“What about the ‘forever’ promises in the Old Testament? At the
dedication of Solomon’s Temple, the LORD says, ‘I have consecrated this house
which you have built by putting My name there forever [1 Kings 9:3].’ God
knew that Temple would be destroyed, so what did He mean? Is it using ‘forever’
in a different way than we do?”
This is the question I get from a church member at the door as I’m
shaking hands and hugging necks after the service. I love stuff like this, so
sorry to all you folks who walked by without my acknowledgement – you could
probably tell I was excited about something, I’m sure! I gave the inquiring
church member an answer, and thought I’d jot it down here.
In this case, it isn’t that we need to redefine “forever.” Instead, we
need to let the whole counsel of the Bible inform us about the idea of
“temple.” The duration of “forever” doesn’t change, but by the time we come to
the new covenant Scripture (the New Testament), the dwelling place of God with
man comes into its fullness. I’ll give you a quicker version of the quick
answer I gave her, and then expand it a little to explain how I got there:
Solomon’s Temple is sacramental for Jesus Christ, Who is the true and eternal
Temple (along with His “Body,” the Church – those united to Him by faith). The “forever”
promise given concerning Solomon’s Temple (a building to be destroyed in just
over 300 years) applies to the Person signified (Jesus Christ) through the sign
itself (Solomon’s Temple).
Let me tell you where I got the language I quickly pulled out of my
theological toolbox Sunday morning.
The Second London Confession (1689) describes the elements of old
covenant worship as “those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein [Jesus] was
revealed” (8.6). Further, the S.L.C. confesses that the “covenant of grace…is
revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the
seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery
thereof was completed in the New Testament” (7.2,3). The Old Testament is a
movement from the announcement of the covenant of grace (Genesis 3:15) to its
fullness in the first advent of Jesus Christ and His continuing work for His
people. Every element and theme in the O.T. leads us to Jesus.[1]
The LORD pronounces one of “those promises…wherein [Jesus] was revealed” over
Solomon’s Temple, which was one of the “farther steps” in revealing the “covenant
of grace.” The Temple was not the point, but it served as a symbol and sign,
and, in its old covenant time, communicated the grace of Christ to those
worshipers who came to the Temple as commanded and by faith – it both pointed forward
to Christ but also brought Christ to those who gathered to worship at the
Temple.[2]
There’s a helpful word not used in the S.L.C. to describe this:
sacrament.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1644) describes sacraments as
“holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God,
to represent Christ and His benefits” (27.1). The W.C.F. also says “there is in
every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign
and the thing signified” (27.2). While the Particular Baptists omitted this
language in the S.L.C., they had no problem using the word “sacrament” in other
places.[3]
I like the word, so I invoked it last Lord’s Day.
I would say that Solomon’s Temple was sacramental – that is, it
represented in a real and beneficial (to those in the old covenant) way the
fullness of both God-with-us (Immanuel, Jesus Christ), but also us-with-God in
faith-union with Jesus Christ, and therefore brought them into the union
between Father and Son, even though Christ’s earthly work had not yet occurred.[4]
When we hold up the bread and repeat the words, “this is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me”
(1 Corinthians 11:24), we do not consider the bread to have the promises of
Christ’s sacrifice for us. Those promises come to us in Christ alone. The bread
represents that, and we are drawn to Christ through obedience to His command to
partake of the Supper. We are, by the Spirit, connected to His body on the
cross (Galatians 2:20), and we are, by the Spirit, connected to the “Lamb standing, as if slain” (Revelation
5:6) in heaven. Christ’s Presence and benefits are ours through faith-union
with Him (now and forever), a union sealed and made real by the heaven-sent
Holy Spirit, Who works in us through the ordinary means of grace in the Church.
This is displayed in the parallelism we see on the day of Pentecost:
• “Repent, and each other you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
• “…those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added
about three thousand souls. They were
continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to
the breaking of bread and to prayer” (2:41,42).
The visible and physical act of baptism showed forth the faith that
brings one into union with Christ. That union is sealed by the gift of the Holy
Spirit, Whose Presence unites us with Christ – that union is manifested by
corporate devotion “to the apostles’ teaching
and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” The actions are
not the union, but are a God-commanded means by which God the Holy Spirit manifests
that union for our benefit.[5]
Just as “this is My body” is
pronounced over bread, and just as “baptism
now saves you,” the worship at Solomon’s Temple (the fellowship of God and
His covenant people through sacrifice-mediation) and “forever” promises that attended that worship rested not on a
building, but on the coming Christ and His work as the “one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”
(1 Timothy 2:5).
Reading the temple “forever”
promise as stand-alone is an incomplete (and, therefore, erroneous) hermeneutic.
We have a whole Book in our hands. Where does the temple lead? What’s the point
of the whole story, and how does the temple connect us to that point? Here’s a
vital, indispensable point for interpreting your Bible: what comes later is key
to what comes earlier.[6] Jesus
saw His resurrection as the building of the true temple (John 2:19-22; see also
Mark 14:58; 15:29). Similarly, Jesus is described as the “cornerstone” (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10-12; Luke 20:17,18; Acts
4:11; Romans 9:32,33) of the true Temple, which is the Church (the people of
God, not a building, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians
2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:5). In union with the resurrected Christ, the true and
eternal Temple (locus of fellowship
with God), the covenant people of God become part of that Temple, and receive
the promises symbolically given to Solomon’s Temple in their fullness forever.
Solomon’s Temple, and the promises proclaimed at its dedication, was
symbol/type of the coming Christ, but also sacramental in that those worshipers
benefited from the future work of Christ on behalf of His people through the
Temple worship by faith.
If
your understanding of any Old Testament promise, commandment, God-action, or
God-statement doesn’t take you to Jesus, read the whole Book.
[1] A more current Baptist confession, one I appreciate
and ascribe to in my fellowship and service in the Southern Baptist Convention,
says, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, Who is Himself the focus of
divine revelation” (Baptist Faith & Message [2000], I).
[2] “Although the price of redemption was not
actually paid by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue,
efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages,
successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types,
and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the Seed which
should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world, being the same yesterday, and today and forever” (Second London
Confession, 8.6).
[3] For example, Nehemiah Coxe (d. 1688) says, “Unto the
public work and charge of a bishop or elder belongs also the administration of the sacraments, or ordinances of
positive institution in the church, as baptism and the Lord’s Supper” (Biblical Elders and Deacons). When
Hercules Collins (d. 1702) adapted the Heidelberg Catechism for his Baptist
Congregation’s use, he retained the original language concerning sacraments:
“Q.65 What are the sacraments? A.
They are sacred signs and seals set before our eyes and ordained of God for
this purpose, that He may declare and confirm by them the promise of His gospel
unto us, to this, that He gives freely remission of sins and life everlasting
to everyone in particular who believes in the sacrifice of Christ which He
accomplished once for all upon the cross.” I give these two examples just to
show that Particular Baptists, while not using the word “sacrament” in the
Second London Confession, still used it without reservation in other places.
[4] It was going to occur – God had promised it in the Garden
(Genesis 3:15). It was going to occur – God purposed it before the first pages
of the Bible (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9).
[5] This is the only way you will understand Peter’s
words rightly: “…baptism now saves you - not
the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good
conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who is at the right
hand of God, having gone into heaven” (1 Peter 3:21,22). Baptism is a
real and indispensable (I know I’ve used that word in this post already) part
of the “appeal to God for a good
conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” A Zwinglian view of
the ordinance as “mere symbol” doesn’t adequately explain Peter’s strong
language “baptism now saves you.” As
Baptists (and I suspect we’re not alone among Protestants), our weak doctrine
of sacramentology has hobbled our understanding of the ordinances, the role of biblical
Christian practice, our union with Christ, and our fellowship with the Trinity
here on earth.
[6] “…the final authoritative interpreter of a specific
Scripture is the rest of Scripture…the NT finally clarifies and authoritatively
interprets previous OT type and shadows…there must be a final dependence upon
the NT revelation to determine how the OT is fulfilled in it…the NT claims
priority to teach how the Old is fulfilled in it as the inspired commentary on
the OT…the priority of the NT for interpreting how the OT if fulfilled in it is
fundamental to consistent biblical and systematic theology.” Frank A. Malone,
“Biblical Hermeneutics and Covenant Theology,” in Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, ed. Earl M. Blackburn
(Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 67-76. Or, as Calvin
succinctly says it, “the apostles are better interpreters” (Institutes of the Christian Religion,
1.13.7).
No comments:
Post a Comment