The story that frames the atonement, part 2

Now a question may arise in  your mind, Why did God bother to go through the whole "first level" or typological fulfillment in the first place? If the "real" narrative is the Adam narrative of creation, fall, redemption, consummation, why Israel? I believe the reason is pedagogical. The Adam narrative happened too long ago and with so few witnesses. So God re-enacted the Adam narrative on the grand stage of world history in order to set the context for the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Meredith Kline put it this way:

A variety of purposes can be discovered to explain the insertion of the old covenant order and its typal kingdom into the course of redemptive history. Of central importance was the creation of the proper historical setting for the advent of the Son of God and his earthly mission (cf. Rom 9:5). In accordance with the terms of his covenant of works with the Father he was to come as the second Adam in order to undergo a representative probation and by his obedient and triumphant accomplishment thereof to establish the legal ground for God’s covenanted bestowal of the eternal kingdom of salvation on his people. It was therefore expedient, if not necessary, that Christ appear within a covenant order which, like the covenant with the first Adam, was governed by the works principle (cf. Gal 4:4). The typal kingdom of the old covenant was precisely that. Within the limitations of the fallen world and with modifications peculiar to the redemptive process, the old theocratic kingdom was a reproduction of the original covenantal order. Israel as the theocratic nation was mankind stationed once again in a paradise-sanctuary, under probation in a covenant of works. In the context of that situation, the Incarnation event was legible; apart from it the meaning of the appearing and ministry of the Son of Man would hardly have been perspicuous. Because of the congruence between Jesus’ particular historical identity as the true Israel, born under the law, and his universally relevant role as the second Adam, the significance of his mission as the accomplishing of a probationary assignment in a works covenant in behalf of the elect of all ages was lucidly expressed and readily readable.

Much more than the works-probation aspect of Jesus’ task was included in the revelatory design of the typal kingdom. It prepared a public context in world history in which the meaning of Jesus’ mission as a whole might be communicated effectively.

[Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 352-3.]

Note the statement highlighted in bold:  "the congruence between Jesus' particular historical identity as the true Israel under the law, and his universally relevant role as the second Adam." That is the heart of the matter. 

I would argue that the role of the Davidic king is what most clearly points backward to Adam and forward to Christ as the second Adam. It was the king who was responsible to lead the people of God in faithful obedience to the Law. As the king goes, so go the people. If he is obedient, the people are generally faithful and their tenure in the land continues. If he is an idolater, the nation as a whole is filled with idolaters and is (eventually) cut off from the land.

God said to King Solomon after he finished building the temple: "If you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight" (1 Kings 9:6-7 ESV). 

The king's disobedience or obedience, then, in a typological and imperfect way, is what determines whether God's people continue to dwell in God's holy land. In the same way, Christ's obedience (as God's anointed King) is the meritorious ground that secures the eternal inheritance. Therefore, to call Jesus "the Messiah" is to call him "the second Adam" using the idiom of the typal kingdom.

The cross fits in as follows. The obedience of the Messiah or second Adam included a mission of not only fulfilling the precepts of the Law but of enduring the Law's curse on behalf of those who had violated the Law. This of course would not have been necessary for the pre-fall Adam nor was it envisioned as part of the Davidic king's ordinary role. But now that the covenant of works (whether in its Adamic or Mosaic form) has been broken, the only way the blessings of the covenant can be enjoyed by sinners is if they are judged under the penal curse of the covenant and emerge on the other side through union with a representative Substitute in his death and resurrection. The kingly office of Christ is then conjoined with the priestly.

Comments

[Steve Rives]

Lee,

This is exactly what N. T. Wright is missing (or what he fails to write about clearly). My previous pastor mailed Wright a copy of Kingdom Prologue, the idea being that it would be great if theologians accounted for the rightly-dividing that goes on there.

Your two-part summary gets to the essence of the matter of the larger discussion about Wright. The content of these two posts is not beyond the reach of any thoughtful Christian pastor. To that end, that this is not widely understood by more pastors and teachers is a real head-scratcher. That N. T. Wright is missing this part of the story (since he loves the story) is a worse case of head-scratching.

Re: the content of what you wrote, Isiah 49:3 comports well, because The Servant (the man Jesus) who suffers is named. Jesus is the second Adam, and also the suffering Servant who himself is named "Israel". He is all that Israel was supposed to be. When we want to understand Israel's mission and purpose, we look to Jesus for the answers, not to the rebellious nation. In keeping Torah, Jesus embodied and showed us Israel wedded in covenant fidelity to God.

Representative theology is critical here. Jesus is Israel. Likewise, one modern rabbi made the clever observation, "sinful Israel is like the rest of rebellious humanity, only more so!" OT Israel is an intense representative of sin and Adam's fallen family. But going beyond this rabbi's clever observation, we know that Jesus is the true Israel whereby in Him, Jew and Gentile share in true circumcissioin -- of the heart. Jesus is the head of a new humanity, a true Adam, and a true family, a true Israel.

Along these lines, as I use your Five Stages of the Kingdom of God in my own teaching, I tie the second stage, the Promise of the Kingdom given to Abraham, to Gen 3. That is, the promises made to Adam and Eve are the basis of the second stage of the kingdom of God and get fleshed-out in the covenant with Abraham.

Thanks again for great posts, I wish N. T. Wright would work this into his writings.

Steve

[Joe Branca]

This is a helpful overview. There's so much that can be fleshed out, but one thing I'm thinking about a lot is correlating Paul and the author of Hebrews on this. One of the points made in Hebrews is that the tabernacle and rites of Israel could not deal with what was the true barrier between God and the people, an inward guilty conscience. Heb. 9:9b, cf Psalm 51:16,17.

Overall the Hebrews author does limit the discussion of the significance of Christ's death to the particulars of Israel's history, but by showing how the institutions of Israel always pointed to something beyond themselves, ultimately fulfilled in Christ. The implicit reason being that the true barrier between God and man, the guilty conscience of the individual sinner, is a universal concern! (i.e. not just a late medieval European concern) The tabernacle institutions demonstrated, in imperfect localized concrete symbols, there was an as yet undisclosed way of free access to a holy God.

Paul holds to the same view as Hebrews, but elaborates on it differently. He obviously considers Christ's atoning work in terms of our federal representation in the two Adams. But also look at the context of Eph. 2:17-21, where he writes about the peacemaking effects of Christ's saving work in joining together Jew and Gentile (a big theme for Wright). Paul doesn't seem so concerned about the visible community rightly identified, but that it is a revelation of the one way of free access to a holy God made possible for both Jew and Gentile through the saving work of Christ. It's revolutionary because, once again, in context there is this universal problem of the guilty conscience plaguing both Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:1-3).

j

[T. David Gordon]

Lee,

You are surely right when you say: "I would argue that the role of the Davidic king is what most clearly points backward to Adam and forward to Christ as the second Adam." This was Isaac Watts's point--to understand the Psalms correctly, the "I" who authors them is David, who is far more like the "Son of David" than he is to Joe Israelite or Joe Christian. I don't suggest for a moment that Watts has ended our efforts to paraphrase the Psalter; but he surely began it, and he did so on good grounds.

T. David