If you were to summarize the overarching story-line of the Bible, what would you say? What if you had to do it in only one sentence? I will attempt to do exactly this in only seven words and I have a hunch my conclusion will be somewhat surprising to many.

But before I divulge my answer, I should note that this post is part 4 in a larger series concerning what I am calling “Reading the Bible in the Right Direction.” By this I am referring to the narrative order given in the Bible, most basically, Old Testament first, New Testament second. The ideas, stories, concepts, and expectations formulated in the Old Testament must be the primary base from which we interpret and understand the New Testament, rather than vice versa. More can be read on this in the previous posts, but now I am concentrating on concisely explaining the overarching storyline of Scripture. Understanding and interpreting the New Testament in light of this narratival framework causes the Scripture to first of all, make much more coherent sense, and second, to come alive in its intended dynamic vigor. This approach is critical because the early apostolic community, the original hearers of the New Testament, indeed, the people who wrote the New Testament, would have approached and understood the Bible in this way. They would have come to the New Testament writings living within the story of Israel, deeply entrenched in its expectations, animated with its hopes yet vexed with longing for this yet unfinished drama to come to its appointed consummation.

I will first give my seven word summary of the Bible’s story and then explain it. Here it is: God sends humanity to rule the earth. Surprising, eh? Yet if we read the Bible’s opening and closing remarks, we see that this is the original intent for God’s creation, and this intent comes to pass. Everything else that happens in the Bible is a subplot to seeing this overarching plot line find fulfillment.

When approaching a story and attempting to summarize its plot, a simple system has been developed to diagram the plot by identifying the six main components of the story:

1)    The Sender, who commissions an

2)    Agent, who is sent by the sender to accomplish a

3)    Task, for the benefit of the

4)    Receiver

5)    An Impediment attempts to block the accomplishment of the task and only through the aid of the

6)    Helper, is the agent able to accomplish the task.

This can be illustrated with a diagram, using the story of Little Red Riding Hood as an example.

Now what happens if we apply this type of plot analysis to the Bible? We would have to start at the very beginning – in Genesis 1. In verses 26-28, we are told that the original commission of humanity is to rule over the earth. This of course does not mean that they should function as exploitative tyrants. In Genesis 2:15 humans are told to cultivate, expand and grow the Garden of Eden. Rather than tyrannical domination, these verses mean the original purpose of human beings was to be the co-regents of God’s gracious, loving and life-giving rule, expanding both the Garden of Eden and their habitation (through having children and a family) to fill the earth with the glory of God. We often think of both the original creation and the Garden of Eden as being perfect and then subsequently getting spoiled. The texts more so tell us about something that, though perhaps not having particular flaws, was an unfinished project. The earth needed to be subdued. The garden needed to be cultivated. The ground needed to be worked. The earth needed to be inhabited. In other words, human culture, in all areas, needed to be developed and matured as part of God’s unfolding purpose for the earth.  The task of humans was then, in cooperation with God, to work on this creation project and ultimately bring it to completion (i.e., “fill the earth”).

Under our schema from above this would make the main components of our plot:

Sender – God

Agent – Humanity

Task – rule

Receiver – the earth

Hence my summary, “God sends humanity to rule the earth.” Now, it doesn’t take long to realize that this plot gets at least somewhat derailed rather quickly. However, we know this plan does not come to an end, not in Genesis 3, and not anywhere else in history. We can be assured of this because the final narrative sequence in the Bible, in Revelation 22, immediately before the concluding epilogue, says of redeemed humanity on the renewed earth, “and there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5). The original plot succeeds! Humanity is sent to rule the earth, and apparently, whatever happened between Genesis 4 and Revelation 21 succeeded in restoring this original storyline and bringing it to fulfillment (although perhaps, it is arguable that Revelation 22 still does not yet show a complete “fulfillment” but that humanity’s gracious rulership of the earth will continue into the ages to come).

So far we’ve only named four of the main six components of our plot. The impediment is readily identifiable. Genesis 3-11 documents the downward spiral of humanity, not in the gracious expansion of God’s life giving presence, but in the exploitative, pernicious and cancerous expansion of violence, sin, hatred, alienation and death. In a word the impediment, is sin. But note in our storyline what sin is the impediment to. It is not the impediment to getting into heaven, but rather it is what blocks, even destroys the development and expansion of a communal cultural life on earth infused with God’s goodness, truth and beauty.

So who is the helper? Enter Abraham in Genesis 12. It seems easy to completely disconnect Genesis 12 from Genesis 3-11, as if perhaps it was just the next event in history. But Genesis 12 is a dramatic turning point in the book, both in terms of its content and the overall biblical plot. Genesis 1-11 covers a very long period of time and many generations in rapid succession. Genesis 12-25 covers the life span of one person. We also notice the issues that arise in Genesis 12 parallel those in Genesis 1. Abraham is unable to have children yet God promises he will be the father of many nations, akin to the original command to be fruitful and multiply. Abraham is told he will be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth. This parallels the blessing humanity received in Genesis 1, and the curse that came upon the earth in Genesis 3. Abraham’s promise concerns “the land.”  Interestingly enough, this is the same Hebrew word as “earth,” thus forming at least a intriguing linguistic connection. All in all, Abraham (and thus his progeny, the nation of Israel) are God’s response to Genesis 3-11. God’s plan to reestablish the original plot and purpose for humanity is to be executed through God’s covenant people. God’s answer to the problem of sin is the covenant.

It also doesn’t take long to realize that this new plot line (Plot Level 2) was riddled with difficulty, whether it be family dysfunction, political conflicts, military engagement, or agricultural disaster, only to find the family of Abraham, God’s agents of reconciliation and restoration, to be held captive as slaves in the nation of Egypt. Enter “Plot Level 3″ – God sends a helper to bring deliverance to his people, in this case Moses. But as the story of the Old Testament progresses, the people of Israel get into one mess after another, usually related to wide-scale national sin. The people who God raised up to be his answer to the problem of sin, themselves became part of the problem. So God sends helper after helper, whether they be judges, prophets, kings (the epitome of which was David), to preach repentance to God’s people and to bring them deliverance from their enemies. The function of this “Plot Level 3″ however, was always to restore “Plot Level 2″ – Israel being a “light to the nations” and bringing “blessing to all peoples of the earth.” The purpose of this “Plot Level 2″ was always to restore “Plot Level 1″ – God sends humanity to rule the earth.

The final helper in this sequence (Plot Level 3) was none other than Jesus himself. This can be seen in Jesus’ resoluteness that he came only to help the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6; 15:24), as well as the emphasis that Jesus had come to save Israel (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:68; 2:25). Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, “Plot Level 2″ has been restored because Jesus then sends out his company of 12 Jewish young men with a task to “make disciples of all the Gentiles/nations” (Matt. 28:19). Interestingly enough, in Acts 1, the apostles ask Jesus, “Lord,  is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus answers in his usually interesting fashion, here by giving neither a clear yes or no answer and then continues, “but you will receive power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and  Samaria, and even to  the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Many people assume that Jesus’ answer is “no,” as in “you are stuck on thinking about politics, but I am going to have you go around and preach a new spiritual, inward reality.” It seems rather, if we compare the second half of his answer with our plot diagram, if twelve representatives of Israel are being sent out to “disciple the Gentiles” through preaching to “the remotest parts of the earth,” then the answer to their question is more like “yes, but not in the way you are thinking.”

So then, Jesus, through his death and resurrection, restores Plot Level 2. The ultimate goal of redemptive history however, is the recovery of Plot Level 1 – and human beings restored to gracious rulership over the earth. Rather than develop this here, in what is already a too-long blog-post, I will quote four passages that demonstrate this cosmic aspect of redemption’s goal. These passages are often enigmatic when the Bible is read in context to overarching stories that are in fact foreign to the Bible (i.e., the stories of Western affluence, escapism, rationalism, secular hedonism, etc.). However, when read starting with the narrative framework of the Old Testament as the foundation, these passages make perfect sense:

Acts 3:19-21 – Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,  so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus,  who must remain in heaven until the time of the restoration of all things that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

Ephesians 1:9-10 – he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ,  as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Colossians 1:19-20 – For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,  and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Romans 8:19‐23 – For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;  for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.  We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now;  and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Links to earlier parts in the series Reading the Bible in the Right Direction: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Related posts

• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2) (13)
• New Exodus – Part 2 – The Historical Revelation of God (1)
• New Exodus – Part 1 – The Divine Name (3)
• Why Greek Matters (Part 7) – The Genesis of Jesus the Messiah (Genealogies Really Matter!) (0)
• Theology of Creation in Isaiah Part 3 – Isaiah 40.21-24 (0)

In my last post I described the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as forging the Church as a New Humanity, reversing Babel’s curse of social and national disintegration. Today I would like to look at the coming of the Holy Spirit as establishing a New Covenant marked by the dynamic corporate experience of God.

As with last time, my intention is to interpret Acts 2 through Old Testament narrative of Israel’s history as alluded to in the passage. Previously looking at Genesis 11, we now turn to Exodus 19. This is the beginning of the account of Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai. God comes down upon the mountain with manifestations of fire, smoke and the loud sound of a trumpet. These are common aspects of a Biblical phenomenon called a theophany (literally, “God-appearing”) in which God becomes perceptible in a visible and physical display (cf. 1 Kgs 19:11; Isa. 66.15; Ps. 18).

Immediately following the exodus from slavery in Egypt, this event is what solidified Israel’s identity as a nation through their covenant with God. It is likely that this moment was what later writings referred to as the “creation of Israel” (Isa. 43:1, 15). Israel was offered the covenant by God and when they agreed to the words God spoke, they became his special possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). Their incorporation was two-fold: (1) to have a unique relationship with God and (2) to be priests to the rest of the earth. As a nation, they received promises analogous to those offered to Abraham, which included a special relationship with God, and that he would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. As Abraham (whose covenant in Genesis 12 comes strategically following Genesis 11) was called by God to be the agent of His solution to the problem of sin amassed in Gen. 1-11, so now Israel as a nation carries that priestly task.

Of significant note, is that while God came down upon the mountain, only Moses was allowed to come near to God. Eventually, Aaron, the priests and the seventy elders were permitted to come to the mountain, but only “at a distance.” With the exception of Moses, those permitted on the mountain were told that “they shall not come near.” Furthermore, the people at large were not permitted to come close to the mountain.

Now we turn to Acts 2. Pentecost was traditionally a harvest festival (Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28-26), but came to be associated with both the renewal of the covenant with Noah and the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. It is certain that Jews in the first century associated Pentecost with the Noahic covenant, as it is attested in literature from before that time (The Book of Jubilees 6:17-21; ca. 150 BC). However it is less certain whether it was yet affiliated with the Giving of the Law (though it certainly was in the second and third century). What would make us think then that Acts 2 is meant to be understood in light of Mount Sinai?

First, the great sound and the fire descending upon the believers parallels the sound and fire that accompanied the Sinai event. In Rabbinic writing, fire was commonly used as a symbol for the Torah. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible is there an emphasis on both the descending of fire and a great sound in a theophany except for in Exodus 19.

Second, Philo, a prolific Jewish writer in the century before Jesus, spoke about the giving of the Law in this way: “Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed by it that they seemed to see rather than hear the” (On the Decalogue 46).” This shows us that in time the New Testament was written, the Giving of the Law was being spoken of in terms of communication by fire (“tongues of fire?”) that became recognizable to the audience in their language.

Third, Luke consistently uses Moses typology to talk about Jesus. Jesus is the “prophet like Moses” of whom it was promised that God would raise up. In Luke 9:35 a voice from heaven tells the people to listen to Jesus, much like Israel was to listen to Moses. Moses was “raised up” by God, but Jesus was “raised up” by resurrection (Acts 2:34-36). Moses “received the living words and gave them” (Acts 7:38) but Jesus receives the Holy Spirit and gives it to his disciples (Acts 2:33).

It seems then, that Pentecost is meant to be understood in parallel to the Giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Obviously, much could be said about the relationship between the Law and the Spirit, but that will have to be said at another time and place. For the present, I would like to simply focus on the theophany aspect. If Pentecost is a New Sinai (following the New Exodus in Jesus’ death and resurrection – cf. Lk. 9:30, when Jesus speaks to Moses and Elijah about the exodus he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem), notice how instead of God descending upon the mountain, he descends upon the entire community of believers. Rather than the people remaining at a distance while only Moses approaches God, the community of women and men is the place where God manifests his theophanic presence. The Church, the New Covenant people, become a theophany in person.

The Church is the mountain upon which God descends in theophanic glory and like Israel, takes up a priestly vocation to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth – to be agents through whom God deals with the problem of sin and restores the creation to Himself and to His intentions for it. As Moses proclaimed the Word of God to the people after God met him on the mountain – the assembled believers began proclaiming the mighty acts of God to those who were in Jerusalem.

As I asked previously, so now I ask – what would a “praxis of Pentecost” look like, in light of this understanding? I think, in relation to what has been said here, it begins with the recognition and celebration of the fact that God is with us. There is much to be said concerning intercession for God’s presence and purposes as well as much to be said about the experience of God-forsakeness (cf. Ps. 22). Jeremiah spoke of a time when there would be a New Covenant and one person would not tell another to “know the Lord” because they all would know the Lord. This time of New Covenant has come and is an experienced reality in the community of believers. Few could deny our need to know the Lord in deeper and clearer ways. I am even aware of a deep reticence within myself to speak concerning my knowledge of God, conceivably in order to maintain some form of humility. However, I think we need to find a way to speak positively about our knowledge of God – to recognize that God has descended in our midst, that he dwells among us, and we do indeed know Him. Perhaps a way forward in this is the awareness that the Church corporately is the location of this New Covenant theophany. Individual, all of “see in a glass dimly,” (1 Cor. 13:12) but together “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

Related posts

• We’ve Been Unbabeled – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 2) (1)
• When the Day of Pentecost had Fully Come… (Part 1) (0)
• Out of Exile – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 4) (0)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)

OK – here’s where I say what the New Exodus is: the decisive event that the Jew’s were waiting for that would bring the definitive revelation of the “God who will be” faithful to his covenant promises was the ending of exile. The ending of this exile was often described with exodus-like imagery and language. The “New Exodus” is a way of speaking of the ending of the Jewish exile while investing it with the epochal significance of replacing the Exodus as the defining event in Israel’s history and their revelation of God.

As a quick historical review the “exilic” period of Israel’s history officially began in 586 B.C. when Babylonian armies sacked Jerusalem, destroying the temple and exiling most of the people of Jerusalem (excepting the poorest) to be slaves in Babylon. This period of deportation ended when Cyrus issued the decree for the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple in 538 B.C.

However, while this physical deportation to Babylon ended in 538 B.C., there are many reasons for believing that according to the Jewish people, the exile had not in fact ended. This point is crucial for understanding the message of the Old Testament as a post-exilic canon of literature and for understanding the historical context of the New Testament. There are two distinct interpretations of this phenomenon. The first, of whom the leading exponent is N.T. Wright, is that the Babylonian exile was believed to have not ended. The second interpretation, offered by Brant Pitre, disagrees with Wright in that he believes the exile had not ended because there were in fact two exiles – one in which the ten northern tribes were deported by the Assyrians around 727 B.C., and the second, in which the remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin were deported by the Babylonians beginning in 597 B.C. and again in 586 B.C. and 581 B.C. Of these two exiles, the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom had ended, but the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom had not ended. For this reason, then, according to Pitre, in the days of Jesus it was still believed that the exile had not yet ended.

I believe that Scripture points to the conclusion that both are true: neither the Babylonian nor Assyrian exiles had truly ended.

1) The first reason is the clearest literary example that the Babylonian exile itself was not believed to have ended. This is found in Daniel 9, esp. vv. 24-27. Daniel had been reading the writings of Jeremiah and after concluding that the appointed time had come for the exile to end, began to pray and fast for its fulfillment. While praying, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and in essence explained that the exile was in fact not over, the time of fulfillment had not come, and that instead of their being 70 years of captivity, their would be seventy “sevens” (i.e., 490 years).

2) With regard to the exile of the northern kingdom, there are a number of scriptures, especially in Jeremiah, which speak of both Israel and Judah coming back together. This gathering never happened and yet remained unfulfilled.

Jer. 3.18 – “In those days the house of Judah will walk with the house of Israel, and they will come together from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers as an inheritance.

Jer. 30.3 – “For behold, days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.’ The LORD says, ‘I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers and they shall possess it.’”

Hos. 1.11 – “And the children of Judah and the children of Israel will be gathered together,  And they will appoint for themselves one leader…”

3) Additionally, all the promises given in conjunction with the announcement of the return from exile were not fulfilled. One example will suffice. Isaiah 35 speaks of ecological renewal, bodily restoration, freedom from ungodly beasts, the cessation of suffering and the arrival of everlasting joy simultaneously with the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. This could be demonstrated many times over throughout the prophetic literature. When the exile was to end, it was expected that Israel would be freed from its enemies, the creation would be restored, justice would go to the ends of the earth. At this point, forget the renewal of creation and global justice, after the return from the Babylonian deportation, the Israelites still continued under the domination of foreign powers. Theologically, this meant that the exile had not yet ended.

4) The exiles left Babylonian according to the decree of Cyrus to return and rebuild the temple. Though the prophet Haggai could say that the glory of the latter temple would be greater than the glory of the former (Haggai 2:9), the historical reality is that the second temple was quite lackluster when compared to the former. This is so simply in terms of the quality and comparative magnificence of the building. More importantly, though while with the first temple we have glowing reports of the glory of Yahweh descending and filling the temple (e.g., 2 Chr. 7), there is nothing comparable in the entire period of the second temple. No where is it ever said that Yahweh himself returned to Zion by dwelling in the temple.

5) A further reason is the on-going lament over the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Davidic Monarchy in 586 B.C. This can be exemplified in the book of Psalms. This collection of songs is evidently a post-exilic redaction as shown by Psalms that celebrate the return from exile, such as Psalms 107, 147 and possibly 66, 96, 98, 132 and others. Nevertheless, laments over the fall of Jerusalem and prayers for the ending of the exile remain in the collection:

Ps. 74:2b-7 – “Remember Mount Zion, where you came to dwell. Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins;   the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary. Your foes have roared within your holy place; they set up their emblems there. At the upper entrance they hacked the wooden trellis with axes. And then, with hatchets and hammers, they smashed all its carved work. They set your sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the dwelling place of your name, bringing it to the ground.”

Ps. 79:1 – “O God, the nations have come into your inheritance;   they have defiled your holy temple;   they have laid Jerusalem in ruins.”

Ps. 89:38-40 – “But now you have spurned and rejected him; you are full of wrath against your anointed.  You have renounced the covenant with your servant;   you have defiled his crown in the dust. You have broken through all his walls;   you have laid his strongholds in ruins.”

Ps. 106:47 – “Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise.”

Ps. 126:4 -  “Restore our captivity, O LORD,   like the watercourses in the Negev.”

Ps. 137:7 – “Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites   the day of Jerusalem’s fall,  how they said, “Tear it down! Tear it down!  Down to its foundations!”

Other examples could include Pss. 42-43, 68, 80, 85, and 102. What could this phenomenon mean, that after the exile had ended, the prayers and laments of the exilic condition were collected as part of the nation’s continuing liturgical material? What would it mean for the people who had already come out of exile to lament the exile and pray for its ending? It seems that in a significant way (especially considering the poignant and potent language used in some of these Psalms) the Jewish people believed that the great restoration related to the fall of Jerusalem and the exile had not yet in fact happened. It remained in the future and hence the past events should still be lamented and the future events prayed for.

Other reasons could be given, but these five points develop a case that after the Babylonian captives returned to the land, the promised had not been fulfilled and the exile had not yet ended. The faithfulness of Yahweh to his covenant promise to Abraham was still awaited. Hence the ending of exile and the new exodus were future events  anticipated as the definitive revelation of God through his historical intervention on behalf of his people and his creation.

Related posts

• New Exodus – Part 2 – The Historical Revelation of God (1)
• New Exodus – Part 1 – The Divine Name (3)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture (14)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2) (13)
• Why Greek Matters (Part 7) – The Genesis of Jesus the Messiah (Genealogies Really Matter!) (0)

In the last post, I proposed that the revelation of the divine name “Yahweh” to Moses at the burning bush is better translated “I will be” rather than “I AM.” Instead of relating to static categories of existence or other such metaphysical qualities Greek philosophers were interested in, it pertains to the future of God’s faithfulness to his word in time-space history. It has been said in many times and places that in ancient culture one’s name was not simply a tag enabling one to address another in conversation. Names convey character, quality and essence. If this is the case, and this name “I will be” is strategically unveiled in connection with the Exodus event, this means that the revelation of God’s self is not truly contained within the name, but in the yet outstanding future of God’s covenant faithfulness. In other words, if God’s name is “I will be,” the primary revelation of God lies in future historical events that confirm his faithfulness.

In theology this is referred to as revelation through history in contrast to inspiration. Historical revelation is conveyed objectively through occurrences and events in history. Inspiration is conveyed through subjective experiences, often in which the “word of God” is communicated. Both are important in the Biblical record, but the historical dimensions of revelation are often overlooked and emphasis unduly falls on the verbal dimensions of revelation. At times “revelation” becomes reducible to either the words of the Bible, specific “words from God,” or propositional statements about Christian truth. However, the concept of historical revelation conveys an idea we all intuitively know from everyday life: we know more about a person from what they do than from what they say about themselves. The repetition of propositional statements despite contrary concrete experiential evidence convinces few people of truth. To be loved in both word and deed is critical, but when loving words remain in the absence of loving action, the words become reduced to meaninglessness. It is extremely difficult to maintain a proposition “God is good” without historical evidence of God’s goodness.

Furthermore, the events of God in history cannot be simply translated into propositions in the same way we know from everyday life that verbal communication about an event cannot communicate the full wealth of meaning contained in the experience. This points to the depth of meaning in the historical revelation of God that is a necessary complement to revelation by inspiration. The person with the experience and the person with the report about the experience do not have the same meaning. If at this point an appeal to the Holy Spirit is made, how can the illuminative agency of the Spirit be understood verbally? Does the Spirit simply repeat the words of Scripture to us, or give us new ways of expressing them? If we understand that the Holy Spirit illuminates the words of Scripture as profoundly meaningful (through the generation of faith?), then this meaning (faith/belief/trust/assurance) must be recognized as something that is extra-verbal and extra-rational. It is not a given in the verbal concepts themselves.

Language and words are simultaneously translators and traitors of meaning because, even in the pinnacle of expression, they fail to fully convey “what the presence of meaning wishes to say about itself” (Derrida). Even if one believes that discourse represents reality (as opposed to constructing or constituting reality), one cannot say that discourse completely conveys reality, even if God is speaking. Therefore, informative and instrumental communication is incomplete. Reality is too big to fit into propositions.

Though seemingly “rediscovered” in the twentieth century, the authors of the Biblical text readily understood this concept as demonstrated by the emphasis on the historical revelation of God. It was not sufficient to say that God was good, loving, patient, forgiving, etc. The very words demand their historical demonstration lest their sincerity be indubitably falsified. Many verses describe how God is known through what he does, particularly the exodus events. The primary way the people of Israel understood themselves and God historically was through the Exodus. He is the freedom God, the faithful God, the God of deliverance:

Ex. 7.5 – “The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.”
Exod. 20:2-3 – “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Ex. 29.46 – “They shall know that I am the LORD their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God.
Deut. 4:35 – To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
Deut. 7:8-9 – the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 “Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;

Even more significant than the link between revelation and the exodus event is the expected revelation of God in a future definitive intervention in which God would show himself to be faithful to his word in restoring his people.

This concept is often seen with the phrase “in that day/then you will know that I am the Lord:”

Is. 49.23 – “Kings will be your guardians, And their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth And lick the dust of your feet; And you will know that I am the LORD; Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.
Is. 60.16 – “You will also suck the milk of nations And suck the breast of kings; Then you will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
Ezek. 37.13 – “Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people.
Hos. 2.20 – And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. Then you will know the LORD.
Joel 3.17 – Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, Dwelling in Zion, My holy mountain. So Jerusalem will be holy, And strangers will pass through it no more.

But the “then you will know” formula is not necessarily present:

Is. 25.9 – And it will be said in that day, “Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.”
Is. 52.10 – The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God.
Is. 66.13 – “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; And you will be comforted in Jerusalem.”
14 Then you will see this, and your heart will be glad, And your bones will flourish like the new grass; And the hand of the LORD will be made known to His servants, But He will be indignant toward His enemies.
Psa. 98.2 – The LORD has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations. 3 He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
Ezekiel 36:36 – Then the nations that are left round about you will know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted that which was desolate; I, the LORD, have spoken and will do it.”

The final, definitive revelation of God comes at the end of history. Revelation of God is ultimately eschatological. This then means that, in a sense, all revelation we have of God now is partial and provisional. It awaits a final word yet to come. This “final word” comes at the end, when God renews all things.

Thus far, I have only been explicating this concept from Old Testament passages, but will illustrate it with simply one passage from the New Testament. Revelation 22:4 makes a startling declaration in saying that “they will see his face.” In the New Heavens and New Earth, the people of God who have overcome look into the very face of God. This is remarkable considering that strands of tradition explicitly state that those who see the face of God would die. Seeing the face of God means direct unmediated contact and full revelation. This realm is inaccessible to mortals. In the first chapter of John we are told that no one has seen God at any time. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that we “see in a glass dimly” and that even the best of us only “know in part.” However, when God renews all things, when he makes his definitive intervention and transformation of history, we will see him face to face. This full revelation awaits a time in the future when the fulfillment of every promise of God is made fully manifest. In the New Creation we will see God fully as He is. “Only God’s final revelation at the end of history will bring with it final knowledge of the content and truth of the act of God in Jesus of Nazareth. God alone has the competence to speak the final word about God’s work in history” (Wolfhart Pannenberg).

Related posts

• New Exodus – Part 1 – The Divine Name (3)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture (14)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2) (13)
• Pentecost – The Coming of the Holy Spirit (0)
• New Exodus – Part 3 – The Ending of Exile (5)

A friend recently asked me to condense some thoughts on the concept of “new exodus.” Surprisingly, especially if such a concept is new to you, I believe that “new exodus” is one of the primary interpretive frameworks for understanding the New Testament. This is an additional example of how biblical interpretation must move in the direction of Old Testament, first and foundational, New Testament second and derivative (though launching off in some surprising turns and creative new directions). I figured I might as well make my response public.

The first thing to say is that the New Exodus is a huge subject and has been the treatment of many scholarly monographs. Here I hope to just introduce some of the primary Scripture verses related to the subject and will by no means be a full discussion.

Obviously, any discussion of a “new exodus” must take into consideration the “first exodus.” The exodus was the deliverance of a company of Jewish slaves from the nation of Egypt in either the 15th or 13th century B.C. This event is described as Israel’s redemption (Ex. 21.8; Deut. 7:8; 13:5; 24:18; an extremely significant word in later biblical texts). By this event, Israel was forged as a covenant nation and it became the pivotal moment of remembrance in the nation’s history. Critical and curious to note is that the exodus, while becoming foundational for many later prophetic and Pauline discussions, had nothing to do with sin. The “redemption” from Egypt was not related to forgiveness, it was sheerly an act of salvation as an overflow of compassion.

In context to the Exodus, God reveals himself for the first time with his personal name Yahweh (Ex. 3.13ff.), which does not carry the metaphysically intrusive (and static) meaning of “I AM” in the sense of an “eternal present.” The concept of an “eternal present” was expressed by the Greek philosopher Parmenides to describe the being who is completely removed from the temporal sequence of everything we experience. Instead this being experiences our past, present, and future simultaneously as one “eternal present.” This was related to his belief that reality is most essentially what is unchanging. This obviously precludes anything in the natural world. The manifold diversity, movement, motion and change in the world we observe are less real than the eternal and indivisible realities behind them. In fact, change, motion and diversity came to be viewed as imperfections from that which is eternal. This philosophical understanding of god and reality was taken up by Plato and Aristotle, and later by Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas, all in varying nuances.

The Hebrews were entirely unfamiliar with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle at this point, and in the midst of the people’s sufferings, I am certain that God did not pause to give a lesson on abstract metaphysics and the relationship between God and time (i.e., that God is “outside of time”). This makes absolutely no sense of the passage in which God declares himself to have seen their affliction, heard their cries, knows (not in an abstract theoretical sense, but in an experiential sense) their suffering and has “come down,” in history, to deliver them. He is the God of history, he is the God experientially involved in history, far from soaring above it as a detached observer, but to the chagrin of Aristotle, participating in its sorrows.

The first key to understanding this divine name is its approximate translation in Hebrew. It seems to be a form of the verb “to be,” and when translated into the English (or even Greek) present tense is rendered as “I AM.” However, Hebrew grammar does not use tense, which indicates the relative time of an action (past, present or future). Instead it uses aspect, which rather than describing the time of an action in relation to the speaker, it describes the contour of the actions. In Hebrew there are only two distinct aspects, the perfect and the imperfect aspect. The Perfect aspect considers an action as complete, or as a whole, regardless of when it happens. This is different than describing an action as completed. It is not an event that is over, but is being consider in its totality without an incomplete, unresolved, progressive aspect to it. It can refer to an action in the past, present or future, but the completeness of the action is in sight and is considered as a whole. The Impefect aspect considers an action that is not seen as a whole. It is on-going and unfinished, regardless as to whether it is past, present or future. In essence, perfective aspect views an action as closed and complete, imperfective views an action as open, on-going and dynamic.

The name Yahweh is a form of the verb “to be” in the imperfective aspect. This means that the interpretation as “I AM” as a static eternal present cannot be what is meant by the Hebrew text. Whatever it does mean, the concept of God’s being expressed in the name is not conceived of as a complete entity, a timeless existence in which all of history is simultaneously present. Whether or not this concept is true of God is a different question, but it is certainly not the meaning of the divine name and is not at all being expressed in the Exodus narratives. Instead, this name connotes an on-going nature of openness, of a dynamic future of engagement with history and the on-going drama of salvation.

The second key is the context in which this revelation comes. The surrounding speech is entirely about the suffering of the Israelites and God’s intention to deliver them. The ensuing narratives are likewise about the same – a suffering people and a compassionate God delivering them with great might and power. It seems odd that God takes a time out to have a lesson in abstract metaphysics. It makes more sense to believe that the revelation of this name is in context to the people’s historical situation and God’s historical intervention.

The third key to understanding the divine name is in the next verse when God describes himself as the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” In other words, Yahweh is the God of covenant. He is the God who made concrete promises to a bunch of earthlings about the future of their life on the earth. Those individuals became pilgrims (nomads, really) in hopeful expectation of the promises of God.

He we see in greater fullness what this divine name may mean. He is the God of an on-going, unfinished historical interaction. He is the God of compassionate involvement with and for his people. He is the God of covenant. Taken together, it seems that although still insufficient, it would be more accurate to translate Yahweh as “I will be” and the explanatory phrase as “I will be who I will be.” In other words, the divine name is about the future of God’s faithfulness to his covenant in the historical intervention and deliverance of his people. This divine name takes the exodus as its paradigm and moment of revelation. If this is what the divine name means, there are significant implications through the remainder of the biblical writings. Yahweh is not simply a tag so God can be called something. It is a powerful expression of hopeful openness to the future despite a conflicted present, in which our confidence is rooted in the historical faithfulness of God to his covenant promises. “He will be” in that he will be true to himself and his word, faithfully present to his people in the actualization of a yet outstanding and unimaginable future, with its ultimate fulfillment in the new creation of all things. The exodus (and the “new exodus”) are centrally about the historical faithfulness of God to his creation, his covenant and his people, in which he participates with compassion in the suffering of humanity, intervening for their deliverance, salvation and restoration.

Related posts

• New Exodus – Part 2 – The Historical Revelation of God (1)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture (14)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2) (13)
• New Exodus – Part 3 – The Ending of Exile (5)
• Will You Forget Me Forever? (1)

In my last post I proposed a manner of biblical interpretation in which the ideas, concepts, world-view, etc. of the Old Testament must be the foundation for understanding the New Testament, rather than vice versa. The thought must flow from an informed Old Testament understanding into the New Testament, rather than reinterpreting the Old Testament by what is assumed the New Testament means.

One illustration will suffice for now, although I will elucidate this principle in a number of subsequent posts. In Matthew 2:15, Matthew describes how after the birth of Jesus, his parents took him to Egypt to avoid the threat of Herod. After Herod died, they came back to Judea. Matthew says, “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” On first glance, this may look like a fulfillment of prophesy “proving” that Jesus is the Messiah. It seems that way until one looks at the context surrounding the verse quoted in Hosea 11.  Instead of being a prophecy foretelling the future, it is the recollection of God’s past faithfulness to Israel in bringing them out of Egypt in the Exodus. The “son” is Israel, who in the Exodus accounts is called Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22). Does Matthew 2 thereby “prove” that Jesus is the Messiah on the basis of Hosea 11? Is that what Matthew means by “fulfillment?”

It seems like we have two interpretive options. We can read the Bible backwards – inserting the NT idea into the OT. This would leave us with a Hosea 11 which is maybe a little bit about Israel, but is really about Jesus, predicting his departure from Egypt when he was young so we could conclusively prove that Jesus came to die for our sins and bring our souls with him to heaven. The other possibility is to read the Bible in the other direction. Hosea 11 really is about Israel. It really is about the covenant. It really is about the history of promises given to an earthling (i.e., Abraham) about the future of life on earth. History does not become irrelevant in the light of eternity. Earth does not become irrelevant in light of heaven. Humanity does not become irrelevant in the light of God. Instead of Hosea 11 becoming about Jesus (which would make Hosea 11 pretty incomprehensible, especially to its original audience), Matthew is telling us that the birth and life of Jesus and the story he is recounting is in direct continuity with the OT history of promise, covenant and exodus.

This gets all the more interesting when we consider more of the surrounding context in Matthew:

• 1:23 – the angel Gabriel announces that a “savior” is going to be born (the word “savior” and “deliverer” are the same concept in Hebrew – think a deliverer, i.e. MOSES)
• 2:13 – Herod attempts to kill Jesus by killing all the children in Bethlehem (think Pharaoh killing all the Hebrew children in Exodus)
• 2:15 – “Out of Egypt I called my Son” – think the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt
• 3:6 – Jesus is baptized by John in the Jordan River, which in Jewish tradition is often seen in parallel with the Red Sea (compare, for example, Psalm 114) – here we are seeing Jesus “cross the Red Sea” after leaving Egypt
• 4:1ff – Jesus enters the wilderness for 40 days – think Israel wandering in the wilderness for forty years – they failed in their time of temptation, but Jesus triumphed.
• 4:12 – Jesus “enters the land” and begins his ministry proclaiming the Gospel.

Matthew 2:15 is not a proof-text for the Messiah-ship of Jesus. It is part of a larger drama where Matthew is implicitly retelling (indeed, with these passages, in chronological order) the story of Israel, specifically their central, paradigmatic story, the Exodus. Rather than being a Messianic proof-text, it tells us that Jesus is embodying the history of Israel and is indeed re-enacting it, to prepare us to understand that Jesus is the true representative of Israel, the one who will go into exile for their sins and burst through the bonds of the exile of death to herald the restoration, indeed the resurrection of Israel and all humanity. Jesus fulfills what was written in the prophets, in that he is the climax, the consummation, the fulfillment of the story of Israel. All of Israel’s hopes had been looking back to the covenant promises and forward to the nation’s restoration. They were looking for a new exodus, a final, eschatological exodus in which all things would be made new. This story of promise and expectation finds its fulfillment in Jesus. In Him, the Pharaoh of history, death itself, has been defeated and the way is opened for all to enter into the perpetual existence of resurrection life on earth.

Related posts

• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture (14)
• New Exodus – Part 2 – The Historical Revelation of God (1)
• New Exodus – Part 1 – The Divine Name (3)
• Theology of Creation in Isaiah Part 3 – Isaiah 40.21-24 (0)
• Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (21)