May 24, 2011

Out of Egypt I called my son.

 “Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egyptand remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13–15 ESV)

The last phrase is a citation from Hosea 11:1.
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hosea 11:1 ESV)

Giza Pyramids - photos by Mindy McKinny


Many have pointed out the "inconsistency" of Matthew equating God's son to Jesus by citing Hosea who clearly identifies God's son as Israel. Is there an inconsistency? Does Matthew rip Hosea's context to shreds by practicing poor hermeneutics and disregarding the background of the 8th cent. BCE? If not then what is the purpose of equating this enigmatic passage to the holy family's sojourn to Egypt?

Washing dishes in the Nile - a task shared by two Israelites named Miriam (only ca. 1500 years apart)

Its primary purpose in the Gospel narrative is to connect the theological idea of Israel as God's divinely chosen son (ethnic nation - inheritor of God's promises - look at Ezekiel 16 for seeing Israel as Yahweh's chosen wife - the point is the same - the illustration differs) to Jesus as God's heir. In the context of Hosea 11 - the passage shows that God's son (Israel) failed disastrously in keeping themselves holy (the whole point of Judges, Kings and Chronicles) - and fell well short of their ultimate purpose ("be a kingdom of priests" - Ex. 19:5-6). On the flip side - Jesus is God's son who was sent down to and called "out of Egypt," but instead of failing to keep himself holy, and thereby be unable to fulfill his ultimate purpose of "being a light to the Gentiles" Is. 42:6 (cont. of purpose mentioned in Ex. 19:5-6), the God-man perfectly fulfilled the inward holy requirements while nailing the outward salvific purposes (the point of the book of Hebrews imagery relating to Christ's high priesthood).

Luxor Temple - built by Ramses II in the holy city of Thebes in the 13th cent. BCE

Another example of this is the temptation of Jesus in Luke 4 - Luke could have easily made an explicit comparison to Christ's 40-day-whineless fast to Israel's 40-year wilderness-gripe, but did not - because (in my opinion) the connection would have been abundantly obvious to 1st cent. readers.

Secondly and related - this interpretation has some interesting implications on the comparison between Christ in Egypt and Israel in Egypt. If it is seen as a typological event with a fulfillment in Christ then it invokes the entirety of the Egyptian bondage and the circumstances by which Israel found themselves in Mizraim (Hebrew for Egypt). Certainly, this cannot be pushed too hard, but it is no stretch to see the significance of relating the following passage to the physical salvation of "God's son" and the subsequent spiritual salvation through "God's Son" :
“His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.” (Genesis 50:18–21 ESV)

Finally, I think this passage and its interpretation well illustrate the importance of the need for Israel to fulfill their divine purpose of "being a light to the Gentiles" or "a kingdom of priests." This passage (Matt. 2:15; Hosea 11:1) brings you to a crucial three-way junction with regards to Israel's future purposes:

Route 1.) cancellation or alteration of physical Israel with a spiritual fulfillment of Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 42:6 in God's second Son, Jesus (basic amillenial thought, even if it's not postulated in so many words);

Route 2.) salvation of Israel (first son) through the Messiah/High Priest/King/Prophet (second and preeminent son) with a physical and spiritual fulfillment of Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 42:6 in God's Sons - with Israel as the nation and Christ as the King (see Zech. 14:18 - not sure how that could possibly be fulfilled spiritually) (basic premillenial thought - even if the "rapture" has become the core view - which is one of the greatest travesties in the history of eschatology).

Route 3.) Some garbled convergence of the two which has some affinity for both views, but can't quite make up their mind. They might like the consistency of the soteriology and magnification of the NT in the Amillenial system, but they can't quite get around Romans 11 or the witness of the prophets' view of Israel's end in premillenial theology. So instead of choosing a mount they ride with one foot on the gray-sweat-stained burro, named Amillenial Kingdom, while the other rests on the magnificent, brown, triple-crown winning steed, named Dispentariat, with a barbed wire fence racing beneath their widening legs.

May 20, 2011

"His Grave with the Wicked"

“And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9 ESV)


A while back a friend of mine asked me a few questions regarding the two thieves crucified beside Jesus. The first question related to the identity of the "thieves" - were they common thieves or insurrectionists (zealots or sicharii)?  The next question related to the purpose of the "thieves" in the redemptive plan - were the mere bystanders or major pieces of the mediatorial puzzle? 

The identity of the "robbers" on the cross

There is woefully insufficient data to make any definitive conclusions regarding the crimes of those being crucified beside the King. Based primarily on the writings of Josephus and other Roman writings we know a vast amount of information about Roman crucifixion.  For instance - we know that in 70 A.D. the Romans crucified tens of thousands of Jews in the besiegement of Jerusalem.

We also know that crucifixion had a dual purpose: First - punitive action against an offender. Second -  and just as vital - a glowing example of brutal justice to the populace. The second purpose is of utmost importance - particularly in the context of 1st century Judea. Judea, much like the 19th century Wild West of America, was on the absolute eastern frontier of the Roman Empire.  Rome's border was the Decapolis cities (Beth Shean or Scytholplis was one of these cities) - its last vestige of Romanism before the world dropped off into the dismal abyss of the Arabian desert. Beyond it were the Parthians, the Nabateans and the unknown. 

Fixed within this eastern border was a group of people that had become increasingly more patriotic and disgruntled (remember 1st century Judaism was a hotbed for Messiahs - Jesus was not the only Messiah proclaimed in the first century - read Gamaliel in Acts 5) towards their overlords, the Romans.  Especially since they still cherished the independent Hasmonean kingdom, then only a mere 100 years extinct.  It is within this context that the practice of crucifixion on Jewish subjects must be placed.  Rome was primarily concerned with keeping the peace and for many years had chosen the lenient route over the punitive one - but that was all changing during the life of Christ  (in fact - Pilate himself was exiled to Gaul in 36 AD due to his inability to control the Jews - you can read about my discussion of Pontius Pilate Paul Maier's awesome "documentary novel" here).   With Messianic fervor on the rise Rome chose to begin to pound the Jews into submission by using publicly grotesque executions. On a related note - one of the absolutes about crucifixion was its finality. Every person crucified - died - period.  If for whatever reason the prisoner did not die - then the soldiers in charge of the crucifixion would take their place on the cross - that was Roman law.

So - is it possible that the "robbers" were insurrections, zealots or Sicharii (one of the parties of rebels)? Absolutely.  Can we say with certainty? Absolutely not.  Because it's just as likely that these men were common robbers or thieves who were being executed for their mundane crimes. In either case - the point from Rome is the same - common thievery or insurrection resulted in a harsh punishment that was primarily pointed at squelching the wick of rebellion in 1st century Judea. What a time and place our Lord chose to put his son, eh?

God's plan for the robbers

The second part of your question is more difficult to answer - because it probably has a ton of correct answers. Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. God chose the "weak things of this world shame the wise" (1 Cor. 1:26-31) - the perfect King of Creation died a humiliating death beside two guilty, deserving criminals - this continues the idea that the true king is very different than everyone's expectations.

2. It shows just how abandoned Christ was on the cross - Jesus was forsaken by his disciples and followers, betrayed by his own people, murdered by the "righteous" establishment, and executed by the political establishment - add to that "mocked by criminals who had every reason to empathize with a fellow dying Jew" and you get the picture that Christ went through the most hellacious experience that God the Father has ever designed.

3. The criminal's repentance and Christ's forgiveness shows the measureless love and limitless mercy of God as made evident in the selfless, benevolent actions of the dying Messiah. Instead of arguing back with the criminals and showing them their sin - Christ forgave.

4. I don't think it's primary purpose is to show that no one is "too far gone" - although that also is true - I think first and foremost this amazing encounter is about what one does when they behold the Son of Man in all of his innocent, glory reflecting, Yahweh obeying perfection. There are many options one can choose - run for cover (disciples), betray and fight against him (the Saduccess/Pharisees, Judas and the Jews that demanded his death), mock him because his absolute holiness is the great antitype to our unabashed wickedness, or if God is gracious and so chooses - one may look upon the Son of God - behold his perfection and innocence, mourn their sin against him and put their self at his marvelous mercy with hopes that the King might find favor upon a murderous rebel (like me).  Thank God - Christ always fulfills this hope - he did for the thief and he did for me.

May 15, 2011

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

Have you ever wondered about the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Well look no further - watch this video produced by SourceFlix (formerly known as Living Hope Ministries).  The SourceFlix team continues to create great documentaries on a number of topics including Biblical Archaeology and Mormonism.

May 14, 2011

Dispensationalism Wrapup

Whether you are replacement (i.e. Amillenial, Covenant, Reformed) or premillenial/dispensational in your eschatology (theology of last things) - you should read this summation of Dispensationalism by Vlach. Here are some excerpts:

Dispensationalism has undergone significant developments throughout the years but Dispensationalism has a core set of beliefs that have remained stable, namely: (1) historical-grammatical hermeneutics should be applied to all aspects of Scripture including both testaments; (2) the NT does not reinterpret the OT; (3) OT promises and covenants that have not been fulfilled yet must be literally fulfilled in the future; and (4) there will be both a salvation and restoration of the nation Israel in the future.

The strength of Dispensationalism is found in its hermeneutic of a historical-grammatical approach to all Scripture including the OT, and its rejection of NT reinterpretation of the OT.

Another strength of Dispensationalism is found in its holistic understanding of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants and how these intertwine with each other. It is better to base one’s theology on covenants explicitly discussed in the Bible than covenants that are not clearly seen or emphasized in Scripture.
(HT: Todd Bolen)

May 2, 2011

Shall We Rejoice?

It's been 60+ years since our country has enjoyed a similar victory (death of Hitler/end of WWII). Should they not have rejoiced at that mass-murderer's death?  Slaughtered millions are worth patriotic cries, but butchered thousands should be met with mere solemnity? Please.

After all - Moses after crossing the Sea could hardly contain his grief and solemn words of warning to his rejoicing Israelite populace - how dare they rejoice at the death of the Egyptian army - don't they know that God hates for the wicked to perish? ("drip-drip" goes the sound of the sarcasm faucet...)

Related - great post by Will Varner.