My journey’s path was established before I was born. It began with my grandfather Reverend Steve Simmons who pastored for over 60 years and built 20 churches from the ground up in our county. From the very beginnings of my life I was ushered into the stories of historical Christianity, and their relevance to the continuing path of humanity. Studying the scripture from a young age has taken me on a journey for truth. I have begun to publish my literary work in this blog to begin to share my study with a broader audience. I hope you enjoy this engagement, and hopefully it helps challenge us all to broaden our worldviews.
Author: thesnomanreport
I have been a life long learner that is interested in finding practical ways to apply these lessons into the community in which we live. To know a thing is insufficient if it doesn't have an applicational process to form a new way of living.
Luke 3 Exegesis
Karl Snow
8 December 2018
Luke 3 Exegesis
The purpose of this literary work is to respectfully attempt to review the 3rd chapter of Luke from an historical criticism. W. Randolph Tate states that background studies are an indispensable prerequisite for the explication of plausible textual meaning; that is, historical, cultural, generic, grammatical, ideological, and even geographical studies are prerequisites for a successful interpretation of a text.[1] From the 3rd chapter of Luke, this paper will delve into the historical figures and their relevance in the narrative of John the Baptist’s prophetic introduction into the story of the Messiah. Next, this paper will engage the prophetic relevance of former prophets of Israel who faithfully awaited and proclaimed the coming kingdom among men. Finally, this paper will unpack the message of repentance and reconciliation from its historical understanding and its meaning for those of us today.
Introduction
The beginning of this paper will utilize the text of Luke 3:1-10 (NIV). The first section Luke 3:1-2 focuses on the historical characters and significance of the period of this text. Verses 2-6 focus on the ancient significance of the prophetic words of Isaiah and its geographical importance in this text. Finally, verses 7-10 focus on the message and its impactful meaning to the hearers in the narrative.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—
2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”[a] Isaiah 40:3-5
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.[2]
Political Figures in Authority
W. Randolph Tate states that behind every literary text, there lies a view of life, a view which has been conditioned by the author’s real world.[3] The opening of Luke 3:1-2 immediately introduces Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip and Lysanias. These historical figures represented the governmental and politically influential powers at the time of John’s prophetic entrance in the scriptures. Luke also included the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, with a reference to John’s priestly father Zechariah, which represented a heavenly authority which was active at the time of John’s prophetic entrance. Luke then introduces the prophetic literary text of Isa 40:3-5 as a solidifier to the religious authority represented in his opening of the beginning of John’s ministry. Clint Burnett, Eschatological Prophet of Restoration (2013), points out that Luke employs chronological markers to date his narratives, in a very similar fashion as the ancient Greek and biblical historiographers. Burnett states that Luke reconstructs John’s ministry with seven historical figures from the first century that demonstrated that John’s ministry transpired in and around Roman-occupied Palestine.[4]
Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus reigned (42 B.C.E.-37 C.E.). Tiberius was adopted by Augustus Caesar in 4 C.E. and ascended to the throne after Augustus’s death in (14 C.E.).[5] David Shotter, Tiberius Caesar (2004), describes Tiberius as one who did not make extraordinary demands of Rome’s’ provincial subjects, nor did he demand ‘worship’ of himself. Per Shotter, Tiberius desired above all the reputation for having governed the empire well.[6] Tiberius seemed to hold a different vision from Augustus. Augustus was known for his desire to bind together his empire by a rapidly rising provincial status and self-esteem. During Tiberius’ rule there was very little warfare or territorial expansion. Shotter states that Tiberius held a traditional ‘patronal’ interest in the prosperity of his subjects, which, though it may not have appealed to the more progressive instincts of an emperor such as Claudius, none the less secured the appreciation of the subject-populations.[7]
Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea. He was appointed by Emperor Tiberius from (26-35 C.E.). Pilate is known for his judicial role in adjudicating the trail and crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate’s military forces were small, and he was subjected to his commanding legate of Syria if more forces were needed. As the governor of Judea, Pilate utilized small auxiliary forces from local recruited soldiers that were stationed in Caesarea and Jerusalem, which numbered about 3,000 men. Pilate’s eventual death was at his own hand on orders from the Emperor Caligula.[8]
In the biblical text, Pilate often appears by himself and as one who stood on the side of Jesus. This may have resulted from his wife Procla’s preference to practice Judaism with the Jews, which held influence over Pilate’s persuasions. Giorgio Agamben, Pilate and Jesus (2015), notes that Tertullian wrote that Pilate was forced to have Jesus crucified by violent pressure of the Jews but “now in fact a Christian in his own convictions”, he had informed the emperor with a letter about Jesus’s miracles and resurrection.[9] While Tertullian’s reference to Pilate’s letter cannot be corroborated, it does paint an image of certainty that Procla’s connection to the Jewish community, and her disturbing dream concerning Jesus, held a certain amount of influence on the disposition held by Pilate during the trial and execution process of Jesus in Pilate’s court before the Jews.
Agamben points out the conversation between Pilate and Jesus concerning authority coming “from above”, as compelling factor in Pilates determination of Jesus’s innocence. It is written that Pilate tried to release Jesus, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against Caesar” (John 19:12).[10] Pilate found himself in the position that compelled him to hand over Jesus to persecution and death, even if it were against his own conscience. Agamben pulls from Karl Barth’s insights on this “handing over” as holding theological significance. The Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to Pilate to judge him because their laws did not permit them to execute anyone. Pilate realized that he was unable to hand Jesus back over to them began to question Jesus, and he began with the question of authority. Pilate asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews, and Jesus replied that his kingdom was not of this world; his kingdom was from another place. Pilate then returned to the Jewish leaders and declared that he had found no coalition against Caesar from Jesus. Pilate then found a window of escape for himself by offering the Jewish leaders, according to their legal tradition, to exchange punishment by exchanging prisoners. This is how Pilate was able to hand over Jesus back to the will of the Jewish leaders. Barth references that this handing over of Jesus corresponds with the heavenly tradition expressed by Paul: “God did not withhold his own Son but handed him over for all of us” (Romans 8:32).[11] It is compelling to note this precession of “handing over”, by pointing out that Judas handed over Jesus, the Jews handed over Jesus, Pilate handed over Jesus, God handed over Jesus, and even Jesus handed over his own spirit in the end.
Augustus Caesar installed Herod Antipas as the tetrarch “ruler of a quarter” over Galilee and Perea in 4 C.E. Later, Herod Antipas was removed from his position and exiled in 39 C.E. Augustus also installed Philip as tetrarch of Batenea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulantis, and Panias in 4 C.E., who was son of Herod the Great, and Herod Antipas’s half-brother. Philip was also known as Herod Philip II. King Herod, although he was never referred to with the title of King in the New Testament, officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire. Herod presided over construction projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The city was named in honor of the emperor Tiberius, and later became a center for rabbinic learning. Herod Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, and married Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Herod Philip II.[12] John the Baptist not only called for repentance from the masses, but he also addressed those in government to repent. John’s message had now become political. Darrin Belousek, The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke (2014), calls John’s admonishment of Herod’s sinful actions as, ‘a prophet speaking truth to power, calling rulers and authorities to account’.[13] Herod Antipas became the frequent recipient of John’s call to repentance, and was clearly non-appreciative of being publicly exposed for his sin. “So, with many other exhortations, he [John] proclaimed the good news to the people. But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison” (Luke 3:18-20).[14] With John’s political public rebuke to Herod, Herod’s record of evil doing was “added to” by imprisoning John. Herod was known for silencing his political enemies and eliminating any threats to his authority, including a troublemaking prophet. The end result was the beheading of John the Baptist by the hand of Herod, and the will of Herodias.
Religious Figures in Authority
Annas, a son of Seth, was appointed as the first High Priest in the Roman province of Ludaea by the Roman legate Quirinius in 6 A.D. Annas served as High Priest for 10 years and was known as one of the nation’s most influential political and social individuals. Annas’ used his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas as puppet High Priest. Jesus was brought before the High Priest Annas prior to being brought before Pontius Pilate. Annas and Caiaphas were figure heads of the Sadducees, and Luke references them (16:28) in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man with five brothers, and their religious certainty that was their ultimate demise.[15] It is recorded that Jesus was originally taken to the house of Caiaphas the High Priest (Matt 26:57), where the scribes and elders were gathered. It was in the middle of the night, that Jesus was taken to the High Priest, where all the chief priest and the elders gathered, then another consultation was held among the priest the next morning (Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1). Luke, (22:54), recounts that it was the night visit before Caiaphas that Jesus was first beaten. Then in (22:66) the next day, Jesus was led away to the chief priest and scribes’ council. From the accounts of John (18:12-14; 18:24-28), Jesus was taken to Annas, the former High Priest, by Caiaphas to potential seek approval for his actions in the matter of Jesus. Following this event, Caiaphas handed Jesus over to Pontius Pilate.
As Jesus was being questioned by the Sanhedrin, he refused to answer in defense of himself. This is where the high priest demanded a response and soon began to mock, blindfold him, and beat him. They are recorded as blindfolding Jesus, then slapping him, while asking him to guess who hit him (Matt 26:62). With no evidence against Jesus, the chief priest soon began to conjure up false witnesses against Jesus to solidify their right to prosecute him (Mark 14:55-59). It is noted that the high priest’s attempt to verify a false claim against Jesus was inept due to the conflicting testimonies against him. The high priest finally found their foothold for guilt when they asked Jesus if he was the Son of God. Jesus replied saying, “You say that I am” (Luke 22:67), which affirmed the title Son of God. At this, the high priest tore his robe and accused Jesus of blasphemy, citing a grievance against the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 21:10). With this omission from Jesus there was the tenant for their legal claim before Pilate, which indicated rebellion against Caesar, for there is no King but Caesar. To indicate a direct challenge to Roman authority, was sufficient for a case to be brought forward, and eventually lead to the death of Jesus.
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to a priestly order and was married to Elizabeth, a relative to the Virgin Mary, and Elizabeth was a descendent of Aaron, the first priest of Israel (Luke 1:5).[16] Darrin Belousek, The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke (2014), describes Zechariah as a priest that was consecrated to serve in the presence of God, having been trained to perform ritual duties within the temple. He, along with his wife Elizabeth, were “righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord” (v. 6).[17] Luke describes Zechariah, performing his priestly duties one day, as he entered “the sanctuary of the Lord”, offering incense with the assembly of people praying outside in the court (vv. 9-10). It was then that an angel of the Lord appeared standing at the right side of the altar of incense. Zechariah was overwhelmed with terror, and fear overwhelmed him (vv.11-12). The angel of the Lord declared that Zechariah’s prayer for a son was heard, and Zechariah was going to have a son, and his name would be John. The angel then describes John would be great in the sight of the Lord, and filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth (vv.14-15). The angel went on to say that John would bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord, and he would go before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (vv.16-17).
Luke inserts the appeal of Isaiah after his mention of the corrupt religious leadership of Jerusalem found in Annas and Caiaphas’s authority. The reference offered by Luke comes from the book of Isaiah 40, that was given dating from the time of the Israelites’ exile in Babylon.
Isaiah 40: 3-5
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
And all people will see God’s salvation
This prophetic declaration describes the entrance of John the Baptist as the forerunner for the coming of the Messiah. John’s anointed and predestined call was to prepare the hearts of the people for their visitation from God. Luke began by naming the political governing authority during the time of John’s ministry, then Luke inserted the religious authority present during this same time. Luke then follows his historical placement of characters in his narrative by following it with a divinely prophetic declaration from the prophet Isaiah, that foretold this day and its significance to all the characters involved. Isaiah’s holy declaration was also utilized as a reminder and a rebuke to the corruption that had enveloped Israel through foreign invasion, and religious piety that had sullied the priesthood of Israel at its highest levels. Luke’s placement of characters and Isaiah’s ancient decree is a revelatory and damning pronouncement of the lost state the children of Israel had found themselves enveloped.
John’s Purpose
Salvation and Repentance! This was the road that John the Baptist came to pave. Belousek states that the corporate character of salvation carries over into the plural language used to describe the benefits of salvation. In redeeming his people, God will “feed his flock,” “gather his lambs,” “carry them,” “lead the mother sheep” (Isa 43:11).[18] Luke speaks of a “reward” and “recompense” (40:10), that is paired with the concept that God’s salvation punishment, because as the prophet declared “the time of their suffering and oppression is now at an end” (Isa 40:12). The path being blazed by John the Baptist is the signal for the people to prepare their hearts to receive the salvation of the Lord. Belousek delineates the language of “the flock” as a statement of a collective group of people, not just individuals. God’s plan of salvation has come to set all thing right between his people and Him. The salvation that has come to men is the work of the Lord, by His strength, and His purpose, through His grace. This concept is contrary to that of the world, and sadly enough that of the high priest that were given to bridge the gap between the people and God in his holy temple. The call of John toward the people was a call of response to the coming grace of the Lord. Belousek states to this manner that the good tidings that the herald is to proclaim is addressed “to the cities of Judah (v. 9), the cities of the people who are called by the name of Jacob/Israel. Yet this salvation has a broader scope than these cities alone; the redemption of Zion/Jerusalem has universal meaning for the peoples of all nations (Isa 40:3-5).[19]
John the Baptist declares to those who have come to be Baptized that they must produce fruit in keeping with repentance. He even addresses them as a brood of vipers, and he ponders who warned them of the coming wrath for those who resist repentance. John clarifies that their repentance must come from a genuine place, and he warns that they shouldn’t fool themselves with the idea that Abraham is their father, and all is well. This is where John declares that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from the stones beneath their feet. (vv. 7-8). With this admonishment, the crowd cried aloud asking “what should we do then?” (v. 10). Belousek comments that John’s position here was that claiming one’s inheritance of salvation promises through the faith of past generations without bearing fruit simply will not do. Those who fail to “bear fruit” put themselves in jeopardy of being severed from God’s people: “Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:8-9).[20] Jesus repeats this same analogy in the parable of the barren fig tree, “If it bears fruit…well and good; but if not…cut it down” (Luke 3: 6-9). John the Baptist and other prophets used this imagery of a vineyard to represent the nation of Israel, and God their caretaker (cf. Ps 80:8-18; Jer 2:21). Isaiah also uses the imagery of the vineyard to paint the picture of God bringing judgement on an unrepentant Israel that is bearing forth corruptible fruit (Isa 5:1-7).
For the vineyard of the Lord of host
is the house of Israel,
And the people of Judah
are his pleasant planting;
He expected justice,
but saw bloodshed;
Righteousness,
but heard a cry!
Belousek brings into focus that both Jesus’s and John’s preaching spoke of judgement and repentance, and the admonishment was to establish that the people were to keep faith with God by deeds of justice and righteousness for their neighbor, or they would be uprooted and disinherited from God’s promise. This call to repentance is for all of God’s people, which no one can escape, nor claim a superior righteousness that will grant them special immunity.[21] The crowd’s response of ‘what should we do then?’ began collectively, where John admonished them to share with one another in their needs and burdens (v. 11). Next the tax collectors came and asked this question, and John admonished them not to collect more than they were require by law (v. 13). Then the soldiers came and asked John what they should do. John responded, admonishing the soldiers to not extort money and accuse people falsely—be content with their pay (v. 14). These soldiers were most likely commissioned officers from the Roman army, possibly local recruits, or perhaps those serving in the temple police force under the authority of the Jewish council, or Herod’s security force. They might even have been hired swords paid by the Romans to escort tax collectors, per Belousek.[22] From here Belousek helps expound on the stage of reality that may have been present in the lives of these soldiers. Belousek asks what might drive these soldiers to extortion and false accusations, and he suggest that it is their dissatisfaction with their wages, found in John’s reply. The message of repentance to the soldiers addresses their need to repent of their ‘striving’, which uses violence to satisfy their greed.[23] There were possibly many opportunities for those serving in Herod’s court to take advantage of Herod’s paranoia and his propensity to imprison or behead troublesome people like John the Baptist. Here a soldier could easily extort money from someone with the promise of naming them a traitor to Herod’s advisor if they didn’t. A temple guard could also utilize the fear of the priesthood among the people, by extorting someone with the threat of informing the priest that they were upsetting the status quo of the temple or even blasphemy, like they did to Jesus. Belousek states that these scenarios of extortive violence are not explicit violence of a drawn sword, but the implicit violence of an unjust system. The repentance to which John calls these soldier is not merely a renunciation of personal violence and the greed that drives it, but also a call to them to cease profiting by the systemic violence of abusive authority.[24] John’s admonishment was also toward those in higher authority, such as Herod. John eventually lost his life for challenging the abuses of power found in Herod’s corrupt rule.
Belousek brings the Roman expansion into a closer view in this narrative from Luke through the words of Plato, The Republic, a Greek philosophical treatise on political justice, we read how social phleonexia leads to one city robbing its neighbor, which provokes retaliation and results in war (372e—373e):
Plato considers how a luxurious city comes to be, then the need to enlarge it ensues. This healthy city is not sufficient, but must at this point be swollen in bulk and multitude with things which do not exist in cities for the sake of what is necessary…And the territory sufficient to sustain them then will now be insufficient and too small…So we must slice off some of our neighbor’s land, if we are going to have enough for plow and pasture—and they in turn must take ours, if they also give themselves over to unlimited acquisition of wealthy, overstepping the bound of the necessary…The next thin is… we will be at war.[25]
Belousek points out from Plato’s assertion that imperialist expansion is driven by this phleonexia, and after strong nations have conquered and occupied weaker nations, they want more, or worry that that they will lose to hostile forces that which they gained through the expense of blood and treasure. For this very reason Rome had conquered and occupied Galilee and Judea—to gain a “buffer zone” against potential threats from empires to the east, while extracting wealth from the land and the people’s labor through taxation. This Pax Roma was in fact a perpetual war.[26] When looking back at the mission focused words of John the Baptist and of Jesus to recognize the things needed for peace and the visitation from God, Luke’s story unveils a large portion of Israel rejecting the Prince of Peace. As a result of this rejection, the ax was laid to the root, which came in the form of Rome’s eventual violent siege on Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44).[27]
Conclusion
This literary work has looked systematically into the historical criticism of Luke 3:1-10. In this historical criticism, a picture was painted of a mighty political force from a world stage that had engulfed the nation of Israel, descriptive of its main figures of authority and rulership. Following, were the pale images of a religious authority found corruptible and inept that were dishonoring to God and their nation. They had been overcome with a religious piety that allowed them to be swept up in the political machine of a corrupt system that departed from righteousness and godliness. However, there was a remnant from the house of Aaron that still remained to bring forth the prophetic words of Isaiah that declare the entrance of God’s salvation for mankind through His son Jesus. John the Baptist was corroborated as the legitimate fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the way made straight for the Lord to come.
Bibliography
Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013.
Kreitzer, Beth, Timothy George, and Scott M Manetsch, eds. 2015. Luke. Reformation Commentary on Scripture. New Testament, Iii. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, an imprint of InterVarsity Press.
Shotter, David. 2004. Tiberius Caesar (version 2nd ed.). 2nd ed. Lancaster Pamphlets in Ancient History. London: Routledge.
Agamben, Giorgio. 2015. Pilate and Jesus. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Meridian, Crossing Aesthetics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[1] Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013, 11.
[2] Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[3] Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013, 15.
[4] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[5] Ibid., 6.
[6] Shotter, David. 2004. Tiberius Caesar (version 2nd ed.). 2nd ed. Lancaster Pamphlets in Ancient History. London: Routledge, 63.
[7] Ibid., 63.
[8] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[9] Agamben, Giorgio. 2015. Pilate and Jesus. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Meridian, Crossing Aesthetics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
[10] Ibid., 37
[11] Ibid., 40.
[12] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[13] Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. 2014. Good News : The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 28.
[14] Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[15] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[16] Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. 2014. Good News : The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 16.
[17] Ibid., 16.
[18] Ibid., 3
[19] Ibid., 4.
[20] Ibid., 28c
[21] Ibid., 28j
[22] Ibid., 28o
[23] Ibid., 28o
[24] Ibid., 28o
[25] Ibid., 23.
[26] Ibid., 23.
[27] Ibid., 18
The Pneumatology of Christ
The Pneumatology of Christ: The study of the role of the Spirit in the life of Christ
Karl Snow
December 15, 2020
Table of Contents
General Epistles and Revelation. 9
Jesus was filled with the Spirit.[1] Let’s begin with a very direct question. Why was it necessary for Jesus to be filled with the Spirit if he was God in the flesh as many have claimed indirectly or directly? Luke Timothy Johnson, in Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church, describes the Lukan narrative of Jesus’ conception as holding the identity as “God’s son”, and Jesus as God’s son operated in power through God’s spirit.[2] The Lukan text takes the lineage of Jesus not only back to the inception of the Jewish nation, but rather all the way back to Adam, the beginning of humanity.[3] Jesus is not only the son of God, but also the son of man. Born of flesh and born of Spirit. The image being offered here suggest a marriage between God and humanity and Jesus was the offspring from that marriage. Jesus was filled with the nature of his Father and was filled with the nature of humanity through his mother. He was a new creation that held rights and responsibilities in both the heavens and the earth. Jesus was filled with the Spirit of his Father and was led by that Spirit as he lived a human life.[4] Jesus was the image and living definition of God and humanity working in unity through covenant. The next question is why this new reality was thrust upon the earth and laid out before all its inhabitants to witness.
Gospels and Acts
The Gospels depict the mission and ministry of the anointed Messiah as one who was imparted into the plight of humanity. The mission was that of reconciling humanity back into right relationship with the Father. Jesus was born of flesh like everyone else and demonstrated what a reconciled life looked like and how a fulfilled covenant with God operated. Jesus stated that I and the Father are one, and he proclaimed this while being flesh and blood. The Acts were the activated results of Christ’ mission now imparted into humanity through the expanded body of Christ, the early church. The chronicled Jesus movement is expressed as having this Christian identity as a new genus in the earth. Jesus came so that Acts would begin in the earth, from the people of the earth.
Sánchez, in the Gospels and Acts, states that it was within the Markan gospel that the terminology of (euangelion) “good news”[5] was introduced, and this good news was introduced through the person of Jesus who was both “Christ” and “Son of God”.[6] With the Old Testament’s prophetic fulfillment through Christ came a sense of expectancy and Mark was sure to utilize these titles, “Christ” and “Son of God” for his readers because they expected a great somebody to represent the heavenly kingdom. Also, due to the geographical beginnings of Jesus, Mark could have been concerned that the readers needed to understand his title in spite of his geography. This was important because Nazareth of Galilee held no religious or political importance because of its specific geography. Sánchez indicates that because of Galilee’s close proximity to Sepphoris, which was highly influenced by Rome, may have caused the reader’s first impression to be that Jesus was a nobody or worse, a Roman sympathizer.[7] It is important to note that Royce Delbert Burkett, in The Son of Man Debate, pulling from the Matthean text states that Jesus’ use of ‘the son of man’ is a designation of Jesus’ humanity, which emphasizes human nature in its lowliness and weakness, and/or that he was set apart as an extraordinary human being, but either way the Son of Man was simply human, but the ideal human.[8] Here all three things are true, Jesus was the ‘Christ’ (anointed one), ‘Son of God’ (birthed of Spirit), and ‘Son of Man’ (birthed of flesh). If humanity is birthed of flesh, then the words of Jesus declaring that “we must be born again/anew (John 3:3, KJV), indicates conformity to his image which was ‘birthed of Spirit’, then later Jesus transferred the anointing which was upon him to humanity, (John 14:12, KJV).
Gerald F. Hawthorne, in The Presence & The Power, speaks on the origin of the application of the term “Holy Spirit” as only being found three times in the Old Testament (Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10-11). Hawthorne defines this phrasing as simply ‘the divine Spirit’ that is always and everywhere at work, but especially in the lives of individuals throughout scripture.[9] This divine Spirit is representative of God himself, that when filling individuals enhances natural abilities, such as Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah (Exodus 35:30-36:1; cf. 31:1-6) that was filled with wisdom in understanding, and in knowledge, and in every good work, and to devise plans, in order to be able to do every task of devising on the temple. Hawthorne states that the descriptions of this Old Testament’s accounting describes the Spirit of God as filling people, coming upon them, falling on them, speaking through them, resting on them, poured out on them, placed on them, entering into them, and catching them up.[10]
Sánchez speaks about the Markan description of Jesus’ baptism as the heavens opening up and the Holy Spirit filling him (the man), stating that the barrier separating the human and the divine realms as being torn. This (schizein) tearing is one that is irreparable, and now God is accessible to human beings and human beings are accessible to God (Juel, 34-35).[11] It is interesting to note that as Jesus moved forward in his ministry that his opposition was the religious ruling class, as Jesus spent more of his time with those lesser citizens being disposed by societies elites. The message of inclusion that he brought was received by those disposed and rejected by those who would not consider the concept of inclusivity with God the Father because they stumbled at the door of sinful man, and any attempt to reconcile this reality was blasphemy. Man could never be one with God, only at his mercy which they had ultimately determined themselves, in their own understanding. To be born anew offered letting go of the limited humanistic view and receiving the God given gift of covenant fulfilled through a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty being offered by God himself for the sake of humanity. The covenant relationship between God and Israel is an excellent example of a suzerain-vassal treaty, which is a treaty between two unequal parties. The suzerain is the more powerful party while the vassal is the less powerful party, such as father and son, or lord and a servant.[12] In this agreement, the lesser is assumed by the greater thus gaining equality and unity through submission and treaty. Jesus speaks of this concept saying “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.[13] This indicates that Yahweh and Yeshua are issued into unity through a covenant agreeable by both sides.
Jesus was never intended to become an idol within the church, but rather ‘the example’ for the church. The reality of his life set the stage for the divine life of the Spirit to fill all humanity, thus beginning the process of reconciling the world to himself. The idea being offered here is that to truly follow Jesus is to be willing embrace the treaty being offered by the divine Spirit. This in no way indicates that the lesser party of mankind can rise to the heights of the greater divine Spirit through strength or will. It is rather the opposite. It is through submission that unity with the greater is possible and Jesus was that example for all humanity to see and believe.
Pauline Literature
Jennifer R. Strawbridge, in The Pauline Effect, describes Paul contrasting human and divine wisdom, with human wisdom linked with the foolishness of a crucified Christ. It is from the divine wisdom revealed, through the cross, that catches the “powers and principalities” off guard.[14] It is only through the Spirit that divine wisdom comes, and this is through those embedded in the Christ consciousness. The deep things of God are revealed through Spirit and its being revealed through humanity via their maturity in the Christ consciousness. The Christ consciousness is the embodiment of the “mind of Christ”[15] that we receive by the Spirit, through the precepts and examples given to us by the life of Christ. Strawbridge, referencing the work of Irenaus, points out that those who have access to the wisdom of God and who possess the gifts are on a path that is moving them from knowing in part into the light of the mysteries of God, and from the Apostle Paul’s words the hidden and secret things are only revealed to those who are perfect and who have received the Spirit of God.[16]
This concept of perfection falls into the category of foolishness from our human perspective due to the immense imperfections that we face, however, the scripture indicates that we are to be perfect even as Christ and the Father are perfect.[17] Paul appears to be echoing the words of Christ with a prescription of application within his presentation of the gospel message. It is through the impartation of the ‘perfect’ Spirit of God that perfection assumes us. Another point of observation comes from the principle of God’s love within us. If love was personified and placed on trial in front of a judge and jury, what wrong could it be accused of? The conclusion from this question is that love is perfect and us, having been called into this suzerain-vassal treaty of covenant with love (God), are thus included into perfection. The idea being transmitted through the gospel message narrative is that it is the infilling of the Spirit that transforms us from imperfection into perfection via inclusion into that which is perfect. Strawbridge, pulling from the work of Clement, asserts that those who are spiritual and seek the mind of Christ (Christ consciousness) have direct access to that which the carnal mind has not seen nor heard, because it is the Spirit that searches the “deep things of God”.[18] This inclusivity into the deepness of knowing and receiving wisdom is for both the individual and the community collectively, and these invisible secret insights are available to all who seek, thus culminating into a systematic unity. It is Spirit that begets spirit, and the objective of inclusion is depth through relationship. The introduction to the mystery is only the beginning and there is the compulsion to abide in the journey which leads into the depths of its knowing.
Strawbridge categorizes the purpose of this process as the “formation of the soul”. The body formations are set at various stages of development and from observing the Apostle Paul we can see that Paul was faithful to the progression of the Spirit message in different methods for varying communities. Strawbridge, pulling from the work of Origen, states that Paul was a teacher that changed roles and “robes” as he taught people with different levels of wisdom within the early church communities. It was imperative that Paul adapted his teaching according to the audience and Paul executed this missional endeavor through the guidance of the Christ consciousness revealed to him by the Spirit.[19]
The Apostle Paul was faced with an immense challenge when approaching the world of the gentile nations. The gentile world view held many deeply considered views of cosmological points of beginning origins that held specific religious views that were centered around high-gods and gods in relation to the plight of humanity. To approach these communities held a special challenge as Paul offered the alternative view of one God, and this required a depth of engagement and understanding (spirit wisdom) if the engagement were to succeed. Chijoke John Madubuko, in The Pauline Spirit World, describes a communication-motif that the old world held with gods and morals centered on a religious patrimony where humanity viewed their experiences through the lenses of interventionism by forces outside of human ambience.[20] Chijoke points out that some common features of the early Israelite religious beliefs held that the physical and the spiritual realms are mutually related with each other, which was predicated through andromorphic language.[21] Thus the language utilized by Paul, from his understanding of God and his intention to reach the gentile social construct, assigned God as loving, seeking, caring, as well as God having eyes, hands and feet. Paul’s agenda was to effectively describe God’s intention to express this new revelation of divine communion as a direct communication between God and humans. From Chijoke’s work, the image of Paul takes on a clearer and more concise perspective in what his agenda and message was intended to reveal. There was no longer a need for appeasement toward an unseen force which held a direct influence on the world of humanity. There was now a new understanding being proclaimed in which the unseen was to dwell within the seen. The revelation of the message of Christ centered from “Emmanuel”, God with us, which eliminated the unnecessary mythologies of man into the truth issued forth by the Spirit. Paul, by the Spirit, successfully navigated the reality of this new covenant into their language and worldview, per Chijoke. Paul performed the task of revealing that Christ participating in the creation of the cosmos, and also described him as the “perfect image of God” (II Cor 1:24).[22] Chijoke assigns Paul’s message, gospel, and very being as “in Christ, the son of God, with whom it pleased God to grant Paul the encounter of his life (Acts 9:24; 26:12, I Cor 15:8; Gal 1:16).[23] This statement is in alignment with the teachings from Christ that declared that the Spirit that infilled him was to infill humanity.[24] Jesus named this Spirit “truth”, and this Spirit would guide us into all truth while abiding and dwelling in us.[25] When Paul describes himself as “in Christ”, the logical step may be to state that he was in the Christ role and commission with the very same anointing upon him that was upon Christ. Paul a vessel of the Christ consciousness, which is empowered by the Spirit of truth, which was leading and guiding him as Jesus was guided and lead during his life among humanity.
General Epistles and Revelation
Paul’s epistles expressed this message of inclusion to a vast gentile audience. The covenant was no longer constrained to an individual nation but spread abroad for a greater work. Even though God chose Israel as the launch pad for his missional objective, the time for lift off was set into motion through the obedience of Christ. God’s end game was for all of humanity to enter in as he reconciled them to himself. This inclusion was designed to bring humanity into his inner chambers of fellowship. Admittedly there was many alterations that must be initiated in order for mankind to be grafted in successfully and Paul was one of the chief grafters pulled from God’s tool belt. Paul painted a picture of Christ the “high priest”, a perfect and final priest that was designated to pioneer the plan of God into action. It was the life and example of Jesus that offered the image of a perfected faith that was in a unified relationship with the Master of creation who stood in opposition to the ancient mythological view of a spirit reality.
L. R. Donelson, in From Hebrews to Revelation, describes the Hebrew epistle as the envisioning of the Christian life as a journey toward perfection, that is moving toward the promise of God and his rest for us. Paul described Jesus as making all things new for humanity, so that which was once an impossibility was now a new reality available to mankind.[26] This new reality doesn’t appear to follow the old model of the gentiles or the Jews that stumbled at the altar of sacrifice but rather the sacrifice was sufficient through Christ who clearly has called us into fellowship with the Father with him. No longer is there a requirement for temple intervention, the act of the Spirit through the cross was to now fill the temple that was made without hands, humanity.[27] The veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom as a sign that the old methodology was finally put away as unnecessary and insufficient.[28] The greater has come and now mankind would experience the Spirit from within, not from the temple. This was the beginning of a new reality that would also take time to be fortified in the psyche of man and we can see the necessary steps that Paul was taking to bring this process into clarity. Donelson describes this maturation process as “hard theological work” as the next step which would bring humanity into the fullness of understanding of what God has done. Donelson references the Pauline concept of moving from milk to solid food, “Let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ” (Heb 6:1a).[29] With Jesus now the high priest, there were no more calls to sacrifice in an attempt to connect us to the divine, the connection is now solidified. There is no need for a temple so that we might be cleansed, the cleansing is completed. Now the next step is to learn how to grow up in this new age of sonship given freely by the Father.
From the book of James, the process is described as first hearing this new reality, understanding our new identity of righteousness, then applying that righteousness into an outward reality through actionable living.[30] From I Peter this new life is described clearly through the character of love in action. Donelson describes this transformative life of holiness as being “carved out by good deeds” and these deeds come through loving one another.[31] I John 4 makes this understanding clear by stating that everyone that loves, knows God, and is born of God, because God is love. This new reality of righteousness expressed through perfection is a clear indication of the presence of God within humanity. If the nature of God is love then the combination of God infilled in the heart of man must produce his nature into our reality. Jesus even told his disciples that the world (unaware humanity) would be able to identify them as his disciples because of their love for the other.[32] Donelson states that “love” is a predicate nominative that attaches God and love in a very unique way.[33] Where God dwells, love dwells. They are inseparable, and this further supports the work of Paul to the young Christian community coming to terms with this new reality issued forth into the earth. Mankind was now set apart and made holy by a holy God and the process was intimate and personal, within them bodily. This new narrative is solidified through John’s revelation of the coming reality upon the earth. Change was not going to be easy, but it was guaranteed to prevail. Evil would be finally erased from the world’s psyche, through the consequences received by rejecting God’s initiative and/or from obedience through the Spirit. The end game is a new heaven and a new earth filled with peace through love. Mankind has been called into oneness with the Father, and the old and immature world views no longer have the validity or presence that they once held. The mission is afoot, and the landscape is slowing being reconstructed for all to see this new reality in the here and now.
Conclusion
With this amazing narrative being laid out before us, the question is where we stand now. James Dunn, in Jesus According to the New Testament, describes us in the tension between the already and the not yet. What Jesus started through his ministry, that lead to the cross, was the primary staging of what was to come. It was not the end of the mission of Christ, rather it was the beginning. The cross was the launching pad for something greater. Dunn describes this as the two-fold ministry of Christ.[34] The goal of this two-fold ministry is for humanity to become like Christ. A transformation is taking place right in the middle of the human construct which is intended and designed to generate a new creation within the very camp of humanity.
Jesus, only six days before the Passover (the beginning of his persecution and death) was anointed with ointment of spikenard by Mary “against the day of Christ’ burial.”[35] Jesus with his imminent death in mind stated, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit”.[36] This is a foretelling from Jesus himself describing what the ultimate plan of the cross was all about. Jesus the Christ (anointed one) was to be put into the ground upon his death and Jesus was describing what happens to a seed that experiences this death and rebirth process. If a grain (seed) of wheat is planted into the ground it will produce more wheat seeds. If a Christ (anointed seed) is planted into the ground it will produce more anointed Christ seeds. In essence, God ‘s plan was the seeding of righteousness right into the heart of humanity. It was a plan to conquer mankind from the inside out. This is the process of reconciliation that Jesus was commissioned to enact and see through. In this passage from John, Jesus was alluding to the multiplicity of himself in the earth. Instead of one singular Christ (anointed one) attempting to move all over the earth, there was now the foundation established that would issue forth countless millions of Christs (anointed ones) throughout all of humanity.
The entire life of Jesus was an amazing (blueprint) declaration of God’s divine plan for his covenant with mankind. Every part of Christ’ life’s story was the example of this divine covenant at work. Everything that was said of Jesus is a requirement for those who have been ushered into the Christ consciousness via the Holy Spirit. If it was necessary for Jesus to be filled with the Spirt, then it is necessary for his body, the church, to be filled with the Spirit. If it was necessary for Jesus to be perfected through suffering, then it is necessary for his body, the church, to be perfected through suffering. If Jesus was glorified through obedience, then the body of Christ will also be glorified through its obedience. This is not a description of a church that maintains a staunch religious observance as the Sadducees and Pharisees of Israel exemplified, but rather a church that becomes “Christ” in the earth right where we live. When Jesus declared that if you have seen him then you have seen the Father[37] , he was also announcing the coming reality that was to be the kingdom of heaven infiltrating the camps, villages, and great cities of humanity. When you see the covenant people of Christ’ kingdom, then you also see the Father. We are the temple made without hands in which the Spirit of God has made residence therein.[38] The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is “now” dwelling in us and quickening us.[39] The pneumatology of Christ wasn’t designed to rest upon Jesus alone, it holds a far greater designation for all of humanity. Jesus summed this concept up into a singular phrase stating, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, even as it is in heaven”.[40] The Holy Spirit of God has devised a plan that has targeted a point of insertion directly into the realm of earth through its very inhabitants and Jesus, guided by the Spirit, was the corner stone of the foundation for its construction.
Burkett, Delbert Royce. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Monograph Series / Society for New Testament Studies. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999. https://search-ebscohost-com.seu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=73015&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Donelson, L. R. From Hebrews to Revelation: A theological introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Dunn, J. D. Jesus according to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019.
Gospel – International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (2020). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/gospel.html
Hawthorne, G. F. Presence and the Power; The Significance of the Holy Spirit in the Life and Ministry of Jesus. S.1: Wipf and Stock, 2003.
Johnson, L. T. Prophetic Jesus, prophetic church: The challenge of Luke-Acts to contemporary Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
Madubuko, John C.. The “Pauline” Spirit World in Eph 3:10 in the Context of Igbo World View: A Psychological-Hermeneutical Appraisal. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2015. Accessed December 1, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” The Biblical Archaeologist 17, no. 3 (September 1954): 50–76. https://search-ebscohost-com.seu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000654781&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Sánchez David A, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and Margaret P Aymer. The Gospels and Acts. Fortress Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2016.
Strawbridge, Jennifer R. The Pauline Effect. Studies of the Bible and Its Reception, (Sbr) 5. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Blue Bell, PA: Kappa Books, LLC, 2019.
[1] Luke 4:1, (KJV).
[2] L. T. Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, (2011), 57.
[3] Luke 3:23-38, (KJV).
[4] Luke 4:1; 4:14, (KJV).
[5] Gospel – International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (2020). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/gospel.html
[6] David A Sánchez, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, Margaret P Aymer, The Gospels and Acts, Fortress Commentary on the Bible, Minneapolis Minnesota: Fortress Press, (2016), 174.
[7] Sánchez, Kittredge, Aymer, The Gospels and Acts, 175.
[8] Burkett, Delbert Royce, and John M Court, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, No. 107, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2000), 13.
[9] Hawthorne, G. F., Presence and the Power: The Significance of the Holy Spirit in the Life and Ministry of Jesus, S.1., Oregon: WIPF and Stock, (2003), 15.
[10] Hawthorne, G. F., Presence and Power, 16.
[11] Sánchez, Kittredge, Aymer, The Gospels and Acts, 176.
[12] George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, The Biblical Archaeologist, 17, no. 3 (1954): 304.
[13] John 14:28, (KJV).
[14] Jennifer R. Strawbridge, The Pauline Effect, Studies of the Bible and Its Reception, (Sbr), 5, Berlin: De Gruyter, (2015), 24-48.
[15] I Corinthians 2:16, (KJV).
[16] Jennifer R. Strawbridge, The Pauline Effect, 32.
[17] Matthew 5:48, (KJV).
[18] Jennifer R. Strawbridge, The Pauline Effect, 34.
[19] Jennifer R. Strawbridge, The Pauline Effect, 49-50.
[20] Chijoke John Madubuko, The “Pauline” Spirit World in Eph 3:10 in the Context of Igbo World View: A Psychological-Hermeneutical Appraisal, New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis, Volume 9 = Band 9, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition, (2015), 55- 210.
[21] Chijoke John Madubuko, The “Pauline” Spirit World, 67.
[22] Chijoke John Madubuko, The “Pauline” Spirit World, 95.
[23] Chijoke John Madubuko, The “Pauline” Spirit World, 97.
[24] John 14:12-17, (KJV).
[25] John 16:13; 14:17, (KJV).
[26] L. R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation: A theological introduction, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, (2001), 7-158.
[27] Acts 7:48, (KJV).
[28] Matthew 27:51, (KJV).
[29] L. R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation, 17.
[30] L. R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation, 36.
[31] L. R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation, 68.
[32] John 13:35, (KJV).
[33] L. R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation, 107.
[34] J. D. Dunn, Jesus according to the New Testament, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (2019), 132.
[35] John 12:7, (KJV).
[36] John 12:24, (KJV).
[37] John 14:9, (KJV).
[38] Acts 7:48, (KJV).
[39] Romans 8:11, (KJV).
[40] Matthew 6:10, (KJV).
The Spirit in the Old Testament
THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT:
Old Testament Revelation of God’s Plan for Mankind
Karl Snow
October 20, 2020
Table of Contents
What does the Spirit of God desire and whom has he chosen?. 1
The Spirit of God is the unseen that created that which is seen. Mankind dwells in the seen creation, however the depths of man are also unseen. This is where Spirit dwells, in the thoughts and the depth of man’s heart. This study will attempt to accurately draw from the active agency of the Spirit of God from the Old Testament narrative, while connecting it to the current Testament which has been given new life by the Spirit through Christ. From this study, the Old Testament characters will be brought from the depths of history into the now breathing creation called humanity, and a correlation will be drawn between the “not yet” and the “now”. It will also attempt to shed light on the “seen” and the “unseen” through the lens of the covenant treaty established by the Spirit of God himself throughout the earth for the sake of mankind’s redemption and his own glory revealed.
What does the Spirit of God desire and whom has he chosen?
(Exodus 35:30-36:1; cf. 31:1-6)
35:30-36 And Moses said to Israel’s sons, “See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah. And filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom in understanding, and in knowledge, and in every good work, and to devise plans, to work in gold and in silver and in bronze, and in carving stones for settings, and in carving wood, in order to be able to do every task of devising. And to teach he has placed in his heart—he and Oholiab son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan. He has filled them with heart-wisdom in order to do every work done by a carver, and designer and embroiderer in blue, and in purple, in crimson material and in linen, and by a weaver—those who are to do every work and devisers of plans. 36:1 And Bezalel, along with Oholiab, and every wise-hearted man to whom the Lord has given wisdom and understanding in these matters to know how to do every work for the ministry of the holy place, shall do everything that the Lord has commanded.
Bezalel, from the tribe of Judah and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, from the tribe of Dan are the first biblical characters of the Old Testament recorded as being “filled” with the Spirit of God. Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, makes note that the Exodus text, (31:1-6; 35:30-36:1) emphasis’s their willingness, and God’s lack of sovereignly choosing the donors. Hamilton observes that there are no consequences for nonparticipation from the children of Israel in the collection of materials for the temple. Bezalel and Oholiab desired to give of themselves and their possessions to the plan of God.[1] When the Spirit of God filled them, there was an impartation of wisdom in understanding, knowledge, and heart-wisdom for crafting and devising for the work of ministry. Hamilton further draws a distinction between the wise men of the Pharaoh (Exodus 7:11), and the God-given wisdom imparted to lead Bezalel and Oholiab to use gratefully and artistically the skills God has given for the sake of the larger community. Hamilton describes this distinction of wisdom giving, when pertaining to the Pharaoh, as a wisdom from below; then toward Bezalel and Oholiab as a wisdom from above.[2] Hamilton also points out that nowhere throughout Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy is Moses ever described as wise. Moses oversaw the temple construction, but Moses didn’t build any of it. The assignment of wisdom was upon Bezalel, Oholiab, and every wise-hearted man who the Lord gave to do every work for ministry. It is clear through this text that the infilling of the Spirit of God, into mankind, began as a provisional impartation toward accomplishing practical hands on work and logistical planning within the nation of Israel for the common good.
Bezalel was the master craftsman that oversaw the building of the tabernacle, inside and out, and the arrangement of the priestly vestments. Oholiab, from the tribe of Dan, labored alongside Bezalel in all the building and planning. Concerning Oholiab’s lineage, Hamilton helps identify the significance of the tribe of Dan by observing that Dan was the firstborn of Jacob, and later Dan begets a son named Samson, who was one of the most famous judges of Israel. Dan’s lineage also participates in the building of Solomon’s temple (II Chronicles 2:13-14).[3] The infilling of the artisans launched a genealogy designated to establish a tangible participation in a God-people relationship in Israel. It is interesting to observe God’s decision for infilling ordinary people in this way and is curiously described differently from famous leaders such as Moses and Aaron. Bezalel carried a sacred call that paired equally with the divine call of Moses the liberator and Aaron the supreme priest, per Hamilton.[4] The story in Exodus begins a theme of how God thinks, which doesn’t respect people the way we do, but rather holds relationship as the standard for engagement with humanity. Remember it was the willingness of Bezalel and Oholiab that brought them to his attention. Most likely they already attained skill sets that he decided to utilize through this willing relationship offered to him.
Moses, Jesus, and Jeremiah
The opening text described ordinary, willing people that were chosen by God to receive the infilling of his Spirit within them, empowering them to do great things. Even though Moses was never described as wise, he was described in another, more opulent manner. (Exodus 7:1), “And the Lord said to Moses, “See I have made you god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.” Hamilton’s understanding of this text disagrees with the formal interpretations that places “like” before “god”. He states that there is no preposition attached to “god,” such as one finds in (Genesis 3:5) that states that we are made like God. In this text it is just (ʾĕlōhim).[5] Hamilton establishes that the Septuagint and the Vulgate are almost the same as the Hebrew text for this passage. It is interesting to note that Josephus (Ant.3.7.7-180) refers to Moses as a “divine man” (theios aner), per Hamilton. It is also interesting that (nabhi) prophet, referring to Aaron, holds the active meaning of “one who invokes God.”[6]
Hamilton admits that it is abnormal for a mere human to be called (ʾĕlōhim), however there are two designations assigned to Moses as an (ʾĕlōhim)by God (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). So, what questions does this information cause us to ask? We know that Moses was described as a very humble man, more humble than anyone on earth.[7] When Moses came down from the mountain as his face shown with a brilliance of light, Moses wasn’t even aware or concerned with his disposition until he noticed that it concerned the people.[8] Our immediate interpretation of what a man-(ʾĕlōhim)should be is also brought in for review because if we look at how Pharaoh responded to Moses, we don’t see a person in great awe before a god but quite the opposite. Then what is a man-(ʾĕlōhim)?We do know that from this text it appears that a man-(ʾĕlōhim) would be one that is humbled before God to a point of great submission, bold with God to remind him of his covenant, and willing to obey as he commands. The sub-narrative of these text appears to reveal a man-(ʾĕlōhim) and a Spirit filled individual as one who is a willing and an obedient vessel at the Lord’s behest.
When modern Christianity considers the concept of a man-(ʾĕlōhim), they think of Jesus, not Moses. So, what do Jesus and Moses share in common? (John 10:22-39) describes Jesus at the feast of the dedication as he walked into the temple in Solomon’s porch. Many Jews gathered around him, beseeching him to make it clear if he was the Christ. Jesus chastened them with his words, saying that he had told them, but they refused to hear him because they were not his sheep. He then stated that he gives eternal life to his sheep, and no one is able to pluck them from his Father’s hand, and he finished his statement saying, “I and my Father are one.” They immediately took up stones to throw at him. Jesus responded by asking which of his good works are they stoning him for. They answered by saying, “not for any good work, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God”. Jesus’s final statement of appeal was for them to believe on the works if they didn’t believe on him, and believe that the Father was in him, and him in the Father; to no avail.
These are hard and powerful words to the mind of mankind. It stirs thoughts of envy, jealousy, and rage. How can this person be one with God, a man-(ʾĕlōhim)?Does he think he is better than us? Christianity today would say that, of course, Jesus was a man-(ʾĕlōhim), but what do they say about Moses? There are many correlations between Moses and Jesus. Humility and obedience are shared descriptions in both Testaments. (Exodus 34:28) tells of Moses abiding with God in the wilderness forty days and forty nights, without food and water. (Matthew 4:1-11) describes the same wilderness fast in the life of Jesus with the Spirit of God. (Exodus 8:32) Pharaoh hardened his heart against the will of the Lord to set people free, (Mark 3:5) after Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, breaking human traditions to set a person free, was distressed at the Pharisees stubborn and hardened hearts. Hamilton draws an interesting conclusion between these two narratives and notes that the Greek words for “Pharaoh” and “Pharisees” are close to each other (Pharao, Pharisaios).[9] Both Pharaoh and the Markan Pharisees shared a common position, which is a stance against God’s plan to set people free. It is also interesting to note that both nemesis groups were key elements that God utilized to reveal his glory and usher his agenda into high gear. The Moses and Jesus descriptions express a relational bond of trust with the Father that resulted in a higher divine agenda being accomplished through man while facing opposition from man. Hamilton asserts that “God”, designated to Moses is the closest parallel in the First Testament for “God” applied to Jesus in the New Testament, referencing (Exodus 4:16;7:1) and (John 1:17). Hamilton states that considering the scriptural interpretation, Jesus is emphatically linked to Moses, as a Moses/god and Jesus/god in their connection.[10]
William L. Holladay, Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations, proposes that Jeremiah was a prophet just like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18). Holladay draws these hypothesis conclusions when comparing the verbal parallels between Jeremianic poetry and the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32).[11] Jeremiah’s text ties Israel’s covenant with God into the language of the “bride” and the “bridegroom” on four occasions (7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11), as a prototype. Jeremiah is stated “I am called by thy name” (Jeremiah 14:9), which Holladay concludes that Jeremiah understood himself to have been called in covenant by Yahweh just as much as Israel. This covenant describes Jeremiah’s “marriage” to Yahweh.[12] When comparing the phrase “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9), and when God promised Moses that he would put his words in the prophet’s mouth (Deuteronomy 18:18), a correlation appears suggesting that the scroll that touched Jeremiah’s lips contained God’s words mediated through Moses, and now this mediation was passed to Jeremiah.[13] One of the most interesting observations from Holladay states that (Jeremiah 4:4) “we see Jeremiah’s insistence that the interpreters of the law had found a way to preserve the letter without the spirit”, which from this statement joins Jeremiah into the (Pharao, Pharisaios) comparison shared by Moses and Jesus.[14] From Holladay’s journal, Jeremiah is described as a recipient of the anointing of Moses, filled with the same spirit words as Moses, focused on the marriage relationship of oneness with Yahweh, and described as one who stands against the (Pharao, Pharisaios) of his day. With these correlations drawn, the argument can be made that there is another instance of a Moses/god, Jesus/god, and now Jeremiah/god scenario. This theological theme of a man-(ʾĕlōhim) is beginning to expand.
Who is Man?
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, tackles the beginning narrative description of mankind in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Brueggemann notes that there is almost no historical particularity, no concrete identification of historical persons, groups, movements, or institutions presented in these chapters. Only unity in creation where humanity operates in authority, power, and the reality of order and freedom in human life, designed by God.[15] Brueggemann takes a firm position that mankind has been specifically designed to fulfill a purpose of responsibility. The Genesis narrative consistently describes God’s call to a faithful response and glad obedience to his will from his children.[16] It describes a creation loved by God and the freedom of creation is taken seriously by the creator, who is faithful, patient, and concerned for us. The picture unfolding from Genesis doesn’t describe a God bent on totalitarian obedience and a need to be fearfully worshiped, but rather as being relational and long suffering with those that he loves. There must be something that God has in mind for humanity that requires responsibility of them, while supporting them with familial supervision. (Genesis 2:19) describes how God formed the beast and the fowl, then brought them to Adam to see what he would name them. Once Adam named them, Adam’s decision stood with authority. It appears that God had established an environment in which humanity could be molded through responsibility and through the consequences of their decisions. Importantly, Brueggemann notes that creation is not left to its own devises, never abandoned, nor given free rein for its own inclinations.[17] The creator loves, respects, and participates with his children.
The question that must be considered deeply then, is what God’s completed plan for humanity is, and what does that look like. William C. Williams, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, describes God as one who is outside of time that speaks to creation and can be reached by creation.[18] (Hebrews 11:3) states that the world was created by that which is not visible. This unseen God has created that which is seen and has a direct connection with the heart of man which is also unseen. Williams delineates that the “Spirit of God” is apparent through God’s active agency, such as in the Book of Judges where God’s Spirit “comes upon” the judges to enable them to do the task at hand.[19] Again the agency of God is described as coming upon David and leaving Saul (I Samuel 16:14-16). Williams defines the Old Testament Spirit of God as “living and full of power”, and the New Testament Spirit of God as “manifesting a distinct personality and office”.[20] These descriptions of God’s interaction with humanity suggest that God desires to intimately abide within mankind. There is an “entering in” description as God connects with those willing to know and trust him. This “entering in” is a description of “oneness” as Jesus taught.[21] Jesus, the son of man, having taken on the plight of humanity in human form was described as having the whole fullness of deity dwelling bodily.[22] Then the Apostle Paul challenges the church in Corinth to remind themselves that they, collectively and individually, are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in them.[23]
Williams makes an important observation of the Genesis text which describes mankind as “theologically human”, as bearing the image of God. This (imago dei) denotes the symbolic as well as the tangible relation between God and humanity.[24] The (imago dei) is a marriage between God and humanity, which is reflected consistently throughout the Old Testament and New Testament text. This descriptive analogy excellently describes how God desires an intimate interaction with humanity. Williams makes a compelling observation of the Apostle Paul’s description of Christ as the “image of God” (II Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, I Corinthians 11:7). It’s by “clothing ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14), that we become more like him.[25] How much more should we be compelled in our understanding of God’s plan than when we wrestle with these pointed and direct words from Paul? Jesus was the image of God, and if we cloth ourselves with the teaching and example of Christ, then “we” become more like the image of God. There is a theme unfolding as we engage the ancient text that declares that God’s intention from the beginning was to initiate the man-(ʾĕlōhim). Williams describes this man-(ʾĕlōhim) understanding as comparable to a suzerain-vassal treaty. The covenant relationship between God and Israel is an example of a suzerain-vassal treaty (Exodus 19-24; Leviticus 17-27; Deuteronomy), that served as a testimony to what God wanted for all of humanity, per Williams.[26] The Suzerain treaty is described as a treaty between two unequal parties. The suzerain is the more powerful party while the vassal is the less powerful party. Some examples are a father and a son, or a lord and a servant.[27] From this definition of treaty, the Moses/god and Jesus/god comparison becomes clearer, for both Moses and Jesus were humble, obedient vessels for the more powerful Spirit of God.
Further expounding on this theological schema, George Mendenhall makes the observation which (Exodus 31:13; Leviticus 20:8; 21:8; 22:32) clarifies that only God is holy, and anything else can be holy only if it is granted a proper relationship with God.[28] This analysis of the Exodus and Leviticus text, by Mendenhall, remains congruent with the Suzerain treaty model. It is the suzerain (Lord), partnered with the vassal (servant), that brings inequality into equal unity. The vassal isn’t superior, yet the vassal receives equality through treaty. It appears that this is the man-(ʾĕlōhim) model that God intended from the very beginning; the (imago dei) fulfilled. Therefore, it could be said that we live “from” his grace, not “for” his grace because his grace has always been available to those who are willing to seek him. The covenant is upheld by God’s superiority, and the treaty is accessible to all who are willing. With all covenant treaties come responsibilities and privileges, that are held in tacked through a life committed relationship. Jesus’s own words confirm this suzerain treaty between him and the Father. (John 14:28) I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Yahweh the father, and Yeshua the son, are brought into unity through a covenant aggregable to both sides. Nikolaevich Sergeaei Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, described the Antiochene Christology’s characterization of the humanity of Christ as the “unity of the God-Man”. [29] Bulgakov describes how early Alexandrian theology and Antiochene theology would struggle to reconcile the humanity in the God-Man, and how they could understand the union between the two essences (divinity-humanity) which suggested the absorption of the one, or the illusoriness of the humanity. Bulgakov notes that the struggle swirled around the dialectical relationship in which neither could be accepted without, at the same time, accepting of the other. Bulgakov states that when these two natures are taken in isolation, they are equally false theories, and only become dialectically true when conjoined with each other.[30] Bulgakov describes this dialectical conjoining in this way, “He makes Him one person with Himself by virtue of the unity to which He raises Him. He communicates to him all primacy. He willed by good will to accomplish all things through Him; the judgment, the trail of the whole word, and His own coming.”[31]
The man-(ʾĕlōhim) appears to be God’s designated plan from the beginning and his son as the human avatar for all humanity to draw upon. Mendenhall, when referencing the succession of the prophets which was designated by God through the lineage of Moses, as God’s plan to inhabit all of humanity.[32] William Dyrness, Themes of the Old Testament Theology, describes the experiences of the Old Testament prophets, such as Jeremiah and Isaiah, as personally experiencing a “present realization” of being filled but also a future hope, which is an “already” and a “not yet”.[33] This “already” and “not yet” can be described through the concept of a maturation process. God said it himself that he intended to stop hiding his face from Israel anymore, but rather he was going to pour out his Spirit upon them (Ezekiel 39:29). This outpouring of God’s Spirit was not only for the house of Israel, but for all flesh that would result in widespread prophecy (nabhi), and a Spirit leading through dreams and visions for all people (Joel 2:28-29). God speaks of a unified humanity in which he will put a “new spirit” within them (Ezekiel 11:19). Dyrness states that, “from the very variety of expressions the prophets use—a new heart, a new spirit, a new covenant—it becomes clear how thorough and complete will be this (worldwide) transformation that God intends to work by his Spirit.”[34]
Conclusion
The first record of God’s Spirit filling the interior of a man (mankind), was not the most elect but rather the willing. Bezalel and Oholiab were anointed to master their work gloves and steel toed boots, if you will. This precedent set by God should be considered as widely significant toward the larger agenda derived by God himself. It indicates that what we esteem is not what God esteems, nor what we find worthy to be what God is actually looking for. The schema within the narrative suggest that God is looking for a marriage relationship, a suzerain-vassal treaty, a covenant between himself and humanity which is agreed upon in unity of intention. Moses, not mentioned as filled with wisdom by the Spirit, still fulfilled the mantel of God’s authority before Pharaoh, Egypt, and Israel. Moses was honored with the image of God. Aaron, even after his blatant building of the golden calf, was still entreated with the title of spokesman and high priest. Jerimiah received unto himself the mantel of Moses, which was an expression of the active Spirit of God speaking through his lips to the nations. Abraham, flawed by poor judgment and reoccurring doubt and fear, still entered into this treaty and was described as the friend of God. David, who fell to the depths of deceit and murder, was known as a man after God’s own heart.
Jesus, when approached by a certain ruler who called Jesus “good master”, instantly corrected that ruler’s understanding of Jesus by saying, “Why callest me good? None is good, save one-God”.[35] Even Jesus himself was the lesser vassal who willing entered into the suzerain-vassal treaty, achieving unity with the greater. Jesus made this plain through his own words saying, If you love me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”.[36] The way of Jesus was the correct way which was willingness, obedience, and a proper understanding of God’s requirements for covenant. The truth found in Jesus was the man-(ʾĕlōhim) image presented to the world. Jesus was unified with the one-God that was good and Jesus’s life was a reflection of that truth in action. Jesus made this truth from the one-God clear by saying, “he that has seen me has seen the Father”.[37] The life of Jesus was the expression of God’s life in unity with Jesus. It was real life, secure life, a God-life. Jesus made it clear to us that no man can unto the Father, as Jesus had, apart from how Jesus did it.
The Apostle Paul declares us as Christ’s ambassadors (nabhi), declaring the image of God in Christ, and if we cloth ourselves with the teaching and example of Christ, then “we” become more like the image of God (imago dei), man-(ʾĕlōhim), suzerain vassals treaty members in this covenant offered from a holy and benevolent God who loves us. This promise of oneness is offered to “all flesh”, and perhaps this is why God said that the creation of mankind was good. Mankind was the vessel through which God’s goodness would enter in and be displayed for all to see.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Bulgakov, Sergeæi Nikolaevich. The Lamb of God. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007.
Dyrness, William A. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998.
Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011.
Holladay, William L. 1966. “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1): 17–27.
Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1964.
[1] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 600.
[2] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 601.
[3] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 521.
[4] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 521.
[5] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 111.
[6] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 111.
[7] Num. 12:3 (NIV).
[8] Ex. 34:29 (NIV).
[9] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 112.
[10] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 113.
[12] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 24.
[13] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 25.
[14] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 27.
[15] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 11.
[16] Walter Brueggemann, “Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 13.
[17] Walter Brueggemann, “Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 13
[18] William C. Williams; Stanley M. Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, (Springfield, Missouri: Logion Press/Gospel Pub. House, 2003), 11.
[19] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 71.
[20] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 71.
[21] John 14:11 (KJV).
[22] Col. 2:9 (KJV).
[23] I Cor. (ESV).
[24] Gen. 1:26-27 (ESV).
[25] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 92.
[26] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 267.
[27] J.A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament, (London: Tyndale Press, 1964), 58.
[28] George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, The Biblical Archaeologist, 17, no. 3 (1954): 304.
[29] Nikolaevich Sergeaei Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2007), 33.
[30] Bulgakov, “’The Lamb of God,’” 34.
[31] Bulgakov, “’The Lamb of God,’” 37.
[32] George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, The Biblical Archaeologist, 17, no. 3 (1954): 692.
[33] William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, (Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998.), 207.
[34] Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 208.
[35] Luke 8:19 (KJV).
[36] John 14:28 (NIV).
[37] John 14:9 (NIV).
Thesnomanreport 