The Types and Shadows of Christ
Hebrews 4
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
We must first understand that the way that God has determined to relate to His creation and creatures through out all of redemptive history has been through covenant. These covenants are specifically noted in scripture by the nature of the language used to describe how God has determined to either, condition the distribution of His blessings or to grant these blessings out of His own beneficence and because of His own accomplished Holiness. The former (which would include the covenants He made with Adam and Moses) resembles the type of treaty that kings and rulers made with people how would benefit from their relationship only if they fulfilled whatever stipulations the king had set up. The covenant was “cut” by the blood sacrifice of an animal and the two parties would pass between the severed halves, in essence saying, that if we do not uphold our part in the covenant, this which has happened to these animals will happen to us, it was the same for the recipients and the king; if either party didn’t fulfill those obligation placed on them, a severe consequence, often referred to as a curse, would befall the offending party. The later (which would include the covenant made with Abraham, David, and the New Covenant) resembles the type of “royal grant” which a king or ruler would grant unilateral blessing because of his gracious character and never dependant on the obedience of its recipients. In these cases, a substitute sacrifice would be made to “cut” the covenant and represent the means by which any offence to the king by the recipients would be justly absolved. In this type of covenant the beneficiary alone places the warning of curse on himself. Imagine the first covenant is like the relationship between Americans and our government, as long as we keep the stipulations of the law then we benefit from the protection of the government. The later type of covenant is more like a convicted felon receiving a presidential pardon.
Negative Polemic – What this passage doesn’t mean
I think the first thing to do as we discuss this passage is to define the “them” who are spoken of here. I believe that some have suggested that those spoken of here are the ethnic Jews with whom God will take up once again, the Mosaic economy some time in the future, thus fulfilling the land promises made to Abraham. Misunderstanding and confusing the two covenants, these men claim that what God promised to Abraham, He eventually started to fulfill in the covenant with Moses but upon Israel’s disobedience they were punished in exile and when Christ came as their Messiah to offer the kingdom to the nation of Israel they rejected Him so God brought salvation to the gentiles because of the disobedience of ethnic Israel and also to make them jealous. Though some of these views are true, it is nevertheless wrong to consider the “them” spoken of in verse 8 exclusively as ethnic Israelites. We have the full revelation of God from which to draw as we consider our interpretation of Old Testament passages and their reference in the New Testament. If we develop a comprehensive understanding of these covenants and their promises as we bring New Testament verses in to bear on their meaning we will come to the conclusion that the people being referred to by the author of Hebrews in this passage are the seed of Abraham, the true circumcision; this group spans all of redemptive history. That is why he can say that, “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God", and the Sabbath rest is that rest which is inaugurated in Christ’s first appearance and which will be consummated in His second coming.
Positive Polemic – What this passage does mean
I think that the actual point of Hebrews 4:8 is to say that Joshua did not give the people rest, at least not ultimate rest. Joshua in this verse (and as an historical person) represents the means by which God had Israel enter the physical land; the land is often referred to as a place where the people of God will find rest, but the physical land that was given by Joshua did not give the people rest upon their entry and it will not give a day of rest to anyone—in fact, once they entered the land they still had to keep the whole law in order to stay there—that is no rest at all. We find a striking similarity in the creation account where God establishes a pattern of six days of work and then rest. Take that rest for instance (a rest I believe to represent one of the blessings of the covenant between God and Adam), it was at the end of 6 days of work; God worked six days and then rested as if to say that, if Adam fulfilled the covenant obligations: don’t eat of this tree, then he would rest from his work at the end of the fulfillment of his obligations. The promise of rest is conditioned upon his obedience, an obedience for which God doesn’t say “I will fulfill the obligations of this covenant for you so that I may grant the covenantal promises to you.” This day of rest is not a future day when the nation of Israel will acquire rest in the physical land by having God fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant because of their obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. Actually, it is a future day of rest when God, because of Christ’s obedience to the stipulations of the Covenant of Life, fulfills the Abrahamic promises to his children in eternity.
Christ in all of creation
Even after the fall we get a vivid description of the covenant God made with Adam (the covenant of life) in creation—in the general revelation of God, there is no provision for the eternal salvation of the soul; no promise of resurrection; no grace for justification, in that revelation only law is presented which shows us that God exists and that His holiness condemns us—For this creation order, God instituted the seven day week, six days of work with the promise of rest on the seventh. In the Mosaic covenant, which was a reiteration of the covenant of life—not the covenant God made with Abraham. In the Mosaic Covenant, God instituted many Sabbaths, one of which was weekly—all of these Sabbaths ultimately point to the rest we find in Christ; they are types and shadows of Christ who is the archetype and substance. The fascinating thing is that point when the church, after the cross, changes the weekly day of worship to the first day of the week. So now we have a picture of a seven day week where the first day is a day of rest and then six days of work are to follow. I believe that this format pictures the conditionality of the Mosaic Covenant in which the first order of weekly Sabbath was set up—six days of work and then a day of rest; “Do all of these things and I will bless you”. But the opposite is true for the members of the New Covenant, the order of the weekly Sabbath was to begin with a day of rest and then go out to work the other six days, as if to say to the partakers of the New Covenant that, because you enjoy my spiritual rest you will indeed do good works as an identification of character. The circular nature of this cycle exposes the present need that all God’s children have to renew their faith in Christ every week, even daily in personal reading of the Word, but also in a special way once a week with the people of God where He meets us audibly in the proclamation of the Word and tacitly in the proclamation of His blood and body.
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant was very much one sided, God cut the animals in two and passed through them, God granted the promises and blessings of the covenant to Abraham and his seed because God Himself, in Christ, would fulfill the stipulations of the covenant. Understand that there were stipulations in that covenant, good works are demanded to be sure, and repentance and belief are the full revelation of those stipulations, but it remains unconditional because Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of God and His righteousness was “counted to Abraham before he was circumcised”, and because of the gracious unconditional nature of the covenant, Abraham’s subsequent love of God and ultimate desire to please Him (however small) was guaranteed. So, instead of “do this and you will live…” we hear, “I will do this, and you will live”; in the Abrahamic covenant we hear about another day later on to which the author of Hebrews refers. So my conclusion is that the later day is the day of Christ’s appearing, a day which was inaugurated in His incarnation and will be consummated in His second coming, when “the people of God” will find their ultimate rest.
I think that dispensationalists would disagree that there is an overarching theological interpretation of the Bible which suggests that the Old Testament saints never fully understood the meaning of many of the prophecies. Yes, as the Dispensationalist would agree, there was an historical grammatical interpretation to be understood; the prophecies did mean something to the Old Testament saints, but they often misunderstood their true meaning because God didn’t fully reveal it to them—there was yet a future, spiritual meaning to many of those prophesies. So in hindsight, the prophesies made in the Old Testament have great meaning for all who read them because they are telling the story of redemption, they are not simply subject to the historical grammatical interpretation. The pattern we actually see regarding revelation and our understanding of it is this: prophesy then fulfillment, and then understanding. Because I can’t say it any better, I quote Sam Waldron below,
“It is also relevant to note that a comprehensive hermeneutic must take into account the necessity of a theological interpretation of the Bible. The Bible has both a divine and human authorship. Historical-grammatical interpretation goes no further than the human authorship. It asks only what the original human author might or could have meant by what he wrote. The Bible affirms for itself in addition divine authorship. While what the divine author meant in any given passage will not contradict what the human authors meant, it must be obvious that the intention of the divine author could go considerably beyond what the human author meant or could have meant."
This theological interpretation may be what is sometimes referred to as the “analogy of faith”—scripture is keen on its own interpretation and the later revelation in time is profitable in the interpretation of the former.
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 9 & 10
“The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more clearly.
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.”
Hebrews 4
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
We must first understand that the way that God has determined to relate to His creation and creatures through out all of redemptive history has been through covenant. These covenants are specifically noted in scripture by the nature of the language used to describe how God has determined to either, condition the distribution of His blessings or to grant these blessings out of His own beneficence and because of His own accomplished Holiness. The former (which would include the covenants He made with Adam and Moses) resembles the type of treaty that kings and rulers made with people how would benefit from their relationship only if they fulfilled whatever stipulations the king had set up. The covenant was “cut” by the blood sacrifice of an animal and the two parties would pass between the severed halves, in essence saying, that if we do not uphold our part in the covenant, this which has happened to these animals will happen to us, it was the same for the recipients and the king; if either party didn’t fulfill those obligation placed on them, a severe consequence, often referred to as a curse, would befall the offending party. The later (which would include the covenant made with Abraham, David, and the New Covenant) resembles the type of “royal grant” which a king or ruler would grant unilateral blessing because of his gracious character and never dependant on the obedience of its recipients. In these cases, a substitute sacrifice would be made to “cut” the covenant and represent the means by which any offence to the king by the recipients would be justly absolved. In this type of covenant the beneficiary alone places the warning of curse on himself. Imagine the first covenant is like the relationship between Americans and our government, as long as we keep the stipulations of the law then we benefit from the protection of the government. The later type of covenant is more like a convicted felon receiving a presidential pardon.
Negative Polemic – What this passage doesn’t mean
I think the first thing to do as we discuss this passage is to define the “them” who are spoken of here. I believe that some have suggested that those spoken of here are the ethnic Jews with whom God will take up once again, the Mosaic economy some time in the future, thus fulfilling the land promises made to Abraham. Misunderstanding and confusing the two covenants, these men claim that what God promised to Abraham, He eventually started to fulfill in the covenant with Moses but upon Israel’s disobedience they were punished in exile and when Christ came as their Messiah to offer the kingdom to the nation of Israel they rejected Him so God brought salvation to the gentiles because of the disobedience of ethnic Israel and also to make them jealous. Though some of these views are true, it is nevertheless wrong to consider the “them” spoken of in verse 8 exclusively as ethnic Israelites. We have the full revelation of God from which to draw as we consider our interpretation of Old Testament passages and their reference in the New Testament. If we develop a comprehensive understanding of these covenants and their promises as we bring New Testament verses in to bear on their meaning we will come to the conclusion that the people being referred to by the author of Hebrews in this passage are the seed of Abraham, the true circumcision; this group spans all of redemptive history. That is why he can say that, “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God", and the Sabbath rest is that rest which is inaugurated in Christ’s first appearance and which will be consummated in His second coming.
Positive Polemic – What this passage does mean
I think that the actual point of Hebrews 4:8 is to say that Joshua did not give the people rest, at least not ultimate rest. Joshua in this verse (and as an historical person) represents the means by which God had Israel enter the physical land; the land is often referred to as a place where the people of God will find rest, but the physical land that was given by Joshua did not give the people rest upon their entry and it will not give a day of rest to anyone—in fact, once they entered the land they still had to keep the whole law in order to stay there—that is no rest at all. We find a striking similarity in the creation account where God establishes a pattern of six days of work and then rest. Take that rest for instance (a rest I believe to represent one of the blessings of the covenant between God and Adam), it was at the end of 6 days of work; God worked six days and then rested as if to say that, if Adam fulfilled the covenant obligations: don’t eat of this tree, then he would rest from his work at the end of the fulfillment of his obligations. The promise of rest is conditioned upon his obedience, an obedience for which God doesn’t say “I will fulfill the obligations of this covenant for you so that I may grant the covenantal promises to you.” This day of rest is not a future day when the nation of Israel will acquire rest in the physical land by having God fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant because of their obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. Actually, it is a future day of rest when God, because of Christ’s obedience to the stipulations of the Covenant of Life, fulfills the Abrahamic promises to his children in eternity.
Christ in all of creation
Even after the fall we get a vivid description of the covenant God made with Adam (the covenant of life) in creation—in the general revelation of God, there is no provision for the eternal salvation of the soul; no promise of resurrection; no grace for justification, in that revelation only law is presented which shows us that God exists and that His holiness condemns us—For this creation order, God instituted the seven day week, six days of work with the promise of rest on the seventh. In the Mosaic covenant, which was a reiteration of the covenant of life—not the covenant God made with Abraham. In the Mosaic Covenant, God instituted many Sabbaths, one of which was weekly—all of these Sabbaths ultimately point to the rest we find in Christ; they are types and shadows of Christ who is the archetype and substance. The fascinating thing is that point when the church, after the cross, changes the weekly day of worship to the first day of the week. So now we have a picture of a seven day week where the first day is a day of rest and then six days of work are to follow. I believe that this format pictures the conditionality of the Mosaic Covenant in which the first order of weekly Sabbath was set up—six days of work and then a day of rest; “Do all of these things and I will bless you”. But the opposite is true for the members of the New Covenant, the order of the weekly Sabbath was to begin with a day of rest and then go out to work the other six days, as if to say to the partakers of the New Covenant that, because you enjoy my spiritual rest you will indeed do good works as an identification of character. The circular nature of this cycle exposes the present need that all God’s children have to renew their faith in Christ every week, even daily in personal reading of the Word, but also in a special way once a week with the people of God where He meets us audibly in the proclamation of the Word and tacitly in the proclamation of His blood and body.
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant was very much one sided, God cut the animals in two and passed through them, God granted the promises and blessings of the covenant to Abraham and his seed because God Himself, in Christ, would fulfill the stipulations of the covenant. Understand that there were stipulations in that covenant, good works are demanded to be sure, and repentance and belief are the full revelation of those stipulations, but it remains unconditional because Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of God and His righteousness was “counted to Abraham before he was circumcised”, and because of the gracious unconditional nature of the covenant, Abraham’s subsequent love of God and ultimate desire to please Him (however small) was guaranteed. So, instead of “do this and you will live…” we hear, “I will do this, and you will live”; in the Abrahamic covenant we hear about another day later on to which the author of Hebrews refers. So my conclusion is that the later day is the day of Christ’s appearing, a day which was inaugurated in His incarnation and will be consummated in His second coming, when “the people of God” will find their ultimate rest.
I think that dispensationalists would disagree that there is an overarching theological interpretation of the Bible which suggests that the Old Testament saints never fully understood the meaning of many of the prophecies. Yes, as the Dispensationalist would agree, there was an historical grammatical interpretation to be understood; the prophecies did mean something to the Old Testament saints, but they often misunderstood their true meaning because God didn’t fully reveal it to them—there was yet a future, spiritual meaning to many of those prophesies. So in hindsight, the prophesies made in the Old Testament have great meaning for all who read them because they are telling the story of redemption, they are not simply subject to the historical grammatical interpretation. The pattern we actually see regarding revelation and our understanding of it is this: prophesy then fulfillment, and then understanding. Because I can’t say it any better, I quote Sam Waldron below,
“It is also relevant to note that a comprehensive hermeneutic must take into account the necessity of a theological interpretation of the Bible. The Bible has both a divine and human authorship. Historical-grammatical interpretation goes no further than the human authorship. It asks only what the original human author might or could have meant by what he wrote. The Bible affirms for itself in addition divine authorship. While what the divine author meant in any given passage will not contradict what the human authors meant, it must be obvious that the intention of the divine author could go considerably beyond what the human author meant or could have meant."
This theological interpretation may be what is sometimes referred to as the “analogy of faith”—scripture is keen on its own interpretation and the later revelation in time is profitable in the interpretation of the former.
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 9 & 10
“The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more clearly.
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.”
No comments:
Post a Comment