s unfolding plan, is the means by which God\u2019s initial promise of redemption will take place. God\u2019s promises are rooted in his sovereign initiative to save, for without this, we are without hope. God must act and God alone, but ultimately that action requires the provision of an obedient human son. For this reason, the Old Testament Prophets anticipate a permanent, unbreakable new covenant to solve how God will save us by providing an obedient son (Jer. 31:31\u201334), bound up with the coming of the messianic son-king. This theme is uniquely revealed in the Davidic covenant, to which we now turn.<\/p>\n
The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
The Davidic covenant is the epitome of the Old Testament covenants, a point often overlooked. It brings the previous covenants to a climax in the king, who is the representative of Israel, the seed of Abraham, and an Adamic-like figure. In summarizing the significance of the Davidic covenant in God\u2019s unfolding plan, two points are crucial. First, we must think carefully about the location of the Davidic covenant in the Bible\u2019s storyline in order to grasp its organic relationship to what preceded it and to what follows it, namely, the new covenant. Second, we must unpack the unilateral-bilateral tension within the covenant and show how that tension, as with the previous covenants, contributes to the Bible\u2019s overall plotline.<\/p>\n
LOCATION IN COVENANTAL PROGRESSION. There are two main parts to the Davidic covenant: (1) God\u2019s promises concerning the establishment of David\u2019s house forever (2 Sam. 7:12\u201316; 1 Chron. 17:11\u201314), and (2) the promises concerning the \u201cFather-son\u201d relationship between Yahweh and the Davidic king (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; cf. Pss. 2; 89:26\u201327). In this way, the Davidic king is the administrator and mediator of the Mosaic covenant, the nation of Israel embodied in a person, and as such, the Davidic sons function as the Lord\u2019s representative to Israel and as the Lord\u2019s servant-priest-king.
\nThis role is confirmed by the Davidic covenant\u2019s location in the progression of the covenants. The Davidic king as Yahweh\u2019s son carries a twofold significance. First, it inextricably ties the Davidic covenant to the previous covenants, and second, it anticipates in type the greater sonship of the new covenant mediator to come. Regarding the former, the sonship applied to corporate Israel (Ex. 4:22\u201323; cf. Hos. 11:1) is now applied to the individual Davidic king, who, in himself, is \u201ctrue Israel.\u201d The Davidic king becomes the administrator\/mediator of Israel\u2019s covenant, thus representing God\u2019s rule to the people and creation and representing the people as a whole (2 Sam. 7:22\u201324). As developed in detail in chapter 11, in and through the Davidic covenant, kingship becomes the means of accomplishing Exodus 19:3b\u20136. The king is called to be a devoted servant and son, even functioning sometimes in priestly terms, instructing the nations in the righteousness of God and inviting them to come under the rule of Yahweh. Figure 16.1 (p. 673) captures this point, first, by picturing the Davidic covenant as a subset of the old covenant (for the Davidic king was under Torah as a covenant), and, second, by showing that Israel\u2019s representative sonship role is now narrowed in the king, as the corporate representative of the people.
\nAlso, given its epochal-covenantal location, the Davidic covenant is organically related to the Abrahamic covenant and the creation covenant under Adam\u2019s representative headship. In regard to the Abrahamic, the great name promise is passed to the Davidic king (2 Sam. 7:9; 1 Chron. 17:8; Ps. 72:17), as well as the promise of a great nation (cf. Gen. 12:2). In this way, the Davidic covenant serves to identify the promised line of \u201cseed\u201d that will mediate blessings to all nations. But there is more: the Davidic king also inherits the role of Adam and Israel as \u201cson of God\u201d to humanity as a whole. As Walter Kaiser has rightly argued, the expression in 2 Samuel 7:19b should read, \u201cThis is the charter by which humanity will be directed,\u201d indicating David\u2019s own understanding of the implications of the Davidic covenant for the entire human race, namely, that his role as covenant mediator would effect the divine rule in the entire world as God intended it for humanity in the original situation. David\u2019s understanding of the implications of the Davidic covenant for the entire world not only becomes the basis for messianic expectation in Scripture but also, as noted above, links the Davidic covenant to the Abrahamic, which in turn is linked to God\u2019s earlier covenants and promises. Thus, under the Davidic king, the Abrahamic promise of the great nation and great name come together. In fact, the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant coincides with the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The Abrahamic blessings, linked back to Adam and creation, will be fully realized only through the Davidic son. Indeed, the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise of blessing in a Promised Land will take place under the rulership of the Davidic king. The Davidic king, then, becomes the mediator of covenant blessing, tied back to Abraham, and ultimately tied back to Adam as the covenant head of the human race.
\nThis is not surprising if we link the covenants together. At the heart of God\u2019s redemptive plan is the restoration of humanity\u2019s vice-regent role in creation through the seed of the woman; thus, by the time we get to David, we know who will restore the lost fortunes of creation. In the Old Testament, this truth is borne out in many places, especially in the Psalter, which envisages the Davidic son as ushering in this kind of universal rule and the entire dawning of the new covenant age\u2014psalms, importantly, which are applied to Jesus in the New Testament (e.g., Psalms 2; 8; 45; 72; cf. Isa. 9:6\u20137; 11; 53; Ezekiel 34). When David\u2019s greater Son finally comes, all God\u2019s promises will be realized and all the previous covenant mediator\u2019s roles will be fulfilled in him. In the king, the role of Israel, tied to the role of Adam, will take place, and ultimately, God\u2019s promise to reverse the effects of sin and death and to usher in a new creation will result.
\nYet there is a major problem in this regard. As with previous covenant heads\u2014whether Adam, Noah, Abraham, or corporate Israel\u2014God demands obedience, yet none of those mediators were truly obedient. The same is true of David and his sons, which brings us to the larger discussion of the unilateral-bilateral tension built within the covenant.<\/p>\n
UNILATERAL AND BILATERAL TENSION. As in the previous covenants, God continues in his unilateral determination to keep his unconditional promise to bring forth the offspring of Abraham, now more specifically a Davidic king, who will reign under God over the whole world. Yet God also continues to demand perfect obedience from his covenant partners as represented by the covenant heads. But none of these covenant partners, including David and his sons, truly obey; they do not fulfill their role to bring God\u2019s rule to this world, and they certainly do not overturn the effects of Adam\u2019s sin and death. All the previous covenant heads can only typify and anticipate a greater one to come, and in this case, a Davidic son who will obey and bring God\u2019s rule to this world.
\nIn regard to the unilateral aspect of the covenant, most biblical theologians rightly emphasize the royal-grant style of the Davidic covenant; however, the issue is whether it can be reduced to this feature alone. As chapter 11 details, when God establishes the Davidic covenant, he promises many things to be fulfilled both during and after David\u2019s lifetime\u2014promises that cannot fail. The former are listed in 2 Samuel 7:8\u201311a: (1) a great name, (2) a place for Israel as God\u2019s people, and (3) rest for David from his enemies. The latter are listed in 7:11b\u201313, including promises for a lasting dynasty, kingdom, and throne. God\u2019s intention, then, is to fulfill his promises despite the many acts of disloyalty on the part of this people (see 1 Kings 11:11\u201313, 34\u201336; 15:4\u20135; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7; 23:3).
\nHowever, as 2 Samuel 7:14\u201315 makes clear, God demands faithfulness and obedience on the king\u2019s part\u2014a faithfulness and obedience that David knows will effect the divine rule in the entire world as God intended it for humanity in Adam (7:18\u201319). What 7:14\u201315 teaches, then, is that the covenant will be fulfilled not by a faithful Father alone (i.e., Yahweh acting unilaterally) but also by a faithful son (i.e., the king obeying Yahweh\u2019s Torah). This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to classify the Davidic covenant as either a royal-grant or a suzerain-vassal covenant: it includes elements of both.
\nFurther evidence for this unilateral-bilateral tension within the Davidic covenant is found in Isaiah\u2019s prophecy in Isaiah 55:3. As discussed in chapter 11, scholars debate the interpretation of the phrase \u1e25asd\u00ea d\u0101w\u00eed, often translated the \u201csure mercies of David.\u201d Yet as argued in chapter 11, this rendering is incorrect. The better way to translate the text in normal linguistic usage of this phrase is to interpret David as the agent or subject, not the object\u2014hence the translation the \u201csure mercies or faithfulness performed by David.\u201d
\nThis is significant given the importance of Isaiah 55 in Isaiah\u2019s prophecy of the Messiah and coming Davidic king. We cannot rehearse all the arguments to demonstrate that the \u201cservant of the Lord\u201d in Isaiah is both Davidic and royal, but this has been shown repeatedly. For example, the figurative language in which the Davidic king and kingdom are portrayed as a great tree cut down (6:13) and the reference to the shoot and root in 53:2 link the \u201cservant of the Lord\u201d texts to the vision of a future king who is another David (11:1, 10). In fact, the ongoing debate regarding the identification of Israel as the servant of the Lord and an individual as the servant who delivers the nation is resolved if we realize that the Davidic king is a representative figure for the entire nation. All this is to say, Isaiah presents us with a unified vision of a coming Davidic king who is identified as the \u201cservant of the Lord,\u201d who as a result of his victorious work will restore Zion (2:1\u20135), who will delight in the fear of the Lord (11:1\u201310), who will perfectly represent the Lord by implementing social justice (11:3\u20135), who will become a banner to the nations (11:10) and through his instruction will teach and rule the nations (42:1, 3\u20134; 49:1, 6), and so on. Then in Isaiah 55, we have a link made between the Davidic covenant and the new covenant, where it is announced that, on the basis of the work accomplished by the servant of the Lord, God will make an \u201ceverlasting covenant,\u201d which is also grounded in the \u201cfaithfulness performed by David\u201d (55:3). In this way, the Lord performs his covenant obligation, but he does so through an obedient David, namely, the messianic king, or David\u2019s greater Son. Thus the new covenant is inaugurated, and the promise is fulfilled.
\nNot only does this demonstrate the demand within the Davidic covenant for faithful obedience on the part of the king, but it also drives us forward in anticipation for such a Davidic son and king to arise. Why? Because in Old Testament history, there is a major problem. As previous covenant mediators disobeyed, so did the Davidic kings, yet the hope of salvation depends on the king. God continues in his unilateral determination to keep his promise to bring forth the seed of Abraham, now more specifically a Davidic king, who will reign under God over the whole world. And yet, there is no faithful son-king who effects God\u2019s saving reign. This leads to the message of the prophets and the anticipation of a new covenant.<\/p>\n
The Promise of the New Covenant<\/p>\n
The Old Testament writing prophets are covenantally located post-David. Why is this significant? Because their prophecies build on what God has already revealed through the covenants. The prophets not only speak of God\u2019s judgment on the people for their violation of the covenant, they also proclaim an overall pattern of renewal by recapitulating the past history of redemption and projecting it into the future. The prophets announce that God will unilaterally keep his promises to save, but he will do so through a faithful Davidic king (Isa. 7:14; 9:6\u20137; 11:1\u201310; 42:1\u20139; 49:1\u20137; 52:13\u201353:12; 55:3; 61:1\u20133; Jer. 23:5\u20136; 33:14\u201326; Ezek. 34:23\u201324; 37:24\u201328). In this king, identified as the \u201cservant of Yahweh,\u201d a new or everlasting covenant will come, and with it the pouring of the Spirit (Ezek. 36:24\u201338; 37:11\u201328; Joel 2:28\u201332), God\u2019s saving reign among the nations, the forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34), and a new creation (Isa. 65:17). The hope of the prophets is found in the new covenant. Thus, as God\u2019s plan is unveiled through covenantal progression, it is in the new covenant that all the previous covenants find their fulfillment, terminus, and telos.
\nWithin the Old Testament, the new covenant is viewed as national (Jer. 31:31\u201340; 33:6\u201316; Ezek. 36:24\u201338; 37:11\u201328) and international. It will include Jews and Gentiles, and its scope is universal (as figure 16.1 [p. 673] illustrates), thus fulfilling the Abrahamic promise (Isa. 14:1\u20132; 19:23\u201325; 42:6, 20; 49:6; 55:3\u20135; 56:4\u20138; 66:18\u201324; Jer. 16:19; 33:9; Ezek. 36:36; 37:28; Amos 9:11\u201312; cf. Pss. 47:9; 87:3\u20136; 67:2\u20133; 117:1). Isaiah projects the ultimate fulfillment of the divine promises in the new covenant onto an \u201cideal Israel\u201d\u2014a community intimately tied to the servant of Yahweh, the Davidic king (who is true Israel in himself), and located in a rejuvenated new creation (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). This \u201cideal Israel\u201d picks up the promises to Abraham and is the ultimate fulfillment of the covenants that God established with the patriarchs, the nation of Israel, and David\u2019s son (Isa. 9:6\u20137; 11:1\u201310; Jer. 23:5\u20136; 33:14\u201326; Ezek. 34:23\u201324; 37:24\u201328). Paul Williamson nicely captures this point:<\/p>\n
Thus the new covenant is the climactic fulfilment of the covenants that God established with the patriarchs, the nation of Israel, and the dynasty of David. The promises of these earlier covenants find their ultimate fulfilment in the new covenant, and in it such promises become \u201ceternal\u201d in the truest sense.<\/p>\n
Yet in the Bible\u2019s storyline it is not enough to say that the new covenant merely brings about the Abrahamic blessing to Israel and the nations. One cannot understand the Abrahamic covenant apart from the \u201ccovenant with creation,\u201d so in truth, when the new covenant arrives, we have the ultimate fulfillment of all God\u2019s promises, the reversal of the effects of sin and death brought about by Adam, and the establishment of the new creation.
\nWhat do the prophets say is \u201cnew\u201d about the new covenant? In chapters 12\u201315, we sought to answer this question by expounding every \u201cnew covenant\u201d text. However, for our purposes here, we want to summarize three key differences, which are also important in the larger discussion of dispensational and covenant theology.<\/p>\n
A NEW STRUCTURE. The new covenant is new by changing the structure of God\u2019s people. Under the old covenant, as D. A. Carson has noted, God dealt with his people in a mediated or \u201ctribal-representative\u201d structure, whereby God related to the covenant people through specially called mediators\/representatives\u2014specifically, prophets, priests, and kings. The Old Testament does pay attention to individual believers who savingly know God, as evidenced in the remnant theme. But generally speaking, under the Old Testament covenants, especially the old covenant, the people\u2019s knowledge of God and their relationship with him depended on specially endowed leaders. For example, to hear a word from God, one would go to the prophet; to deal with sin, one would go to the priest; to experience the rule of God in the nation, one would depend on the Davidic kings. As it turned out, as the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles describe, the entire nation benefited when these various leaders\/shepherds acted justly, but they also suffered when they acted unjustly and thus functioned as miserable shepherds of Israel (Ezek. 34:1\u201325). Related to this, the Old Testament does not say that God\u2019s Spirit was poured out on every individual believer in this empowering\/gifting sense but distinctively on prophets, priests, kings, and other designated leaders (e.g., Bezalel). But Jeremiah signals a structural change in the covenant community, where all God\u2019s people will know him, from the least to the greatest: \u201cIn those days they shall no longer say: \u2018The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on edge.\u2019 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge\u201d (Jer. 31:29\u201330). As Carson observes,<\/p>\n
In short, Jeremiah understood that the new covenant would bring some dramatic changes. The tribal nature of the people of God would end, and the new covenant would bring with it a new emphasis on the distribution of the knowledge of God down to the level of each member of the covenant community. Knowledge of God would no longer be mediated through specially endowed leaders, for all of God\u2019s covenant people would know him, from the least to the greatest. Jeremiah is not concerned to say there would be no teachers under the new covenant, but to remove from leaders that distinctive mediatorial role that made the knowledge of God among the people at large a secondary knowledge, a mediated knowledge.<\/p>\n
This is not to say that the new covenant is not mediated. As both Testaments make clear, the new covenant is mediated, in and through its covenant mediator, the Davidic son-king, whom we now know to be Messiah Jesus. In this King, God\u2019s Son, he will not only unite the offices of prophet, priest, and king (after all, he is the antitype of these typological patterns), but also, in relation to him, his people will now all become prophets, priests, and servant-kings. No doubt, we now see all this in hindsight, but already in the Old Testament, the prophets anticipate the day when the new covenant people will be structurally different from Israel under the old covenant.
\nIn addition to this structural change within the community, the prophets also anticipate that this new covenant people will consist of believing people from every nation, not merely the nation of Israel (e.g., Isa. 14:1\u20132; 19:23\u201325; 42:6, 20; 49:6; 55:3\u20135; 56:4\u20138; 66:18\u201324; Jer. 16:19; 33:9; Ezek. 36:36; 37:28; Amos 9:11\u201312; cf. Pss. 47:9; 67:2\u20133; 87:3\u20136; 117:1). In this international community the Abrahamic promise will be fulfilled, as well as the universal focus that goes back to creation. The prophets are signaling, then, that people will not enter the new covenant by biological birth or by merely receiving the external sign of circumcision but by a circumcision of the heart wrought by God\u2019s Spirit and a saving relationship to the head of the new covenant, namely, the Messiah, God\u2019s son-servant-king. Only those in relation to him are his family, and all his family will savingly know God.
\nIn light of this, it seems that within the Old Testament, the genealogical principle of the previous covenants is anticipated to change. This principle refers to the relationship between the covenant head\/mediator and his seed. In the previous covenants, the genealogical relationship is primarily natural-biological (i.e., Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David). Yet the prophets anticipate a day when, in the new covenant, the relationship between its covenant mediator and his people is one born of the Spirit, described diversely but uniquely as a circumcision of the heart (or law written on the heart). Due to the effective nature of the new covenant (in contrast to the old), the entire community will become covenant keepers and know God immediately. This is why the prophets speak of all those within the new covenant community as people who savingly know the Lord, who have the law written on their hearts, and who have experienced the forgiveness of sins, points we will return to below. This is in contrast to the mixed constitution of Israel as a nation.
\nEvidence for these kinds of changes in the new covenant is underscored by the prophetic anticipation of the unique work of the Spirit in the coming new age. Although a clear hypostatic distinction between God and his Spirit is not made until the coming of Christ, in the Prophets there is an increased and heightened emphasis on the work of God\u2019s Spirit in the dawning of the new covenant, first poured out on the messianic king (see Isa. 11:1\u20133; 49:1\u20132; 61:1\u20133) and then on Messiah\u2019s people (see Ezek. 11:19\u201320; 36:25\u201327; Joel 2:28\u201332; cf. Num. 11:27\u201329). As noted above, under the old covenant, the \u201ctribal-representative\u201d structure of Israel also meant that the Spirit was uniquely poured out on various leaders. But what the prophets anticipate is a change in structure due to the universal distribution of the Spirit on God\u2019s people in this empowering\/gifting sense (see Joel 2:28\u201332; Acts 2). God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, namely, all those within the covenant community. By this change, the new covenant raises every member of the covenant to the same relationship with God through the universal distribution of the Spirit. The Messiah, as the first to be anointed with the Spirit, will in turn pour out his Spirit on all members of the covenant community. Thus, all those \u201cunder the new covenant\u201d enjoy the promised gift of the eschatological Spirit (cf. Eph. 1:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
A NEW NATURE. Organically related to the previous point is another \u201cnew\u201d feature of the new covenant, namely, a change in the nature of God\u2019s people. Jeremiah signals this change in two ways. First, he contrasts the new covenant with the old: \u201cnot like the covenant that I made with their fathers on that day \u2026 my covenant that they broke \u2026\u201d (Jer. 31:32). Second, he tells us why this covenant will not be like the old: due to a heart change of its members. The prophets announce that under the new covenant all will know the Lord, not indirectly through various human mediators such as priests but directly through the Messiah so that all will have the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgiveness of sin.
\nIn fact, it is these last two aspects of the new covenant that highlight the new change that is anticipated. The expression \u201claw written on the heart\u201d is very close to \u201ccircumcision of heart\u201d language (cf. Deut. 30:6; cf. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; 9:25), which minimally refers to regeneration. This does not entail that no Old Testament person was regenerated; rather, it implies that the new people will all be regenerate, which is a major change. Instead of the people being a mixed entity, now the entire community will experience a \u201ccircumcision of the heart.\u201d The entire community will know God and obey from the heart because of the Spirit\u2019s work.
\nJeremiah 31:32 is clear: this is in contrast to the Old Testament people of God. No doubt within national Israel there were many believers saved by grace through faith in the promises of God. But as an entire community, not all Israel was Israel (Rom. 9:6). Within the national Israel, there was a distinction between the natural-biological and spiritual seed of Abraham. Under the old covenant, both \u201cseeds\u201d received the covenant sign of circumcision to identify them as God\u2019s covenant people, and both were viewed as full covenant members in the national sense. However, it was only the believers within the nation\u2014the remnant\u2014who were the spiritual seed of Abraham, the \u201ctrue Israel\u201d in a salvific sense. As James White reminds us, the nature of the old covenant was mixed. He states,<\/p>\n
For every David there were a dozen Ahabs; for every Josiah a legion of Manassehs. Unfaithfulness, the flaunting of God\u2019s law, the rejection of the role of truly being God\u2019s people, the rejection of His knowledge, and the experience of His wrath, were the normative experiences seen in the Old Covenant.<\/p>\n
But this is not what is anticipated of those under the new covenant.<\/p>\n
A NEW SACRIFICE. The new covenant is also \u201cnew\u201d because it changes the sacrifice made for God\u2019s people. Related to the previous two points, central to the newness of the new covenant is the promise of complete forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34). Under the old covenant, the forgiveness of sins is normally granted through the priestly-sacrificial system. However, the Old Testament believer, if spiritually perceptive, knew that this was not enough, as evidenced by the repetitive nature of the system. The author of Hebrews later states it this way: \u201cIt is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins\u201d (Heb. 10:4). The old covenant sacrifices were designed to remind God\u2019s covenant people of their sinfulness through repetition, and in this way, the entire priestly-sacrificial system was typological. Yet Jeremiah says that in the new covenant, tied to its glorious mediator, God \u201cwill remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more\u201d (Jer. 31:33\u201334; cf. Heb. 10:17). In the Old Testament, the concept of \u201cremembering\u201d is not simple recall (cf. Gen. 8:1; 1 Sam. 1:19). In the context of Jeremiah 31:34, for God \u201cnot to remember\u201d means that no action will need to be taken in the new age against sin. In the end, to be under the terms of this covenant entails that one experiences a full and complete forgiveness of sin.
\nWhen other new covenant texts are considered, Jeremiah anticipates a perfect, unfettered fellowship of God\u2019s people with Yahweh because of the work of a better priest and sacrifice (Psalm 110). Harmony will be restored between creation and God\u2014a new creation and a new Jerusalem\u2014where the dwelling of God is with men and where they will be his people, and he will be their God (see Ezek. 37:1\u201323; cf. Isa. 25:6\u20139; Dan. 12:2; Rev. 21:3\u20134). In truth, with the arrival of the new covenant mediator and age, we have the fulfillment of the protevangelium and the reversal of what took place under Adam, the head and mediator of the covenant with creation.
\nIn these three areas, the Old Testament anticipates and predicts something new in the arrival of the new covenant, ultimately tied to the uniqueness of its covenant head\/mediator. For the Old Testament prophets it is still a future reality, but when it dawns, God\u2019s redemptive plan will be brought to its intended telos, and God\u2019s saving rule and reign\u2014that is, his kingdom\u2014will come, and everything will be made right. Covenantal progression becomes the means by which God\u2019s glorious plan and promise are unveiled and achieved, ultimately in Christ. Through the covenants we learn how God alone must initiate, act, and provide in order for redemption to occur; otherwise, there is no salvation. We discover that, in order to undo the disobedience of Adam and destroy sin, death, and the serpent, an obedient human covenant partner must come. This obedient one will come through Adam, Noah, and then be narrowed through Abraham, the nation of Israel, and David\u2019s line. He will faithfully discharge his role and thus bring about God\u2019s saving rule, or kingdom, to this world, as Adam was to do many years ago as image-son and priest-king, and he will reverse the effects of sin and death and reconcile us to God.
\nOn the latter achievement, this is no small feat in light of the problem of forgiveness discussed earlier. After the fall, one of the crucial tensions within the covenant relationship is how humans can be found acceptable to God, given God\u2019s glory, holiness, and righteousness. In creation we see how the entire created order was made for God, especially humans. This is beautifully described in terms of the theme of \u201crest\u201d (Gen. 2:3). When God finishes his work of creation, not only does he pronounce it \u201cvery good,\u201d but he then rests, signifying his enjoyment of it and relationship with it. Everything is in its proper place and order. Yet with the entrance of sin into the world, humans are cast out of the presence of God and removed from covenantal relationship with him. God cannot tolerate sin in his holy presence; it must be punished and dealt with. But how, then, are humans\u2014and indeed, the entire created order\u2014going to be brought back into right relationship with God without God in his holiness consuming us? This question is given new form in the covenants since at the heart of the covenant is \u201cintimacy\u201d with God. Think of the nation of Israel. Israel is the apple of the Lord\u2019s eye; they are graven on his hands (Deut. 32:10; Isa. 49:16). God\u2019s devotion to them is crystallized in the famous term \u1e25esed, that is, a love of devotion in which God binds himself to those who cannot demand or deserve such commitment. But how can there be such intimacy? How can the Lord claim Israel as his own? How can he walk and live among them without destroying them by the flame of his holiness? The very nature of the covenant and covenant relationship raises to new heights the problem of forgiveness.
\nThe only solution is ultimately found in the new covenant and its mediator. In the old covenant God provided a sacrificial system that allowed for forgiveness of sin (Lev. 17:11) and \u201cintimacy\u201d between the holy covenant Lord and his people. But as the Old Testament teaches and the new covenant promise anticipates, it was insufficient. God must provide in a more definitive way. He himself must come and resolve the problem of sin through the provision of a greater priest and mediator, his own beloved Son. It is only in the coming of Christ and the new covenant that the Spirit of God in his fullness is poured out, the hearts of God\u2019s people are changed, and the fortunes of a lost creation are finally restored.
\nHowever, at this point in the story, this is still future. Let us now turn to the New Testament, which announces that all that God promised through the covenants and all that the prophets anticipated and predicted has now come to fulfillment in Messiah Jesus and the church.<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
The Biblical Covenants Fulfilled in Christ Jesus and the New Covenant<\/p>\n
As the New Testament begins, fulfillment is in the air. What the Old Testament predicted and anticipated has now come in Christ Jesus. In fact, fulfillment begins with Jesus\u2019s conception, as the first man of the new creation, yet most significantly, fulfillment dawns in Christ\u2019s life and ministry, culminating in his sacrificial death, glorious resurrection, and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. Our Lord\u2019s entire identity and work are framed by the Old Testament; he is the one who fulfills all God\u2019s promises as given through the progression of the covenants, and by his obedience, he inaugurates God\u2019s promised \u201ckingdom through [new] covenant.\u201d Jesus is viewed as the eternal Son of the Father and the promised Messiah-Son who has come to achieve God\u2019s plan to restore humanity\u2019s vice-regent rule over creation.
\nFurthermore, Jesus, along with the entire New Testament, reminds us that he has come to redeem a new people for his kingdom\u2014the church (Matt. 16:18)\u2014a people, whose locus \u201cis no longer national and tribal\u201d but \u201cinternational, transracial, transcultural.\u201d Thus, in Jesus the Messiah, God the Son incarnate, God has laid bare his mighty arm to save his people in grace and power. In Jesus\u2019s life and work, the desperate plight begun in Eden now finds solution, and the new creation begins to dawn. In Christ alone, the prophetic anticipation of God\u2019s coming to save in and through David\u2019s greater Son is fulfilled. Indeed, as D. A. Carson reminds us,<\/p>\n
The promise that through Abraham\u2019s seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed, gradually expanded into a major theme in the Old Testament, now bursts into the Great Commission, the mushrooming growth of the Jewish church into the Gentile world, the spreading flame reaching across the Roman Empire and beyond, in anticipation of the climactic consummation of God\u2019s promises in the new heaven and new earth.<\/p>\n
In Christ Jesus all God\u2019s promises are now being fulfilled; everything is now under his feet (see Gen. 1:26\u201328; Ps. 8:6; 1 Cor. 15:27; Heb. 2:8). And as the victorious Davidic king and last Adam, he is supreme, or \u201chead,\u201d over creation, for the benefit of his people, the church (t\u0113 ekkl\u0113sia) (Eph. 1:22).
\nYears ago, William Manson captured this sense of fulfillment in this way:<\/p>\n
When we turn to the New Testament, we pass from the climate of prediction to that of fulfillment. The things which God had foreshadowed by the lips of His holy prophets He has now, in part at least, brought to accomplishment. The Eschaton, described from afar \u2026, has in Jesus registered its advent.\u2026 The supreme sign of the Eschaton is the Resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Church. The Resurrection of Jesus is not simply a sign which God has granted in favor of His Son, but is the inauguration, the entrance into history, of the times of the End.
\nChristians, therefore, have entered through the Christ into the New Age. Church, Spirit, life in Christ are eschatological magnitudes. Those who gather in Jerusalem in the numinous first days of the Church know that it is so; they are already conscious of tasting the powers of the World to Come. What has been predicted in Holy Scripture as to happen to Israel or to man in the Eschaton has happened to and in Jesus. The foundation-stone of the New Creation has come into position.<\/p>\n
We will present the fulfillment of God\u2019s covenant promises in three steps: (1) how Christ fulfills the previous covenants in himself, (2) the nature of fulfillment in relation to inaugurated eschatology, and (3) how the church is new and receives all God\u2019s covenant promises in and through Christ.<\/p>\n
CHRIST JESUS FULFILLS THE BIBLICAL COVENANTS<\/p>\n
From the opening verse of the New Testament, Jesus is identified as \u201cthe son of David, the son of Abraham\u201d (Matt. 1:1), which is full of covenantal significance. Jesus, the eternal Word\/Son made flesh (John 1:1\u20132, 14) has come, and in him, all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled. In his work, we see God\u2019s resolution to take on himself our sin and guilt in order to reverse the horrible effects of the fall and to satisfy his own righteous requirements, to make this world right by the inauguration of God\u2019s saving reign, and to do so by establishing the new covenant in his blood. In Christ, the Word made flesh, we see the perfectly obedient Son, who is also the Lord, taking the initiative to keep his covenant promises by assuming our human nature, veiling his glory, and winning for us our redemption. In him, we find the divine Son, one with the Father and Spirit, who now in his incarnation is our new covenant head and mediator. In Christ, all God\u2019s promises are \u201cYes\u201d and \u201cAmen\u201d (2 Cor. 1:20). Let us look at some of the New Testament data to see how Jesus is viewed as the Messiah, who fulfills the previous covenants and their promises in himself.<\/p>\n
JESUS\u2019S UNIQUE CONCEPTION: THE FIRST MAN OF THE NEW CREATION<\/p>\n
Matthew begins his Gospel with a genealogy that ties Jesus to God\u2019s promises and the covenants (Matt. 1:1\u201317). As most commentators acknowledge, the genealogy is purposefully structured in terms of David the king, the exile of Israel, and the fulfillment of God\u2019s promises in the birth of Christ. Jesus\u2019s unique conception is not some strange occurrence in history; it is part of God\u2019s plan now being fulfilled. Specifically, Matthew links Jesus to God\u2019s promises that have developed through the covenants to create the expectation that the Creator-covenant Lord himself will come in and through the Davidic king to redeem humanity and restore his creation.
\nMatthew stresses God\u2019s supernatural work through the Holy Spirit in Jesus\u2019s conception (see Matt. 1:18\u201325), which is pregnant with Old Testament expectation of the coming of Yahweh and the king tied to the dawning of the new covenant\/creation. In fact, the conception of Jesus is evidence that in him the new creation has come; literally, Jesus is the first man of the new creation. Significantly, the angel tells Joseph, \u201cYou shall call his name Jesus, for [gar] he will save his people from their sins\u201d (1:21). Anyone steeped in the Old Testament would immediately recognize two crucial points: first, the stress on the agency of the Spirit tied to the expectation of the coming Messiah and the messianic age (see Isaiah 11; 42; 61; Ezek. 36:25\u201327; Joel 2:28\u201332); second, the fact that this child will save his people from their sins according to the new covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:34. The angel\u2019s announcement and the virginal conception are interpreted within the promise\/plan of God, according to which God\u2019s long-awaited kingdom is now dawning. And citing Isaiah 7:14, Matthew confirms that we should interpret the conception and birth of Christ in terms of God himself coming in the flesh to be with his people through their deliverance: \u201cAll this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: \u2018Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel\u2019 (which means, God with us)\u201d (Matt. 1:22\u201323).
\nLuke\u2019s presentation of Jesus\u2019s conception is similar to Matthew\u2019s, but it comes closer to telling us how it happened. The angel Gabriel explains to Mary that \u201cthe Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow [episkiasei] you; therefore, the child to be born will be called holy\u2014the Son of God\u201d (Luke 1:35). This description is not mythological or even primarily metaphysical; rather, Jesus\u2019s conception is explained in redemptive-historical and eschatological terms.
\nFirst, the virgin conception is placed in the context of creation and new creation realities. Genesis 1:2 presents the Spirit of God hovering in divine power over the waters as God begins the creation of the world. Luke now presents the Spirit overshadowing Mary with the power of the Most High as God conceives a human nature. God himself worked as the efficient cause in the conception of Christ as the head of the new creation. As a further parallel to the Spirit\u2019s work in the first creation, God produces what he calls \u201cgood\u201d or \u201choly.\u201d Jesus\u2019s conception, then, did not originate in human initiative; instead, it is a result of God\u2019s unilateral action: the last great, culminating irruption of God\u2019s power into the plight of humanity as the first man of the new creation arrives in fulfillment of Old Testament expectations.
\nSecond, the \u201covershadowing\u201d work of the Spirit connects the conception of Christ to God\u2019s unique covenantal presence. In the Septuagint, the Greek verb episkiaz\u014d translates the Hebrew shakan, which is used for the settling of the cloud of God\u2019s glory-presence under the old covenant (Ex. 40:29, 35; cf. LXX; see Ps. 91:4; cf. 90:4 LXX). Later known as the shekinah, this glory of God guarded and guided Israel through the wilderness and reappeared in the cloud representing the presence of God in the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34\u201338) and in the temple (Isa. 6:1\u20134). Significantly, in response to Israel\u2019s idolatry, the shekinah glory departs from the temple (Ezek. 10:1\u201322) and does not reemerge until the coming of Christ (John 1:14\u201318), who is the Lord of glory and the antitypical fulfillment of the temple (John 2:19\u201322). In the Son\u2019s incarnation, God\u2019s glory-presence breaks into the world; in this man, God is with us as Immanuel. In Christ, a greater than Adam has come to achieve what no one before him could do.<\/p>\n
JESUS\u2019S BAPTISM: THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PROMISED DAVIDIC SON-KING<\/p>\n
Jesus came to the Jordan and John the Baptist with the understanding that \u201cit is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness\u201d (Matt. 3:15). And upon his baptism, \u201cimmediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, \u2018This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 3:16). Jesus knew that to have the Spirit from the Father for the sake of righteousness signaled that he is the promised Messiah and that the messianic age had dawned\u2014an age identified with God\u2019s sovereign, saving rule and the new covenant (Isa. 61:1\u20132; Ezekiel 34; Luke 4:16\u201321). As such, to be the Spirit-anointed Messiah according to the Bible\u2019s storyline is to be identified with God himself, who must act to fulfill the Old Testament expectation of redemption and restoration (Isa. 9:6\u20137; 11:1\u201316; 42:1\u20139; 49:1\u20137; 52:13\u201353:12).
\nSignificantly, the Gospel accounts make the man Jesus the recipient of the divine action at his baptism and focus our attention on Jesus\u2019s understanding of the event: \u201cHe saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him\u201d (Mark 1:10). Jesus joined others in John\u2019s \u201cbaptism of repentance\u201d (Acts 12:24) to identify with us in covenant solidarity in his ministry of reconciliation between God and humans. Yet at the same time, God spoke to this man to declare, \u201c \u2018You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased\u2019 \u201d (Mark 1:11). As a blend of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, these words confirm that Jesus knows himself to be the son-king who will bring justice to all the nations through the sovereign and saving reign of the Lord himself, thus fulfilling the previous covenant promises. This event certainly signals that Jesus is the promised Messiah, but he is also more than this. Given Jesus\u2019s virginal conception (Matt. 1:18\u201325; Luke 1:26\u201338), the typological significance of his status as the \u201cbeloved\u201d (agap\u0113tos) Son, and his ability to inaugurate God\u2019s kingdom, Jesus is more than a mere human son; he is also the divine Son. Jesus\u2019s baptism, then, reminds us that he is the promised Davidic son-king; in him all God\u2019s promises are now coming to fulfillment.<\/p>\n
JESUS\u2019S INAUGURATION OF THE KINGDOM: THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHETIC HOPE<\/p>\n
These same truths are reinforced in the Gospels\u2019 teaching that Jesus is the one who inaugurates God\u2019s promised kingdom. One cannot think about the New Testament\u2019s teaching concerning the kingdom apart from its Old Testament background. As noted in chapter 16, the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d refers primarily to God\u2019s kingly and sovereign rule, and it is especially tied to God\u2019s saving reign that will come in the Messiah, which the New Testament announces has now begun in Christ\u2019s coming, life, death, and resurrection. Until the consummation, when God\u2019s rule will not be contested and yet will be coextensive with the new creation, it now does not primarily refer to a certain geographical location; rather, the phrase tells us more about God (the fact that he reigns) and his saving reign (that it has now come to this world in Christ).
\nIn the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, Jesus\u2019s life, ministry, death, and resurrection all focus on the kingdom of God. John the Baptist first announces the kingdom\u2019s arrival in Jesus (Matt. 3:2). As Isaiah had prophesied about John (Isa. 40:3), he would recognize Jesus as the promised righteous Davidic king who would bring justice to God\u2019s people and to all the earth (Isa. 40:9\u201317; Matt. 3:11\u201312). In fact, Jesus\u2019s entire self-identity is that in him God\u2019s kingdom has come (Matt. 4:12\u201317; Mark 1:14), especially tied to his death, resurrection, and ascension and to Pentecost. Paul tells us that due to Christ\u2019s work, he is now seated at God\u2019s right hand as the enthroned Davidic king. Jesus is currently ruling over all creation (Eph. 1:20\u201322) even as we await the consummation at his return (Matt. 24:29\u201331; 25:31\u201346; Mark 9:1). Thus, all that Jesus taught, all the miracles he performed, and all that he accomplished in his cross work was tied to the dawning of God\u2019s kingdom, which in turn, is bound up with the fulfillment of the covenants and the inauguration of the new covenant age. As we have seen, by the time the Bible\u2019s storyline reaches into the New Testament, we expect that God\u2019s kingdom will come by God\u2019s initiative and through the Davidic king tied to the new covenant, thus restoring the fortunes of Israel, bringing salvation to the world, and ultimately restoring our human role as God\u2019s image bearers \/ sons over creation.
\nFurthermore, in Jesus\u2019s inauguration of the kingdom, he also demonstrates how much greater he is than anyone who preceded him. In all his teaching and miracles, in Jesus\u2019s self-understanding of his work, he sees himself as the antitypical fulfillment of David, Israel, Abraham, and Adam\u2014indeed, as the eternal Son who has become son by his incarnation\u2014in order to usher in God\u2019s saving reign and fulfill all God\u2019s covenant promises. While we cannot consider every text that teaches this truth, Matthew nicely captures it by locating Jesus\u2019s teaching and miracles in the context of the kingdom\u2014a kingdom that no previous covenant head\/mediator could inaugurate and that only God himself can establish. Matthew tells us on two occasions that Jesus \u201cwent throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people\u201d (Matt. 4:23; cf. 9:35). As Murray Harris observes, Matthew carefully places the two verses in the narrative as an inclusio to bookend and characterize Jesus\u2019s ministry up to his death, which has the effect of demonstrating Jesus\u2019s teaching and works as qualitatively (not just quantitatively) greater than everything that has preceded him.
\nFor example, in Jesus\u2019s teaching (Matthew 5\u20137) and miracles (Matthew 8\u20139), he is not merely presented as a new Moses. Instead, Jesus is viewed as having a unique authority and power, indeed, the authority and power of God himself. In other words, Jesus is no mere man\u2014even a sinless man\u2014analogous to previous Spirit-empowered men who performed mighty works of God (e.g., Moses, Elijah). Jesus is presented in a category all by himself, for it is only in him that God\u2019s long-awaited and promised kingdom has come. The previous prophets, priests, and kings may have functioned as types of him, but he is their antitypical fulfillment. In fact, everything that the apostles would say and do later was based solely on Jesus\u2019s authority and his authorization of them (Matt. 28:18\u201320; Acts 3:6; 4:10; 9:34); Jesus\u2019s authority and power was utterly unique.
\nMatthew 5:17\u201320 is an excellent example of how Jesus viewed his teaching authority, especially in relation to the Old Testament. Debate has surrounded how best to interpret Jesus\u2019s words \u201c \u2018I have not come to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them\u2019 \u201d (Matt. 5:17). The best interpretation stresses the antithesis between abolish and fulfill to see that Jesus claimed to be the prophetic end toward whom all the teaching under the old covenant with Israel pointed for its ultimate significance. This interpretation understands fulfill to have the same meaning as its use in Matthew (and the New Testament), which relies on the prophetic function of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Second, consider the function of the article on the participle habb\u0101\u2019 (\u201cthe coming one\u201d). Verse 26 may be literally rendered, \u201cAnd after the sixty-two heptads, \u2018anointed\u2019 is cut off but not for himself, and \u2018people of leader, the coming one\u2019 [habb\u0101\u2019], will destroy the city and the sanctuary.\u201d Both grammatically and rhetorically, the articular participle … <\/p>\n