More than any other of the Gospel writers, John alludes to the temple theme as it relates to Jesus Christ. I have referenced some of this in prior posts, but I will pull together briefly in this post the way that John draws attention to this theme.
The Gospel opens with connections to the first chapter of Genesis ("In the beginning" followed by references to the Word as the agent of creation and as the source of all life). As we pointed out in an earlier post, Genesis 1 portrays God as constructing his temple and appointing his priests. More explicitly, John boldly pulls in the temple theme at verse 14, where he says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." As is pointed out by many commenters on this text, the word translated "dwelt" is not the usual one that would be expected to convey this idea. The word contains the idea of pitching a tent. Some go so far as to translate it "tabernacled," which makes for a rather ugly English verb. That said, the verse continues, "...and we have seen his glory...." The combination of the idea of pitching a tent with the reference to witnessing divine glory clearly alludes to Exodus 40:33-34, where Moses finishes the work of tabernacle construction and "the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle." Of interest, the theme of glory becomes prominent throughout John's Gospel. Perhaps counterintuitively, John frequently associates Jesus' glory with his humiliation and suffering.
At the end of John 1, Jesus has a conversation with his new disciple Nathaniel, in which Christ promises that "you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." This is a reference by which Jesus associates himself with Genesis 28 and Jacob's vision of a ladder from heaven. The dream resulted in Jacob receiving from God a reaffirmation of the promises made to Abraham. In response, Jacob built an altar and named the place Bethel, which means house of God.
In John 2, Jesus claims authority over the temple by cleansing it, driving out the money changers. Following that event, in verse 19 Jesus explicitly refers to himself as a temple, declaring, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
In John 4, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well that if she asks he would give her "living water....a spring of water welling up to eternal life." This associates Jesus with the river that emerges from the temple in Ezekiel 47 and becomes a spring of life that enlivens the Dead Sea. Jesus proceeds to tell her, beginning with verse 21, that because he has come, that true worship is not determined by the location of a physical mountain (including the temple mount in Jerusalem) but has been reoriented by the coming of the Messiah.
Finally (for purposes of this post), in John 7 at the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus again associated himself with the temple, crying out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" Though Jesus cites Scripture as a background source for this saying, he is not actually quoting any statement from the Old Testament. However, once again, his listeners would have caught the clear reference to the living water of Ezekiel 47.
Cumulatively, these statements and citations provide an impressive testimony to the reality of Jesus as the true temple who had come.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Thursday, October 18, 2018
A Pause to Ruminate on the Temple Study
In exchanges with readers of this blog and in personal conversations about the way the Bible unveils the temple theme, even many mature Christians have said that they were learning things that they had never come across before, both with regard to the relationship between Solomon's temple and the creation account of Genesis 1-3 and also to the fulfillment of the temple motif in the person and work of Jesus Christ. These conversations have not been surprising to me, as much of it was new to me when I began studying this about 5 years ago. Once the material was introduced to me, its presence in the Scripture became so obvious that I was disappointed that I had missed it before, and I also wondered that I had never come across it with various teachers and pastors in the past.
If that ignorance on my part was isolated to a single subject -- and to me -- that might not mean much; however, I fear it is indicative of a larger failure of the church with regard to the Old Testament. If I may be provocative, I will suggest that the typical evangelical and reformed approach to the Old Testament often leads to the same results for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees -- and his hesitant to believe disciples. Jesus pointed to a different way of reading the Old Testament that is consistent with the way we have developed thoughts regarding the temple.
Thus, though the Pharisees were regarded in their day as experts on their Bibles (the Old Testament to Christians), Jesus inveighed against their ignorance, telling them that they searched the Scriptures "because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life....Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:39ff.). Jesus here is declaring a close connection between Old Testament teaching and his incarnation that fails to translate to the way that it is taught in many evangelical pulpits and Sunday School classes. Yet, this is also the way that Jesus consistently taught, with Luke explaining that Jesus addressed the depression and doubt of the disciples on their way to Emmaus by opening the Scriptures and pointing to how they showed forth Christ's sufferings and resurrection. This is also the way Christians used the Old Testament throughout the book of Acts.
Even entire Gospels are structured in this way. Thus, Matthew's gospel is organized such as to point to Jesus as the fulfillment of the true Israel by emphasizing the parallels between the life of Jesus and the history of the nation. Thus, chapter 1 begins with a genealogy that shows Jesus as descending from Abraham. In chapter 2, he goes down to Egypt, just as Israel, and is called out by God (words from Hosea are cited as prophetic of this typology). In chapter 3, he is delivered through the waters of baptism (Israel, the Red Sea), and in chapter 4 he experiences his own wandering in the wilderness, succeeding in overcoming Satan where Israel -- and Adam in Eden before them -- had failed. Following this, Jesus announces that the Kingdom is at hand, and he takes his disciples to a Mountain. Unlike Moses, who delivered the 10 Commandments from Mount Sinai, Jesus pronounced blessings -- the beatitudes -- before explaining what life would look like in a kingdom founded by the One who had come to fulfill the Law.
All of this is to say that the New Testament looks at the Old in a Christ-centered way, or to use current terminology, in a redemptive-historical sort of way. This means that the progress of the history of redemption is the dominant theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and reading the Bible properly requires that the interpreter keep the history of redemption motif in mind at all times. We read the Old Testament in light of the Christ event, and we should not read it in a way that neglects to take note of the fact that the Messiah has come.
Most of us, I fear, were not taught to read the Bible in this way. We probably learned to link the Old Testament sacrificial system to the crucifixion, but if we got much beyond that we did better than most. The study that we have done of the temple is just one aspect of an interpretive approach that can be taken to many other Old Testament ideas, themes and events. Doing this enriches our understanding of the person and work of Christ. The coming of Jesus was not a sudden surprise in the biblical story: it is the point of the whole thing from the start. Understanding this opens up grand vistas in our reading of the biblical accounts while also affirming both the unity and diversity of Scripture.
Please don't misunderstand: this is not to say that when we read our Bibles we find Jesus in every passage of Scripture. You don't need to try to find Jesus under every bush. However, most of us would benefit from learning to think about the Old Testament in the way that Jesus and the New Testament writers did.
A few months ago, a prominent evangelical pastor made waves with statements that modern Christians need to "unhitch" the Old Testament from their faith -- he seemed to buy into the caricature that the Old Testament is a dark, legalistic story. While it is easy to focus on his misunderstanding of the Old Testament, I was most struck by his utter ignorance of the New. Nearly every passage of the New Testament has roots in the Old, and to "unhitch" Christianity from the Old Testament, correctly understood, is to lose Christianity altogether. I am saddened that his sheep have such an incompetent shepherd.
While that pastor's prominence makes his situation sad and pathetic, many of us that sit in pews have also been taught only truncated understandings of the Old Testament. For pastors to teach it -- and congregants to learn it -- in a Christ centered, redemptive historical way is a great need of our day.
By the way, I should give credit where credit is due. Much of my understanding of this temple theme follows the thought of Greg Beale, whose The Temple and the Church's Mission was a great eye opener to me. Anyone that has read Beale will see his influence in what I have written. Biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline have also helped in the development of my thinking. These, of course, are all serious theologians. I am just a scribbler.
If that ignorance on my part was isolated to a single subject -- and to me -- that might not mean much; however, I fear it is indicative of a larger failure of the church with regard to the Old Testament. If I may be provocative, I will suggest that the typical evangelical and reformed approach to the Old Testament often leads to the same results for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees -- and his hesitant to believe disciples. Jesus pointed to a different way of reading the Old Testament that is consistent with the way we have developed thoughts regarding the temple.
Thus, though the Pharisees were regarded in their day as experts on their Bibles (the Old Testament to Christians), Jesus inveighed against their ignorance, telling them that they searched the Scriptures "because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life....Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (Jn 5:39ff.). Jesus here is declaring a close connection between Old Testament teaching and his incarnation that fails to translate to the way that it is taught in many evangelical pulpits and Sunday School classes. Yet, this is also the way that Jesus consistently taught, with Luke explaining that Jesus addressed the depression and doubt of the disciples on their way to Emmaus by opening the Scriptures and pointing to how they showed forth Christ's sufferings and resurrection. This is also the way Christians used the Old Testament throughout the book of Acts.
Even entire Gospels are structured in this way. Thus, Matthew's gospel is organized such as to point to Jesus as the fulfillment of the true Israel by emphasizing the parallels between the life of Jesus and the history of the nation. Thus, chapter 1 begins with a genealogy that shows Jesus as descending from Abraham. In chapter 2, he goes down to Egypt, just as Israel, and is called out by God (words from Hosea are cited as prophetic of this typology). In chapter 3, he is delivered through the waters of baptism (Israel, the Red Sea), and in chapter 4 he experiences his own wandering in the wilderness, succeeding in overcoming Satan where Israel -- and Adam in Eden before them -- had failed. Following this, Jesus announces that the Kingdom is at hand, and he takes his disciples to a Mountain. Unlike Moses, who delivered the 10 Commandments from Mount Sinai, Jesus pronounced blessings -- the beatitudes -- before explaining what life would look like in a kingdom founded by the One who had come to fulfill the Law.
All of this is to say that the New Testament looks at the Old in a Christ-centered way, or to use current terminology, in a redemptive-historical sort of way. This means that the progress of the history of redemption is the dominant theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and reading the Bible properly requires that the interpreter keep the history of redemption motif in mind at all times. We read the Old Testament in light of the Christ event, and we should not read it in a way that neglects to take note of the fact that the Messiah has come.
Most of us, I fear, were not taught to read the Bible in this way. We probably learned to link the Old Testament sacrificial system to the crucifixion, but if we got much beyond that we did better than most. The study that we have done of the temple is just one aspect of an interpretive approach that can be taken to many other Old Testament ideas, themes and events. Doing this enriches our understanding of the person and work of Christ. The coming of Jesus was not a sudden surprise in the biblical story: it is the point of the whole thing from the start. Understanding this opens up grand vistas in our reading of the biblical accounts while also affirming both the unity and diversity of Scripture.
Please don't misunderstand: this is not to say that when we read our Bibles we find Jesus in every passage of Scripture. You don't need to try to find Jesus under every bush. However, most of us would benefit from learning to think about the Old Testament in the way that Jesus and the New Testament writers did.
A few months ago, a prominent evangelical pastor made waves with statements that modern Christians need to "unhitch" the Old Testament from their faith -- he seemed to buy into the caricature that the Old Testament is a dark, legalistic story. While it is easy to focus on his misunderstanding of the Old Testament, I was most struck by his utter ignorance of the New. Nearly every passage of the New Testament has roots in the Old, and to "unhitch" Christianity from the Old Testament, correctly understood, is to lose Christianity altogether. I am saddened that his sheep have such an incompetent shepherd.
While that pastor's prominence makes his situation sad and pathetic, many of us that sit in pews have also been taught only truncated understandings of the Old Testament. For pastors to teach it -- and congregants to learn it -- in a Christ centered, redemptive historical way is a great need of our day.
By the way, I should give credit where credit is due. Much of my understanding of this temple theme follows the thought of Greg Beale, whose The Temple and the Church's Mission was a great eye opener to me. Anyone that has read Beale will see his influence in what I have written. Biblical theologians such as Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline have also helped in the development of my thinking. These, of course, are all serious theologians. I am just a scribbler.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Looking again at Ezekiel's Temple
The first post of this series on the temple motif in the Bible looked at the lengthy description of Ezekiel's temple vision in chapters 40 through 48. That post pointed out that many modern Christians look forward to the literal rebuilding of that temple as part of some future millennial kingdom. However, the study we have engaged in suggests a different way of understanding Ezekiel's vision, and internal cues from the Ezekiel text provide further reasons for not looking for a future building of what Ezekiel describes.
This study has repeatedly pointed out the relationship of Old Testament temple building to God's covenant making activity with his people and ultimately with the coming of the true temple, Jesus Christ. Thus, while the focus has been on Old Testament passages and events, we have looked forward to New Testament passages and themes that point to Christ (and the church) as the fulfillment of Old Testament temple building activity. Thus, the tabernacle and Jerusalem temples provide the types; Christ is the anti-type fulfilling what the type pointed to. Since the fulfillment has come, it is difficult to understand why an end times temple envisioned by Ezekiel would be constructed when the fulfillment toward which these temples point has already come. To look for a newly built temple of biblical prophesy has the effect of ignoring the person and work of Christ.
Of course, some people dislike this form of "spiritualizing" the biblical text and call instead for a more literal one, but I plead not guilty. The problem is not that other interpreters are more literal; the problem is that they misunderstand what the true temple is. This author is not spiritualizing when he points to Christ as the true temple fulfilling the biblical types -- that is the literal rendering of the New Testament. Christ is the real temple -- the Old Testament buildings are the allegorical types. Reading it in the opposite way fails to see the pattern of promise and fulfillment between the Old Testament and New and, again, thematically diminishes the fundamental importance of the work of Christ.
This way of looking at Ezekiel's temple is confirmed by the most likely reading of Ezekiel's text itself. It should be noted that Ezekiel has a vision of a massive fully formed temple. It is a vision, and unlike the building projects for the tabernacle or Solomon's temple, there are no instructions for how it would be brought about. The measurements of the temple are so grand as to be geographically impossible. While it is true, as some argue, that God could alter the geography, that seems to miss the implications of the text. It is not that geography can be changed; geography is irrelevant to the vision. Thus, looking beyond the temple itself to the surrounding area, the division of the land described by Ezekiel is accomplished through drawing straight lines on a map. This differs markedly from the division of the land at the time of the conquest of Canaan, which required careful descriptions of squiggly lines based on the locations of mountains, rivers, and villages. All of this geographic detail is irrelevant to Ezekiel's vision, because Ezekiel's vision is typological prophecy, not literal construction.
That being the case, it is not hard to understand the symbolism involved in Ezekiel's temple. I won't take the time to go through all of these elements, but a few examples should suffice. The massive size of the temple points to an expanded role and people, a theme associated with temples going all of the way back to the Garden of Eden and that will also mark the final garden temple of Revelation 21. The purpose of massive walls in the ancient world was to keep out intruders, and in a temple context the point would be safety from defilement.
Ezekiel 47 has one of the most significant passages -- and most loved by this blogger -- of symbolic import. A small trickle of water emerges from underneath the temple, pointing to its divine origin and nature. It flows eastward, growing into a mighty river that ultimately plunges into the Dead Sea, bringing life giving power to that Sea, which becomes a body full of life -- without destroying the natural bounty associated with its minerals. If the association with the coming and life giving accomplishment of Christ are not clear from this passage alone, they become clear when they are alluded to (without directly quoting) by Jesus himself in the water passages of John 4 and John 7. To think that Ezekiel 47 awaits some literal future fulfillment removes the majestic fulfillment that has already been found in the Lord Jesus Christ.
My next post will provide some summary comments regarding this approach to reading the Old Testament, then we will move toward a consideration of some New Testament temple passages.
This study has repeatedly pointed out the relationship of Old Testament temple building to God's covenant making activity with his people and ultimately with the coming of the true temple, Jesus Christ. Thus, while the focus has been on Old Testament passages and events, we have looked forward to New Testament passages and themes that point to Christ (and the church) as the fulfillment of Old Testament temple building activity. Thus, the tabernacle and Jerusalem temples provide the types; Christ is the anti-type fulfilling what the type pointed to. Since the fulfillment has come, it is difficult to understand why an end times temple envisioned by Ezekiel would be constructed when the fulfillment toward which these temples point has already come. To look for a newly built temple of biblical prophesy has the effect of ignoring the person and work of Christ.
Of course, some people dislike this form of "spiritualizing" the biblical text and call instead for a more literal one, but I plead not guilty. The problem is not that other interpreters are more literal; the problem is that they misunderstand what the true temple is. This author is not spiritualizing when he points to Christ as the true temple fulfilling the biblical types -- that is the literal rendering of the New Testament. Christ is the real temple -- the Old Testament buildings are the allegorical types. Reading it in the opposite way fails to see the pattern of promise and fulfillment between the Old Testament and New and, again, thematically diminishes the fundamental importance of the work of Christ.
This way of looking at Ezekiel's temple is confirmed by the most likely reading of Ezekiel's text itself. It should be noted that Ezekiel has a vision of a massive fully formed temple. It is a vision, and unlike the building projects for the tabernacle or Solomon's temple, there are no instructions for how it would be brought about. The measurements of the temple are so grand as to be geographically impossible. While it is true, as some argue, that God could alter the geography, that seems to miss the implications of the text. It is not that geography can be changed; geography is irrelevant to the vision. Thus, looking beyond the temple itself to the surrounding area, the division of the land described by Ezekiel is accomplished through drawing straight lines on a map. This differs markedly from the division of the land at the time of the conquest of Canaan, which required careful descriptions of squiggly lines based on the locations of mountains, rivers, and villages. All of this geographic detail is irrelevant to Ezekiel's vision, because Ezekiel's vision is typological prophecy, not literal construction.
That being the case, it is not hard to understand the symbolism involved in Ezekiel's temple. I won't take the time to go through all of these elements, but a few examples should suffice. The massive size of the temple points to an expanded role and people, a theme associated with temples going all of the way back to the Garden of Eden and that will also mark the final garden temple of Revelation 21. The purpose of massive walls in the ancient world was to keep out intruders, and in a temple context the point would be safety from defilement.
Ezekiel 47 has one of the most significant passages -- and most loved by this blogger -- of symbolic import. A small trickle of water emerges from underneath the temple, pointing to its divine origin and nature. It flows eastward, growing into a mighty river that ultimately plunges into the Dead Sea, bringing life giving power to that Sea, which becomes a body full of life -- without destroying the natural bounty associated with its minerals. If the association with the coming and life giving accomplishment of Christ are not clear from this passage alone, they become clear when they are alluded to (without directly quoting) by Jesus himself in the water passages of John 4 and John 7. To think that Ezekiel 47 awaits some literal future fulfillment removes the majestic fulfillment that has already been found in the Lord Jesus Christ.
My next post will provide some summary comments regarding this approach to reading the Old Testament, then we will move toward a consideration of some New Testament temple passages.
Sunday, October 07, 2018
Temple 2.0
Solomon's magnificent temple was destroyed by the Babylonians along with the rest of the city of Jerusalem. While the Old Testament theocracy would never be restored, God did promise that 70 years later that the city would begin to be rebuilt and the people restored from exile. Part of that would involve the construction of a new temple.
The rebuilding of the walled city was an arduous task, and it is perhaps understandable that work on the temple was deferred, but at some point the delays indicated that priorities were misaligned, and through the prophet Haggai God chastised the people for giving considerable effort to building their houses while neglecting the house of God.
For those of advanced years that could remember when Solomon's temple had stood, the idea of recreating it may have seemed daunting for the people and resources that remained. Yet, to them God gave a promise that the glory of the latter house (the second temple) would be greater than the former.
In physical terms, this did not prove true, but careful consideration of the promises associated with Haggai's text will show that the glory referred to was not about the magnificence of the physical structure. Even the use of the word "glory" should point the reader in a different direction. How is "glory" used with regard to the other structures that predated the second temple?
When Moses and the people completed the tabernacle in Exodus 40, the glory of God in the form of a great cloud of smoke and fire filled the dwelling. When Solomon dedicated the temple upon its completion, the same appearance of the glory of God occurred. However, with the completion of the second temple there was no comparable physical manifestation of the glory of God recorded.
At least, no exactly comparable manifestation. However, a greater presence of God's glory would come to the second temple, when the true temple would come, the Word that became flesh and pitched his tent among us. With the arrival of Christ, one temple toward which all of the Old Testament structures had pointed had arrived in veiled glory. Though veiled by human flesh, it should be noted that Christ fulfilled not only the intention of the temple type -- he was the true temple -- but also of the priesthood -- he was the true high priest -- and the sacrificial system -- all of the sacrifices pointed ultimately to him. How did the glory of the second temple exceed what had come before? It was to that temple that the true temple, the true high priest, the true propitiatory sacrifice would come.
This is also the reason that the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D. did not result in the building of a third, because Christ's coming and triumph rendered all of the typological markers of the Old Covenant obsolete. There was no need for a new temple, new priesthood, or further sacrifices, because the fulfillment of all of these had come.
All of this brings us back to a consideration of the subject that this study began with: Ezekiel's temple vision. That will be the subject of the next post.
The rebuilding of the walled city was an arduous task, and it is perhaps understandable that work on the temple was deferred, but at some point the delays indicated that priorities were misaligned, and through the prophet Haggai God chastised the people for giving considerable effort to building their houses while neglecting the house of God.
For those of advanced years that could remember when Solomon's temple had stood, the idea of recreating it may have seemed daunting for the people and resources that remained. Yet, to them God gave a promise that the glory of the latter house (the second temple) would be greater than the former.
In physical terms, this did not prove true, but careful consideration of the promises associated with Haggai's text will show that the glory referred to was not about the magnificence of the physical structure. Even the use of the word "glory" should point the reader in a different direction. How is "glory" used with regard to the other structures that predated the second temple?
When Moses and the people completed the tabernacle in Exodus 40, the glory of God in the form of a great cloud of smoke and fire filled the dwelling. When Solomon dedicated the temple upon its completion, the same appearance of the glory of God occurred. However, with the completion of the second temple there was no comparable physical manifestation of the glory of God recorded.
At least, no exactly comparable manifestation. However, a greater presence of God's glory would come to the second temple, when the true temple would come, the Word that became flesh and pitched his tent among us. With the arrival of Christ, one temple toward which all of the Old Testament structures had pointed had arrived in veiled glory. Though veiled by human flesh, it should be noted that Christ fulfilled not only the intention of the temple type -- he was the true temple -- but also of the priesthood -- he was the true high priest -- and the sacrificial system -- all of the sacrifices pointed ultimately to him. How did the glory of the second temple exceed what had come before? It was to that temple that the true temple, the true high priest, the true propitiatory sacrifice would come.
This is also the reason that the destruction of the second temple in 70 A.D. did not result in the building of a third, because Christ's coming and triumph rendered all of the typological markers of the Old Covenant obsolete. There was no need for a new temple, new priesthood, or further sacrifices, because the fulfillment of all of these had come.
All of this brings us back to a consideration of the subject that this study began with: Ezekiel's temple vision. That will be the subject of the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)