Skip to content

8

Jesus... saved a people out of the land of Egypt. (Jude 5)

That's Exodus in 10 words.

Let me give a more expanded but less inspired version.  I will focus on the who of Exodus rather than the what.  My attention will not be on Moses or Pharoah or the plagues or the Red Sea or the law or the tabernacle - that can be for another time.  I happen to think there's a more fundamental issue to tackle: Who is the LORD who redeems Israel?  Given that this is precisely how the God of the Old Testament defines Himself  - 'the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt' - getting this question right will be absolutely crucial.

We begin at the non-burning bush - Exodus 3.

burning bush

Here the Angel of the LORD (v2) confronts Moses. This Sent One from the LORD is "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (v6).  (Note that Jacob agrees - the God of His fathers is the Angel: Gen 48:15f).  The Sent One calls Himself “I AM WHO I AM.” (v14)

Note: When Jesus, in His incarnate ministry, calls Himself “I AM” (for e.g. John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-8) He is not saying that He's closely related to the God of the Exodus.  He is the God of the Exodus.

This is important to note because verse 12 may just be the book's theme sentence:

He said, "But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain." (Ex 3:12)

The Angel does not say “God will go with you and you will worship God.” Nor does He say “I will go with you and you will worship Me.”  No, the Angel is the saving LORD (see Judges 2:1-5) and He relates the people to Another.  Jesus saves a people and brings them to worship God on the mountain.  The Son redeems a people for the Father.  That is what Exodus is all about.  And the rest of the book is the playing out of this truth.

pillar cloud

As the people come out of Egypt - there He is in the pillar of cloud/fire.  At one point He's called the LORD (13:21,22) at another, 'the Angel of God' (14:19,20).  The Sent One who is God is the redeeming LORD.

When He carries them on eagles wings to the mountain (as promised) He makes sure they are prepared to meet the LORD:

The LORD [who carried Israel on eagle's wings - v4] said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, 'Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death.  (Ex 19:10-12)

Here the LORD is on the mountain warning the people about how dangerous it will be when the LORD meets them on the mountain.  If this were some unitarian god it would be strange talk indeed but we know that the divine Angel is the LORD who is bringing them to meet God (the Father) on the mountain (Ex 3:12).

As Deuteronomy 4 and 5 underline, the encounter on Sinai was utterly unique (e.g. Deut 4:15; 5:26).

giving law

No-one had ever heard 'the living God' speaking out of fire on the mountain as they did on that third day.  Of course Moses had heard the I AM speaking out of fire on that very mountain (Exodus 3).  But this is different.  This is the unseen LORD.  This is the Most High God and it has taken 70 chapters of the bible - it has taken the mighty redemption of the Angel - to make this kind of encouter possible.

And just when you thought Exodus might finish in chapter 19, the people don't actually go up the mountain at the trumpet blast (Ex 19:13).  Instead Moses goes up on their behalf (cf Deut 5:27).  Everything will now be presented by intermediaries, shadows, types.  For the second half of the book it's mainly Moses on the mountain, in the cloud, receiving the law and the tabernacle blueprint from the unseen LORD.

Attention turns to the future as the unseen LORD promises Moses that the Angel will continue to deliver them (Ex 23:20-23).  They can trust Him because the name of the unseen LORD is in Him (Ex 23:21).  The Angel commands, leads and forgives the Israelites.

Perhaps Moses wasn't listening at this point because in 33:12 he says:

"See, you say to me, 'Bring up this people,' but you have not let me know whom you will send with me."

The unseen LORD replies: "My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." (v14)  The word 'Presence' is the word for face and it recalls a very memorable phrase from the previous chapter.

In Exodus 33:7-11 we hear about what used to happen.  We leave the mountain-top briefly to be told how Moses used to meet with the LORD down on ground level.  At that time he'd go to the tent of meeting and speak with the LORD "face to face as a man speaks with his friend."

That was the 'face to face' LORD at ground level.  But when Moses is on the mountain, the unseen LORD reassures Moses that the Face (Presence) would continue to go with them.  Moses considers this to be absolutely essential - if the Presence doesn't go with them he'd rather just perish in the wilderness (v15).  Give me Jesus or give me death!

Having been encouraged greatly, Moses is now bold enough to ask something with echoes of Philip's request in John 14.  Now he wants to see the glory of the unseen LORD (v18)!  The LORD’s reply is very telling: He would pass in front of Moses, He would proclaim His name, but, 33:20, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Again in v22 He emphasizes “my face must not be seen.”

Now Moses is not an idiot.  He's just recounted the incident in the tent of meeting (33:7-11) for a reason.  He's deliberately distinguishing the ground-level appearing LORD with the mountain-top unseen LORD.  But distinguishing them so as to intimately relate them.

Because as soon as Moses hears the name of the Unseen LORD (Ex 34:5-7) he exclaims:

"If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us." (Ex 34:9)

When he hears the name of the Most High God he asks Him to send the Lord in their midst.  The name of the LORD is in the Angel who is in their midst (Ex 23:21).  So when Moses hears this gospel character he knows he's experienced this very name in the Angel.  The seen LORD is everything that the unseen LORD proclaims when He reveals His name.  And so Moses asks the Father to send the Son in their midst - the redeeming Lord-from-Lord.

Moses’ plea of 34:9 is granted and, at the end of Exodus, the Glory / Presence / LORD fills the tabernacle and directs all their travels (40:34-38).

pillar cloud tabernacle

We see throughout the Old Testament that this promise of the Presence of the LORD being in the midst of His people was kept. Numbers 9:15-23 is one example of many showing the seen LORD going in the midst of His people.  Number 14 tells us that even the surrounding nations knew that the Face-to-Face LORD travelled with the Israelites and fought for them (v13ff).  When Solomon finally builds a Temple for the Name of the LORD, the LORD fills it in exactly the same way as He filled the tabernacle in Exodus 40. This LORD appears to Solomon in 1 Kings 9 and to Isaiah in chapter 6. If we were in any doubt as to who this Divine Person is, the Apostle John settles all dispute: “Isaiah said this [Isaiah 6] because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him.” (John 12:41)

In the fulness of time this LORD - this Angel of the covenant, this sought after and desired Redeemer - would come in a definitive judgement and salvation (Mal 3:1ff).

Jesus has always been the saving, ground-level, appearing LORD, mediating perfectly the saving plan and character of His Father.  Jude was speaking absolutely plainly and straightforwardly - Jesus is the LORD who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt.  In other words He is the God of the Old Testament.  Exodus is a wonderful demonstration of this foundational truth.

.

... the ultimate plague (i.e. judgement)  (Ex 11:1)

... judgement upon the gods (Ex 12:12)

... the defeat of the Enemy (Ex 6:1)

... liberation from slavery to overlords (Ex 13:14)

... liberation to the service of the LORD (Ex 8:1)

... the cause of unparalleled sorrow for the enemies (Ex 11:6)

... the cause of great joy for the redeemed (2 Chron 30:21)

... the distinction between the LORD's people and the world (Ex 11:7)

... in darkness (Deut 16:6)

... a sacrifice (Ex 12:27)

... substitutionary (Ex 12:13)

... bloody (Ex 12:13)

... a sign for the LORD's people (Ex 12:13)

... for the LORD Himself to see (Ex 12:13)

... to be memorialized in perpetuity (Ex 12:14)

... community-defining (Ex 12:47)

... open to non-covenant people (Ex 12:49)  but...

... for those who enter the covenant and own its sign (Ex 12:48)

... time renewing (Ex 12:1)

... the ultimate revelation of the LORD (Ex 6:7)

 Any more??

 

What is the cross?  The same.

.

I just finished a preaching group where a fine preacher gave a fine talk on Judges 14.  At the end he included a sentence about 'another Saviour who came to deliver His people eternally'.  That sort of thing.   He didn't make anything of the point and he didn't mention the name 'Jesus', but he included the sentence.

During the feedback session I asked him in as non-leading a way as possible, "Why did you include that sentence about Jesus?" 

Quick as a flash another student answered "Because we're supposed to." 

Let me ask:

Do we preach Christ from the OT "because we're supposed to" or because the Hebrew Scriptures are already and inherently a witness to Christ? 

Is the 'Jesus bit' a token effort to fulfil some preaching requirement?  Or is Jesus actually witnessed in and through the passage? 

Is Jesus as incidental to the proclamation of this passage as those terrible jokes that are also tacked on?

Is it the preacher's job to 'bridge to Christ'?  Or has God's word already done a good job of that?

Is Jesus forced into our sermons?  Or is He present as the Ground, Grammar and Goal of the whole Scripture?

Congregations can really tell the difference between the former and the latter.

Churches where the former is the common practice often produce Christians who know that Jesus is very important.  But they're not so sure why. 

Preachers that follow this model can start to think that Jesus is a homiletical necessity, but not so much a spiritual one.  So when they speak of God's sovereignty, the importance of holiness, the necessity of prayer, they give powerful illustrations and pointed applications.  For these 'main points' of their sermon it's aged wine and the best of meats.  But then at the end they give their people Jesus as though He's cod liver oil.  Out of the blue, unappetising, supposedly good for you but we're not quite sure why.

Know what I mean?

.

I just finished a preaching group where a fine preacher gave a fine talk on Judges 14.  At the end he included a sentence about 'another Saviour who came to deliver His people eternally'.  That sort of thing.   He didn't make anything of the point and he didn't mention the name 'Jesus', but he included the sentence.

During the feedback session I asked him in as non-leading a way as possible, "Why did you include that sentence about Jesus?" 

Quick as a flash another student answered "Because we're supposed to." 

Let me ask:

Do we preach Christ from the OT "because we're supposed to" or because the Hebrew Scriptures are already and inherently a witness to Christ? 

Is the 'Jesus bit' a token effort to fulfil some preaching requirement?  Or is Jesus actually witnessed in and through the passage? 

Is Jesus as incidental to the proclamation of this passage as those terrible jokes that are also tacked on?

Is it the preacher's job to 'bridge to Christ'?  Or has God's word already done a good job of that?

Is Jesus forced into our sermons?  Or is He present as the Ground, Grammar and Goal of the whole Scripture?

Congregations can really tell the difference between the former and the latter.

Churches where the former is the common practice often produce Christians who know that Jesus is very important.  But they're not so sure why. 

Preachers that follow this model can start to think that Jesus is a homiletical necessity, but not so much a spiritual one.  So when they speak of God's sovereignty, the importance of holiness, the necessity of prayer, they give powerful illustrations and pointed applications.  For these 'main points' of their sermon it's aged wine and the best of meats.  But then at the end they give their people Jesus as though He's cod liver oil.  Out of the blue, unappetising, supposedly good for you but we're not quite sure why.

Know what I mean?

.

Have you heard about this guy Paul Blackham?  Apparently he's into the whole Jesus in the OT thing too.

;-)

Check out the body language as he switches between talking about the two views.  The first half is a brilliant impression of Kurtz in Apocalypse Now

The horror...  The horror...

Watch here.

.

17

These are my concluding thoughts for a blog discussion here

So for the three of you who know what I'm referring to...

 

Here's what the discussion is not about:

It's not about progress of knowledge.

It's not about trust in Messianic prophecies.

Those are important questions for another time.

 

Here's what I am not saying:

I am not by any means saying that the Angel is the only title by which Christ is known in the OT.

Neither am I saying that every divine Person of the OT is Christ (the Appearing LORD reveals God Most High in the power of the Spirit).

I am not saying that Christophanies are the only or even the main way by which Christ was present to the OT saints (there were also the promises and types).

I am not saying that everyone who had true faith had to have met the pre-incarnate Christ.

I am not saying that conscious faith in the Mediator stands or falls on an identification of the Angel as Christ.

 

 

What I am saying:

The Angel who is both of the LORD and is the LORD was correctly identified by OT authors and saints.  This shows that they had a trinitarian conceptuality able to identify the distinct, divine Person of the Mediator. 

The Angel - the Sent, Appearing God from God - can be none other than the Image of the invisible God, the eternal Christ.

Reticence to identify the Angel as Christ betrays a quite different conception of revelation, mediation and doctrine of God.

There seems to be two interdependent presuppositions informing this reticence:

1) OT saints could not grasp a divine, distinct Mediator

2) OT saints did not need to grasp a divine, distinct Mediator.

1) remains stubbornly opposed to the plain sense of the Angel texts.

2) is what's really worrying me...

 

What I am worried about:

I still think solus Christus is threatened here.

While-ever the 'anonymous Christian' position is entertained...

While-ever the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures are considered as pre-incarnate Son (a truly bizarre and worrying proposition)... 

While-ever mediation is considered a broader concept than the concrete Person of the Mediator...

While-ever phrases like 'ultimate', 'final', and 'par excellence' dominate the discussion (as opposed to 'eternal', 'universal' and 'only')...

While-ever the history of interpretation on this issue is set aside, driven as it has been by solus Christus...

While-ever such stubborn resistance has been put up to the obvious meaning of the Angel texts...

While-ever it is considered that even if the Angel was a divine Visitor, He needn't be Christ...

'Christ alone' is patently under threat.

 

Some might feel I insist on a particularly strong version of 'Christ alone.'  In my opinion 'sola's stop being 'sola's when they are weakened.

.

John Owen's masterpiece On Communion with God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was written at a time when Socinianism (a form of Unitarianism) was infiltrating England.   Their belief (as expressed in the Racovian Catechism) was that Jesus was essential for salvation.  He was manifestly predicted and prophesied in the OT.  The Hebrew Scriptures were indeed a word about Christ.  But, for the Socinians, Christ existed before his birth only inasmuch as God always had a plan (or 'word') which Christ fulfilled in the NT ('was made flesh').  Christ's pre-existence then was not as a distinct, concrete Person in the Godhead, but as a saving/revealing disposition belonging to the one God of Israel.  Thus Jesus was not the eternal word/wisdom/revelation of God but only the ultimate word/wisdom/revelation of God.

John Owen considered this to be a foul assault on the divine Person of Christ.   This was a re-incarnation of Arianism - the great heresy of heresies.  Perhaps his major response was Christologia in which one of his key arguments is that the OT also reveals Christ as a 'distinct Person within the deity.' (a repeated phrase).   Perhaps we'll look at that book another time.  But for now let's look at Communion with God penned 20 years earlier.

His main premise is that there is a distinct and distinguishable communication of grace coming from each Person of the Trinity.  The saints should therefore have distinct communion with each Person of the Trinity individually.  The rest of the book unfolds the ways in which we hold communion with the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

What's interesting for our current purposes is that Owen argues for this distinct experience of each Person from both testaments.  According to Owen the OT also reveals the distinct Persons in their distinct roles.

I will list his OT Scriptures regarding the distinct Person of the Son.  I am not including his verses on the Song of Songs or verses teaching more general truths about God's character.  But these, according to Owen, are specific verses about the Son :

Gen 3:15

Gen 49:8-12

Psalm 2

Psalm 21:5,6

Psalm 22:1

Psalm 25:14

Psalm 40:7,8

Psalm 45

Psalm 110

Prov 1:22

Prov 3:13-15

Prov 8:22-31

Prov 9:1-5

Isaiah 4:2

Isaiah 6:2

Isaiah 11

Isaiah 28:5

Isaiah 35:8

Isaiah 40:11

Isaiah 42:16

Isaiah 45:22

Isaiah 49:15-16

Isaiah 53

Isaiah 54:5

Isaiah 61:1,2,10

Isaiah 62:3,5

Isaiah 63:3,4,9

Jeremiah 23:6

Ezekiel 16

Daniel 2:44

Daniel 7:9,27

Daniel 9:24

Hosea 2:19-20

Zephaniah 3:17

Micah 5:4,7,8

Zechariah 3:9

Zechariah 6:13

 Zechariah 13:7

Malachi 3:1

Malachi 4:2

I hope you see the importance of these verses.  Owen uses these as proof texts that the Son is distinct and known as distinct from the Father and Spirit.  Owen's argument doesn't work if they're just verses about 'God' in general and 'hey, Jesus happens to be God too!'  It's about proving from all of Scripture that the Son is revealed in His deity and distinction.

I maintain that it's this kind of biblical theology that will protect us from unitarian pressures in our own day.

.

In this comment on another blog Mo has claimed that classical reformed theologians were not interested in identifying which Person of the trinity is talking in the OT.

When it comes to appearances of the LORD and when it comes to the Angel of the LORD, that couldn't be further from the truth.

I could list many other quotes and many other theologians, but these will do for now:

Calvin in Institutes, I.xiii.10

The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. …Hence it follows, that he is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.

John Owen, Works, vol 18, p221 - discussing Genesis 18: 

Neither is there any ground for the late exposition of this and the like places, namely, that a created angel representing the person of God doth speak and act in his name, and is called Jehovah; an invention to evade the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, contrary to the sense of all antiquity, nor is any reason or instance produced to make it good. 

Owen discussing Gen 19:24:

…in this place it is Moses that speaketh of the Lord, and he had no occasion to repeat ‘The LORD’ were it not to intimate the distinct persons unto whom that name, denoting the nature and self-existence of God, was proper; one whereof then appeared on the earth, the other manifesting his glorious presence in heaven…  There is therefore in this place an appearance of God in human shape, and that of one distinct person in the Godhead, who now represented himself unto Abraham in the form and shape wherein he would dwell amongst men, when of his seed he would be ‘made flesh’.  This was one signal means whereby Abraham saw his day and rejoiced; which Himself lays upon His pre-existence unto His incarnation, and not upon the promise of His coming, John 8:56, 58  (ibid, p222)

Owen discussing Jacob's wrestling:

From what hath been spoken, it is evident that he who appeared unto Jacob, with whom he earnestly wrestled, by tears and supplications was God; and because he was sent as the angel of God, it must be some distinct person in the Deity condescending unto that office; and appearing in the form of a man, he represented his future assumption of our human nature.  And by all this did God instruct the church in the mystery of the person of the Messiah, and who it was that they were to look for in the blessing of the promised Seed. (ibid, p225)

 

Jonathan Edwards, A History of Redemption

When we read in sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards His Church and people, and how He revealed Himself to them, we are to understand it especially of the Second Person of the Trinity. When we read of God appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not universally, to understand it of the Second Person of the Trinity... John 1:18. He is therefore called the image of the invisible God - Col 1:15 - intimating that though God the Father be invisible, yet Christ is His image or representation, by which He is seen.

John Owen especially uses the phrase 'distinct Person in the deity' very often when discussing the revelation of Christ as Mediator in the OT.

This insistence is not driven by any social trinitarianism but by solus Christus.  Verses such as John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; Matthew 11:27 and, of course, John 14:6 were at the forefront of their thinking on this. 

Whenever I see a departure from this classical reformed position on the Mediator's activity in the OT I fear a parallel departure from solus Christus in the strong form which the reformers held dear. 

That's why I bang this drum.

.

The OT is not functionally unitarian

Christian revelation cannot be functionally unitarian

God simply is trinity

Functional unitarianism can in no sense be a preparation for trinitarianism

The oneness of the triune God is nothing like the oneness of the unitarian god.

Trinity is not a nuance

There is no way to shove 'Trinity' in a corner while we discuss 'God'

Whatever 'God' we discuss at that point ceases to be the living God.

Jesus is not the cherry on top - He's the Rock, the Foundation

Jesus cannot be fitted into a pre-existing system but must from the outset define all things.

Jesus is not the Seal of a series of improving revelations - He is THE Word.

There is no concept of mediation which Jesus then fulfils.  There is only The Mediator who mediates. 

Mediation is by definition two-way.  If the Mediator of knowledge is Himself unknown, mediation is not happening.

Knowing Jesus is essential.

'Progress towards Jesus' is not the unifying concept of the bible

Jesus Himself is the unifying Person of the bible.

Strictly the Person of Jesus is the object of saving faith, not the promises.  Christ always comes clothed in the promises, but trust in the clothes doesn't save.

That'll do for now...

.

The issue is not progress of knowledge but object of faith.

Amen! Amen!

Go and enjoy this post but I dunno - maybe comment here rather than there.  Your call.  But some blogs aren't as much free-for-alls as Christ the Truth.  Both kinds of blogs have their place and it's good to respect the differences.

 

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer