I write a quarterly column for Preach magazine, in which I explore a significant word, phrase, or idea in the Bible, or a theme or section of Scripture, and the ideas that it expresses. At the end of this piece I list the previous articles I have written for them. Here I explore the importance of Exodus imagery in the New Testament.
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that without understanding the Exodus we cannot understand the New Testament. The Exodus story is one of the most pervasive and formative narratives in the entire Bible, and the New Testament reuses it at every level—explicit quotation, typology, and theological structure.
The shape of the story
We can see this explicitly at a number of points. When Zechariah has his speech restored after his sceptical response to the message of Gabriel, he declares that the birth of his son John marks the fulfilment of God’s promise that ‘being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we might serve him without fear’ (Luke 1.74). This is Exodus language, echoing Moses’ cry to Pharaoh from God to ‘let my people go’ so that they might serve God in peace in the Promised Land.
At the mid-point of his ministry, when Jesus’ glory is revealed to Peter, James, and John on the mountain, he discusses with Moses and Elijah what he will achieve in Jerusalem (Luke 9.31). Most English translations use the word ‘departure’ here, but the word in Greek is literally ‘exodus’.
And all the gospels associate Jesus’ death with the Passover sacrifice. This is most evident in John’s gospel, where the chronology of his passion appears to align his death with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs in the temple—fulfilling John the Baptist’s invitation at the beginning of the gospel to ‘Behold the lamb of God!’ (John 1.36).
And throughout the New Testament, who Jesus is, what he has achieved, and who his followers are are all depicted using Exodus imagery.
Jesus as the New Moses
From the beginning of the gospels, particularly Matthew, Jesus is depicted as the new Moses. His return from Egypt, where his parents took him to escape the rage of King Herod, is portrayed by Matthew using the Hosea’s summary of the Exodus: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’ (Hos 11.1, Matt 2.15). And Herod’s decree to massacre all the baby boys reminds us of Pharoah’s decree from which Moses, too, makes a narrow escape (Matt 2.16, Exod 1.22).
As Moses led the people through the waters of the Red Sea and into the wilderness, so in the three ‘synoptic’ gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus passes through the waters of the Jordan and experiences temptations in the wilderness. And when that is complete, and his ministry begins, just as Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the law from God, Jesus in Matt 5.1 goes ‘up a mountain’ (contrast the ‘level place’ in Luke 6.17) in order to teach God’s word.
Indeed, Matthew organises all of Jesus’ teaching into five blocks (on discipleship in Matt 5–7, on mission in Matt 10, on the kingdom in Matt 13, on community life in Matt 18, and on The End and his return in Matt 24–25) to remind us of the ‘five books of Moses’. He draws our attention to this with the fivefold repetition of ‘when he had finished saying these things…’ (Matt 7.28, 11.1, 13.53, 19.1, 26.1).
In fact, Jesus is portrayed as a teacher in all the gospels, and it is the single most common title for him. This makes him the successor to Moses, who was the great teacher of Israel—and, unlike the ‘scribes and the Pharisees’ whose teaching is derivative, Jesus teaches directly and with authority (Mark 1.29). This does not mean setting aside the teaching of Moses, and especially the Ten Commandments, as the touchstone of truth (‘You know the commandments…’ Mark 10.9) and Jesus is constantly portrayed as a Torah observant Jew in the gospels. But it is he who has understands the Torah rightly, and therefore has authority to explain its meaning.
Jesus’ death as the new Passover
We have already noted the way that the gospels identify Jesus’ death with the offering of the passover lamb; each one notes that the Last Supper is a Passover meal that Jesus shares with his disciples. The deliverance of the Passover led to the Mosaic covenant between God and his people, and in the same way Jesus’ death establishes a ‘new covenant in my blood’ (Luke 22.20).
Paul makes the same correlation in his teaching about the Lord’s supper, the celebration of which appears to have quickly established itself as a key element of devotion for the followers of Jesus.
Christ, our Passover [lamb] has been sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us celebrate the feast, not with the old leaven of corruption and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor 5.7–8).
Just as the angel of death passed over those who sacrificed the Passover in Egypt, so death and darkness no long have dominion over us (Rom 6.9, Col 1.13). Paul picks up one of the ways that Jesus talks of leaven in the bread (in Mark 8.15) as sin that can so easily spread, which transforms the image of unleavened bread from a sign of the urgency of departure from Egypt to a way of ‘Passover’ life, lived free from sin (Gal 5.1).
This idea is writ large in the Book of Revelation. The central image in the book is the throne in heaven, expressing the unique power and reign of God in contrast to the claims of the Roman emperor—and therefore, after him, all human pretensions to absolute power that demands absolute loyalty which can only be given to God. Yet on the throne John sees a ‘lamb, standing, as slain’ (Rev 5.6). In four words, John summarises the idea of Jesus the passover lamb, sacrificed to redeem his people from ‘every tribe and language and people and nation’ (Rev 5.9), but raised from death by God and now reigning with all authority. That is why the new song which celebrates this redemption is a ‘Song of Moses and the lamb’ (Rev 15.3, compare Exod 15).
Jesus’ followers as the Israel of God in the wilderness
If Jesus is at once our Moses, our Passover lamb, and the one who recapitulates the temptations faced by Israel in the desert, then it would be no surprise if the experiences of his followers also echoe the Exodus—and that is exactly what we find, in a variety of ways, across the New Testament.
Peter, who witnessed both the ‘exodus’ language at the transfiguration, and Jesus’ talk of ‘new covenant’ at the Last Supper, draws on Exodus language in his first letter to describe who gentile followers of Jesus now are. The ‘chosen people, royal priesthood, and holy nation’ of 1 Peter 2.9 is taken directly from the vision of Exod 15.5–6 (and repeated in Rev 1.6); God has done for us in Jesus what he did for ethnic Israel in liberating them from Egypt. This does not replace ‘Israel’ with ‘the church’ (not least because in Greek the same word ekklesia is used for both) but rather incorporates gentiles with Jews into the people of God by means of faith in Jesus.
But the slavery we have faced is slavery to sin; this new liberation comes through ‘the forgiveness of their sins’ (Luke 1.77) since it is sin and death, not Egypt or Rome, who is our true oppressor. Therefore the passing through the waters of the Red Sea is for us passing through the waters of baptism (Paul draws the parallel in 1 Cor 10.2).
It is often argued that the feeding of the 5,000, the only miracle in Jesus’ ministry recorded in all four gospels, points to the celebration of Communion (or ‘the Eucharist’), especially in the account in John 6.1–14. In fact, it actually points to the Exodus image of Jesus as the true manna or bread from heaven—as the debate that follows in John 6.22–40 demonstrates. The feeding of the 5,000 here does not point to Communion, but both the (‘new Exodus’) feeding and Communion point to Jesus as the true bread that sustains us, liberated as we are from sin and death, and journeying towards the promised land of the new heavens and earth when he returns. As the liturgy in my church (Church of England) says, we ‘feed on him in our hearts by faith and with thanksgiving.’
This mapping of the Exodus journey onto the life of faith is especially striking in the Book of Revelation. John takes the time period of tribulation from Daniel, ‘time, times, and half a time’, or three and a half years, and recalibrates Daniel’s calculation. Instead of it being 1,290 or 1,335 days (Dan 12.11–12), John makes it 1,260 days, or 42 perfect months (Rev 11.2, 3, 12.6, 14). This is significant, because Numbers 33 lists the 42 places that God’s people visit in the Exodus journey, which lasts a total of 42 years.
The present time, in which we experience ‘tribulation’, is in truth the in-between time of Exodus wandering, with Jesus as the tabernacling presence of God with us (John 1.14). Instead of the written law, which was celebrated at Pentecost, we have received the Spirit who writes this law on our hearts (2 Cor 3.3) and enables us to behold the transforming glory of God in Jesus (2 Cor 3.18). Thus John is our companion in both ‘tribulation’ and yet also ‘kingdom’ (Rev 1.9) since we have left the Egypt of sin and death, but we have not yet entered the Promised Land of the very presence of God—that promised rest (Psalm 95.11, Heb 4.11) when God will wipe away every tear (Rev 21.4).
And so we find Exodus present throughout the New Testament, in complex and multifaceted ways—but offering essential keys to understanding the major claims of who Jesus is, what he has done for us, and how we now live for him.
My previous articles in Preach magazine have been on the themes of:
- the phrase ‘Word of God’
- the theme of ‘Mission’
- the meaning of ‘Apocalypse‘
- the ministry of ‘Healing’,
- the question of ‘Welcome’,
- the biblical understanding of ‘Justice’,
- the biblical view of creation
- what the Bible means by the term ‘church’.
- what the Bible says about grief and grieving.
- what is so good about the Old Testament?
- Why should we welcome the stranger?
- How can we rejoice in an imperfect world?
- What does scripture say about disability?
- What are the scriptural roots of our understanding of preaching?
- How do we make sense of the psalms of conflict?
- What does Scripture say about poverty and our response to it?
- What is the meaning of Sabbath?
- What is it like to encounter the person of Jesus?
- What does Joel tell us about the promises of God?
- What is the connection between prayer and fasting?
- What does the rise of artificial intelligence tell us about being human?
- The God of small things
- What we can learn from the shorter letters of the New Testament.
- The theme of diversity throughout Scripture
- exploring what worship is in scripture.
Buy me a Coffee
It may be asking the obvious; but, ‘When Christians were Jews’ (the title of an excellent book by Paula Fredriksen) is it any surprise that the key concept of the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, as developed during the Exodus, should be baked into the New Testament?
Well, yes, I think it is obvious when put like that.
But I am not sure it is so obvious to many ordinary readers of the NT?
This is a classical Satisfaction model exegesis — a model that displaced a Christus Victor understanding after Anslem (d. 1104).
With a Christus Victor understanding the Passover typologically prefigured a release from Satan (not from our sins) — achieved by Christ on the cross crucified on the Passover Day, not the Day of Atonement.
The risen Christ told Paul this should be the essence of his gospel preaching (Acts 26:18).
Ezekiel foresaw that the two models were to be achieved on the same day (on the cross) when in his vision of the eschatological temple the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement are brought forward to the Passover day (Ezekiel 45:18–23).
Since Anselm the church in its theology has subsumed a Christus Victor passover into the Atonement — but the Hebrew calendar kept them at arm’s length by the greatest distance possible.
For an analysis:
Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of The Three Main Types of The Idea of The Atonement. Translated by A. G. Herbert. SPCK Classics. London: SPCK, 1931. Repr., London: SPCK Classics, 2010.
The book is endorsed in the foreword by David F. Ford, Regus Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge.
This now appears to be the academic consensus:
Martinus C. de Boer (Emeritus Professor of NT Stuhis is almost certainly npw teh acdenis consnesus:dies at The Free University of Amsterdam):
“Paul’s personification of sin [hamartia] as an external enslaving evil power characterises his use of ‘sin’ in the singular.… 41 of the 45 instances of such are found in Romans 5:12 – 8:10 … Sin came into the human world as an alien force conquering territory that belonged to God.… the descendants of Adam are portrayed as victims and pawns of an alien force”
Gupta, Nijay K. and John K. Goodrich, eds. Sin and its Remedy in Paul (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2020. Repr., Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2022), 15–17 ( James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, and N. T. Wright all articulate a similar concept.)
Colin,
We’ve been here before and more than once, as you keep on hamering on your favorit theme.
Not either/or, but both/and. Christ is victor over sin, self, satan and death, in his perfect obedience, as fully God and fully man, without which there is no salvation, no union with Christ, no righteousness.
You can see these two different world views in Douglas Moo’s 2018 commentary on Romans.
He does not see that Paul is referring to Satan (and thus new exodus concepts) anywhere in his gospel exposition in Romans 5-8.
But Christ specifically told Paul that such was to be a key part of his gospel message.
At least one scholar sees Moo as a clear example of the demythologising of Scripture following in the path of Bultmann.
Of course, a great many in the Reformed tradition would exegete Romans in the same way Douglas Moo does – but his commentary is recent and he is an academic. He is clearly aware of the understanding that Bruce Longenecker and many others articulate and chooses to ignore the concept and deny the ‘personalisation’ of sin only accepting ‘personification’ – and in his argument it seems he cannot bring himself to mention Satan – and so stays within the Reformed tradition.
I am not sure this is helpful for any young seminary student students who would not realise what Moo was doing – and might be keen to learn from the text of scripture rather than from a tradition.
Is that because, according to you Colin, God divorced Israel?
I think you need to moove on from Moo.
I have had a long and varied career including seven years in the NHS.
Any consultant physician/surgeon who failed to engage with the latest research — or was unable to give a good reason why he didn’t employ the latest drugs/techniques that such research endorsed — would be stuck off.
And if he was teacher in the medical academy and wrote a book on his subject area without demonstrating that he knew this ‘stuff’ — no medical publisher would publish it
But this is apparently perfectly acceptable in the faith-based academy where Douglas Moo has had a long and successful career.
I cannot see it being acceptable in any other academic discipline.
As will be known by Ian, there are books on the theme of Exodus in the canon of scripture, one of which is, Echoes of Exodus, by Dr A Roberts and Dr A Wilson.
The ultimate exodus is from death to life. A people for His Name.
The whole of Christianity, of Christian theology, doctrine, is infused with exodus, motifs.
Mark,
Not the faith of Israel?
What I don’t understand (and what is never justified, so to speak) is the odd idea that Christus Victor is in any way opposed to other aspects of the atonement.
By its very nature CV is a big picture narrative. Good defeats evil. Pretty much everything else can find a place in that big canvas.
Being a big picture narrative, it is naturally also the best. But see how good the other aspects are, and what is being missed out.
The most important point is that CV says what happens, but not how.
The how is the divine exchange outlined by Derek Prince.
Indeed Christopher.
Perhaps one dimension further, is Union with Christ as in Communion with God in Trinity, set out by John Owen in his writings under that title.
Hi Christopher,
Of course! Christus Victor is not opposed to atonement — if I dare say, that is straw man argument?
Ian starts his article with: “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that without understanding the Exodus we cannot understand the New Testament.”
And I am suggesting that Christus Victor is key to the passover and thus the new exodus — but in Reformed theology the Passover sacrifice is for ‘sins’ (as above, and not redemption from Satan) and it is the forgiveness of sins itself that achieves Christus Victor.
But I suggest (with a great many others) that it is Christus Victor that delivers us from Satan’s domain (John 12:31) — typologically pre-figured in Israel’s freedom from Pharaoh — not the atonement — where we receive forgiveness of sins to enable the new relationship with Christ to be enacted (I suggest that is why passover is first in Hebrew calendar).
Christus Victor, and thus new exodus, involves the concept of movement from one world to another — the Atonement is a more static abstract model.
Christus Victor/new exodus is the outworking of the Genesis 3:15 protoevangelium — which you might notice also does not figure much (if at all?) in Reformed theology.
Thus ‘Satan’ does not appear in this 1,600 word article on new exodus, just as he is not mentioned in Moo’s 1,000 page Romans commentary, except for Romans 16:20 (a restatement of the protoevangelium) and then there is only a cursory comment.
He simply does not figure in the theology of the Refomers, with the possible exception of Luther.
I wish it were a straw man. Maybe one day it will be.
But so frequently one finds the double-error: (1) ‘there are many atonement theories’ – as though they were somehow mutually exclusive; compounded by (2) `the one I like best [and therefore the true one] is….’.
Aargh.
What makes it even worse is that (as is so often the case in such circles) the doctrine is simply assumed 100% to be true, whereas the mechanisms are 100% a thing to be agnostic about. Neither position makes sense. In real life the truth or otherwise of something and the mechanisms of anything are both things we know something but not everything about. So neither of them is something we know either nothing or everything about.
So, in case I have not made it clear — the cross is Christus Victor AND Satisfaction — both achieved on the cross.
The first thousand years focused on the former the second thousand years has focused on the latter — it seems we have difficulty holding the two concepts together?
And thus we now try to read everything through the Satisfaction model, whereas previously the Satisfaction model was perhaps underplayed.
Hi Colin,
I’ve shared this sermon on Gen 3:15 by Thomas Manton before, would be interested in your thoughts on it. I would have thought his was a good example of Reformed theology?
“Satan’s condemnation is our salvation.”
“There need no more to be done by way of merit and satisfaction to bruise the serpent’s head and to dissolve that woful work which he hath introduced into the world”
Sam
https://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digital%20Puritan%20Resources/Manton%2C%20Thomas/The%20Complete%20Works%20of%20Thomas%20Manton%20%28vol.17%29/%5BTM%5D%20A%20sermon%20on%20Genesis%203.15.pdf
It is suggested that a modern day Reformed teacher, Sinclair B Ferguson is a living corrective to Colin Hamer’s view of Reformed teaching in respect of satan and Christ’s victory which appears to be one dimensional.
Here is but one example, Christ in the wilderness, as the beginning of victory over Satan.
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/christs-victory-in-the-wilderness
Christ’s temptations in the wilderness have an integral exodus motif, which, in turn, is an exegesis of the underlying spiritual conflict in the whole Exodus episode, as is the Pharaoh v Moses conflict, false gods, v God represented by duel, combat, through the plagues.
Another example of Reformed theology is from Ed Clowney, who saw the conflict between Goliath (as representive of Satan, signified by the snake-skin-like armour, and shepherd David in the name of the LORD.
There, again, is the conflict and victory: figures, types.
Hi Sam,
Thanks for looking to engage with the argument. There is a lot of good stuff here and obviously, for the sake of time and space I’m going to focus on the negative!
THE SEED OF SATAN
His only attempt at an explanation of the ‘Seed of Satan’ seems to be found on p246 where he portrays them as people of manifest wickedness, in contrast, the most detailed study I know on Genesis 3:15 argues I think successfully that everybody outside Eden is naturally born as the ‘Seed of Satan’ — thus Jesus’s comment to the unbelieving Pharisees in John 8:44 (and of course 1 John 3:8-12). Ronning argues: “The serpent’s seed is the natural state of man. Childbirth brings forth the serpent’s seed.” John L. Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 155.
THE BIFURCATION OF HUMANITY
If you miss this key bifurcation of humanity outside of Eden — those that belong to Satan versus those that belong to Christ (not as per most Reformed teaching: those that belong to Adam versus those that belong to Christ) — the danger is you miss the metanarrative of Christus Victor which crucially involves a family swap — an exodus not just geographically, but from one family to another.
“THE DEVILS POWER IT LIETH IN SIN” (251)
This is central to the Reformed argument but is contradicted by a great many Scripture verses. For example, what about the woman with a deformed spine in Luke 13 that Jesus said was caused by Satan?
What about 1 Thessalonians 2:18 when Satan hindered Paul from journeying?
In the book of Job Ortlund argues that Behemoth and Leviathan are metaphoric representations of evil that are in a cosmic battle with God — thus no humans directly involved. See: Ortlund, Eric. Piercing Leviathan: God’s Defeat of Evil in the Book of Job. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2021 — Ortlund (an Anglican I think) repeatedly points out that his commentary is AGAINST the contemporary (Reformed) consensus.
“THE DEVILS POWER LIETH IN THE CORRUPTION OF OUR NATURES” (252)
Not only do I not believe in a corrupt sinful nature — I don’t believe Scripture implies if we had such that that was the source of the devil’s power.
“HOW IS THIS POWER DESTROYED? BY SATISFYING THE LAW” (253)
And there you have it. The Reformed law/works gospel metanarrative.
The Behemoth and Leviathan, and cosmic powers that we can only imagine, apparently are going to run away once we — or somebody else (i.e. Jesus) keeps the law.
But! Thomas Manton art least realises that Genesis 3:15 is hugely significant.
Thanks,
Jesus satisfied, fulfilled God’s law in active obedience, trust in the Father, and obedience. It is part of, indivisible integral, to his and our victory over the Adversary, father of lies, the devil.
That does not conflate and result in your singular conclusion, Colin.
Or rather your predetermined theology, that there is no Fall.
Satan is real, god of this age.
Just who did Jesus say their father was the devil, and why?
And and Colin, any cosmic battle in Job, was played out in human lives, belief and unbelief, ultimately in the goodness and sovereignty of God and Job’s ultimate desire, trust and satisfaction. It was in contrast to Adam, and Job’s wife showed where her true longings lay, in opposition to God, much like the first woman, Adam’s wife, but with a magnified, more open, intense denunciation.
Thanks a lot Colin,
Plenty to think about here, what struck me most in the context of the discussion was the second quote above, which suggests Manton viewed satisfaction as a means to achieve Christ’s victory over Satan, thus unifying the ‘models’.
As for the “seed of Satan” and “bifurcation of humanity”:
“…the sinful race of apostate Adam, who in their degenerate state…may be called the kingdom of the devil.” Pg 251. And then after quoting Eph 2:1-3 he says, “This was the power that Satan had over us…”. Surely Manton agrees with you here?
As for Behemoth and Leviathan, I see no reason to view these two creatures as cosmic when all the other creatures mentioned in these chapters are part of the visible creation that Job was familiar with. Why would a cosmic creature need to eat grass like an ox? I think the modern cosmic interpretation owes more to the influence of evolutionary/deep time thinking than exegesis. The remains of creatures that potentially fit these descriptions have been found buried in sedimentary rock layers.
Thanks again,
Sam
Sam,
Thomas Manton: “How Is This Power Destroyed? By Satisfying The Law.” This is of couse the Satisfaction model.
To sum up this concept articulated in ‘ordinary’ language: God is angry with us for Adam’s disobedience in Eden to ‘the law’ and he is using Satan to punish us. Once that anger is ‘satisfied’ on the cross, he no longer needs to use Satan to do that.
It is a storyline that N. T. Wright correctly to my mind ridicules. But R. C. Sproul (founder of Ligonier Ministries) in effect endorses:
“Pain, suffering, disease, and tragedy are blamed on the Evil One. God is absolved of any responsibility … Such views may bring temporary relief to the afflicted. But they are not true. They have nothing to do with biblical Christianity.” (Search: “Satan Does Not Hold the Keys of Death”: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/satan-keys-death)
In other words, Satan does not have agency or volition but acts solely under God’s direction. Hitler? God sent him. Covid? God sent it. Satan? A messenger of God.
So now Colin, you are moving from Exodus, and Ian’s article into questions of the Sovereignty of God.
I’m not sure that you see God as Sovereign, as there may be indications that there is some sort of dualism in your theology which does not really see Christ as victorious.
And remember you deny the Fall and have God divorcing Israel, and seem to be somewhat mixed up on God’s curse and covenants.
You seem to be bouncing around, with contradictory points, but with one aim, which is to undermine, rubbish, Reformed teaching (which, to me, is largely God centred, focussed, not human centric) seemingly in whole, not in part.
And yet again, you as a cessationist, don’t see any scope for God healing today.
It all seems to have human intellect, front, back and centre.
We are a long way from Ian Paul’s helpful article.
Thanks Colin,
But I just don’t think that is a fair representation (of classical Reformed theology at least) and Manton would certainly disagree:
“Salvation and destruction are diametrically opposite; so are the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan.”
“…taken captive by him at his will and pleasure.”
“Satan’s design is crossed and counterworked in the mystery of our redemption”
None of this fits with:
“Satan does not have agency or volition but acts solely under God’s direction.”
I think Manton at least is clear that Satan is a wilful agent acting in deliberate opposition to God’s purposes.
Sam
The atonement has different aspects, all valid. They shouldnt be separated but each one given its place as to what was achieved on the cross, and subsequent resurrection.
But for me, I think we would do well to remember Jesus’ own words about his forthcoming death to his disciples – his blood was being poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins. He clearly viewed that as central to the meaning and purpose of his sacrificial death.
The first exodus was an eviction an expulsion.
Therafter, exoduses are restorations by and to God fulfilled and culminating in incarnation and death and resurrection and ascension and return of God the Son, last Adam.
Satisfaction.
Why did God rest? Because it was finished: He was satisfied. Good and very good.
Reformed Minister Tim Keller was the first to draw in this to my attention.
What work did God have to do, to again be satisfied: Finished.
It included his ‘exodus’ from heaven’s home, to bring us home.
‘Eviction’ and ‘expulsion’ do not really correspond with “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage”. Pharoah “let [Moses’] people go” because of the effect of the plague of the deaths of the first-born.
In my view the Hebrews were not spared the plague because of the death of the lamb. Rather, the paschal lamb is a covenant-making lamb, and the people were spared because the blood showed that they were of Israel rather than being of Egypt, with the plague only affecting those of Egypt.
David.
The death affected all, including Hebrews who did not ‘shelter under the blood of the lamb’.
Agnus Dei, indeed foreshadowed.
There was an ‘exodus’ motif, from the Garden, away from God’s presence. And death as a consequence ‘reigned’ for generations, without God’s intervention.
Interestingly, this morning my notes took me to Colossians 2:6-15, too long to quote here.
Here, he expresses our problem as being that we were “dead in our sins”, but also that “our whole self was ruled by the flesh”, but this was dealt with by us “having been buried with [Christ] in baptism, in which [we] were also raised with him through your faith…”.
Forgiveness of sins is possible because, he “cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness which stood against us…nailing it to the cross.”
Also, Christ “disarmed the powers and authorities…triumphing over them by the cross”.
If we add in Col 1:13-14:
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
I think this covers all the bases. I also note that the reference to baptism implies that the resurrection is as much a part of this as the crucifixion, and perhaps the ascension is implied in the triumph.
David,
It is in Union with Christ, we have died and been raised with Him.
Union with Christ has been a long forgotten, much ignored, life transforming teaching of the Reformers (including Calvin, I think).
I’m not sure Colin understands Anslem when he says:
“And thus we now try to read everything through the Satisfaction model, whereas previously the Satisfaction model was perhaps underplayed.”
I would say that in the Reformed churches in particular and in evangelical circles it is Penal Substitution (PSA) which reigns supreme. I read somewhere that Anselm explicitly says in “Cur Deus Homo” that it is “satisfaction not punishment”. As befits the feudal time of Anselm, the issue is that God’s honour is besmirched. Jesus’ obedience unto death provides the ‘satisfaction’, i.e. restoration, of that honour.
Jackson W. (a pseudonym) has written “Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes”, where ‘eastern’ here means the ‘far east’, e.g. China, where honour and shame shape things more than they do here. He gives a fascinating account of Romans which draws out these elements. Perhaps this is not surprising given the role these had in first century Roman empire.
Perhaps it is also not surprising that PSA has gained in ascendency, with the shift to a greater emphasis on guilt vs. innocence. Luther was a lawyer turned monk. Calvin was to become a priest, but became a lawyer.
Hi David,
Yes, you are correct. It was the Reformers that developed the concept of a failed covenant of works and a punishment narrative that was embraced in the 1646 Westminster Confession and copied into the 1689 Baptist Confession— but I think this included the Satisfaction understanding.
However, as I understand it neither the 39 Articles nor the Book of Common Prayer articulate a covenant of works and thus are probably closer to Anselm.
Covenant of works: a theological snapshot.
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/covenant-works
What was the underlying motive for (the created son) not following God’s beneficent instruction /offer (law) and warning; between life and death.
Contrast Jesus, the uncreated Son.
But I’m unsure how mention of the reformed inception of covenant of works (obedience) has any direct relevance to Ian Paul’s article, but it may find some purchase, in obedience and disobedience in the Exodus, in redemptive history, God covenantally rescuing people for his Name, to worship Him.
Moses would not go, UNless God’s presence, was with him/them.
And it was day and night and at their centre, tabernacling with them.
And see Things Unseen pod/transcript above.
Uncreated, as in pre-incarnation Son. In his incarnation as fully man and fully God, he actively obeyed and passively obeyed in our stead and fulfilled the covenants AS God and As Man sinless obedien righteous man taking the curse (punishment!) and granting eternal life. For the joy set before him.
There is no Good news otherwise. His substitional sinless righteousness in active obedience is essential, credited, our position in union with Christ.
Jesus in the Exodus!
Listen, read, soak in it, soak it in, drink and be drenched.
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/son-of-the-living-god
Ian has given us an excellent panoramic view in answer
to his Question “Why is the Exodus important for the New Testament?”
Unfortunately, as often happens the discussions are salami sliced
and small sections of the whole are viewed through a microscope.
The exodus was a demonstration of God’s commitment to his individual
Covenant promises, not just for the human seed but for a development
of a spiritual seed, an overcoming seed in the stamp of their overcoming
forefathers.
God went before one of these seeds, Joseph. Took him and subsequently
His family out of the before promised land.
Joseph typifies the nature, struggles and trials of a spiritual Overcomer.
His tribe[s] became very fertile and fruitful, began to be oppressed and overcome by evil.
Those overcomers were demonstratably Overcome through an Overcomer, Moses.
The wilderness was a time where God “tried” them to know “what was in their Hearts to know [and that they may also know ] what was in their hearts whether they would worship Him or not”.
They were out of Egypt but Egypt was not out of them
All but two perished in the Wilderness [How often do we “invite” people to join us On “our journey”?]
Those two overcame the trials and were overcomers before they entered the Land.
Thereafter they became people who then had to contend with “spiritual” forces;
Which Joshua, for all his faithfulness, could not give them “Rest” from.
There still remains a rest for the people of God that they must strive to enter into
There was a chap [Luke 13:23-28] who liked “discussing” theological” questions, asked –
“Are there only a few who will be saved”?
Jesus didn’t answer his question
Instead he told him of the “narrow gate” – that leads to life”.
The gate is somewhat of a turnstile, individual and impossible to get any extraneous luggage through.
There is so much more to the exodus than even Ian’s
Panoramic view.
Jesus repurposed the national annual feast of the nation’s most momentous historical event for His Church which we remember and give thanks for in our
Lord’s Supper/Eucharist [thanksgiving].
Strive [mightily] to enter in, the strife will not be long “for satan will shortly be crushed under your feet” Overcomer. Shalom.
There is an excellent exposition of Luke 13:23 – 28
@ .mljtrust.org/sermons/other-sermons/are-there-few-that-be-saved/
Steady, Alan.
MLJ was firmly of a reformed conviction in his preaching/teaching.
There is also, in the ‘other sermons’, on the MLJ site (newer section?) a lengthy talk by internationally prominent Anglican J.I. Packer on John Owen and his ‘Communion with God’ . The talk/lecture is followed up by further lengthy Q&A’s.
Unfortunately, it is not well recorded, being of its time, but the sound does improve as the talk moves on from the opening, introduction, points.
This is a very pertinent post for me, since I’ve been playing around with the idea that the Exodus is the model or pattern for the end times. This current post led me to a number of previous posts, which include arguments about the rapture. I’ve already been convinced by N. T. Wright that the rapture is a misinterpretation, so I agree with your other post about wanting to be left behind. One of the metaphors that the Bible uses for judgement at the end times is threshing of wheat. It’s always the chaff that gets blown away, while the kernel (the good part) is “left behind.”
Now, as far as Exodus being the pattern for the end times, I assume that we’re wandering in the wilderness, following Christ, until God decides that we’re respectable enough to enter the promised land. When that finally happened in Exodus, God didn’t rapture the people out of danger, while He cleaned things up in Canaan. He took them with Him, so they could participate in their own salvation. As many authors have stated, God doesn’t keep us out of trouble – He helps us get through the trouble.
This may be a fairly naïve argument, but I think, it’s another reason to doubt the rapture.
I really enjoy your posts. They teach me a lot. I think the Comments section is great. It (mostly) includes a lot of good intellectual discussion, without a lot of name-calling. Thanks.
Thanks David, got me musing…
Moses went up the mountain and never returned. = Jesus ascended to the throne.
Joshua took the people into the Promised Land. = Holy Spirit takes us into Jesus.
The Israelites struggled in the Land.= We struggle with being in Jesus but also in the world.
The Israelites accepted kingship.= The Church gets established.
The United Kingdom splits.= The church becomes denominational.
All go into exile.= The Church is stamped out and thrust to the margins.
Ezekiel’s haircut blown to the wind, fire, sword, death.= Rev. 4 horsemen ravish the earth.
Ezekiel plans a new temple.= Rev. The New Jerusalem descends.
Thanks Steve,
That’s a great list, more than I’ve come up with so far myself. I really like your last point. I’ve been puzzled about the new temple in Ezekiel, but it could be correct that it corresponds to the New Jerusalem.
Hi David, I’ve given it a bit of thought recently. I think Ezekiel’s temple plan is a prophecy about Jesus physical body. Instead of a bronze sea water flows from His body as per the spear in His side on the cross.
So I’m wondering about Revelation 4 where the sea is intact before the throne with the Sevenfold Spirit. Could Rev. 4 be a picture that represents God before the crucifixion? As soon as The Lamb arrives the scene changes, the Spirit/Lamps become the horns/eyes on the Lamb and the holiness/sea is poured out from the slain Lamb like the river which goes both ways into the east/past and into the west/future.
Ah, as you see I have a lot of half baked ideas!