The Self-Donation of God. Jack D. Kilcrease
Читать онлайн книгу.
target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_28ad094f-aeac-5485-933e-986a7866790a">166. Keil, Biblical Commentary on Daniel, 270–75, 320–402.
167. See Collins, Daniel, 352; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:89–90. See Leupold, Daniel, 408–9. Leupold disagrees with the reference of Jubilee, but considers the numbers of seven and ten as emblematic of the highest perfection of divine work. Either interpretation fits with our insistence that it does not refer to literal time, but to the divine completion of redemption.
168. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:100–102.
169. Ibid., 3:117–21.
170. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:142–46; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. For an alternative view, see Leupold, Daniel, 431–32. Leupold holds that it is in fact the antichrist who is making the covenant in order to imitate Christ.
171. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:146–48.
172. See Keil, Daniel, 360–62; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. Also see Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, 51–62. Pitre holds this text to directly predict a suffering Messiah who atones for sin.
173. See comments in Keil, Commentary on Daniel, 354–55.
174. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 601.
175. Rendtorff, Canonical Hebrew Bible, 101.
176. Ibid. Also see Exod 23:32, 34:12; Deut 7:1–5.
177. Exod 33:14; Deut 12:9–10, 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15, 11:23, 14:15, 21:44, 22:4, 23:1; 2 Sam 7:11–12; 1 Kgs 5:41, 8:56; 1 Chr 22:9.
178. Leithart, Son to Me, 71–72.
179. See discussion in ibid., 70–73.
180. NIV translates this as “royal advisors” but some translators (notably the ESV) suggest “priests.”
181. See discussion in Leupold, Genesis, 1:462–66; Leupold, Psalms, 770–78.
182. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 346–47.
183. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:151.
184. Ibid., 190.
185. Ibid., 180, 190–91.
186. In the Vulgate 2 Sam 6:19 reads: “Et partitus est multitudini universae Israhel tam viro quam mulieri singulis collyridam panis unam et assaturam bubulae carnis unam et similam frixam oleo et abiit omnis populus unusquisque in domum suam.”
187. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 180.
188. Ibid.
189. Ibid., 117.
190. Hahn, Father Who Keeps, 211.
191. Ibid.
192. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 119. Though this is how the ESV translates the text, it is also Hahn’s preferred translation.
193. Ibid., 191.
194. Ibid., 191–93.
195. See comment and discussion in Hahn, Lamb’s Supper, 14–28.
196. McBride, “Deuteronomic Name Theology.”
197. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 20–43. Wellhausen asserted (without any evidence) that the “tabernacle” was simply a code word in Leviticus for the Second Temple. Kitchen demonstrates that tent-shrine like the tabernacle were frequently used in the late second-millennium BC. Also, it was not too large for the Israelites to carry around in the desert (as many have claimed) because other peoples of the era carried around much larger tent-shrines. See Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 279–83. Also, Kitchen notes, Deuteronomy’s statements prohibiting worship at sites other than where YHWH places his Name (Deut 16:6, etc.) does not necessarily designate the temple in Jerusalem (Jerusalem is never mentioned or implied!), but rather simply refers to a place God designates (Reliability of the Old Testament, 302). Even if it did designate Jerusalem, from the perspective of faith, this does not pose a problem in that God who knows the future can reveal things to the prophets. This only becomes a problem if one, due to their worldview, rejects rectilinear prophecy.
198. See similar argument in Leithart, House for My Name, 130–31.
199. This is Peter Leithart’s insight in a personal conversation.
200. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 132.
201. Augustine interpreted this purely messianically and suggested that the “today have I begotten you” was the today of eternity. See Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms: Psalm 2:6; NPNFb 8:3. He writes:
Although that day may also seem to be prophetically spoken of, on which Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh; and in eternity there is nothing past as if it had ceased to be, nor future as if it were not yet, but present only, since whatever is eternal, always is; yet as today intimates presentiality, a divine interpretation is given to that expression, Today have I begotten You, whereby the uncorrupt and Catholic faith proclaims the eternal generation of the power and Wisdom of God, who is the Only-begotten Son.
In this he was followed by most of the western exegetically tradition.