Exodus (p118-127)

“What would later become Johannine terminology of faith/signs punctuates the [plague] narrative (Ex. 4:1, 8, 9, 30, 31) and finds a climax in 14:31 (‘Israel saw the great work which the Lord did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD and they believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses’.)” (p118)

The author connects the stipulation for Moses to remove his sandals at the burning bush as indicative of Moses’ priestly work. “Israelite priests ministered (apparently) with bare feet, for there is no mention of footwear in the priestly wardrobe (Ex. 28).” (p118)

Exodus 19:4 “provides a summary of the exodus and wilderness experience from the perspective of divine action and initiative, with Israel pictured as caught up to heaven as the invited guests of God (“and brought you to myself”). (p120)

“Davies has systematically categorized and evaluated the various interpretations of the key phrase “kingship of priests” and adopts the active meaning: ‘a reigning group of priests.'” (p121)

“The combination of kingly and priestly images in 19:6 reflects a cultural background in which the two functions were connected (e.g., the priest-king Melchizadek [Gen 14:18]).” (p121)

“There are close links between chapters 19 and 24, so that the sevenfold use of “descend” (root yrd) in Exodus 19 is matched by a sevenfold use of “ascend” (root ‘lh) in chapter 24, and, in particular, the covenant proposed in 19:5 is consummated in 24:3-8. (p121-122)

The authors also, thankfully, note that “the preface to the Decalogue also makes clear its framework of grace (Ex. 20:2: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of [bondage]”.” (p122)

The fundamental idea [of covenant] is the use of familial categories for people not bound by ties of natural kinship.  the enacting of a covenant is a legal or quasi-legal process whereby persons become “father,” “son,” or “brother” to another for a range of beneficial purposes. YHWH says that Israel is his “son” (Ex. 4:23), and this speaks of a preexisting relationship between God and the forebears of national Israel, which the Sinai covenant serves to strengthen and confirm. (p123)

This last point is worth consideration, for it has always seemed to me that the covenants are strongly related to the doctrine of adoption. Some of the covenants bear out this connection more strongly than others. The Davidic covenant is all about sonship/adoption–“you are my Son, today I have begotten you” and “I shall be to him a father and he shall be to me a son. The creation covenant (or covenant of works) is instituted with Adam, God’s son. And, of course, the authors are right to bring up this connection relative to the Mosaic covenant, surely the background of the apostle Paul’s statement, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Ro 9:4). So I would argue, over and against a dear friend, Barton Priebe, who has done some phenomenal work on the doctrine of adoption (https://www.amazon.ca/Belonging-Gods-Family-Measuring-Believers/dp/1700791885/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=adoption+priebe&sr=8-2), that it is an Old Covenant idea which finds its fullest expression in the Christ and the New Covenant, albeit helped and attended by the Greek/Roman practice of adoption. But its roots are in the Old Testament and are covenantal in nature.

Categories:

No responses yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *