Joseph, Moses & Jesus November 6, 2009

As a rule of thumb, whenever I encounter a type of the Lord Jesus I try to take as many exegetical precautions as I can in order to avoid silliness. After reading about some of the stuff that the early church fathers came up with and tried to counter, I prayed about it and felt that such safety measures would be helpful guides in assessing how a particular narrative presents us with a type of Christ.

One limit that I felt was necessary to impose on myself was that of keeping to the narrative at hand. In a word, this means that while an entire book  may be read typologically (e.g. Genesis)*, examining the smaller full narratives of a given chapter or selection of chapters would probably yield results that are immediately recognizable as types, and usually running narratively parallel the life of Christ (e.g. The Sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22:1-18). Because of the possibility of mangling the clear teaching of doctrine (as some early church fathers did), therefore, overlapping narratives or books in an attempt to see an even more complex type, was not allowed…

Until recently.

Digging through the Joseph Narrative, verse by verse, I began to see that the Joseph Narrative is not only parallel with the life of our Lord, but also with the life of Moses. So I began to jot down the similarities shared by all three…

until I was stuck by the fact that the Joseph Narrative is the positive image of the Exodus Narrative, while both narratives run parallel to the life of our Lord Jesus!

Here’s what I mean.

On the one hand, the Joseph Narrative (Gen. 41-47:26) and the Exodus Narrative (Ex. 1-15:21) share some pretty significant details, including:

1. Egypt: For both stories, Egypt is central.

2. A Divinely Appointed Hebrew/Egyptian Savior: Both Joseph and Moses almost died in their youth, were then humbled in isolation (Joseph in slavery, Moses in the desert as a shepherd), stood before Pharaoh and petitioned him on behalf of Israel’s well-being (appealing to their own natural relationship to them), and were raised to power (by God’s power) for the sake of redeeming God’s people.

3. An Exodus Led by Hebrew Saviors: The nation of Israel is saved by both Joseph and Moses by an act of God.

On the other hand, the two narratives also contain very different, in fact opposite, deails. Some of these opposite details include:

1. Egypt: Egypt is a good place, a place of Salvation, peace, willful slavery and just rule in the Joseph Narrative; however, in the Exodus Narrative it is a place of oppression, wickedness, forced slavery.

2. A Divinely Appointed Hebrew/Egyptian Savior: Respectively, Joseph and Moses. Joseph had no dealings with the Egyptian kingdom until he suffered alone and was eventually raised to the status he acquired. Also, he freely accepted such a position of authority in the Egyptian kingdom without raising any protest against the Pharaoh and his ways, using his position to save God’s people. Moses, on the other hand, rejected the glories of Egypt, choosing to fight against Pharaoh and his armies in order to liberate God’s people. Joseph’s exaltation in Egypt is the positive image of Moses’ humiliation in Egypt.

3. An Exodus Led By Hebrew/Egyptian Saviors: The exodus in the Joseph Narrative is that of Israel leaving Canaan and going into Egypt; the Exodus Narrative is that of Israel leaving Egypt to enter into Canaan.

What was confusing for me was that the major details of each story seemed to make them inconsistent with each other, as types…

Until I thought about Jesus.

These two Narratives are typologically consistent with each other when we look at the Lord Jesus.

1. Two Kingdoms: (1.) The Kingdom of God where the resurrected and glorified Christ reigns and men willingly become His servants (Good Egypt where Joseph reigns and men willingly sell themselves to him out of thankfulness for their salvation), and (2.) The Kingdom of Darkness where men are slaves to sin, serving Satan and the world rather than the one true God (Bad Egypt, where Moses lives but is not a part of, and from which he seeks to deliver the children of Israel/God’s people).

2. A Divinely Appointed God-Man: (1.) After suffering, the Lord is resurrected and ascends into glory, bringing His people with Him, reigning as Sovereign over all the kingdoms of the earth (Joseph), (2.) Being born into the world, as a man under the law, the Lord Jesus rejects Satan and the world system (cf. Matthew 4:1-11) in order to lead His people out of the kingdom of darkness and into God’s kingdom (Moses).

3. An Exodus Led by the Only God-Man Savior: (1.) Jesus brings His people into the Kingdom of God (Joseph/Good Egypt), (2.) He also simultaneously takes His people out of the kingdom of darkness (Moses/Bad Egypt).

The two stories are two typological portraits that find unity in the perfect work of the Lord Jesus. And while there are many many more details that could touched upon (e.g. Moses, Joseph, and Jesus all have a dual nature which gives them certain privileges in their role as Savior), I’m short on time. :(

Leave me a note.

And whatever you do:

Tolle, lege!

Amen.

*This is still a possibility I don’t reject. I’m just waiting for the opportunity to have an indepth study in Heaven with the Lord ;)

“…And They Shall Become One…” November 2, 2009

²⁵ My soul clings to the dust;
Revive me according to Your word.

³¹ I cling to Your testimonies;
O LORD, do not put me to shame!

Psalm 119 has always been a favorite place of mine to dig into for often overlooked gems of beauty and truth. The psalmist’s emphasis on the primacy of God’s Word in every area of his life, beginning with his heart, provides a pretty compact summary of much of the Bible.

On my last reading, I decided to do something different. I looked for verses that paralleled one another and seemed to underscore a particular truth, and I came across v.25 & v.31.

What caught my eye was the word “cling,” which was being used for two very different objects. In v. 25, the psalmist’s soul clings to “the dust”, so he calls upon the Lord to revive him with His Word; in v. 31, the psalmist clings to God’s “testimonies”, and he pleads to not be put to shame.

Okay.

So what’s he significance of this?

Well, the psalmist uses the Hebrew word  דּבק, which is also used in Genesis 2:24, where Moses writes:

²⁴Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The psalmist, therefore, points us to two relationships he holds: (1.) to the dust (figuratively speaking, to his ills/suffering/pain/etc), and (2.) the testimonies of God.

This immediately had me asking myself:

What is my relationship to the Word of God? Do I cling to it, as Adam would cling to Eve, as Ruth would cling to Naomi (Ruth 1:14), or, most importantly,

as the Lord Jesus would be joined to His church (Eph. 5:31-32)?

Or am I clinging to the dust?

To whom/what am I most intimately, practically inseparably, related?

Am I, like the psalmist, aware of the truth that only God’s Word can revive my soul which “clings to the dust”?

That by “clinging” to His Word (Christ) I will not be put to shame (just as Adam and Eve stood before the Lord free of any shame whatsoever)?

Where is Your Faith? Past, Present, or Future? October 30, 2009

²⁰When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. ²¹“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²²But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”

²³Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

²⁴Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

²⁵Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; ²⁶and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

²⁷“Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”

- John 11:20-27

I can’t begin to count the times that I’ve listened as pastors have rushed over this small section of the story of Lazarus’ resurrection in order to get to one of the “big themes” it contains (e.g. the resurrection of Lazarus, the compassion of our Lord,  etc). And time after time, a brief comment is made about Martha’s great statement of faith in the Lord Jesus, despite her current circumstances.

But after reading the chapter over yesterday, I found myself asking: Is this an accurate portrayal of Martha’s response (vv. 20-27) to the death of her brother Lazarus?

Can I suggest that it isn’t? That perhaps in our rushing through the narrative to get to the “bigger themes” we miss the little details that give us a fuller character sketch than we might at first think is present?

Yes, Martha is a believer.

Yes, she does make great statements of faith (v. 24 & v. 27).

Her great statements of faith, however, are not situated in the present.

Martha believes that Lazarus will be raised “on the last day“, and that Jesus is the Son of God “was to come into the world” (as the NIV translates the end of v.17).

And presently,well, she seems to lack the same confidence.

In the face of this crisis, it almost seems as if she tries to take issues into her own hands.

²⁸ And when she had said these things, she went her way and secretly called Mary her sister, saying, “The Teacher has come and is calling for you.”

Why did Martha secretly call for Mary?

When did Jesus call for Mary?

What was Martha up to?

Why is the Lord “troubled,” or “angered” (as some other translations render the Greek)?

Interpretations vary, but I believe it’s precisely because of the unbelief Martha showed in His ability to perform the miraculous at the present moment of crisis. [Not to mention the unbelief of the Jews who were comforting Mary (v. 37).]

Even at the moment the Lord is standing before the grave of Lazarus, ready to give an amazing display of His love and power, Martha says:

³⁹ …“Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days.”

Her “great statements of faith” (especially the one in v.22) are curiously absent here. Why? Because of the current crisis she faced? Because her faith was immature? Because she needed to see the Lord at work, rather than simply believe on/in His Word?

Where is our faith – in the past, present, or future?

Lest we forget:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

- Hebrews 13:8

Perspectival Knowledge in the Book of Job October 22, 2009

The book of Job is often correctly understood as a poetic treatise on Theodicy, within which various theodicies are offered up as explanations as to why Job suffers as greatly as he does. The internal theodocies almost seem to be set against one another, and this has led many to believe that the book does not give a clear answer to the problem of suffering.

However, this simply isn’t true.

As we examine Job, we see that the book argues upon the basis of assumed fixed perspectival epistemological limitations.

Briefly, these are:

1. Human Knowledge: Human knowledge is limited in three domains: (1.)Theology (cf. 42:1-6), (2.)Science (cf. 38-41), (3.)Others (i.e. their minds and hearts/intentions, etc. cf. 1:1-5, spec. v.5).

2. Angelic Knowledge: Although Satan’s lack of intimate knowledge regarding Job’s intentions in worshipping God are clearly seen in 1:6-12, he – acting as God’s agent  in judgment and Job’s spiritual growth (which I’ve argued elsewhere) – is aware of how such trouble came upon Job, and (to some limited extent) why it does. The “sons of God”, moreover, are also presented as having a superior epistemological perspective to that of Job/humanity in 38:1-7 (spec. v. 7), having been present with the Lord at the moment when the foundations of the earth were laid.

3. Divine Knowledge: Chapters 38-41 clearly present God as omniscient in Theology (implicitly) and Science, they do not show His omniscience regarding others (i.e. the minds and hearts of others). Job’s incapacity to know the heart of his children, as well as his wife and friends’ inability to empathize with him can be set in contrast to the Lord’s sovereign usage of Satan’s ill will (cf. 2:3b) and complete knowledge of the minds and hearts of others (as evidenced in His judgment upon Job’s children, and His words of rebuke for Job’s friends [cf. 42:7-9]).

These three perspectives are not superfluous details, but the very foundation upon which the theodicy of the book is built.

The Significance of Clothing (Pt. 1) October 11, 2009

That the Joseph narrative(s) of the book of Genesis (i.e. ch’s 37&39-50) can, and should, be understood as comprising an extremely detailed typological portrait of Christ is something of which most Christians are aware. The parallels stand out, and provoke much interest. However, what is usually of less interest are the recurring symbols, both within the larger Genesis-Narrative and Joseph’s Narrative(s), and their relation to the typological landscape to which they belong.

I think this is a shame, considering the depth of consistent meaning they add to the Bible as a whole. See, the principle of expositional constancy (which roughly states that Biblical symbols, images, types, etc are used consistently thoughout the entirety of the Bible), can help answer questions about authorship, composition, and content that are raised about the book of Genesis, as well as the Bible as a whole.

And yet this is much more than a means of defending the authorial, narratival, and theological integrity of the Word of God; it is a concrete way of experiencing the love of our God whose hand has effortlessly guided history itself in such a manner as to show His complete involvement in even the most seemingly trivial details of redemptive history.

One such “trivial” detail is:

Clothing.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve sinned. They were stark naked and ashamed of their nakedness, so they clothed themselves with fig leaves (Gen. 3:6-7). And this covering was not good enough; therefore, God killed an animal (or animals [?]) and covered their bodies with its (their [?]) skin(s) (cf. Gen. 3:21).

“And here we see,” says the liberal scholar, “the Hebrew myth of the origination of clothing.” But is this simply what is going on here? Not at all. What the nakedness-fig leaves-animal skins motif establishes here reaches far beyond any dull mythology of clothing, pointing to the greater theme of redemption by God’s intervention – in more ways than one.

The book of Genesis records ten Clothing Narratives.

1. Adam and Eve: (Gen. 3:7-11&21) [See description above]

2. Noah: (9:20-21&23) His nakedness is covered by a garment brought to him by his two sons.

3. Jacob: (27:11-12&15-16) His identity is concealed by his brother’s garments and the skin of a slain animal.

4. Joseph: (37:3, 23&32-33) Jacob is disrobed by his jealous brethren and thrown into a pit. His clothing is used as proof of his death.

5. Jacob: (37:34) Jacob changes from garments torn in his distress over Joseph’s apparent death, to sackcloth (a symbol of his great grief).

6. Tamar: (38:14-15) Tamar changes from widow’s garments to “a veil” which enables her to conceive twins for her now deceased husband.

7. Joseph: (39:7-20) Joseph is, again, disrobed. His robe is used as proof of guilt for a crime he did not commit.

8. Joseph: (41:9-14) Joseph is restored to stand before the king and prove himself worthy of life.

9. Joseph: (41:42) Joseph, because of his unique gifting (which turns out to be the means of salvation of both his brethren and many others), is exalted to a kingly status, having all dominion.

10. Joseph’s Eleven Brothers: (45:22) The remaining eleven brothers of Joseph are given new garments in replacement of their old ones, signifying their redemption/salvation.

While one would be able to speak for many years about just one of these narratives (and even then merely scratch its surface), I would like to briefly go over the four Clothing Narratives  within the Joseph Narrative(s), which further underscore the typological truth contained therein.

Here’s one take on the Clothing Narratives of Joseph, read, of course, typologically.

1.) The Incarnation of Christ – Joseph loses the garment that differentiates him from all of his brethren.

2.) The Kenosis of Christ (cf. Phil. 2:5-8) - Joseph is clothed as a servant, but loses his servant’s clothing via an adulteress’ false accusation about him, and is imprisoned.

3.) The Resurrection of Christ - Joseph is then restored to stand before the king, before whom he proves himself wise and worthy of freedom and life, and honor.

4.) The Ascension/Glorification of Christ – Joseph is exalted to the highest position in the kingdom, given dominion over all, and saves his brothers.

Here’s another.

1.) The Betrayal of Christ – Judah (the Hebrew equivalent of Judas) sells Joseph out for twenty pieces of silver after removing his garment.

2.) The Trial and Death of Christ – Joseph’s garment is removed and used as proof of his guilt concerning a crime he did not commit. He is imprisoned and suffers for a sin he did not commit (cf. Ps. 105:17-18).

3.) The Resurrection – Joseph is then restored to stand before the king, before whom he proves himself wise and worthy of freedom and life, and honor.

4.) The Ascension/Glorification of Christ – Joseph is exalted to the highest position in the kingdom, given dominion over all, and saves his brothers.

Stay tuned for Part 2 :)