The Self-Donation of God. Jack D. Kilcrease
Читать онлайн книгу.
the Angel of YHWH in Judges 13.216 If the translators of the LXX connected the use of the term in the two texts, it might mean that they thought that the messianic title was a reference to Judges 13, and therefore that the coming Messiah was identical with the Angel of YHWH.
This divine identity of the Messiah is suggested elsewhere in the prophets. Ezekiel describes the situation at the eschaton as thus: “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd” (Ezek 37:24, emphasis added). Earlier, God states that he will shepherd Israel: “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep” (34:15). Though the text does not appear to explicitly teach a divine Messiah, what seems to be implicit is that because there is only one shepherd, God and the Davidic Messiah are a single subject.217 It should also be noted that Ezekiel’s prophecies of the Messiah are connected with the coming of a new covenant (“I will make with them a covenant of peace” 34:25, an “everlasting covenant” 37:26) and the divine act of cleansing from sin (“I [will] cleanse you from all your iniquities” 36:33, emphasis added), which in turn connect the texts to the prophecies of Isaiah 53, 61, Jeremiah 31, and Daniel 7, 9.
Moving on to Isaiah chapter 11, the Davidic Messiah is described as “a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit” (v. 1). This is very similar language to what we find elsewhere in the Old Testament. We read in Jeremiah 23 that the Davidic Messiah is also referred to as a “branch” (Jer 23:5). His name will be “The LORD Our Righteousness,” which again suggests divinity. The language of “branch” and “shoot” is remarkably similar to that used in Isaiah 53: “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground” (v. 2, emphasis added). The common wording of these passages suggests then that the “branch” is the same person as the Servant.218 On a typological level as well, it also makes sense that the Davidic Messiah would be connected with the Servant, who acts as a new Passover lamb for a new exodus. Previously, in the case of Judah and Josiah, the Davidic line acted as a substitute for others. David and Solomon also engaged in explicitly priestly activities. Therefore the Davidic Messiah acting as a substitute for sin, and a new Passover lamb makes perfect sense.
The description of the “shoot” coming “out of dry ground” also might connect Isaiah 53 with Isaiah 7.219 We are told in Isaiah 7 that “Immanuel” will be born of a virgin.220 The figure of the Servant is also divine in that he is called “the arm of the Lord” (53:1). Ground that has not been watered might very well be a metaphorical way of talking about virginity. This not only connects the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah 7, 9, and 11 to the Servant songs, but also connects them to the protevangelium’s “seed of the woman.”
82. See discussion in Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 146–47. Hahn posits the interesting theory that because all firstborn sons were originally consecrated to YHWH, they served as priests in Israel prior to the golden calf incident. Afterwards, the Levites take over their position. Hahn then goes on to argue that this is why it is emphasized in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Christ is a firstborn son. In other words, he has restored by his life, death, and resurrection the original situation of Israel.
83. Much of the material in this section has previously appeared in my article, “Creation’s Praise,” 314–25.
84. See Gunkel, Creation and Chaos; Gunkel, Genesis. Also see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 77–144.
85. Kearney, “Liturgy and Creation,” 375–87.
86. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 83.
87. Ibid., 78.
88. Ibid.
89. Beale, Temple, 31–36.
90. See discussion in Beale, Temple, 46. Also see Jewish War, 5.5.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 707.
91. Ibid., 35.
92. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 19–37.
93. Gordon Wenham mentions verbal parallels found in Num 3:7–8, 8:26, 18:5–6.
94. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 64.
95. Beale, Temple, 23–29.
96. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence, 93.
97. This has also been suggested by N. T. Wright in his argument regarding the covenantal promise throughout the Pentateuch. There is a parallel between Adam and Eve’s promise of fertility and dominion, and the same promise to Israel. See N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 3:720. Wright lists the example of Gen 12:2, 17:2–8, 22:16, 26:3, 26:24, 28:3, 35:11, 47:27, 48:3.
98. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:30–32.
99. Beale, Temple, 35.
100. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 5.
101. On the concept of sacrifice in the Old Testament see K. Hanson, “Blood and Purity,” 215–30.
102. Quell, “Diatheke,” 2:113. Quell argues that covenants are solemn oaths that have the form of a specific covenantal ceremony:
a. bә·rît “to cut” is used in summary description of the whole transaction recorded; b. there is a record of the divine attestation and the unalterable validity of the compact; c. more precise details are given of the mutual agreement; d. there is an oath in acknowledgment of the divine guaranteeing of correct intention; e. a sacrifice is offered; and f. the covenant brethren share a common meal. (Modified slightly; Hebrew and Greek letters transcribed into English.)
Also see Hahn, Father Who Keeps, 20–30. Hahn describes the difference between a covenant and a contract: 1. Covenants involve solemn oaths that curse those who break them, opposed to contracts that merely involve promises. 2. Covenants involve an exchange of persons. This is similar to what we have seen with the idea of self-donation being present in God’s promises.