Fill the Hand: A Hebrew Idiom of Ordination and Consecration

To fill the hand is an interesting Hebrew idiom. Overall, it occurs about twenty times in the Hebrew Bible. It is most often connected with the consecration of the Levitical priests. In Exod 28:41, God instructs Moses: “you shall anoint [Aaron and his sons], and fill their hand, and consecrate them, and they shall function as priests for me.” See also Exod 29:9, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3. The expression is also used of the illegal ordination of priests. Micah the Ephraimite filled the hand of one of his sons, and the hand of the infamous Levite, to be priests (Judg 17:5, 12). See also 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Chr 13:9.

The expression typically has the Piel of מלא with יד as its object. It is usually understood as an idiom that means to consecrate or to ordain, but what is the connection between filling the hand and ordination? The root מלא in the Piel means to fill. The word יד, which means hand, can have the extended meaning of power. The idiom seemingly communicates, therefore, the idea of conferring power or authority. To fill the hand of a person is to complete the power of that person in the sense of authorizing that person for a particular task.

There is a concrete example of this expression in the Scriptures which seems to illuminate this idiom. In 2 Kgs 9:24, we are told that “Jehu filled his hand in the bow.” In other words, Jehu put his strength into the bow to draw it back strongly for a powerful shot aimed at King Joram. Here to fill the hand means to transfer power. This seems to confirm the idea that filling the hand of someone to be priest means to authorize, hence to ordain as priest.

However, the expression can also be used of ordinary people who consecrate themselves in the service of God. David is recorded as using the expression in 1 Chr 29:5 to encourage the people to give freewill offerings to the Lord to be used in the the building of the temple. Here the people are effectively called upon to fill their own hands in the service of God! A similar idea is found in 2 Chr 29:31 where the people fill their hands by joining with Hezekiah in renewing the covenant before God. And finally, the expression can also be used of objects dedicated for the worship of God. The priests in Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple would offer sacrifices to purify and to fill the hand of the altar of the temple (Ezek 43:26).

There is one particular use of this expression that deserves to be mentioned. After the sin of the golden calf, Moses proclaimed: “Whoever is on the Lord’s side, come to me!” (Exod 32:26). When the sons of Levi gathered around him, Moses told them to take their swords and to execute judgment upon the people. He also encouraged them at this time: “Fill your hands today to Yahweh, yes, every man against his son and against his brother!” (Exod 32:29). Having understood the logic behind the idiom, Moses’ use of the expression at this juncture surely appears to be a case of deliberate double entendre. The Levites were to consecrate themselves to God by unleashing the power of their hands against their rebellious countrymen.

When Jesus Became Our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek

Jesus is described in Hebrews as our great high priest, but when did this office commence?

Psalm 110 is important in relation to this question, and v. 4 in particular: “Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’” But when did Yahweh historically make this oath?

If anything, the way in which Ps 110:4 is sandwiched by the idea of the Messiah’s enthronement in vv. 1, 5, along with the mention of “the day of your power” in v. 3, suggests that the utterance of the divine oath regarding Christ’s priesthood is linked with his ascension to and enthronement at the right hand of God. Yet I admit that this is not totally clear in the psalm in question.

But there is confirmation of this understanding in the letter to the Hebrews. The author says that Christ did not appoint himself to his priestly office (Heb 5:5). The quotation of Ps 2:7 in Heb 5:5 in juxtaposition with the quotation of Ps 110:4 in Heb 5:6 is important to consider. On the one hand, the wording you are my son is echoed in the voice of God that was heard at Christ’s baptism (e.g., Luke 3:22). On the other hand, Ps 2:7 can be understood as enthronement language. The decree of Ps 2:7 is linked with Yahweh’s establishment of the Messiah as king on Zion (Ps 2:6), which is in response to (see Ps 2:5) a rebellion directed against Yahweh and his Messiah (Ps 2:1-4). It is significant that Ps 2:7 is interpreted by Paul as being fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection (Acts 13:33).

Did the author of Hebrews also understand Ps 2:7 in this way? The language of Heb 5:9-10 suggests that effectively he did. Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8), “and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” In other words, suffering led to obedience, which in turn led to perfection. The time of the aorist passive participle translated as having been designated in v. 10 seems to match with the aorist passive participle translated as having been made perfect in v. 9. It would make sense that the height of Christ’s suffering and obedience was the time when his perfection was complete. The parallel between perfection and designation suggests, therefore, that Christ’s designation as high priest according to the order of Melchizedek took place more or less at the time when his perfection was complete, when his suffering reached its climax. His being designated as such a high priest meant that he could be the source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. This ties Jesus’ designation as high priest in with the time of his death and resurrection.

In a similar way, Heb 6:20 implies that Jesus became high priest at a certain point in time, which in turn enabled him to be a forerunner into the presence of God “within the veil” (Heb 6:19). Thus, according to the author of Hebrews, Jesus’ appointment as high priest occurred shortly before he ascended into the presence of God in the heavenly temple.

Regarding the typological relation between Jesus and Melchizedek, the lack of biblical information concerning the life and particularly the death of Melchizedek is taken as the main point of comparison with Christ: it is as if Melchizedek has not died and continues on as a priest forever, and this continuation in the office of priest is a picture of what is definitely true for Jesus. Yet it is not as if Christ is an eternal priest in a timeless way; but, having entered into that office at some point in time, he continues on in that office forever. The significance drawn from this typological relationship is that the submission of Abraham to Melchizedek proves the superiority of the priestly order of Melchizedek over against the Levitical priesthood, hence the superiority of the new covenant over the old. In the mind of the author, Melchizedek is not viewed as being an eternal priest in a timeless way, but that at some point in his life he became a priest, and that this office seemingly continues on forever. In a similar way, Heb 7:16 says that Jesus became (literally, has become) a priest in the likeness of Melchizedek. Furthermore, the authority for Jesus becoming a priest was “the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). The quotation of Ps 110:4 in the next verse, therefore, ties Jesus’ priesthood in very closely with his resurrection. Jesus was not appointed as high priest on the basis of the Mosaic regulations concerning the priesthood (Heb 7:28), but as a result of the divine oath recorded in Ps 110:4. Significantly, this oath is described as being “after the law,” i.e., it is not recorded as part of the Mosaic revelation recorded in the Pentateuch (Heb 7:28). Presumably the oath recorded in Ps 110:4 is a prophecy of the oath that was formally made by God around the time of Jesus’ resurrection.

It seems, therefore, that Jesus’ death and resurection marks the time when his office of high priest according to the order of Melchizedek formally commenced. This fits in with the idea that the climax of the ordination ceremony of the priest is the sacrifice of the ram of ordination (אֵיל הַמִּלֻּאִים–the ram of the filling with priestly power and authority) and the sprinking of the priest in its blood (Lev 8:22-30). Jesus’ death on the cross was the climax of his ordination as our great high priest.

The Concept of the Eternal Covenant in the Old Testament

Following on from my post entitled “The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews”, it should also be noted that the language of an eternal covenant is not just limited to Hebrews. The phrase ברית עולם an everlasting covenant appears a number of times in the Old Testament, and there are other verses where the words ברית and עולם are closely related.

The relevant verses are: Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; 25:13; Jdg 2:1; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17.

I will endeavor to investigate these verses over the next few weeks or so.

The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews

I have been asked about how we should understand the eternal nature of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20. The connection between this verse and Bullinger’s language of “the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God” is intriguing. His idea seems to be that there is one covenant that is eternal in the sense that it began with Adam and continues on forever, and this is one way of understanding the idea of the eternal covenant in Heb 13:20.

It is correct to speak of one covenant relationship that God has had with his people since the time of Adam, but the purpose of the author of Hebrews is actually to distinguish the Mosaic administration of this covenant relationship from the post-cross administration of this covenant relationship. The author argues: if the revelation given to Moses and the prophets was special (Heb 1:1; 2:2), then how much more so the word given to the Son of God himself (Heb 1:2; 2:3)! There is continuity, but also discontinuity in the sense that a greater revelation has been revealed, which must take priority, to which we must be committed, and from which we must not turn back.

So, in speaking of an eternal covenant, the author of Hebrews means the new covenant, which he contrasts with the old covenant. Jesus is the guarantor and mediator of a covenant that is “better” than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 7:22; 8:6). Jesus’ ongoing life means that he exercises an eternal priesthood, and this underpins this better covenant (Heb 7:24). Jesus’ mediatorship is linked with his death, which opened the way for the called to receive an eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15). This inheritance is not eternal in the sense of being timeless, but it is eternal in the sense that it continues on for eternity from a particular point in the past. The context suggests that this point is the time of Jesus’ death, when the new covenant was inaugurated.

It is clear that the author of Hebrews views the new covenant as beginning formally at the point of Jesus’ death. A covenant is made valid, i.e., it comes into effect, through the death (usually symbolic) of the one who made it (Heb 9:17). In relation to the Mosaic covenant, the necessary death was symbolized through the shedding of sacrificial blood (Heb 9:17-21). But the new covenant was established through the literal death of the one who made it. His death was a “better” sacrifice, which has opened the way to enter into heaven itself, not just into the tabernacle/temple, which was the Mosaic copy of this awesome place (Heb 9:23-26).

It is also interesting to consider how the author of Hebrews uses the word αἰώνιος, which is usually translated as eternal. In Hebrews, it usually designates continuation into the future rather than something that is timeless. Eternal salvation in Heb 5:9 refers to the salvation that results from obeying Jesus. It is an eschatological concept that continues on forever. The timeframe of eternal judgment in Heb 6:2, eternal redemption in Heb 9:12, and the promised eternal inheritance in Heb 9:15 are similar. The eternal redemption was only secured “by means of his blood” (Heb 9:12). Even though the effects of Jesus’ sacrifice applied to the old covenant saints, the redemption obtained by this means did not really begin until Jesus secured it through his death on the cross. In a similar way, the idea of the eternal inheritance being promised means that it did not exist in consummate reality from the beginning. The called only receive the eternal inheritance promised to them through the death of Jesus which redeems them from the sins committed under the first, i.e., the Mosaic, covenant (Heb 9:15). The only time when αἰώνιος is used in Hebrews to denote the idea of a timeless existence is in Heb 9:14, where the Holy Spirit is described as the eternal Spirit.

All in all, according the manner in which the writer of Hebrews uses his language, the eternal covenant is the new covenant in Christ. It is eternal in the sense that from the point of inauguration at the cross, it endures forever. More theologically we could speak of how this “eternal” covenant has been the foundation for God’s unitary covenant relationship with his people ever since Adam was kicked out of the garden, but this is to delve into an area that is beyond the purview of this particular epistle.

As the writer puts it: Once upon a time God’s people only knew Sinai;

but [now] you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:22-24)!

The sprinkled blood that is better than the blood of innocent Abel has inaugurated the better and eternal covenant, namely, the new covenant in Christ.

The Importance of the Concept of Covenant in Biblical Hermeneutics

The concept of covenant is very important for coming to an accurate understanding of the message of the Bible. The Bible has developed as the written record of God’s relationship with his people through history. The Old Testament is the written testimony to God’s relationship with Israel based on the Sinaitic covenant, also known as the old covenant. The Old Testament is simply old covenant revelation, and the covenant theology of this revelation is the theological foundation upon which the New Testament is built.

It is significant that the New Testament teaches that Christians, in a manner similar to the people of Israel, are in a covenant relationship with God. Jesus came to establish the new covenant, and Jesus’ disciples participate in the blood of the covenant (Luke 22:14–20). Paul viewed himself as being a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6). Paul says that non-Jewish Christians were once “strangers to the covenants of promise,” but have now been brought near in Christ (Eph 2:12–13). The writer of Hebrews teaches that Christians are sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29); and have come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24). Christians, therefore, relate to God on the basis of a covenant. This covenant, however, is not the Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant, but the new covenant in Christ.

The new covenant exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as the old covenant, but the key difference between the old and new covenants is the medium of revelation. Under the old covenant, the medium of revelation was, first and foremostly, Moses; but with the coming of Jesus Christ (who is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Deut 18:15, 19 concerning the second and greater Moses) a new revelation has been given. Because Christ is the second and greater Moses, the revelation mediated through Jesus (and his apostles) takes priority.

Understanding the covenant structure of Old and New Testament revelation, and how the old and new covenants relate together, is of great importance in interpreting the overall meaning of the Bible. In fact, from a Christian point of view, if it is acknowledged that the new covenant is built upon the foundation of the old covenant and exhibits the same basic relational dynamics as those already established in the old, it follows that having a good understanding of the old covenant can greatly assist us in understanding the nature of the new covenant and what it means to be a Christian. Indeed, it can be argued that a deficient understanding of the nature of the old covenant tends to go hand in hand with a deficient understanding of the new covenant. If the Old Testament describes the basic human problem, then it makes sense to conclude that the more we understand the problem, the more we can understand and appreciate the solution that is provided through the new covenant in Christ. It is important, therefore, to come to a clear understanding of the nature of the old covenant and its purposes in God’s plan of salvation history. Doing so will greatly elucidate our understanding of the gospel.

The Gospel as Eschatological Torah

Luke-Acts records Jesus as teaching that Jerusalem would be the starting point from which the preaching of the gospel would emanate. In Luke 24:46-47 Jesus tells his disciples that “it is written … that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” This idea is also reflected in Acts 1:8 when Jesus says that his disciples will be his witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The starting point for the preaching of the gospel of the risen Christ is Jerusalem. But where in particular is this written in the Old Testament Scriptures?

The answer seems to be … in Isa 2:2-3.

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.

The intertextuality between Isa 2:2-3 and Luke 24:46-47 shows that the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah finds its fulfillment in the gospel!

The Way, and the Truth, and the Life of Eschatological Torah in John 14:6

Jesus’ words in John 14:6 that he is “the way, and the truth, and the life” definitely constitute one of Jesus’ most famous statements. But it is interesting to consider what Jesus meant when he said this.

The use of way and truth in close connection with each other recalls Ps 86:11, which describes the Old Testament ethical ideal of covenant obedience in terms of walking in the way of Yahweh’s truth. In the Old Testament, as in Judaism, the word way is often used as a metaphor to denote a person’s manner of behavior (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:21-22; Ps 119:9). When used positively, the expression the way signifies the manner of behavior approved by God, or else torah viewed as the body of divine instruction that defines this approved manner of behavior (e.g., Gen 18:19; Deut 31:29; Ps 119:1, 27, 30, 33; Prov 6:23; Jer 5:4-5).

In a similar way, the expression the truth is linked with torah in Ps 119:160; Prov 23:23; and the adjective true is used of the Mosaic law in verses such as Ps 19:9; 119:142, 151. The phrase the truth is connected in John 17:17 with God’s word. It seems, therefore, in the context of the Old Testament and John’s Gospel, that, in speaking of himself as the truth, Jesus was referring to himself as the embodiment of the word/law of God. Jesus, as the Word of God par excellence, is Torah personified. Jesus is eschatological Torah revealed. It should be noted at this point that word and law are virtual synonyms in the Old Testament when used to denote the verbal revelation of God (e.g., Ps 119:113-114; Isa 1:10; 2:3; 5:24; Jer 8:7-9; Mic 4:2).

The link between way and truth on the one hand, and torah on the other, also helps us understand how Jesus is the life. The Old Testament links the concepts of way and life together in a number of places, the idea being that following the way of torah results in life (e.g., Prov 6:23; 10:17; 12:28; 15:24). Therefore, in John 14:6 Jesus is the life in the sense that those who follow him (by following his teaching and example) receive eternal life. Jesus as the Word of God is the ultimate expression of Torah, and following torah has always been the way of life (e.g., Deut 30:16, 19-20; Ps 1:1–3; 19:7).

All of this means that Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 is extremely controversial in a Jewish context. When orthodox Jews thought of the way, the truth, and the life, they ordinarily thought of Mosaic torah. By describing himself as “the way, and the truth, and the life,” Jesus was claiming, therefore, to be the new Torah. In other words, in the new covenant age, torah has been redefined; in the new covenant age, torah is no longer mediated through Moses, but personified in Christ, the divine Logos.

A further implication of Jesus’ teaching in the historical context of his day is that the way of covenant obedience has been redefined. The covenant obedience to the law of Moses, which was required of Israel under the terms of the old covenant (e.g, Exod 19:5), morphs in the new covenant age into Christian discipleship, the halakhah or way of following and imitating Jesus (e.g., John 13:34–35; 1 John 2:6). This significance is brought out in the latter part of John 14:6, when Jesus says that “no one comes to the Father except by me.” Here Jesus not only identifies God the Father as the destination where he and his disciples were going to, but he also sets himself up as being the only way to the Father. In other words, to experience life in the presence of God, it is necessary (in the new covenant age) to follow Jesus rather than Moses.

The Divine Logos as Eschatological Torah in John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). This is a famous verse, but what does John mean by describing Jesus as the Word? Most commentators point out that the Greek word λόγος was used by some Greek philosophers to designate reason, which was thought of as being the law which structured the universe. While John’s use of λόγος here would be significant in a Greek context, the fact that the argument and concerns of John’s Gospel are fundamentally Jewish suggests that the significance of logos is best understood in Jewish terms.

What does the concept word convey in Jewish circles? The Old Testament is the most natural place to look for the answer. Indeed, the language of the prologue of John’s Gospel (i.e., John 1:1–18) points us in that direction. When the concept word is thought of in the context of concepts such as in the beginning (vv. 1–2), creation (v. 3, 10), life (v. 4), light (vv. 4–5, 7–9), and darkness (v. 5), what are we meant to think of? We are meant to think immediately of Gen 1. And the word that occurs in Gen 1 is the word of God.

When first-century orthodox Jews thought of word, they thought supremely of the word of God. But what is the function of the word of God in the Old Testament? The primary function is that of revelation. The most common way in which God revealed himself in the Old Testament was by way of his word spoken by the prophets on his behalf. God’s word reveals his character and will. It seems, therefore, that John has used the concept of the logos to assert that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God.

And this is confirmed by the way in which the prologue ends: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (v. 18). God the Father is unknowable unless he reveals himself. Just as a person’s words reveal the character of the person, the word of God reveals the character of God. Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. He makes God the Father known.

To say that Jesus is the Word is the same as saying that Jesus is the supreme expression of torah. In other words, Jesus is eschatological Torah! Being the supreme revelation of the God the Father, the Word is divine. The Son of God, in his capacity as the Word of God, is God as he has deigned to reveal himself. God as he reveals himself is none other than ... God! “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Dwelling in the Presence of the King of Glory: A Sermon on Psalm 24

Here is a sermon of mine on Psalm 24:1-10, entitled Dwelling in the Presence of the King of Glory.

The Significance of the Law in Romans 7

Romans 7 has often been interpreted as if it is talking about our inability as Christians to keep God’s law, but is this interpretation correct? I believe that it is not correct as an exegetical interpretation of Rom 7 for the following reasons:

Firstly, we need to recognize that the law that is being talked about in Rom 7 is the law of Moses, not the law of God in general. As Douglas Moo says: “the topic of Rom. 7 is … not just ‘law’ in general, but the Mosaic law” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 428). The debate between Paul and orthodox Judaism was an argument over the role of the law of Moses in divine revelation. Was the law of Moses still currently the supreme authority in faith and practice (as it had been since Sinai), or had the gospel revealed through Jesus Christ come to occupy this position?

Secondly, in Paul’s thinking, God’s people in the new covenant age are no longer under the law. We have been set free from the law (Rom 7:4, 6; see also 6:14). The law in question here is the law of Moses. We need to remember here that the law of Moses was given exclusively to Israel (Exod 19:5–6; Deut 4:7–8). By definition, Gentiles as Gentiles cannot be subject to the law of Moses. The coming of Jesus means that the period of history during which the law of Moses ruled God’s people has come to an end (Rom 7:4, 6; 10:4; Gal 3:23–25).

Thirdly, Paul is concerned in Rom 7 with the effect of the law of Moses on old covenant Israel. He argues in Rom 7 that the historical function of the law of Moses was to bring about the death of carnal Israel (Rom 7:14) as a way of compounding the death of humanity in Adam (Rom 7:8–11, 13; 5:20). Paul’s view of the function of the law of Moses (and the old covenant) in salvation history is thoroughly consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament at this point. The Old Testament prophets looked forward to to a powerful work of God in the future whereby he would act through the coming of his suffering and Spirit-filled Servant, who would die as the true atoning sacrifice and who would then pour out God’s Spirit to effect a radical change in the hearts of God’s people, so that they might be able to keep covenant with God and, as a result, experience the full and final blessing that God had promised as part of the covenant (Rom 8:2–4). This time of spiritual renewal is what the Old Testament calls the new covenant (see Jer 31:31–33). As the Old Testament prophets prophesied, the only way of full salvation for Israel (and the nations) is the salvation that comes through the new covenant, which Paul identifies as having come in Jesus (Rom 7:25; 8:1–4).

All in all, Rom 7 describes the historical situation of carnal Israel under the law of Moses, not the situation of Christians under God’s law in general.

The Link between Righteousness and Eschatological Torah in Romans 9:30-33

A friend of mine has recently drawn my attention to Rom 9:30-32. The fact that ἔθνη (Gentiles) is anarthrous suggests to me that Paul has in mind either Gentiles viewed generally or an indefinite group of Gentiles. The characterization of these Gentiles in a classically Jewish “derogatory” way as being those who “do not pursue righteousness” (v. 30) is something that was true from the Jewish perspective of Gentiles generally. At the same time, however, Paul’s interest is mainly upon the subset of all of those ungodly Gentiles who “have attained righteousness” (v. 30). The righteousness that the Gentiles were not pursuing is not moral righteousness in a general sense, but the righteousness of a right standing before God on the basis of a commitment to his word, i.e., a righteousness akin to the righteousness that the orthodox Jews of Paul’s day were zealous to pursue through their commitment to torah. Historically how many Gentiles were keen to study the law of Moses with a view to keeping it? Not many. So this Jewish characterization of the Gentiles was generally true. But, with the coming of the new covenant, things had changed. The new covenant “surprise” (from the Jewish perspective) is that morally-lax torah-non-compliant Gentiles have attained the righteous standing before God which the orthodox Jews of the time were so zealous to attain. This right standing has come, however, not on the basis of torah-keeping but rather gospel-keeping (i.e., through faith in Christ as revealed in the gospel).

In Rom 9:31, Paul describes the flip-side of this new covenant surprise: Israel’s legitimate pursuit of righteousness by way of obedience to Mosaic torah proved in the end to be a failure, not because pursuing righteousness through the law of Moses was misguided, but simply because the people of Israel (considered as a whole) “did not attain to the law.” Israel’s not attaining the law has two elements to it. Historically, as the Old Testament is concerned to prove, Israel (as a nation) did not keep or obey the law. Israel’s lack of covenant obedience meant that justification on the basis of such obedience was non-existent. The phrase νόμον δικαιοσύνης (the law of righteousness) in v. 31 is to be understood through the prism of Deut 6:25. Moses taught Israel that “it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.” In other words, if Israel kept covenant with God, then this would be the right response on the level of her covenant obligations before God, and this right response would result in Israel enjoying the status of covenant righteousness before God. During the old covenant age, following the law (in the context of grace) was the way to be right with God and to experience blessing as a consequence (as per God’s promise to bless the righteous and to punish the wicked; see Exod 19:5; 20:5-6). But Paul has in mind more than this historical failure of Israel to attain covenant righteousness. He primarily has in mind the specific situation of his day, namely, the failure on the part of the majority of the Jews at the time to notice the change in the way in which covenant righteousness was to be defined: the old covenant doctrine of justification by the works of the law was superseded by the new covenant doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. This can be seen from Paul’s reasoning in v. 32.

In Rom 9:32, Paul clearly states the reason why the Jews of his day failed to attain such a righteous status before God. It was because they pursued such righteousness through works (where works is shorthand in the context for the works of the [Mosaic] law), and not through faith in Christ. It is important to note here that the concept of faith in view in Rom 9:30-32 (as is common in Paul) is not historically general but specifically eschatological and thoroughly christological. Faith here is specifically an acceptance of the “offensive” Messianic stone of stumbling (Isa 8:14), Jesus of Nazareth, as being (in reality) the tested, precious cornerstone, the sure foundation of salvation, for anyone who believes (Isa 28:16). In other words, Yahweh’s laying of the Messianic stone in Zion (Rom 9:32) is nothing other than the revelation of eschatological torah in Jesus, and faith (which in general is a submissive acceptance of the word of God) is specifically in this context the proper response to this supreme revelation in Jesus. By submitting to the gospel, the Gentiles had attained covenant righteousness. Submission to the gospel is the right response to eschatological torah. But for the majority of the Jews of Paul’s day, tragically, their devotion to the Mosaic way of righteousness prevented them from accepting the gospel. In sum, their “zeal” for the torah of Moses prevented them from recognizing eschatological Torah when he was revealed to Israel.

Eschatological Torah in Romans

Having identified that a concept of eschatological torah exists in the Old Testament, and that Paul reflects the Old Testament teaching concerning this concept in his letters, it is interesting to consider how prominent the concept of eschatological torah is in Paul.

A good place to start is Paul’s epistle to the Romans. On my calculations, of the 74 instances of νóμοϛ (nomos) in Romans, it seems that around 5% of instances have eschatological or new covenant torah as their referent. The relevant instances are highlighted in bold in the following quotations.

For when Gentiles, who by nature do not have the law, do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law (Rom 2:14).

Gentiles by definition cannot keep Mosaic torah, so the law that the Gentiles keep (in accordance with Isa 2:2-3; 42:2; 51:4) must be eschatological torah.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith (Rom 3:27).

The law of works is the law of Moses. The law of faith is the eschatological torah of the gospel, which breaks down the barrier of exclusive covenant membership that led to Jewish boasting.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2).

The law of sin and death is the law that brought death to Israel, i.e., the law of Moses. This is evident from the wider context as Paul has just argued in Rom 7 for the condemnatory and mortifying effect of the law of Moses on carnal Israel. By way of contrast to the law of Moses, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is nothing other than the eschatological torah that is written in the heart by the Holy Spirit that brings life through Christ Jesus, in accordance with the prophecies of Deut 30:11-14; Jer 31:33; and Ezek 36:26-27, which speak of the law being written on the heart of God’s people in the eschatological age, moving them to obedience, “so that [they] might live” (Deut 30:6).

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom 8:3-4).

The phrase the law in Rom 8:4 most likely refers back to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus in Rom 8:2. That the referent of the pronoun us in Rom 8:4 presumably includes Gentiles confirms that it is probably best to take the phrase the law in Rom 8:4 to refer to eschatological torah.

Overall, therefore, the concept of eschatological torah is not frequently explicit in Paul’s letter to the Romans; but it is theologically very significant nonetheless.

The Concept of Eschatological Torah in Pauline Theology

I have argued recently in the posts entitled “The Importance of the Old Testament Concept of Eschatological Torah for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law,” “The Concept of Eschatological Torah in Deuteronomy 18:15-19,” and “The Significance of Eschatological Torah according to the Old Testament” that the Old Testament puts forward a concept of eschatological torah. The question that I want to explore in this post is: Was the Apostle Paul aware of the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah? The answer, I believe, is that Paul was clearly aware of this concept.

Paul’s view is that with the coming of the new covenant in Christ, adherence to the Mosaic covenant (which was required by God and Moses during the old covenant age) has been superseded by adherence to Christ. This is consistent with Deut 18:15-19, which speaks of an eschatological revelation, given by a second prophet like Moses, that would supersede the revelation delivered to Israel by Moses. Moses knew that Mosaic torah would be superseded by a greater torah in the future, the torah of the Messiah; and Paul came to understand this too. Isaiah 2:1-4; 42:4; 51:4-5 all teach that eschatological law would be Gentile-friendly. Messianic torah, therefore, opens up the possibility of law-keeping (i.e., a positive response to God’s word), and hence covenant righteousness, to the Gentiles; and Paul came to understand this as well, hence his teaching concerning justification by faith for all who believe rather than justification solely for Israel by obedience to the law of Moses (i.e., the works of the law).

It is evident that Paul understood the Old Testament teaching concerning eschatological torah, because it is reflected in key parts of his teaching about the law. The Gentiles in Rom 2 (who do not have the law, but who keep it) do not have the Mosaic law, because they are not Jews; but through their acceptance of the gospel, Paul understood that they had become keepers of torah, thanks to the fact that the Spirit had written the eschatological torah of the gospel on their heart as per Jer 31:33 (note the wording of Rom 2:15), and in fulfillment of the torah prophecies of Isaiah.

Looking at the bigger picture, eschatological law is simply the revelation of Christ, who is the Word or Torah of God incarnate. This is a key theme in John’s Gospel, but the concept of eschatological torah also appears in the epistles of Paul. Paul calls eschatological law the law of faith as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of works (Rom 3:27). He calls it the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus as opposed to the [Mosaic] law of sin and death (Rom 8:2). He calls it the law of Christ as opposed to the [Mosaic] law (1 Cor 9:20-21), or simply the law when he is not concerned to distinguish eschatological law from Mosaic law (Rom 2:26). The eschatological law of Deut 30:11-14 is the word of faith that we preach (Rom 10:8) and the standard of teaching to which you were committed (Rom 6:17). That is to say, in Paul’s thinking, eschatological torah was understood to be nothing other than the gospel.

Understanding the biblical-theological connection between eschatological torah and the gospel means that simply trotting out the standard Protestant slogans that the law is negative, that it kills and cannot give life, is not good enough from a biblical-theological point of view. Such slogans do not present the full story regarding torah. They are a simplification of biblical truth and sloppy exegesis, because as far as Paul was concerned the gospel is eschatological torah. If the gospel is eschatological torah, it then follows that obedience to torah (eschatological torah, not Mosaic torah ... at least in the new covenant age) is the way of life and salvation. So, whenever we make pronouncements concerning the law, we need to be clear about what torah we are talking about, as well as what epoch of salvation history we are referring to!

The Significance of Eschatological Torah according to the Old Testament

In my post entitled “The Importance of the Old Testament Concept of Eschatological Torah for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law” I listed six Old Testament texts that speak of eschatological torah. I also suggested that the concept of eschatological torah is a key idea for understanding Paul’s teaching on the law. But before doing a post or two more specifically on the idea of eschatological torah in Paul, we need to understand what the Old Testament actually teaches concerning eschatological torah.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 needs to be read together with Deut 30:1-10. This passage is a Mosaic prophecy that concerns the time after the exile of Israel (Deut 30:1), when God would circumcise the hearts of his people Israel (Deut 30:6), moving them to keep torah (Deut 30:2, 6, 8, 10). As they returned to the way of obedience to torah, the promised covenant blessings would flow (Deut 30:3-7, 9). Deuteronomy 30:1-14 says in effect that Israel keeping torah is necessary for the fullness of the blessing of life to be experienced. Furthermore, because keeping torah is essential to salvation under the terms of the covenant, God will actually ensure that (in the end) Israel will turn to keep covenant with him.

But the new covenant is not just about Israel keeping torah. Isaiah 2:1-4 and the parallel passage in Mic 4:1-4 prophesy of how Gentiles would seek God in Jerusalem with the express purpose of learning torah in order that they might obey it (Isa 2:2-3). As a result of the nations learning torah, there would be universal peace (Isa 2:4).

Isaiah 42:1-4 speaks of how the coastlands (which is a synecdoche for the nations) wait for the torah of the Spirit-filled Servant of God (Isa 42:1), the one who would bring justice to the nations (Isa 42:2, 4). A similar idea is put forward in Isa 51:4-5. Salvation for Israel and the nations is connected with torah going out to the peoples like a light shining in the darkness.

The heart of the new covenant, according to the famous prophecy of Jer 31:31-33, is Yahweh’s writing of torah on the hearts of his people. Torah is not abandoned in the crossover from the old covenant to the new. Rather, what we get is a more comprehensive internalization of torah in the hearts of God’s people. No longer is torah written on the hearts of merely a small minority of Israelites; instead, all Israel will be regenerate and able to respond positively to God as a result. With torah written on their hearts, they will naturally keep covenant with God. Since the heart is the control center of the human psyche, if torah is written on the heart, obedience naturally follows.

It needs to be recognized that the work of God writing torah on the hearts of his people is not merely a by-product of salvation, but an essential part of the process of salvation. For, without the internalization of torah, Israel will not be able to keep covenant with God; and if Israel does not keep covenant with God, then the promise of the blessing of life will not be realized. This is evident in the use of the modal perfect verb והייתי (and I will be) in v. 33. God being Israel’s God in a positive and experiential way, and Israel being truly God’s people (i.e., a people consecrated and obedient to God), is sequential to torah being in Israel’s heart. There is a causal connection here. The fruition of the covenant blessing of full communion between God and his people (v. 33: “and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”) is conditional upon Israel having torah in the heart. The blessings of the new covenant cannot come without God’s people being moved to keep torah.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 speaks of this necessary covenant obedience as the product of a new heart and a new spirit. God would remove the lifeless, unresponsive heart of stone from his people, and provide them with a living, beating, responsive heart of flesh. This regeneration is associated with God sending his Spirit to dwell in the hearts of his people, such that they would be caused to walk in God’s statutes and to do God’s judgments. In other words, the Spirit would be given to God’s people to empower them to keep torah, so that the blessings of the covenant might be realized. This is clear by virtue of the string of modal perfect clauses in Ezek 36:28-30 that speak of the realization of the blessings of the covenant. The blessings of Ezek 36:28-30 are conditional upon the regeneration of God’s people in Ezek 36:26-27.

To summarize what we have seen above, the Old Testament views torah as lying at the heart of God’s new covenant purposes. Far from being something merely negative, the Old Testament views torah as being the key to life. Torah is so important that the Spirit-filled Servant of God will teach eschatological torah to Israel and the nations. Likewise, doing torah is so important in God’s plan of salvation that God will conduct a Spiritual heart circumcision and transplant on his people to enable them to do torah. As far as Moses, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were concerned, there is no salvation apart from obedience to torah. But whenever Paul is interpreted as saying that divine law is impotent to save, it seems to me that we are effectively suggesting that these Old Testament heavyweights got it wrong about torah and its role in the divine economy of salvation. When Paul spoke negatively about the law, was he talking about law in general, or was his focus more specifically on the primarily negative role of the Mosaic law in God’s plan of redemption? My suggestion to the world of Pauline scholarship is that Paul needs to be interpreted in a manner that is more consistent with what the Old Testament prophets have prophesied.

The Concept of Eschatological Torah in Deuteronomy 18:15-19

In my post entitled “The Importance of the Old Testament Concept of Eschatological Torah for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law” I identified six or seven Old Testament passages that give expression to the concept of eschatological torah, but there is another Old Testament passage of great relevance to this topic. That is Deut 18:15-19, where Moses is recorded as saying:

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.’”

This passage is often explained as referring to ordinary prophets, but it is interesting how it is treated in the New Testament.

I would argue that Deut 18:15-19 is a key passage for understanding the significance of Jesus’ transfiguration. The expression listen to him (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35) alludes to the expression it is to him you shall listen in Deut 18:15. In other words, Jesus is the prophet like Moses who surpasses Moses. Whatever he says (even if it differs from what Moses said) we must obey.

The expression the prophet in John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40 refers back to Deut 18:15, 18. Regarding John 6:14, having just fed at least 5,000 people in the wilderness, what else would you conclude if you were Jewish? This guy must be the prophet like Moses about whom Moses prophesied in Deuteronomy! Hence their conclusion in John 6:14: “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!” And it is interesting that, in their mind, this was linked with kingship (John 6:15).

Stephen also quotes Deut 18:15 in Acts 7:37. This is presumably a pre-emptive reference in his sermon to the supreme prophet, who is subsequently identified as the Righteous One whom the people of Israel of Stephen’s day “betrayed and murdered” (see Acts 7:52).

But the key New Testament use of Deut 18:15-19 is found in Acts 3. Preaching after the healing of the lame beggar, Peter warns his Jewish audience to receive Jesus Christ through repentance. He does this by quoting Deut 18:15, 19 (see Acts 3:22-23). Concluding his sermon, Peter says: “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first” (Acts 3:26). The verb ἀναστήσας (having raised up) in v. 26 links in with the verb ἀναστήσει (will raise up) in v. 22, which is derived straight from the LXX of Deut 18:15. In this way Peter confirms that Jesus—note how the wording his servant Jesus in Acts 3:13 is echoed in v. 26—is the prophet about whom Moses prophesied in Deut 18:15-19. In addition, the raising up language of Deut 18:15, 18 is taken by Peter as prophesying resurrection. More than anything else, Jesus’ resurrection is proof that he is the second and greater Moses.

Where then is the concept of eschatological torah found in Deut 18:15-19? The fact that the office of prophet is mentioned implies the communication of authoritative revelation. Indeed, the expression it is to him you shall listen implies that the authority of the second Moses surpasses even that of first Moses. The expression it is to him you shall listen effectively means whatever he says, you shall obey. This implication regarding the authority of the second Moses in relation to the first Moses is clearly brought out in the accounts of Jesus’ transfiguration, with Moses and Elijah (symbolic of the Law and the Prophets) disappearing before the approach of the glory cloud of God, leaving Jesus alone in the spotlight as the Son of God before whom everyone must bow down in obeisance/obedience. The revelatory function of the prophet of Deut 18:15-19 is confirmed in Deut 18:18: “And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”

The words that God commanded the second Moses to speak are nothing other than eschatological torah. This is why Jesus said:

“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment, what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me” (John 12:49-50).

The Importance of the Old Testament Concept of Eschatological Torah for Understanding Paul's View of the Law

In the debate surrounding the Apostle Paul’s teaching on the law, I believe that a key concept has been overlooked, namely, the Old Testament concept of eschatological torah. From the perspective of the Old Testament, eschatological torah is simply the form of God’s law that would be operative in the new covenant age. A careful study of the Old Testament reveals that the Old Testament prophets viewed torah as having a key role in the new covenant, and that this role would be positive.

The following passages are the key Old Testament texts that develop the concept of eschatological torah:

For this commandment that I command you today will not be too hard for you, neither will it be far off. It will not be not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither will it be beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word will be very near you. It will be in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it (Deut 30:11-14);

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations,and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isa 2:1-4; note also the similar passage in Mic 4:1-4);

Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law (Isa 42:1-4);

“Give attention to me, my people, and give ear to me, my nation; for a law will go out from me, and I will set my justice for a light to the peoples. My righteousness draws near, my salvation has gone out, and my arms will judge the peoples; the coastlands hope for me, and for my arm they wait” (Isa 51:4-5);

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:31-33);

“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek 36:26-27).

Surely Paul was familiar with these prophecies. One would also hope that his teaching on torah was consistent with these prophecies. In what ways then do these texts help us understand Paul’s teaching on torah?

The Law Came in to Increase the Trespass: The Story of Two Falls in Romans 5:20

What does Paul mean in Rom 5:20 when he says that “the law came in to increase the trespass”? A common interpretation of this explains Paul as saying here that God’s law functions to give us a standard against which we rebel. Another common interpretation says that, once the condemnatory function of the law is understood, God’s law makes us realize how sinful we are.

Charles Spurgeon is an example of someone who interprets Rom 5:20 in the second way described above: “When once God the Holy Ghost applies the law to the conscience, secret sins are dragged to light, little sins are magnified to their true size, and things apparently harmless become exceedingly sinful … The heart is like a dark cellar, full of lizards, cockroaches, beetles, and all kinds of reptiles and insects, which in the dark we see not, but the law takes down the shutters and lets in the light, and so we see the evil. Thus sin becoming apparent by the law, it is written the law makes the offence to abound” (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0037.htm). Spurgeon obviously understood Rom 5:20 as describing the psychological effect of divine law on the conscience.

These common interpretations of Rom 5:20 are consistent with the truths of systematic theology, but it seems to me that they pay scant attention to the actual context of Rom 5:12-21, which is the immediate context of Rom 5:20. We need to ask the question: What law is Paul talking about in Rom 5:20? Is he talking about the law of God in general, or the law of Moses? The answer to this question is found in the context. Romans 5:13 talks about sin being in the world before the law was given. Even though “there [was] no law” (Rom 5:13), “death reigned from Adam to Moses” (Rom 5:14). Surely the law in question here is the law of Moses. The time frame corresponding to “before the law was given” is the period of time “from Adam to Moses.” So the law that comes on the scene in Rom 5:20 is not God’s law in general; it is specifically the law of Moses! Paul’s argument here is really about the place of the Mosaic law in salvation history, not about the psychological effects of God’s law on individual sinners throughout history.

A further question: What is the trespass that Paul mentions in Rom 5:20? Psychological interpretations of this verse say that the trespass is the concept of sin in general. Either God giving commandments made rebellion against him possible, and even more likely in that a knowledge of what is right and wrong in God’s sight actually leads to more sinfulness on the part of unregenerate individuals; or else, God spelling out his standard of right and wrong brings our consciences to a knowledge of sin, once the significance of the law is understood. But we need to ask: What is the meaning of the trespass in the context of Rom 5:12-21?

The context gives us the answer. The trespass of Rom 5:20 is nothing other than the trespass mentioned in Rom 5:15, 17, 18, namely, the trespass of the one man, Adam. The trespass that Paul has in mind in Rom 5:20 is the trespass of Adam, not the concept of sin in general! Once again, Paul’s argument is a salvation-historical one. In effect, he is saying that the law of Moses was given to Israel with the express purpose in God’s salvation-historical plan of compounding the problem of sin in Adam through Israel’s disobedience to the Mosaic covenant.

Romans 5:20 shows us that Paul understood the story of Israel in the Old Testament as a story of failure. In other words, the Old Testament is basically a story of two falls. We have the fall of humanity in Adam, and the fall of Israel in Moses. If the “sinning [of those from Adam to Moses] was not like the transgression of Adam” (Rom 5:14), whose was? Adam disobeyed the commandment; Israel disobeyed the law. The sin of Israel “was … like the transgression of Adam.” So Adam is not only a contratype of Christ (Rom 5:14), but he is a type of Israel. The fall of Israel compounds the problem of the trespass of Adam by pointing out the terrible effects of rebellion against God in a much more dramatic and wide-ranging way than the story of the expulsion of Adam from the garden of Eden does. Think about the tragedy of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians: the fear, the starvation, the pain, the suffering, the cannibalism, the sickness, the death and destruction. Surely the tragic history of old covenant Israel speaks poignantly of the awful consequences of sin!

But there is a polemical edge to what Paul is saying in Rom 5:20 as well. Far from ameliorating or solving the problem of human sin, the law of Moses compounded the problem of sin, because the majority of Israel did not have the law written on their hearts, and disobeyed God as a consequence. Paul’s Jewish opponents thought that Mosaic torah could liberate them from sin, but Paul understood that its function in the purposes of God was actually the opposite for the nation considered as a whole. Mosaic torah actually functioned primarily to bring condemnation and death to Israel.

The fall of Israel in Moses compounded the problem of the fall of humanity in Adam, yet this does not mean that God’s intentions for Israel and the world are primarily negative. The failure of Adam and Israel was part of God’s plan for highlighting the grace of God in Christ! Just as darkness makes us appreciate light, it is failure that makes us appreciate success. Similarly, it is in the context of death that we truly appreciate life. In God’s wisdom, he has chosen to move in history from darkness to light, from chaos to order, from death to life. Without the negative, we cannot appreciate the positive. In this way the failure of Adam and Israel forms the historical backdrop against which the grace of atonement and empowerment in Christ can be appreciated for the astounding superabounding hyper-reality that it is.

The Significance of Jesus Standing in Acts 7:55–56

What is the significance of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, as recorded in Acts 7:55? Why is Jesus portrayed as standing rather than seated as per Ps 110:1 and Acts 2:33–35?

It should be noted that we not only have a narrated account of Jesus standing on this occasion in v. 55, but Stephen also gives a verbal report of this in v. 56: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” These words are actually the conclusion to Stephen’s speech which began all the way back in Acts 7:2. Furthermore, this conclusion follows immediately upon Stephen’s strongly worded accusation that old covenant Israel was a rebellious nation:

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it (Acts 7:51–53).

The immediate context for Jesus standing, therefore, is Stephen’s blatant accusation of covenant rebellion on the part of the ancient nation of Israel.

It is also significant that Stephen’s reporting of the vision of Jesus standing in heaven creates a parallel with Dan 7:13, where one like the son of man comes into the presence of the Ancient of Days, and is presented before him. It is most natural that this son of man would have been standing before God during his presentation. So the idea of Jesus standing as mentioned by Stephen seems to allude to Dan 7:13. This allusion functions as a bold presentation by Stephen of the Christian claim in the polemical context of the time. The claim was that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of Man in fulfillment of Dan 7. In addition, the conceptual parallel between the giving of the kingdom to this son of man in Dan 7:14 and the giving of the kingdom to “the saints of the Most High” in Dan 7:27 brings the courtroom scene of Dan 7:26 (where the power of the evil little horn is taken away) into the picture.

Altogether, therefore, Jesus standing in Acts 7:55 conveys his authority as the Son of Man, along with his power to judge the enemies of God’s people. Jesus standing particularly highlights his role as Judge: “the court shall sit in judgment” (Dan 7:26); “[the Father] has given [the Son] authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (John 5:27).

The fact that Stephen’s opponents “cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him” (Acts 7:57) as soon as he had spoken about Jesus standing at the right hand of God shows that they understood the christological import of Stephen’s description of Jesus. In sum, Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father in Acts 7:55–56 conveys that Jesus is the Messiah (in fulfillment of Ps 110), and the Son of Man (in fulfillment of Dan 7), who has the authority to execute judgment on behalf of God and his people. Viewed in the context of Stephen's speech, it is as if Jesus is standing to confirm the veracity of the accusation that Stephen had brought against the nation of Israel, and to indicate that he is the Son of Man of Dan 7 who will judge those who persecute “the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). Stephen's death, like that of the prophets and the Righteous One before him (Acts 7:52), would not be in vain.

The Significance of the Divine Posture of Sitting and Standing Portrayed in the Bible

I have been asked to comment on the divine posture of standing and sitting that appears in the Bible. When we normally think of God, I guess we tend to think of him as being seated on a throne. My guess is that a king sitting particularly expresses the authority and majesty of the king in question, and that this applies to God as well. Yahweh sitting in 1 Kgs 22:19 goes together with the phrase on his throne. It speaks of Yahweh’s authority and sovereignty over all things, including (in the context) his authority over kings like Ahab. In Isa 6:1, Yahweh sitting definitely expresses his majesty. This is clear from the context: notice the connection of Yahweh sitting with the phrase high and lifted up. It is definitely emphasizing the majesty of God’s kingly authority. But sitting can also convey the idea of the exercise of authority in conducting war and executing justice against the enemies (Ps 110:1; Rev 19:11), as well as the idea of victory accomplished (see Rev 3:21). With victory accomplished, it’s a bit like the Messiah (who has been seated for a while) can finally relax and put his feet up ... on the enemies who have become his footstool!

But the Bible also describes instances of God standing. What is the significance of God standing rather than sitting? My initial thoughts are that standing up in public space is often a pragmatic posture connected with the purpose of being seen and heard clearly when speaking. Relating this to God, the idea behind God standing is that standing is the kind of posture that is appropriate for a judgment or proclamation of some kind (see Neh 9:3-4; 2 Chr 20:20; 24:20; Luke 5:1). This fits in with my suggestion regarding Ps 82:1, that the parallelism in this verse links God’s standing with his function as a judge (see “I Said You Are Gods”: The Meaning of Psalm 82).

God is actually recorded as standing a number of times in the Scriptures. He stood to give a special promise to Jacob (Gen 28:13-15); he stood to proclaim the meaning of his name to Moses (Exod 34:5); he stood to indict Aaron and Miriam for sin (Num 12:5-9); he stood to call Samuel and to deliver a word of judgment against the house of Eli (1 Sam 3:10-13); he stood (in a vision) to speak a word of judgment against Israel (Amos 7:7-9). But the key verse for understanding the significance of God standing is Isa 3:13-14:

“The Lord has taken his place to contend; he stands to judge peoples. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders and princes of his people.”

Here the idea of the judge standing is seen to mimic the posture of the accuser in court. So God stands when he is acting as a judge, bringing accusations and delivering judgments.

But the New Testament suggests that God can also stand in order to give encouragement. In Acts 23:11 God appeared standing in a vision in which he encouraged the Apostle Paul to be bold in his testimony to the gospel. This idea also seems to be confirmed by Paul’s words in 2 Tim 4:17:

“But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.”

The Lord can stand in order to stand alongside of his people, to give them encouragement and strength.

What then is the significance of Stephen’s observing Jesus standing at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55? I will explore that in my next post.

"I Said You Are Gods": John 10:34–36 and the Divinity of Jesus

How should we understand Jesus’ quote of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34? I have argued previously that the term gods is used in Ps 82 of the rulers of Israel who are viewed as being members of the divine council (see “‘I Said You Are Gods’: The Meaning of Psalm 82”). As VIPs in God’s presence, they can legitimately be called gods or sons of God. They are gods not in terms of their inherent nature or being, but only in the sense that they have been invited by God to be members of the divine assembly. God effectively has his own “pantheon,” an assembly of VIPs who have been given the privilege of listening to his wise counsel and legal judgments, and who (on the basis of this) are supposed to judge and rule God’s people justly.

Picking up on this idea, in John 10:34 Jesus points out to his Jewish opponents that their law (i.e., the Hebrew Bible) records God calling the rulers of Israel gods. Jesus’ explanation of the significance of this verse is given in John 10:35–36:

“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Jesus’ statement in v. 35 that God “called them gods to whom the word of God came” confirms the suggestion that the VIPs in God’s presence had the privilege of hearing God’s wise counsel and legal judgments. These VIPs heard the word of God, and could legitimately be called gods, Jesus implies, as Ps 82 shows.

In v. 36 Jesus then compares himself with these gods. A number of scholars have noted that Jesus employs in v. 36 a qal wahomer (i.e., an a fortiori) argument. A qal wahomer argument follows the logic of if A is a true, then how much more is B true. If the rulers of Israel who had the privilege of hearing God’s word could legitimately be called gods, how much more appropriate is it that he “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the word” be called the Son of God!

In the context, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God is not merely an assertion of his Messianic status. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God can simply mean that Jesus is the Messiah, who is viewed as being human (e.g., John 1:34, 49). The idea of a human messiah is quite acceptable in Jewish circles. But John’s Gospel broadens the meaning of the concept of the Son of God. Jesus is portrayed in this Gospel as being a divine messiah. According to John’s Gospel, true faith confesses that Jesus is a divine Messiah, the true bread from heaven, who is one with the Father.

Jesus is clearly asserting the idea that he is a divine Messiah in John 10:30–38. He inserted himself into the Shema, claiming “I and the Father are one” (v. 30). He spoke of how he had been sent into the world by the Father (v. 36), which implies his heavenly pre-existence. He goes on to say that “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (v. 38), and his opponents react once again by seeking to seize him (v. 39).

The qal wahomer form of Jesus’ argument also means that it is not right to argue on the basis of John 10:34 that Jesus is the most exalted god among many. The a fortiori nature of the argument means that Jesus cannot be said to be a god in the same way that the rulers or any of God’s people can. The god-like VIPs of Ps 82 were recipients of divine revelation (John 10:35), but Jesus is the supreme vehicle of divine revelation (John 1:14, 18). The VIPs heard the word of God, but Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, 14). The VIPs are of the world, but Jesus was sent into the world (John 10:36). Being the self-revelation of the Father in human form, Jesus is God. God the Father is invisible and unknowable (John 1:18; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 6:16). He expresses himself, and makes himself visible and knowable, through the Son. Because the Son is the expression of the Father, the Son is God, because he is the form in which the Father has chosen to reveal himself to us.

“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known (John 1:18).”

If we human beings of faith who are made from the dust of the earth are privileged to be raised up to be seated in the heights of heaven as members of the divine assembly and given the exalted title of gods, how much more should the One who is the self-expression of the Father in physical form be called God in the fullest sense of the word!

YHWH said that we are gods, and he also says that Jesus is God.